Don’t Support Wikipedia

Screen Shot 2018-12-01 at 8.56.49 AM

Several times a year, Wikipedia puts out its begging bowl and pleads for financial support. Do not support Wikipedia. It is one of the most biased and toxic propaganda sites, made doubly dangerous because it masquerades as a reference source.

Advertisements
Don’t Support Wikipedia

SCHNEEWITTCHEN

Illustration, vermutlich von Theodor Hosemann (1852)Illustration, vermutlich von Theodor Hosemann (1852).

Es war einmal mitten im Winter, und die Schneeflocken fielen wie Federn vom Himmel herab, da saß eine Königin an einem Fenster, das einen Rahmen von schwarzem Ebenholz hatte, und nähte. Es geschah, dass sie sie sich mit der Nadel in den Finger stach, und es fielen drei Tropfen Blut in den Schnee. Und weil das Rote im weißen Schnee so schön aussah, dachte sie bei sich: „Hätte ich ein Kind so weiß wie Schnee, so rot wie Blut und so schwarz wie das Holz an dem Rahmen.“ Bald darauf bekam sie ein Töchterlein. Und da es so aussah, wie es die Königin gewünscht hatte, wurde es das Schneewittchen genannt. Und wie das Kind geboren war, starb die Königin.
Nach einem Jahr nahm sich der König eine andere Frau. Sie war eine schöne Frau, aber sie war stolz und konnte nicht leiden, dass sie an Schönheit von jemandem übertroffen werden sollte. Sie hatte einen wunderbaren Spiegel. Wenn sie vor den trat und sich darin beschaute, sprach sie:„Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand,
wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?“

So antwortete der Spiegel:

„Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste im Land.“

Da war sie zufrieden, denn sie wusste, dass der Spiegel die Wahrheit sagte. Schneewittchen aber wuchs heran und wurde immer schöner. Als es sieben Jahre alt war, war es so schön wie der klare Tag und schöner als die Königin selbst. Als diese einmal ihren Spiegel fragte:

„Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand,
wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?“,

so antwortete er:

„Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste hier,
aber Schneewittchen ist tausendmal schöner als Ihr.“

Da erschrak die Königin und wurde gelb und grün vor Neid. Da rief sie einen Jäger und sprach: „Bring das Kind hinaus in den Wald. Du sollst es töten und mir Lunge und Leber zum Wahrzeichen mitbringen.“ Als er Schneewittchens unschuldiges Herz durchbohren wollte, fing es an zu weinen und flehte um sein Leben. Der Jäger hatte Mitleid und ließ es laufen. Und ihm fiel ein Stein von seinem Herzen, weil er es nicht zu töten brauchte. Als gerade ein junges Wildschwein daher gesprungen kam, stach er es ab, nahm Lunge und Leber heraus und brachte sie als Wahrzeichen der Königin mit. Der Koch musste sie in Salz kochen, und das boshafte Weib aß sie auf und meinte, sie hätte Schneewittchens Lunge und Leber gegessen.

Nun war das arme Kind in dem großen Wald mutterseelenallein und lief umher. Am Abend sah es ein kleines Häuschen und ging hinein, um sich auszuruhen. In dem Häuschen war alles klein und sehr zierlich und reinlich. Da stand ein weißgedecktes Tischlein mit sieben kleinen Tellern, jedes Tellerlein mit seinem Löffelein, außerdem sieben Messerlein und Gäbelein und sieben Becherlein. Schneewittchen, weil es so hungrig und durstig war, aß von jedem Tellerlein ein wenig Gemüse und Brot und trank aus jedem Becherlein einen Tropfen Wein, denn es wollte nicht einem allein alles wegnehmen. Dann legte es sich in die Bettchen, aber keins passte: Das eine war zu lang, das andere zu kurz, bis endlich das siebente recht war. Und darin blieb es liegen und schlief ein.

Als es ganz dunkel geworden war, kamen die Herren von dem Häuslein, das waren die sieben Zwerge. Sie zündeten ihre sieben Lichtlein an und sahen, dass jemand im Häuslein gewesen war. Jeder der sieben Zwerge entdeckte, dass seine Sachen benutzt worden waren. Der siebente Zwerg aber, als er in sein Bett sah, erblickte Schneewittchen, das lag darin und schlief. „Ei, du mein Gott!“, riefen sie, „was ist das Kind so schön!“ Sie hatten so große Freude, dass sie es nicht aufweckten, sondern im Bettlein fortschlafen ließen. Der siebente Zwerg aber schlief bei seinen Freunden, bei jedem eine Stunde, da war die Nacht herum.

