China Is Killing Americans with Fentanyl – Deliberately
By Gordon Chang, Chinese-American Senior Fellow, Gatestone Institute Author of (1) The Coming Collapse of China and (2) How China has damaged the world.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM GORDON CHANG ARTICLE : (1) Mainland China is obsessed with increasing its “comprehensive national power” (CNP). It meticulously measures it, thoroughly studies it, and constantly compares rankings of China to other countries, especially (to) the United States. (2) China’s officials will stop at nothing to increase China’s CNP and decrease the CNP of other countries. China is, with malice, trying to reduce America’s comprehensive national power with fentanyl. There can be no other explanation for Beijing letting criminal organizations (in China) operate unimpeded. (3) The Communist Party, through its cells, controls every business of any consequence. Beijing tightly controls the banking system and knows of money transfers instantaneously. Furthermore, fentanyl cannot leave the country undetected, as virtually all shipped items are examined before departing Chinese soil. (4) China’s postal service has to know that it has become, among other things, the world’s busiest drug mule. (5) The regime has adopted the doctrine of “Unrestricted Warfare,” explained in a 1999 book of the same name by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. The thesis of the authors, both Chinese Air Force colonels, is that China should not be bound by any rules or agreements in its attempt to take down the United States…. (6) U.S. Customs and Border Protection learned that 13% of packages from China contain some form of contraband, including fentanyl and other deadly substances. (7) China’s regime has been pushing fentanyl into the United States for years. (8) Fatal drug overdoses in the U.S. last year hit a record 70,980, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of those deaths, 36,500, were from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Cocaine and methamphetamine fatalities were also up, largely because these substances were mixed with fentanyl. (9) In China, gangs work on fentanyl compounds in labs to make the drug more addictive, a former American national security official told me a few years ago. Moreover, Chinese technicians constantly change formulas to avoid detection at the American border.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ HOW CHINA’S COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL POWER POLICY AFFECTS CANADA China is also sending fentanyl into Canada. In parts of Canada, the number of deaths from fentanyl is close to the number of deaths from Covid-19. According to Macleans Magazine research, Canada Post is the shipping method of choice for fentanyl importers. https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/fentanyl-at-the-click-of-a-mouse/ Canada Post is inhibited from interfering with mail from China because of a law written in 1981 which considered mail interception an unthinkable violation of privacy. This is a major problem because Mainland Chinese immigration to Canada has exploded in the past 20 years : Several million Mainland Chinese have arrived as China has become one of the major sources of immigrants for Canada. See https://canadaimmigrants.com/chinese-immigrants-to-canada/ A significant number of those Chinese immigrants are probable supporters of China’s Comprehensive National Power policy and will undermine the national interests of Canada. It is highly probable that some of those Chinese are receiving packages of fentanyl from China and selling fentanyl here. Chinese immigrants, with the help of foolish Judge Rosalie Abella’s Employment Equity/Preferential Hiring policy, have infiltrated all sectors of Canada. Some are undoubtedly sending important Canadian information back to China. One particularly big question is this : China’s fentanyl has undoubtedly damaged Canada, but how much did China’s Comprehensive National Power policy play in creating Canada’s Unaffordable Housing Crisis, a virtual national catastrophe which has damaged or destroyed the lives of millions of Canadians? To summarize : ethnic Chinese activity has inflated prices in Canada’s housing market, colonized parts of Canada and de-stabilized Canada’s economy. How much more serious can things get?
The Dracula Solution: Vlad the Impaler Was A Patriot Who Protected His People from Invasion
In 1453, the forces of Mehmed II, the seventh sultan (1) of the Ottoman Empire, besieged the city of Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire. The siege started on the sixth of April, and ended a little under two months later on the twenty-ninth of May. It ended in total victory for Mehmed II and the fall of the Byzantine Empire, whose last emperor, Constantine XI Palaiologos died in the field of battle defending Eastern Christianity and his city, throne, and empire. This was the culmination of centuries worth of assault by Islamic forces on Eastern Christendom that had started before the Turks had become the dominant power in the Islamic world and before Eastern and Western Christianity had undergone a formal ecclesiastical separation to match the earlier civil separation of the Roman Empire, an assault which had provoked the response of the Crusades only decades after the aforementioned ecclesiastical separation. After the walls that had long protected the Byzantine capital fell to Mehmed’s artillery, the triumphant sultan renamed the city, which had been Constantinople since Constantine the Great had relocated the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium over a millennium earlier, Istanbul, made it the capital of his own empire, and declared himself the new Caesar. The Ottomans then set their sights on the conquest of Western Christendom, launching a campaign that would eventually bring them to the gates of the capital of the Holy Roman Empire in 1683, where they would be decisively defeated by the allied forces of Emperor Leopold I and Polish King Jan III Sobieski.
That, however, was two hundred and thirty years after Mehmed’s victory. Immediately after the Fall of Constantinople, the conquering sultan went on to attack other Christian territories, winning a number of significant victories in the Balkans. Then, less than a decade after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire, he turned his attention to Wallachia, in what is now Romania. Wallachia was situated between the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary and both had long laid claim to it as a vassal state. In the fifteenth century, these larger powers were constantly struggling against each other to put one of their own puppets on the Wallachian throne, and against a growing determination on the part of the Wallachian royalty to resist submission to either. It was this sort of resistance on the part of the Wallachian voivode (prince/warlord) that drew Mehmed’s attention. He had sent emissaries to Wallachia to receive tribute from the Romanian prince, but they were killed and the sultan received instead an invasion of his own territory, in which villages were laid waste and thousands killed. Raising a tremendous army, in 1462 he marched into Wallachia, convinced that victory was assured him. After crossing the Danube, his camp was attacked but the Romanians failed to capture him. Shortly thereafter he made it to the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște, where he met with a bone-chilling, blood-curdling spectacle. The city was deserted, but surrounding it, was a gigantic field containing large wooden stakes or pikes. Impaled upon those stakes were about twenty thousand Turks, men, women and children, whom the Wallachian prince had captured. Both impressed and horrified, Mehmed retreated.