Als es Morgen war, erwachte Schneewittchen, und wie es die sieben Zwerge sah, erschrak es. Sie waren aber freundlich und fragten: „Wie heißt du?“ „Ich heiße Schneewittchen“, antwortete es. „Wie bist du in unser Haus gekommen?“, fragten die Zwerge. Da erzählte es ihnen alles, was passiert war. Die Zwerge hatten Mitleid und boten Schneewittchen an, bei ihnen zu bleiben, wenn es ihren Haushalt gut machen würde. So sollte es ihm an nichts fehlen. Schneewittchen willigte von Herzen gern ein, und blieb bei ihnen. Die Königin aber dachte nicht anders, als wäre sie wieder die Erste und Allerschönste, trat vor ihren Spiegel und sprach:

„Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand,
wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?“

Da antwortete der Spiegel:

„Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste hier,
aber Schneewittchen über den Bergen
bei den sieben Zwergen
ist noch tausendmal schöner als Ihr.“

Da erschrak sie, denn sie wusste, dass der Spiegel die Wahrheit sprach, und merkte, dass der Jäger sie betrogen hatte und Schneewittchen noch am Leben war. So färbte sie sich das Gesicht und kleidete sich wie eine alte Marktfrau und war nicht mehr zu erkennen. In dieser Gestalt ging sie über die sieben Berge zu den sieben Zwergen, klopfte an die Tür und rief: „Schöne Ware zu verkaufen!“ Schneewittchen guckte zum Fenster heraus und rief: „Guten Tag, liebe Frau, was habt Ihr zu verkaufen?“ „Schnürriemen in jeder Farbe“, antwortete sie und holte einen hervor, der aus bunter Seide geflochten war. „Die ehrliche Frau kann ich hereinlassen“, dachte Schneewittchen, riegelte die Türe auf und kaufte sich den hübschen Schnürriemen. Die Alte legte ihr den Schürriemen an. Schneewittchen ahnte nichts Böses, aber die Alte schnürte geschwind und schnürte so fest, dass dem Schneewittchen der Atem verging, und wie tot hinfiel. „Nun bist du die Schönste gewesen“, sprach sie und eilte hinaus.

Als die sieben Zwerge kurz danach nach Hause kamen, sahen sie ihr liebes Schneewittchen auf der Erde liegen, als wäre es tot. Sie hoben es in die Höhe, und weil sie sahen, dass es zu fest geschnürt war, schnitten sie den Schnürriemen entzwei: Da fing es an, ein wenig zu atmen, und wurde nach und nach wieder lebendig. Als die Zwerge hörten, was geschehen war, sprachen sie: „Die alte Marktfrau war niemand anderes als die gottlose Königin: Hüte dich und lass keinen Menschen herein, wenn wir nicht bei dir sind.“

Das böse Weib aber, als es nach Hause gekommen war, ging vor den Spiegel und fragte:

„Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand,
wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?“

Da antwortete er wie sonst:

„Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste hier,
aber Schneewittchen über den Bergen
bei den sieben Zwergen
ist noch tausendmal schöner als Ihr.“

Als sie das hörte, erschrak sie und machte mit Hexenkünsten einen giftigen Kamm, der Schneewittchen zugrunde richten sollte. Sie verkleidete sich erneut, so dass sie Schneewittchen überlisten konnte. Sie bot dem Kind den Kamm an, und da er ihm so gut gefiel, öffnete es die Tür. Die Alte kämmte ihm die Haare. Doch kaum hatte sie den Kamm in die Haare gesteckt, wirkte das Gift darin und das Mädchen fiel besinnungslos nieder. Als die sieben Zwerglein am Abend Schneewittchen wie tot auf der Erde liegen sahen, hatten sie gleich die Stiefmutter in Verdacht, suchten nach und fanden den giftigen Kamm. Kaum hatten sie ihn herausgezogen, so kam Schneewittchen wieder zu sich und erzählte, was vorgegangen war.

Die Königin stellte sich daheim vor den Spiegel und sprach:

„Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand,
wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?“

Da antwortete er wie vorher „Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste hier,
aber Schneewittchen über den Bergen
bei den sieben Zwergen
ist noch tausendmal schöner als Ihr.“

Als sie den Spiegel so reden hörte, zitterte und bebte sie vor Zorn. „Schneewittchen soll sterben“, rief sie. Darauf machte sie einen giftigen Apfel, der äußerlich schön aussah. Aber wer ein Stückchen davon aß, der musste sterben. Die Stiefmutter kam als Bauersfrau verkleidet wieder zu Schneewittchen, und da es sie nicht erkannte, öffnete sie die Tür, obwohl es die Zwerge ihr verboten hatten. Ihr gefiel der Apel sehr und als Schneewittchen sah, dass die Bäuerin die grüne Hälfte aß, konnte es nicht länger widerstehen und nahm die rote Hälfte. Der Apfel war aber so künstlich gemacht, dass die rote Hälfte allein vergiftet war, und kaum hatte es einen Bissen davon im Mund, so fiel es tot zur Erde nieder. Da lachte die Königin und sprach: „Diesmal können dich die Zwerge nicht wieder erwecken.“ Und als sie daheim den Spiegel befragte: „Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand, wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?“

So antwortete er endlich: „Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste im Land.“

Da hatte ihr neidisches Herz Ruhe.
Als die Zwerge abends nach Hause kamen, fanden sie Schneewittchen auf der Erde liegen, und es ging kein Atem mehr aus seinem Mund. Sie hoben es auf, suchten, ob sie was Giftiges fänden, schnürten es auf, kämmten ihm die Haare, wuschen es mit Wasser und Wein, aber es half alles nichts: Das liebe Kind war tot und blieb tot. Da es noch wie ein lebender Mensch aussah, sprachen sie: „Wir können es nicht in die schwarze Erde versenken“, und ließen einen durchsichtigen Sarg aus Glas machen, dass man es von allen Seiten sehen konnte, legten es hinein und schrieben mit goldenen Buchstaben seinen Namen darauf, und dass es eine Königstochter wäre. Dann setzten sie den Sarg hinaus auf den Berg, und einer von ihnen blieb immer dabei und bewachte ihn.