The name of the voivode who struck such awe in the heart of the Turkish sultan is one that I am sure you are all familiar with. His name was Dracula.
The image that that name has probably summoned up is one of a clean-shaven, pale man in a tuxedo with a big cape, his black hair slicked back from his widow’s peak and plastered to his head with what looks to be an entire jar of pomade, who sleeps in a coffin all day, waking at night to speak in a bad imitation of an Eastern European accent while he bites beautiful young ladies in the neck and drinks their blood.
The above image comes, of course, from the Hollywood versions of Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula. Bram Stoker, who was born and raised in Dublin, lived most of his life in London, where he managed the Lyceum Theatre, owned by his friend, the actor Sir Henry Irving, and wrote novels on the side. Dracula was his fifth published novel. Like Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, which had appeared eight decades earlier, it is written in epistolary format, that is to say, as a collection of letters, journal entries, and diary clippings, rather than from the point of view of a single narrator. In the novel, Dracula is a Transylvanian Count who moves to London, where he stalks a young lady named Lucy, the best friend of the fiancée of an English lawyer he had employed, draining her of most of her blood and putting her under a kind of mind control. Her friends, concerned about what is happening to her, put her in the hands of Dr. Abraham Van Helsing, a physician who, conveniently enough, has the hobby of vampirology. When Lucy dies and becomes a vampire, Van Helsing and the others put an end to her undead existence and then go in hunt of Count Dracula. They track him down as he is nearing his castle in Transylvania in his last remaining coffin – he had brought a lot of backups which the vampire hunters had destroyed – and kill him.
Stoker’s having given his vampire the name of the fifteenth century historical figure was presumably a result of his having relied heavily upon Romanian folklore for his research into the vampire legend prior to writing his novel (vampire legends occur in folklore around the world, but, due mostly to Stoker’s book, the vampires that appear in twentieth century film and literature, most closely resemble those of Eastern European folklore). Within the novel, the historical figure is alluded to on a couple of occasions. Count Dracula himself, when he is trying to pass himself off as a human aristocrat, speaks of the historical Dracula as an ancestor. Dr. Van Helsing, however, later expresses the opinion that the count is none other than the undead corpse of the voivode himself.
Vlad III of Wallachia, of course, had a reputation for bloodthirstiness long before Stoker wrote his novel. One can hardly do such things as he did at Târgoviște, as described a few paragraphs back, without gaining such a reputation. Among his Hungarian and Saxon enemies, this reputation even took on aspects more closely resembling the kind of bloodthirstiness that appears in Stoker’s novel. They spread the report that Vlad would set up his table in the midst of his impaled enemies, dipping his bread in their blood. Since this comes from his enemies, it is probably wisest to take it with a grain of salt. In his own Romania, however, where he is celebrated as a national hero, he is commonly referred to as Vlad Tepes (pronounced ze-pesh). Although this designation draws attention to the rather sadistic way in which he dealt with his foes – Tepes translates into English as “The Impaler” – it does not detract from his domestic heroic image but rather enhances it. He was the man who did what had to be done to prevent the barbarian hordes that had sacked the capital of Eastern Christianity from overrunning his country too.
Vlad III inherited his fight against the Ottoman Turks. His father, Vlad II, was given the name Dracul when he joined the Order of the Dragon in 1431, which is why his descendants bore the patronym Dracula, a diminutive form meaning “son of Dracul.” The Order of the Dragon was a knightly fraternity, founded by Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary in 1408, and modelled on the Order of St. George of the previous century. Its members were sworn to protect Christianity and Christendom, against the Ottoman Turks. Vlad Dracul was an illegitimate son of Mircea the Elder, who was raised in Sigismund’s court. Upon Mircea’s death, Sigismund had backed Dracul’s claim to his father’s throne, whereas the Ottomans had supported the claim of his half-brother Alexander. It was only after Alexander died that Dracul was able to assume the throne. In the meantime he had moved to Transylvania, where Vlad III, his second son, was born.
When Vlad Dracul assumed the throne of Wallachia he had a strong backer in Sigismund, who had become the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire three years previously. Sigismund died the following year, however, and the throne of Hungary was filled by Albert the Magnificent, who, not being emperor, was much weaker than this predecessor, causing Dracul to seek terms of peace with the Ottomans. When, a couple of years later, Albert himself died, the much stronger Wladyslaw III, King of Poland took his place. Wladyslaw, along with John Hunyadi, the Transylvanian voivode, pressed Dracul back into the fight against the Turks. This led to his capture by the Turks, however, who released him, only upon his agreeing to a long list of conditions, the security of which they ensured by taking Dracul’s younger sons, Vlad III and Radu, as hostages. The result of this period of captivity in the sultan’s court was that Vlad became a more zealous foe of the Turks than his father had ever been, while Radu became their loyal supporter, fighting under Mehmed at Constantinople. The consequence of this was that when Vlad Dracula claimed his father’s throne – his elder brother Mircea II had been captured and tortured to death by the boyars (patricians) of his capital city shortly before their father was killed – and turned against the Turkish sultan, Mehmed had a replacement at hand in Radu. Indeed, when the sultan retreated from Târgovișt, Radu remained to fight his brother and, garnering support among the Wallachian aristocracy and middle class, replaced Vlad III when the latter turned to the Hungarians for assistance and was imprisoned. Fourteen years later, Vlad, with the support of the same Hungarians, briefly returned to the throne before dying fighting the Turks. (2)
Vlad Dracula was a severe and cruel man even by the standards of his own day. It was not the incident at Târgoviște alone that earned him the cognomen Tepes. He was, however, in one sense, a fairly just ruler. That is to say, if the quick and efficient dispensation of punishment to the guilty is all that you are looking for by way of justice. By Singapore’s present standards, he might even be considered an exemplary ruler. For those of us in the Commonwealth realms, (3) whose traditional Common Law understanding of justice places a premium on such concepts as the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, letting the punishment fit the crime, etc., he is much further removed from our idea of a model governor. We ought, however, to refrain from judging him by the standards of our own tradition, especially without considering the historical context in which he committed his famous/infamous deeds. A good understanding of the history of the attempted Islamic conquest of Christendom, the fifteenth century collapse of the Byzantine Empire under the weight of that onslaught, and the inroads the Turks were making into the Balkans in the immediate aftermath of that collapse is essential to viewing Dracula in his proper context, and goes a long way towards helping us understand why he is considered a hero in his own national tradition.
Dracula and his era hardly held a monopoly on cruelty. Progressives of our own day, who are seemingly incapable of thinking outside of the box of liberalism, universal human rights and democracy, condemn the inhumanity of the kind of cruelty that involves physical torture except when it is a voluntary alternative lifestyle choice such as in the erotic novels of E. L. James. They are blind, however, to the cruelty they themselves often support in the name of their humanitarian, do-gooder, causes.
Consider the example of the measures taken in response to the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus this year. After initially pooh-poohing the virus, and calling anybody who suggested a temporary ban on travel in and out of China to attempt to contain the outbreak within that country a “racist”, once it was clearly too late do any such thing and the virus was already speeding around the world, they did a complete turnabout and began supporting the most oppressive of measures aimed at stopping the virus. When the WHO first declared a pandemic it was still winter in this part of this world, but that did not prevent our governments from closing all public facilities and restaurant dining rooms and telling everybody to “stay home”, leaving the thousands of people with no home to stay at, literally out in the cold. That was an act of cruelty. Then, because very elderly people with multiple health problems are the most at risk from the virus, their loved ones were prohibited from visiting them in long-term care facilities, condemning them, in the name of keeping them “safe”, to months of loneliness and despair, which in the end, probably contributed more to the death toll in such facilities this year than the virus itself. Another act of insanely inhumane cruelty. If being very cruel to the destitute and homeless on the one hand and the elderly on the other were not bad enough, our governments, to pay for the insane and unprecedented universal quarantine they imposed upon us all, have saddled future generations for centuries to come with the burden of paying off the debt they have racked up. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and, indeed, people of all religions, have been denied the spiritual solace and comfort of their faith traditions in a time when they have an especially great need for it, this having been what has gotten people through pandemics in the past. Then, of course, there is the cruelty of the restrictions placed upon small business owners, that have been driving them into bankruptcy, even while the despicable, vile, low-life, scum who run the big technology and pharmaceutical companies have been raking in the billions off of this scam of a pandemic. Finally, there is the cruelty of telling people that they are not allowed to work, buy food and other necessities, or, basically, live, unless they wear a stupid, ugly, totem, over their noses and mouths, that has no real protective value whatsoever despite all the horse manure being spread about “the science” behind them, which makes breathing and communicating both more difficult and more uncomfortable, and which, since these things collect and breed germs the way they are being used, which is not in conformity with the safety guidelines for the use of higher grade masks in hospitals, will have the necessary effect of making people more sick rather than less.
All of the bleeding heart, world-and-humanity-loving, liberal, progressive types, who are the first to condemn the cruelty of torture and the death penalty, do not seem to have any problem with the kind of cruelty outlined in the previous paragraph, for they have been cheering all of these measures, and, indeed, crawling to their governments, like Oliver Twist, saying “please sir, I want some more”, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is not just their own rights and freedoms that they are sacrificing and surrendering for protection from the Bogeyman of SARS-CoV-2, but those of their family, friends, neighbours, and everybody else as well. As with most other matters, they have got everything backwards. The cruelty of stakes and iron maidens and other medieval tortures was at least an honest cruelty, one which made no pretense of being anything else. The cruelty which the progressives support, wears the mask of benevolence. It is the worst of the two.
If there were any human justice worth speaking of left on this planet, an extremely dubious protasis indeed, all those responsible for thinking up and imposing these measures on us all would be put on trial and charged with crimes against humanity. The precedent established at Nuremberg for dealing with such crimes, was capital punishment, at least for those who bear the greatest responsibility. In the event that this hypothetical and highly unlikely scenario were to materialize, and the court finds the culprits guilty and pronounces sentence after the Nuremberg precedent, should the judges truly wish to send a definitive message that there are to be no more universal lockdowns ever again, then when it comes time to determining the mode of execution, perhaps they should not peremptorily rule out the method preferred by Dracula. Brutal though it be, it seems somewhat appropriate for the ghoulish spiritual vampires who have spent most of this year sucking the joy out of life and making this world a living hell for everyone else.
(1) The numbering of the sultans does not include several individuals whose claim to the title was on more dubious grounds than that of those recognized by the historians.
(2) In between Dracula’s imprisonment and his brief return to power, the voivodeship of Wallachia had passed between his brother Radu the Fair and Basarab Laiotă multiple times. Basarab Laiotă was a cousin of theirs – the Draculas or Draculesti are a branch of the Basarab family, and indeed, Dracula’s full legal name, included Basarab along with Vlad and Dracula (Tepes was only added after his death, although his enemies called him by the equivalent in their tongues during his lifetime). Basarab Laiotă held the voivodeship last before Dracula’s return and would resume it again after Dracula’s death. The competing claims of the different branches of the dynasty – and it was far more complicated than when the House of Plantagenet divided into the Houses of Lancaster and York in England during the period of the War of the Roses, as can be seen in the fact that Vlad and Radu were rivals but both from the Dracula line of the divided Basarab House – were, of course, the primary means through which the larger Ottoman and Hungarian powers contended for control of the region.