Nun lag Schneewittchen lange Zeit in dem Sarg und veränderte sich nicht, sondern sah aus, als wenn es schliefe. Es geschah aber, dass ein Königssohn in den Wald geriet und zu dem Zwergenhaus kam. Er sah auf dem Berg den Sarg und das schöne Schneewittchen darin. Da sprach er zu den Zwergen: „Lasst mir den Sarg, ich will euch geben, was ihr dafür haben wollt.“ Aber die Zwerge antworteten: „Wir geben ihn nicht um alles Gold in der Welt.“ Da sprach er: „So schenkt mir ihn, denn ich kann nicht leben, ohne Schneewittchen zu sehen, ich will es ehren und hochachten wie mein Liebstes.“ Da empfanden die guten Zwerglein Mitleid mit ihm und gaben ihm den Sarg. Als der Königssohn ihn nun von seinen Dienern auf den Schultern forttragen ließ, geschah es, dass sie über einen Strauch stolperten, und von der Erschütterung fuhr das giftige Apfelstück, das Schneewittchen abgebissen hatte, aus dem Hals. Und nicht lange, so öffnete es die Augen, hob den Deckel vom Sarg in die Höhe und richtete sich auf und war wieder lebendig. Der Königssohn war voll Freude und erzählte, was geschehen war, und sprach: „Ich habe dich lieber als alles auf der Welt: Komm mit mir in das Schloss meines Vaters. Du sollst meine Frau werden.“ Schneewittchen ging mit ihm und ihre Hochzeit wurde mit großer Pracht und Herrlichkeit angeordnet.

Zu dem Fest wurde aber auch Schneewittchens gottlose Stiefmutter eingeladen. Wie sie sich nun mit schönen Kleidern bekleidet hatte, trat sie vor den Spiegel und sprach:

„Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand,
wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land?“

Der Spiegel antwortete:

„Frau Königin, Ihr seid die Schönste hier,
aber die junge Königin ist tausendmal schöner als Ihr.“

Da stieß die böse Frau einen Fluch aus. Sie wollte zuerst gar nicht auf die Hochzeit gehen, doch sie musste die junge Königin sehen. Und als sie hineintrat, erkannte sie Schneewittchen, und vor Angst und Schrecken stand sie da und konnte sich nicht rühren. Aber es waren schon eiserne Pantoffeln über das Kohlenfeuer gestellt worden. Sie wurden mit Zangen hereingetragen und vor sie hingestellt. Da musste sie in die rotglühenden Schuhe treten und so lange tanzen, bis sie tot zur Erde fiel.

SCHNEEWITTCHEN

Protected: Revilo P. Oliver and F. P. Yockey: Some Aspects of Criticism

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Revilo P. Oliver and F. P. Yockey: Some Aspects of Criticism

On the Trail of the “Blue Boys” Hoax

In the late 1980s, some people I knew perpetrated a hoax in the Los Angeles local media. I believe LA Weekly was used, maybe LA Magazine as well.

Briefly, it was alleged that there was a roving gang of fag-bashers calling themselves the Blue Boys. Spokesmen for these Blue Boys gave out ludicrous quotes that any sane person should have recognized as a “troll.”

However, this was long before the days of web-media, and people simply didn’t expect hoaxes and fake news, the way they do now. Moreover, since there was no internet presence to speak of, the Blue Boys hoax left no easily discoverable footprints that would turn up today in search engines.

What one can find is very scanty, on the order of bibliographic listings and third-hand references in quasi-scholarly books. Here are some snippets of a book published by Oxford University Press in 1995, oddly titled Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Identities Over the Lifespan, by D’Augelli & Patterson. Scribd link here.

Further searching brings up the original article, from the issue of LA Weekly, 26 August 1988, reprinted in Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men, by Gregory M. Herek (SAGE, 1992). This means I saw the article shortly afterwards. Since I searched this on Google, I have only a portion of the “preview” version, saved in screenshots.
The above citations and reprint are by no means exhaustive. I’ve also found a crazy book from Routledge in London, called In the Name of Hate, cribbing the same quotes used in the top book, with mock-scholarly citations.
A point or two of textual criticism: the original piece from LA Weekly introduces “Matt” as “a true low-life.” Now, anyone who’s ever done any journalism, even on the LA Weekly level (I have), knows that you don’t bring in your primary contact at the top of the story and characterize him with a generic insult. As a practical matter it’s risky and unremunerative. If “Matt” is really a scary guy, he and his pals could likely come after you.
And even if you do have contempt for “Matt,” it would be stupid to show it. You would want to treat him leniently, and even flatter him. After all, he’s your meal-ticket and a possible introduction to further articles and maybe more profitable endeavors. A book contract perhaps.
The purported author of the LA Weekly article, “Michael Collins,” is posing as an investigative journalist, yet in this article he does nothing to invite the trust of his quarry. One has to wonder why and how “Michael Collins” got to meet “Matt,” and won his limited trust, in the first place.
Therefore: not only is writer “Michael Collins” a fake or at least a pseud, but “Matt” and his whole gang are invented.
Of course, going into this I knew that the story was made up out of thin air, in order to make a few bucks on the theme of gay-bashing. But it’s still astonishing that LA Weekly fell for this nonsense, and that the lefty idiots who cited our “Michael Collins” didn’t perceive the fakery.
Well…maybe they didn’t care about it one way or another.
Anyway, I invite the reader to research this “Michael Collins” and tell me about his background and any further work.
On the Trail of the “Blue Boys” Hoax

Lothrop Stoddard’s Re-Forging America (1927)

June 29 is the birthday of T. (for Theodore) Lothrop Stoddard (1883-1950)—scholar, lecturer, journalist, polymath, and author of many, many books.

Stoddard is best known for 1920’s The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World Supremacy, discussed two years ago here. Along with Madison Grant (1865-1937), author of The Passing of the Great Race (1916), and Prescott F. Hall (1868-1921), eugenics crusader and founder of the Immigration Restriction League, Stoddard can rightly be considered a father of the sweeping Immigration Act of 1924 (aka Johnson-Reed Act).

This Act pegged annual immigration quotas to the American people’s national origins as of 1890. It was our basic immigration and naturalization law for over forty years, until those quotas were abolished by the disastrous Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

Passage of the 1924 Act was of course a great triumph for Lothrop Stoddard, and for the countless others who labored for the cause of racial sanity and national sovereignty. What is not widely known is that Stoddard wrote a follow-up book to celebrate the Act and detail its history. That is Re-Forging America: The Story of Our Nationhood, published in 1927 by Charles Scribner’s Sons.

This book soon went out of print and is nearly impossible to obtain today in its original edition. The single copy I found in a large research library is falling apart, its yellowing pages crumbling to the touch. Fortunately someone thought to digitize its tawny pages for posterity, and you may now read it online.

Stoddard explains its purpose in his Preface: “[H]ow the bright promise of our early days was darkened by the disaster of the Civil War and by the blight of alien factors… [W]e awoke to the peril and are to-day engaged in the inspiring task of fulfilling the early promise of American life.”

The problems of national reconstruction are many. The closing of the gates to mass-immigration is merely a first step. Alien elements in our population must be assimilated. Political and cultural dissensions should be harmonized.

Above all, our great negro problem must be realistically and constructively dealt with. The dilemma of color, at once the most chronic and the most acute of American issues, has long been regarded with despairing pessimism. In these pages we have suggested at least a tentative solution which we have termed Bi-Racialism: The Key to Social Peace. [1]

As you might guess, “Bi-Racialism” is his proposal for a form of apartheid, not dissimilar to that which then obtained in the South and elsewhere, but one codified more fully into national law, yet one providing fairness and dignity for the negro.

Altogether it’s a very sunny snapshot of 1920’s American optimism, in the immediate aftermath of the 1924 Act. Stoddard presumed that we would not be so foolish as to overturn the new Act a few decades down the road. He did not foresee that the history behind the Act would quickly be forgotten, along with this explanatory volume.

 *  *  *

The first section of Re-Forging America gives the familiar history of colonization and the nation’s founding, mainly by settlers from the British Isles, with a fair number of other participants from northwest Europe. From the time of the Revolution until about 1820 there was only minimal immigration to the new country. This was partly due to the almost incessant wars of the Napoleonic period, but it was mainly because of the difficulty of transporting oneself across the ocean.

The post-1820 story he breaks into two overlapping sagas, that of the Old Immigrants, consisting of “English, Scotch, Irish, German, Scandinavian, Dutch, and a few others of minor importance” (pp. 327-328)—essentially the same as the founding stock; and the New Immigrants, who began to arrive in great waves a couple of decades after the Civil War. While not necessarily “unassimilable” throughout, these newcomers had cultures, national origins, and patterns of arrival so different from the older groups that their alienation from the country at large was noticeable. For the first time, immigration, in both type and numbers, became a national concern.[2] And those numbers were huge:

It was in the period from 1890 to 1914 that immigration really inundated America. During those twenty-four years no less than 17,500,000 immigrants entered the United States! Furthermore, it was during just those years that immigration became most “alien” in character, since the bulk of these later millions were of South and East European or even of Asiatic origin; thereby bringing into America racial stocks, ideas, and attitudes toward life, which had previously been well-nigh unknown (p. 92).

Contrasting these the with the still-continuing Old Immigration, Stoddard makes the insightful observation that the “Anglo-Saxon” element (which he describes as English, Scots, Ulster Protestants, and English-speaking Canadians):

forms the most numerous and constant stream of immigration which has ever entered America… Its volume may be judged by the fact that the Anglo-Saxon “immigrant” stock constitutes between 11,000,000 and 12,000,000 of our population.