(3) Singapore is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations but not a Commonwealth realm. The latter are parliamentary monarchies with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state. Singapore is a republic.
Editor’s Note:This is a shortened version of an article originally published in American Renaissance. I have read a lot of articles about the plight of whites in the Western world, but only a few days ago I decided to read this well-known article. Samuel Francis offers an excellent answer to a question we often ask. His answer is in the title of the essay: “why the American RULING CLASS betrays ITS race”. He does not blame the white race as such or everyday white people. He does not blame the Enlightenment or Christianity or Post-Modernism or Socialism or Capitalism. He focuses on the rise of a white “managerial elite” with interests that “extend across many different nations, races, religions and cultures and are transnational and supra-national, detached and disengaged from — and actually hostile to — any particular place or group or set of beliefs that supports particular identities.” He acknowledges Kevin MacDonald’s research in his answer, and the fact that non-whites are primarily preoccupied with their own racial interests. Read this article and let us know who/what group/ideology/factor is ultimately responsible for the Great Replacement. ***** At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it ought to be obvious that the dominant powers and authorities in the United States and other Western countries are either indifferent to the accelerating racial and cultural dispossession of the historic peoples of America and Europe or are actually in favor of it. Mass immigration imports literally millions of non-white, non-Western aliens into the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, yet the governments of those nations make no serious effort to halt or restrict it, and cultural elites either decline to notice the transformation immigration causes or openly applaud it.
Large corporations and their executives, the federal and larger state and urban governments and their leaders, and the major academic, intellectual, artistic, entertainment, publishing, and journalistic institutions and personalities — the dominant culture of the United States — consistently support anti-white causes and promote the myths, claims, and interests of nonwhites at the expense of whites.
The conventional accusation against the American Establishment from the political left is that it is “racist” and fosters “white supremacy” in order to perpetuate the domination and exploitation of the nonwhite peoples of this country and the world by the largely white ruling class. That accusation is so brazenly contrary to the anti-white policies, rhetoric, and behavior in which the most powerful forces in American society consistently engage that it withstands little scrutiny. By playing on the guilt and fear of establishment leaders, both of which reflect these leaders’ shared acceptance of the left’s egalitarian values, it is an accusation that serves mainly to push the establishment ever further and faster down the anti-white path than it is normally inclined to go. Fixated on a nineteenth century model of “capitalism,” the Marxism from which this accusation derives has managed to miss the realities of twentieth and twenty-first century power that do in fact explain what must be one of the most significant and astonishing truths of human history — that an entire ruling class has abandoned and in effect declared war upon the very population and civilization from which it is itself drawn.
If Marxist theories offer no explanation of the antagonism of the American Establishment to white racial identity, neither does conventional democratic political thought. Mass immigration, affirmative action policies, blatant discrimination against white identity and those who defend it, multiculturalism in education, anti-white brainwashing in sensitivity training, support for non-white (and often anti-white) political and cultural causes, and other manifestations of entrenched antagonism to whites are not the results of democratic majority rule or popular consent. At best, whites accept or “consent to” these onslaughts against them, their material interests, their heritage, and their own psychic identity and integrity because “consent” has been subtly manufactured and shaped by the institutions of the dominant culture. Not a single one of the measures that threaten whites has originated among whites themselves at the popular or grassroots level. Each and every one — mass immigration, the forced busing of the 1970s, the civil rights rulings of the federal courts from the 1950s through today, the affirmative action invented by invisible bureaucrats and upheld by unaccountable courts, the mind control measures that now permeate our schools, workplaces, and media, and the systematic repression and exclusion of those who question or challenge these trends — has originated from and has been imposed and enforced by elites.
Neither Marxism nor the democratic theory embraced nowadays by both “liberals” and “conservatives” is therefore of much use in understanding why the dominant elites of American and Western society behave as they do. The model that does help explain their behavior derives from what is usually called the “classical theory of elites,” developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by a school of Italian and German sociologists and political scientists, and from the application of that model to twentieth century America, the theory of the managerial revolution as developed by James Burnham.
The Classical Theory of Elites
The classical theory of elites was formulated principally by the social and political theorists Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca. It holds that all human societies, at least all above the primitive level, are ruled by organized minorities (“elites” or “ruling classes”), that the majority in any society, even so-called democratic ones, never rules, and that these organized minorities develop out of social-political groups that control what are known as “social forces.” The term “social force” is an admittedly vague concept that can include virtually any idea, technique, or institution that exerts social importance — a religion, an ideology, a technology, a weapons system, control of natural resources, etc. As Arthur Livingston, editor of Mosca’s classic work, The Ruling Class, explains:
A “social force” is any human activity or perquisite that has a social significance — money, land, military prowess, religion, education, manual labor, science — anything. The concept derives from the necessity of defining and classifying ruling classes. A man rules or a group of men rules when the man or the group is able to control the social forces that, at the given moment in the given society, are essential to the possession and retention of power.
If a social force is efficient at wielding power or control over other people, then the group that controls the social force and other groups with which it is allied will constitute a “ruling class” (Mosca’s term) or “elite” (Pareto’s term), and classical elite theory assumes that normally a ruling class or elite will exercise power mainly for its own benefits and in its own interests. It should be understood that the control of “the state” or the formal apparatus of government is only one means and the state itself only one instrument by which a ruling class exercises power, and the extent to which a particular ruling class will rely on the state depends on its interests and the kinds of social forces it controls. It will also make use of economic and cultural power based on its control of economic forces, or what Marx called the “instruments of production and exchange” (land, capital, technology, industrial plants, commerce, financial institutions, etc.), as well as cultural forces that essentially regulate the production and dissemination of information, values, and ideas within a society (in pre-modern societies, this means principally religion, but also the production of art, literature, music, scholarship, science, and entertainment through publishing, education, journalism, broadcasting, film, etc.). The power of a ruling class or elite is therefore not merely political power in the narrow sense of control of the formal state, elected and appointive offices, the administrative agencies, and the instruments of force (the armed forces and law enforcement services) but is structural — imbedded in the structure of the society it rules. A ruling class will usually tend to rely on one or another particular segment of the social structure — the state, the economy, or the culture — for holding and exercising power, but those segments are never entirely separate and the particular ones on which it tends to rely will depend on its own interests and beliefs as well as on the level of technological and social development of the society and on the kinds of challenges, problems, and enemies it encounters.