Why is there so little mention of the Anglo-Saxon element in immigration? For a very significant reason. The Anglo-Saxon immigrant usually fits into America so well and assimilates so rapidly that his great numbers pass almost unnoticed (p. 106).

Of course this is the same point made by Pat Buchanan in 1992, when he said it would be far easier for Virginia to take in a million Englishmen, rather than a million Zulus.

The next two largest Old Immigration streams in Stoddard’s scheme are the “Celtic Irish” and the Germans, both of whom are slightly smaller numerically than the “Anglo Saxons,” as of 1927. Although present in America from Colonial times, these groups’ immigration numbers famously surged during the 1840s. Stoddard falls back on the commonplace 20th century fallacy that this was due to a “potato blight” in the case of Ireland, and “political exiles” in the case of Germany. Utter nonsense. The great driver of immigration in the period was the growth of steam transport, by water and rail; which made the two main ports of embarkation, Liverpool and Hamburg, easily accessible from the hinterlands. Steam also cut the time of transatlantic crossings in half (for those who could afford the cost), and created a vast surplus of slower, obsolescent ships, thereby providing rock-bottom steerage fares (for those who couldn’t). Immigration from the United Kingdom as a whole accordingly surged during this period, as did that from northwest Continental Europe.

The next group Stoddard counts among the Old Immigration is the Scandinavian portion, who largely arrived after 1870 (4,000,000 in population as of 1927). Finally, the Dutch and Flemings, whom he numbers at about a half-million (pp. 110-111).

Preparing to dissect the “New Immigration,” Stoddard first makes a nod to the Chinese problem, which was almost entirely a Californian affair, from mid-century till the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The basic issue was not anti-Chinese prejudice, or even that the Chinese were taking jobs from whites. Rather, Chinese were rapidly colonizing, and threatening to transform, that section of the country beyond recognition, much as they colonized Malaysia and threatened to do to Australia. He avers that if the Chinese had come to the Atlantic coast rather than the sparsely populated Pacific, America would have awakened to the Chinese problem, and that of the New Immigration from Europe, much sooner (p. 117).

This threatened change of national character to something “Asiatic” is one of Stoddard’s main complaints against the New Immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. His racial codex seems embarrassingly rote today, with its talk of Nordic—Alpine—Mediterranean types; much like the fustier passages in The Dispossessed Majority.[3]

“Eastern Europe is next door to Asia… Scratch a Russian and you’ll find a Tartar” (p. 121).”The South Italians are a complex mixture of Mediterraneans with Asiatic and North African strains (chiefly Arab and Berber), together with a slight dash of negro blood” (p. 123).

Then we come to the Jews, and Stoddard is careful to parse out the differences: Sephardic versus Ashkenazic; German Jews versus Eastern Europeans. The Sephardic and German Jews are basically “no ‘problem'” (pp. 128-129). As for the Easterners: “They are very prolific, and now number well over 3,500,000,” and are roundly disliked by the others (p. 131). Stoddard treats the Jewish matter gingerly because he does not wish to upset the august publishing house of Scribner’s, or so we may assume. But he’s also repeating a cliché of his era, one that he probably heard at Harvard, and which persuasive German Jews were fond of encouraging: that they were upright and civilized, while the boychiks from Minsk and Pinsk were lowlifes who made people “anti-Semitic.”

Racial deficiencies, however, are not Stoddard’s core theme. He wants to make it clear that the flood-tide of New Immigration was not a natural influx of people seeking a better life, or wishing to live in the Land of the Free.  Rather, it was a byproduct of concerted, profitable maneuvers by special interests, most of them foreign:

The most prominent of these interests are the great steamship companies, which made enormous profits from the immigrant traffic, and which, being virtually all foreign-owned had absolutely no interest in what the immigrants they transported might do to America. The “steamship lobby” was one of the many selfish interests which long blocked effective immigration-restriction laws (p. 156).

And where else have we heard this routine? It sounds so much like the Agribusiness Lobby and their Congressional myrmidons, doesn’t it? Instructing that us we won’t have beefsteak tomatoes or Mother’s Day carnations if we don’t bring in another million mestizo peons this year.

 *  *  *

Looking toward the future, with the 1924 Act behind him, Stoddard becomes endearingly naïve as he addresses the negro problem. He sees that negro and mulatto agitators, with help from Bolshevik Russia, are forming secret societies and hope to cause riots and conflagrations. But the bulk of the negro people are peaceable, he notes, and they will see that it is in their best interests to reach an productive modus vivendi with the white folks. As example, Stoddard quotes some of these peaceable negro thinkers (Booker Washington and Jerome Dowd, inter alia) on the advantages of racial segregation:

“Segregation enables the negro to find among his own people as many opportunities in the higher walks as are found among the white people. He may be a merchant, banker, doctor, lawyer…” (p. 294, quoting Dowd)

I don’t mean to mock Stoddard’s noble sentiments. He saw the situation clearly, and named the dangers. What he probably couldn’t comprehend was how thoroughly the rot had already set in, even as we were celebrating the passage of the Johnson-Reed Act.

Notes

1. Lothrop Stoddard, Re-Forging America, p. viii. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1927.)

2. The author skips over a legend beloved of today’s pro-immigration activists: the so-called “Nativist” and “Know-Nothing” movements that came and went in the 1840s and 50s, under the leadership of a Jewish gadfly named Lewis C. Levin. Stoddard merely notes in passing that as a political force the Know-Nothings were both misdirected and ineffectual.

3. Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority. (Cape Canaveral Fl: Howard Allen Press, 1972.)  Robertson may have cribbed a lot from this book of Stoddard’s. Not only are the racial discussions similar, but there is even a curious, obtrusive mention of the Gracchi.

Lothrop Stoddard’s Re-Forging America (1927)

“You LIKE Me! You REALLY LIKE Me!”

Herewith a beguiling column from the recent Chronicle of Higher Education.

THE CHRONICLE REVIEW

When Neo-Nazis Love Your Book

Can a liberal education create enemies of liberalism?

Chronicle Review illustration by Scott Seymour
JUNE 22, 2018  PREMIUM

It would be nice to think that fields of academic study such as philosophy and political theory are innocent, and that one could teach them without the fear of breeding monstrosities. That comforting thought looks less reliable by the day, which is what prompted me to write a book called Dangerous Minds, about the influence of Nietzsche and Heidegger on today’s far right. The very first (uncomfortably positive) review came from someone who is himself a dangerous mind: Greg Johnson, who runs a white-nationalist website called Counter-Currents, where he published the review. Among other repellant views, Johnson has argued that Jews like me should be expelled from the United States to their own ethnostate.

How could someone with these extremist views have anything to do with a humanizing discipline like philosophy? Yet Johnson holds a Ph.D. in philosophy — he wrote his doctoral thesis on Kant and Swedenborg — and has taught at the college level. Evidently, Kant’s moral egalitarianism left little impression on him.

Can one raise the largest questions in political theory and philosophy without opening a door to dangerous extremes? It has been known since Socrates, who practiced philosophy in the company of dubious figures like Critias and Alcibiades, that there is an uneasy relationship between the life of the mind and the potentially violent vortex of the political. Plato, too, played with fire by putting himself in the service of Sicilian tyrants, and he most likely wrote The Republic out of an awareness that potential tyrants are drawn to philosophy’s root-and-branch questioning of established social conventions. To this very day, there are people who read ancient texts not in spite of the fact that the ancient world embodied slavery, imperialism, and ruthless cruelty but on account of a fetishizing fascination with those very things.

Can one raise the largest questions in political theory and philosophy without opening a door to dangerous extremes?

To be sure, many of political philosophy’s direst effects are unintended. When he wrote On the Social Contract, Rousseau could not have anticipated that his most enthusiastic political disciples would eventually be guillotining those they considered deficient in Rousseauian virtue. We might say the same of Marx: He surely could not have imagined that murderous regimes from Stalin’s Soviet Union to Pol Pot’s Kampuchea would invoke his authority for their own tyrannical purposes.Theory, it is clear, can produce monsters. The problem of the monstrous potential of theory persists when one turns to the 20th-century canon. In The Reckless Mind, Mark Lilla judges a broad range of powerful contemporary thinkers — including Carl Schmitt, Walter Benjamin, Alexandre Kojève, and Michel Foucault — too easily tempted by hazardous lines of political thought. Schmitt was a Nazi who remains a favorite of the contemporary radical right. Benjamin flirted with notions of revolutionary violence and was attracted to Schmitt, as intellectuals on the left still are. Kojève didn’t think there was any incompatibility in principle between the modern project of universal recognition and Stalinist tyranny. Foucault welcomed revolutionary theocracy in Iran as a way of giving the finger to the liberal West. Nor has the political irresponsibility of some of their ideological entanglements put the slightest dent in the popularity of these thinkers.

One can’t be true to the vocation of political theory without engaging, both intellectually and pedagogically, with the most radical minds, but one must do so always with the vivid awareness that many of these thinkers did contribute to, even if they weren’t directly responsible for, the terror and atrocity committed by those they influenced. Of course, we could solve the problem by resolving only to teach irenic theorists such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Mill. It’s telling that even Mill himself would be mightily unhappy with that “solution.”

Nietzsche is particularly problematic. Undergraduates love him and hence are all too vulnerable to his seductive rhetoric. In The Gay Science, Nietzsche openly confesses his goal of titillating and enticing the young: “What thrills them is the sight of the zeal surrounding a cause and, so to speak, the sight of the burning match — not the cause itself. The subtler seducers therefore know how to create in them the expectation of an explosion …. Reasons are not the way to win over these powder kegs!” For generations, scholars of Nietzsche have tried to minimize or play down his dangerousness, but he remains a potent resource for sinister ideologies that are currently gaining ground.