Although most mainstream social scientists in the United States today would not endorse it, classical elite theory is useful in answering the question “who rules America,” and its main application to American society, the theory of the managerial revolution as developed by James Burnham, was concerned to deal with that very question.
The Theory of the Managerial Revolution
Emerging from Marxism in the late 1930s, Burnham formulated the theory of the managerial revolution as an alternative to the Marxist claim that a “capitalist” ruling class held power in the United States and would soon be displaced by a proletarian revolution along Marxist lines. Although Burnham agreed with the Marxists that traditional capitalism and its ruling class were dying and were on the eve of being displaced by a social revolution, he rejected the Marxist claim that the society of the future would be the egalitarian socialism the Marxists predicted. Instead, he argued, the capitalist elite would be replaced by another elite, which he called the “managerial class.”
As Burnham used the term “manager,” it included “administrators, experts, directing engineers, production executives, propaganda specialists, technocrats” and in general those who possessed the technical skills by which the institutions and organizations of modern society are operated or “managed” — not only the large corporations of the economy but also the increasingly massive governments and political and cultural organizations of the twentieth century: public bureaucracies, mass labor unions, political parties, mass media, financial institutions, universities, foundations, and other organizations that were immense in size, scale, and technical complexity and dwarfed their institutional ancestors of the declining capitalist era. “Management” in the sense of the body of technical and managerial skills that enabled these large, complex organizations to exist and function constituted a “social force,” control of which enabled the formation of a new elite.
These mass organizations are far more powerful with respect to society than most of the older, smaller scale, and simpler ones, and within them, managers possess the real power because only they possess the skills by which the new mass organizations can be directed and operated. With respect to corporations in the economy, the stockowners, no matter how concentrated their ownership of company stock may be, simply do not and cannot perform the necessary managerial and technical functions on which the corporation depends, unless they make a special effort to acquire the needed managerial skills through education and training, and not all that many stockowners from the old capitalist upper class do so.
But the managers are by no means confined to the corporate elite; those possessing technical and managerial skills are also dominant within the state itself as the managerial bureaucracy and the mass cultural institutions, and thus they become an increasingly unified and dominant class, relying on the same managerial skills and sharing a common perceived interest and a common mentality, worldview, and ideology.
The major common interest that unites the managerial class is its need to extend and perpetuate the demand for the skills and functions on which its power and social rewards depend. The managers pursue that interest by seeking to ensure that the mass organizations they control, which require the skills and functions that only the managers can provide, are preserved and extended. Large corporations must displace and dominate small businesses. A large, centralized, bureaucratic state must displace and dominate small, localized, and decentralized government. Mass media and communications conglomerates and mass universities must displace and dominate smaller, local newspapers, publishers, colleges, and schools. Moreover, the elites that controlled these older and smaller institutions must also be displaced as the ruling class of the larger society and their ideology and cultural values discredited and rejected.
The managerial revolution therefore consists in the protracted social and political process by which the emerging new managerial class displaces the old ruling class of traditional capitalist or bourgeois society. On the institutional level this process consists of the replacement of the constitutionalist parliamentary or congressional form of government favored by the old elite with the new centralized state controlled by the bureaucracy of the new class. The new kind of state that emerges takes on new functions that increasingly require the kind of skills only the managerial bureaucrats and technocrats can provide — economic regulation, social engineering, public welfare, and scientific, administrative, and cultural functions unknown to the older states of the capitalist era. The political elite of the older state — the political class that dominated the elected and appointed offices and their political organizations — is increasingly displaced by the managerial bureaucrats of the new state and the political managers who run the new, far more complicated political parties and organizations. The same kind of institutional displacement occurs in the economy dominated by the mass corporations, which also take on functions unknown to the smaller (or even the larger) firms of the earlier era — “scientific management” of production, highly technical economic projections and development, specialized management of personnel and consumers, as well as social, political, and cultural functions not directly related to their business activities and interests. And much the same process takes place in cultural institutions as mass cultural organizations (universities, foundations, “think tanks”) and mass circulation newspapers and magazines displace smaller, locally owned and operated ones and new, nationally organized, highly technical mass media like film and radio and television broadcasting develop.
Robert Murdoch with globalist Asian wife
On the cultural and ideological level the struggle between the ascending managerial ruling class and the declining bourgeois-capitalist class has taken the form of the conflict between what emerged as the principal managerial ideology in the United States and the Western world, which has generally come to be known as “liberalism,” and the main ideology of the old capitalist elite, which came to be known as “conservatism.” The political fulfillment of the managerial revolution occurred in the early twentieth century, with a strong start under Woodrow Wilson but really culminating under Franklin Roosevelt in the New Deal and World War II era, and the struggle for social power between the new managerial liberalism and the old capitalist conservatism is evident in the political and cultural literature of the mid-century. The advertisements carried by virtually all conservative or right-wing magazines of the 1950s and 1960s were almost always from smaller, locally based, and individually owned and operated enterprises. The ads carried by the liberal or what soon became the “mainstream” magazines of the era were almost always from the Fortune 500 or similar large, managerially controlled companies.