This, after all, is a thinker who celebrates slavery as a necessary condition of genuine culture, and who regards moralities that privilege dominant castes as decidedly superior to moralities that presume that all members of a society possess an inalienable human dignity. A year ago, in an undergraduate course on politics and religion in the history of political thought, I assigned Nietzsche’s The Antichrist, a rich text with lots of thought-provoking ideas but also lots of truly ugly and offensive rhetoric. Sure enough, one of my students, having picked this text as the topic for his final essay, cited the book directly off a neo-Nazi website. Despite the scholarly efforts to cleanse Nietzsche of all meaningful connections to fascism, it’s no surprise that contemporary Nazis love this text. As Conor Cruise O’Brien put it (writing in the late 1960s), it is not “consoling to think of what some future readers of this master may have in store for us” — as if he could already see today’s alt-right on the horizon.

Theory, it is clear, can produce monsters.

Nietzsche himself anticipated this problem when he wrote that “the sort of unqualified and utterly unsuitable people who may one day come to invoke my authority is a thought that fills me with dread. Yet that is the anguish of every great teacher of mankind: he knows that, given the circumstances and the accidents, he can become a disaster as well as a blessing to mankind.”Academics have been too easy on Nietzsche, either ignoring his ultra-reactionary politics or downplaying the relevance of that politics to his real philosophy. This lenient treatment might be related to the fact that Western liberal societies for the past 70 years have enjoyed the luxury (which perhaps we haven’t sufficiently appreciated!) of the far right being utterly discredited. But there are ample indications that this happy respite is over, as Nazis and fascists emerge horror-movie-like from the grave in which we thought they were buried.

Leo Strauss apparently doubted whether it was right for Nietzsche to write down, let alone publish, his dangerous thoughts. Before rushing to assume that Strauss is exaggerating the hazards of exposing the young to Nietzsche’s inflammatory texts, consider Richard B. Spencer, America’s most notorious white nationalist. Spencer attended three great universities, the University of Virginia, the University of Chicago, and Duke University; by his own account the decisive turning-point on the path that led him to celebrity with his “Hail Trump” speech soon after Trump’s election was a grad seminar on Nietzsche that he took at Chicago.

We would be fooling ourselves if we didn’t take with utter seriousness the Spencer trajectory, starting with Nietzsche seminars in grad school and ending with the torchlit white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville. To be sure, not many people taking graduate classes on the thought of Nietzsche will turn into neo-fascists. It doesn’t follow from that fact that there aren’t things in Nietzsche’s work capable of turning people into neo-fascists. When I teach a seminar on Nietzsche, is there any guarantee that a future Richard Spencer won’t be in the room?

If Nietzsche is a problem, Heidegger almost certainly poses an even bigger one, as wave after wave of Heidegger scandal demonstrates beyond question that he was far more compromised, politically and morally, than his apologists would have us believe. The scholar Emmanuel Faye has controversially suggested that the hundred volumes of Heidegger’s philosophy should be moved from the philosophy section in university library stacks to the history of Nazism section.

That would be the wrong response, though much of what Faye writes on the subject of Heidegger is on target. If we’re to teach these thinkers — and I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that we stop doing so — we must teach them without sanitizing or whitewashing their most illiberal and appalling ideas. Nietzsche and Heidegger are towering thinkers, and we would be failing to educate our students about the summits of Western philosophy if we cut them out of the curriculum. Philosophy, from Plato to Spinoza to Rousseau to Marx, has always exposed the fundamental assumptions of established social and political life to radical questioning, and political theory would cease to be what it is and what it should be if radical thinkers (of both the left and the right) are deemed too dangerous to teach. We are not only citizens who have a duty to exercise prudent judgment about civic life; we are also human beings who have a duty to live fully reflective lives. While our vocation as citizens must make us wary of the dangerous minds in our theory canon, our vocation as reflective human beings requires dialogue with them. We must teach these books — but that doesn’t mean that we should teach them without anxiety.

The liberal arts are upheld by a kind of faith that engaging with ideas will indeed contribute to a more liberal, more generous-minded, moral consciousness. As a scholar and an educator, I’m not ready to surrender that faith. But political theory always has the potential to generate havoc or worse. The stakes are particularly high in a political world as unsettled as ours: where technological change is so rapid; where the boundaries between different societies and cultures are being renegotiated on an epic scale; where the internet unleashes political passions so little inhibited by norms of civility; and where the most powerful man on the planet is someone as volatile as Donald Trump.

Given all this, how can my confidence in the vocation of theory not be shaken a little (or more than a little) when I read the chilling words that conclude Greg Johnson’s review of my book?

[Beiner] did not anticipate what would happen if his book fell into the hands of Rightist readers like me. Dangerous Minds … is a very helpful introduction to Nietzsche and Heidegger as anti-liberal thinkers. Thus I recommend it highly. And if I have anything to say about it, this book will help create a whole lot more dangerous minds, a whole new generation of Right-wing Nietzscheans and Heideggerians.

Commitment to a liberal education doesn’t guarantee a commitment to liberalism. Higher education in a liberal society involves teaching great representatives of the liberal tradition as well as great enemies of liberalism. Is that the glory of liberal pedagogy, or is it its Achilles heel?

Ronald Beiner is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. He is the author of Dangerous Minds: Nietzsche, Heidegger, and the Return of the Far Right, published earlier this year by the University of Pennsylvania Press.

“You LIKE Me! You REALLY LIKE Me!”

NOTES FROM ABANDONED DOMAINS: Maxwell Knight, William Joyce, Joseph Kennedy

Re-archived from the Wayback Machine, here is Bryan Clough’s website synopsis (circa 2001) of his book on the Wolkoff-Kent affair, which was published a few years later. The site was state-secrets.com, which currently appears to be in use, but by someone else. The Wayback link is here.

Clough was one of many researchers who were sifting through declassified MI5 files that began to become available about 1999. As this was an “early pressing,” some of his conclusions may be far-fetched or misinformed. The notion that Ambassador Kennedy was the victim of a sting operation, designed to embarrass him and get him out of Grosvenor Square, may or may not be correct. It is certainly plausible. But such an action probably would not have originated within MI5; this Security Service would have been no more than a tool used by other parties.

Conversely, the idea that William Joyce was executed to hide something seems irrefutable.

Maxwell Knight (1900-1968) and his first wife, the former Gwladys Poole (1899-1935), were leading members of the British Fascisti, Britain’s first Fascist party, which started in 1923.

In 1927, he was deputy chief of staff and she was the director of the Womens’ Units.

From 1928, they both took a lower profile and, in 1931, Knight joined MI5 as head of ‘MS’ (for Maxwell’s Section). His mission was to place ‘penetrative agents’ (moles) in organisations believed to be under Communist influence.

On 24 August 1939, Knight tipped off William Joyce (1906-1946), an American-born academic and a former member of the British Fascisti, that he had been listed for internment under Emergency Regulations enacted earlier that day. This led directly to Joyce leaving for Germany two days later – eight days before war was declared – and his subsequent career as ‘Lord Haw-Haw’, the most infamous broadcaster of Nazi propaganda.

In 1940, Knight stitched up two ‘spies’: Tyler Kent (1911-1988), a code and cipher clerk at the American Embassy in London, and Anna Wolkoff (1902-1973), a Russian-born dressmaker and artist. After secret trials, they were sentenced to 7 and 10 years’ penal servitude. Although the circumstances have aroused much subsequent commentary, it has never before been recognised that William Joyce could have exposed the frame up.

Joyce, Kent and Wolkoff had all been members of the Right Club, a secret anti-Jewish, anti-war organisation, founded by Captain Archibald Ramsay (1895-1955), the Conservative MP for Peebles.

Among the other members of the 250-strong Right Club were one Prince, two Princesses, one Duke, one Marquess, two Earls, five other Lords, two Professors, two Reverend Gentlemen, six Doctors, twelve MPs, nineteen retired Officers, and sundry others with ‘Sir’, ‘Lady’ or ‘Hon’ prefixing their names.


After the war, William Joyce’s own trial in September 1945 also aroused considerable controversy when he was found guilty of High Treason, despite being American by birth and German by naturalisation. After his case was discussed by the British Cabinet, Joyce was hurriedly ‘disposed of’ by execution, before the House of Lords had given their reasons for dismissing his appeal.

The same judge, Mr Justice Tucker, presided over the trials of Joyce, Kent and Wolkoff and, when sentencing Wolkoff in November 1940, he had pronounced Joyce a traitor. When Joyce came before him in 1945, Mr Justice Tucker had the unique opportunity of confirming his own earlier pronouncement.


State Secrets: The Wolkoff Files traces the careers of Maxwell Knight and William Joyce which continually intertwined during the twenties, thirties and forties.

After the war, Maxwell Knight also ventured into broadcasting and became a minor celebrity as a naturalist with both television and radio appearances. He is still remembered as ‘Uncle Max’, a children’s favourite.

Previous attempts to get at the facts behind the ‘Tyler Kent affair’ have been thwarted by official cover ups and even the incarceration of two inquisitive Canadian journalists. However, compelling evidence is now produced which shows that Kent could not possibly have been the ‘spy in the American Embassy’, as he had been portrayed, and that Anna Wolkoff was tricked by MI5 undercover agents, controlled by Knight, so that she could be categorised as an ‘enemy agent’.

This was Knight’s method of getting at Kent, although it is now evident that Kent was not the main target, just the means towards an altogether more important end.

Following privileged access to the Anna Wolkoff files at the Home Office – which had been classified as ‘Closed for 75 years’ – personal interviews with friends of Knight and Joyce, and a critical examination of different strands of information available within the public domain (including rare archive material), it is now possible to piece together a giant jigsaw which, after more than 60 years, clearly points to the real target of the exercise.

He was none other than Joseph Kennedy, the American Ambassador in London and patriarch of the famous clan. Hence the official actions and their subsequent sensitivity is finally exposed.

The research also firmly disposes of the long-standing myth that MI5 is merely an intelligence gathering organisation which never takes executive action and never acts outside the law.

In fact, the cases of Joyce, Kent and Wolkoff show that MI5 not only took direct executive action but it also instructed the judge on the verdicts to be delivered. It then contributed to the subsequent cover-ups.

NOTES FROM ABANDONED DOMAINS: Maxwell Knight, William Joyce, Joseph Kennedy