The conservatism of that era emphasized states rights, the power of Congress over that of the presidency, loyalty to and identity with the nation and national interest rather than international or global identities, and the interests of smaller, privately owned and operated companies against larger, managerially controlled corporations. It also championed traditional religious and moral beliefs and institutions, the importance of the patriarchal family and local community, and the value of national, regional, racial, and ethnic identity, as well as the virtues of the capitalist ethic — hard work, frugality, personal honesty and integrity, individual initiative, postponement of gratification.
Like any new elite, the managerial class needed a political formula that expressed and justified its group interests against those of its older rivals in the capitalist elite. What has come to be known as “liberalism” performed that function for the new class, although it has been known under other names as well (“modernism,” “progressivism,” “humanism,” and what Burnham himself called simply “New Dealism”). Managerial liberalism justified the enlargement and centralization of the state under executive rather than congressional leadership, the primacy of the central rather than state and local government, regulation of the economy by the central state, a foreign policy of global interventionism and international organization rather than the nationalism and isolationism favored by the older capitalist class, and the development of a new culture that claimed to be more “progressive,” more “liberated,” more “humanistic,” and more “scientific” and “rational” than the culture defined by the older social and moral codes of traditional capitalism. The managerial ideology also demonized the old elite and its institutions and values as “obsolete,” “backward,” “repressive,” “exploitative,” and “narrow-minded.”
There was therefore an increasingly significant cultural and ideological schism between the new elite and the old and their respective adherents. The old elite was more or less rooted in traditional social institutions, which both served its material interests and reflected its formulas and values. It passed on its property and wealth, the basis of its power, through inheritance, and therefore it had a strong vested interest in maintaining both property rights and what are today called “family values.” The family indeed, as well as the local community, religious and ethnic identities, and the cultural and moral codes that respected and legitimized property, wealth, inheritance, social continuity, the personal virtues that helped people acquire wealth and property, and small governments that lacked the power to threaten these things, all served as power bases for the traditional elite and as major cultural and ideological supports for its interests.
The Managerial Disengagement
This was not the case with the new managerial elites. Depending on the technical skills that enable it to gain and keep power inside mass organizations, the new elite possesses a major structural interest in preserving and extending the organizations it controls and in making sure those organizations are perpetuated. The moral and social bonds of the old elite mean virtually nothing to managers, who are unable to pass on their professional skills to their children in the way that the progeny of the old elite inherited property and position. Hence, managers tend to depend on families far less than the older elite and therefore to value the family and the moral codes that reflect and reinforce it far less also. The culture the managers seek to build places more value on individual achievement and “merit” (defined largely as the ability to acquire and exercise managerial and technical skills) than on family inheritance, on sexual fulfillment than postponement of gratification and the breeding and rearing of children, on social mobility and advancement rather than identification with family, community, race, and nation.
But in addition to the family, the managerial class simply does not need other traditional institutional structures to maintain its power — not the local community, not religion, not traditional cultural and moral codes, not ethnic and racial identities, and not even the nation-state itself. Indeed, such institutions merely get in the way of managerial power. They represent barriers against which the managerial state, corporations, and other mass organizations are always bumping, and the sooner such barriers are leveled, the more reach and power the organizations, and the managerial elites that run them, will acquire. Corporations depending on mass production and mass consumption need a mass market with uniform tastes, values, and living standards that will buy what consumers are told to buy; diverse local, regional, class, and ethnic identities impede the required degree of uniformity. The same is true for the state and the mass obedience it requires and seeks to instill into the population it governs and for the mass cultural organizations and the audiences they manipulate.
Journalist David Rieff has pointed to the similarities in interests and worldview between “noted multiculturalist academics,” supposedly on the political left, on the one hand, and corporate officers, supposedly on the political right, on the other:
Far from standing in implacable intellectual opposition to each other, both groups see the same racial and gender transformations in the demographic makeup of the United States and of the American work force. That non-white workers will be the key to the twenty-first-century American labor market is a given in most sensible long-range corporate plans. Like the multiculturalists, the business elite is similarly aware of the crucial role of women, and of the need to change the workplace in such a way as to make it more hospitable to them. More generally, both CEOs and Ph.D.’s insist more and more that it is no longer possible to speak in terms of the United States as some fixed, sovereign entity. The world has moved on; capital and labor are mobile; and with each passing year national borders, not to speak of national identities, become less relevant to consciousness or to commerce.
Samuel P. Huntington has discussed and documented in some detail the “denationalization of the elites” into what he calls “Dead Souls” who “abandon commitment to their nation and their fellow citizens and argue the moral superiority of identifying with humanity at large,” a trend distinctive of economic elites with a strong material interest in economic globalization as well as of academic and intellectual elites:
Involvement in transnational institutions, networks, and activities not only defines the global elite but also is critical to achieving elite status within nations. Someone whose loyalties, identities, involvements are purely national is less likely to rise to the top in business, academia, the media, the professions, than someone who transcends these limits. Outside politics, those who stay home stay behind.
Long before these writers, however, Burnham himself was quite specific about what he called the “world policy of the managers,” their rejection of the sovereign nation-states that had prevailed in the capitalist era as obsolete units that were simply obstacles to their group interests and the needs of the global order they sought to create.
Just as the managerial ruling class rejects independent nationhood and national sovereignty as organizational forms, so it will also reject ideologies such as nationalism that justify and reflect national sovereignty, independence, and identity, as well as any ideology or belief that justifies any particular group identity and loyalty — national, regional, racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious. The managerial class therefore tends to disengage from the nation state as well as from these other identities. Its interests extend across many different nations, races, religions, and cultures and are transnational and supra-national, detached and disengaged from — and actually hostile to — any particular place or group or set of beliefs that supports particular identities.
Hence, the managerial elite has a proclivity toward as well as a material interest in adopting and promoting ideologies of universalism, egalitarianism, cultural relativism, behaviorism, and “blank slate” environmental determinism. As Rieff writes:
If any group has embraced the rallying cry “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go,” it is the world business elite. . . for businessmen, something more is at stake than ideas. Eurocentrism makes no economic sense in a world where, within twenty-five years, the combined gross national product of East Asia will likely be larger than Europe’s and twice that of the United States. In such a world, the notion of the primacy of Western culture will only be an impediment to the chief goal of every company: the maximization of profits.
The new managerial elite therefore became closely wedded to the doctrine of social environmentalism as a rationalization of its own role, power, and social rewards in the system it constructed, and this powerful vested interest in environmentalist theory by itself helps account for the persistent strong attachment of the elite to the theory and its applications in social policy.
Academic theorists of environmentalist doctrines such as Lester Frank Ward, Charles Horton Cooley, John Dewey, Franz Boas and his school in anthropology, and behaviorist John B. Watson in psychology were essential ideological architects of the new managerial system of social control. Watson in a famous remark boasted that if you gave him an infant at birth, he could train him to become “any type of specialist I might select — doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggarman and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.” By the end of the 1920s, Watson’s behaviorism, wrote sociologist E. Digby Baltzell, “was not only the most fashionable school of psychology in this country but also became the central theory of human nature upon which the great industry of advertising was being built. . . Faith in conditioning became the basis of social control in the new manipulative society, composed of citizen comrades in the U.S.S.R. and citizen consumers in the U.S.A.”
Managerial reliance on what is now known to have been pseudoscience in state-managed social engineering was paralleled in the managerial economy through “industrial sociology” under the influence of Elton Mayo and reflected, as Daniel Bell wrote, “a change in the outlook of management, parallel to that which is occurring in the culture as a whole, from authority to manipulation as a means of exercising dominion. . . the older modes of overt coercion are now replaced by psychological per-suasion.” Watson himself, as historian Stuart Ewen noted:
provided psychological avenues by which home life might be supplanted by the stimulation of the senses — a direction toward which business in its advertising was increasingly gravitating. Pleasure that could be achieved by the individual within the home and community was attacked and deemphasized, as corporate enterprise formulated commoditized sensual gratification.
The ideological reconstruction of American society to suit the needs and interests of the emerging managerial class thus involved a repudiation of the older values, codes, and belief-systems of the old elite and a cultural conflict with those who continued to adhere to them.
The Agenda of Dispossession
“Taking Out the White Trash” — so says the globalist mag The Economist.
The rise to power of the new managerial elite in the United States (and in other Western states as well) in the early and mid-twentieth century and the need of the new elite to formulate a new ideology or political formula and reconstruct society around it provides an explanation of why the dominant authorities in these countries today continue to support the dispossession of whites and the cultural and political destruction of the older American and Western civilization centered on whites and of why they not only fail to resist the anti-white demands of non-whites but actively support and subsidize them. These policies on the part of the new elite are not the result of “decadence” or “guilt” but of the group interests of the elite itself, imbedded in and arising from the structure of their power and position and rationalized in their consciousness by the political formula of managerial liberalism. It is in the interests of the new elite, in other words, to destroy and eradicate the older society and the racial and cultural identities and consciousness associated with it (not race alone, but also virtually any distinctive traditional group identity or bond, cultural, biological, or political). To those (“conservatives”) who continue to adhere to the norms of the older society, of course, managerial behavior appears as decadence, degeneracy, cowardice, appeasement, pandering, or guilt, but what is an evil, misguided, or suicidal pathology to the “conservative” forces who are still shaped by the older codes and institutions in fact reflects the interest and the health of the forces centered around the creation and control of the new society. The interests of the managerial elite, in other words, are antagonistic to the survival of the traditional racial and institutional identity of the society it dominates.
The emergence of the managerial elite promotes the dispossession and even the destruction of whites in the United States in two major ways. First, as this essay has tried to argue, it does so directly because the structure of managerial interests and power is in conflict with any strong sense of racial as well as with strong national, religious, or other group identity. These interests, entering into the very mentality of the managerial class, push the leadership of the new society toward the rejection of the racial and cultural fabric of traditional white Western civilization, and the new culture they try to create is one that rejects and denies the value of such identities and values.
Second, however, because the new managerial elite rejects and destroys the mechanisms of the old elite that excluded other ethnic, racial, and religious groups, such groups are often able to permeate the managerial power structure and acquire levels of power unavailable to them in pre-managerial society and to advance their own interests and agendas by means of the managerial instruments of power. These ethnic forces, articulating their own strong racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious consciousness, invoke managerial liberal slogans of “equality,” “tolerance,” “diversity,” etc., to challenge traditional white dominance but increasingly aspire to cultural and political supremacy themselves, excluding whites and rejecting and dismantling the institutional fabric of their society. Kevin MacDonald has documented in immense detail how Jewish groups seeking to advance their own ethnically based agendas have accomplished this, and since a central part of those agendas include the eradication of the historic ethnic, racial, and religious barriers and beliefs that excluded Jews and were perceived as leading to their persecution, the Jewish agenda and that of the managerial elite are in this respect perfectly congruent with each other. Indeed, so prominent have Jews become within the elite (especially its cultural sector) that it is fair to say that Jews within the managerial elite serve as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class, providing ideological justification of its structure and policies, disseminating its ideological formulas to the mass population, formulating and often implementing specific policies, and providing much of the specialized educational training essential to the transmission and perpetuation of the technocratic skills of the elite. In this respect, Jews perform a support function (in this case, a cultural and ideological one rather than tax-collecting or money-lending) for the largely non-Jewish elite similar to those they performed for various European aristocracies in the past (e.g., in early modern Poland). Thus the emergence of “neo-conservatism” in recent decades reflects not only the Jewish interests and identities of its principal formulators and exponents but also, unlike the older conservatism of the pre-managerial elite, the interests of the managerial class as a whole in conserving the new political and cultural order that class has created but rejecting and dismantling the pre-managerial order the older conservatism sought to defend.
The managerial elite, however, also has allied with other ethnic and racial groups, most of which share its interest in eliminating white racial identity and the cultural forces that support it. Like the Jewish allies of the elite and the elite itself, these non-white groups seek to eradicate white racial identity and its institutional expression, but unlike the elite, they also often seek to promote their own racial consciousness and identity. Thus, while explicitly white racial identity is virtually forbidden and strictly punished by the managerial elite, institutions that reflect explicit nonwhite or anti-white identities are tolerated and encouraged. Groups such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”), and any number of professional, student, and political organizations, the names, membership, and agendas of which are explicitly racial, are not only tolerated but are often the recipients of millions of dollars in grants and philanthropy from the managerial state and managerial corporations and foundations.
In effect, the alliance between racially conscious non-white forces and the rising managerial elite in the last century represents a managerial partnership with a historical process that originally was entirely separate and different from the managerial revolution, what Lothrop Stoddard called “The Rising Tide of Color,” the emergence of racial consciousness and identity and the political aspirations shaped by race among the non-white peoples of the non-Western world and the subordinate non-white populations within the West. What Stoddard was describing is virtually identical to the world-historical process that the late sociologist and historian Robert A. Nisbet called the “racial revolution,” the replacement by “color” of “nationality and economic class as the major setting for revolutionary thrust, strategy, tactics, and also philosophy.” While the new elite rejected “white racism” and all vestiges of white racial and cultural identity and heritage in order to displace its rivals in the older elite and to engineer and manage a new, culturally and racially homogenized global social order that reflected its own interests, the non-white racial forces with which it allied rejected white racial supremacy and identity in part to revolt against and overthrow (“liberate” themselves from) white domination (a phase of the racial revolution generally called by the benign label of the “civil rights movement”) but in part also to pursue their own racial power and aspirations. While for several decades there appeared to be a conjunction of interests between the elite and its non-white allies in the elimination of all racial identities and consciousness, today, as non-whites increasingly assert their own racial identities, aspirations, and ambitions for power, serious conflicts between the elite and non-white racial movements may occur, and such conflicts may eventually destabilize the managerial elite or even displace it from power as a new social force — non-white racial consciousness and the energies it mobilizes — challenges the social force of the managerial class. As historian Paul Gottfried comments, “Hispanic racialists, Third World patriarchs, and Mexican irredentists will likely eat up the present regime, if given the demographic chance.”
But there is little sign of an emerging white racial identity capable of challenging either the managerial power structure, its anti-white universalist ideology and agenda, or the direct racial threat whites face from non-white and anti-white enemies. The new elite and its non-white allies have weakened or destroyed the belief systems, moral values , cultural legacies, and social bonds and institutions that made whites conscious of who and what they are and sustained within them a determination to survive and prevail. Until such mechanisms can be rebuilt, there appears to be little prospect of whites overcoming or even adequately recognizing the threats and challenges they face today, and those mechanisms cannot be rebuilt as long as the managerial elite remains in power, as long as its universalist and egalitarian ideology remains the dominant political and cultural formula, and as long as the anti-white allies of the elite share power with the elite. What whites must recognize, if they wish to survive at all, is that the forces that have destroyed their civilization are the same forces that rule its ruins and whose rule brought it to ruin. Not until those forces are themselves displaced from power will the whites of the future be able to recover the legacy their ancestors created and left for them. Posted at 10:1445 Commentsgenocide of whitesglobalismreplacement of WhitesSamuel Francis (contributor)White race
Canada’s immigration and border restrictions are set to ease up tomorrow after an extended coronavirus lockdown.
Starting October 8, extended family members of Canadians, as well as those visiting Canada on compassionate grounds, will be allowed to cross the border provided they quarantine for 14 days. Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada has also announced that beginning October 13, permanent residents and new Canadians will again be allowed to apply to sponsor grandparents and parents to immigrate to Canada. The refugee hearing process resumed in August.
But despite an easing of restrictions for refugees, immigrants and visitors to cross the border, holidays are being cancelled across Canada as politicians urge Canadians to not celebrate in an attempt to stop the spread of COVID-19.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford has also urged families to stay apart this Thanksgiving, stating “This Thanksgiving, we’re asking that you spend the holiday with just your household.” He continued on to clarify, “That means sitting down for dinner with the people you live with.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau echoed Ford’s sentiments, going so far as to suggest that Canadians should be concerned about the fate of their Christmas. Trudeau went on to say that Canada’s largest provinces were already experiencing a “second wave” of COVID-19.
A horrific and savage act of terrorism has been perpetrated in France.
A middle school history teacher had shown photos of the Muslim prophet Muhammed to students.
Then, a student shouting “Allahu Akbar” BEAHEADED the teacher in the street with a knife.
Afterwards, the student was confronted by police in the town of Eragny-sur-Oise near Paris, and shot.
The terrorist later died of their injuries.
According to someone who spoke to the French paper Le Parisien, “‘The victim had recently given a lesson to his students on freedom of expression and had shown the caricatures of Muhammad’. The murdered teacher was later identified as Samuel P.
His lesson led to an enraged man confronting him with a knife, and then cutting his head off, said the source.
The dead suspected terrorist was described as an 18-year-old who was born in Moscow, and who had links with the school.”
It is believed the student is a Chechen, one of about 30,000 Chechens who fled the war in Russia and went to France – including many with past combat experience.
The terrorist also apparently put up a video of the attack, including him holding the severed head of the teacher.
The authorities have said they are investigating the attack as terrorism. French President Emmanuel Macron is set to visit the area after holding an emergency meeting.
