Defamation Factory, Prt.2: The ADL vs Henry Ford

T h e A D L

v s

H e n r y F o r d



Shortly after the ADL’s formation and the Frank Case’s close, war reared its ugly head – World War I, the first “great war,” of the industrialized age, had begun. 52 year old automotive industrialist and beloved American icon, Henry Ford, upon hearing of the continental strife, was horrified. A pacifistic man by nature, Ford abhorred war; during that time oft remarking how wasteful and hideous the whole affair was. He noted to the Detroit Free Press that American armament creation was “-wasteful and war-breeding.” But Ford was not a man who let things pass him by and so sought to rectify the situation by sailing out to Europe in protest on a “peace ship.” The idea for the venture had come from a Hungarian Jew and idealistic suffragette named Rosika Schwimmer who Ford, a liberal, supported for her stalwart opposition to the war. With Ford’s cry of, “We’re going to get the boys out of the trenches by Christmas!” Ford set off to Europe on the Scandinavian-American ship Oscar II to mediate the belligerent continental powers – yet before the departure a incident occurred which so outraged Schwimmer that she would later proclaim it “-cheap and vulgar.” What induced such emotions in the feminist-crusader was a series of proclamations made by Mr. Ford during a conversation pertaining to the root-cause(s) of the war; Ford said, “I know who caused the war– the German-Jewish bankers. I have the evidence here,” the industrialist slapped his pocket triumphantly,”Facts. I can’t give them out yet because I haven’t got them all. But I’ll have them soon.”

When The War ended in 1918, Henry Ford commissioned his private secretary, Ernest Gustav Leibold to purchase The Dearborn Independent (later it would also be known as The Ford International Weekly) from the previous owner, Marcus Woodruff who had been operating the company at a loss. The used press for the publication was ensconced in the now famous Rouge River Factory in Dearborn, Michigan, the area from which the publication derived its name. Ford maintained several of the key figures of the previous staff such as E.G. Pipp and a former Detroit news writer, William J. Cameron who would write the column known as Mr. Ford’s Page, in addition to many of the seminal pieces in the paper’s canon.

One year later, as the Independent‘s publication formally began under its new owner, Ford took a camping trip with his good friends, Harvey Firestone, founder of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, John Burroughs the renowned essayist and naturalist, and Thomas Alva Edison, the “Wizard of Menlo Park.”

Burroughs recalled in his diaries that during the meeting of these great men Ford spoke a good deal about “the Jews” and their relation to The War. When Edison remarked upon the decline of the United States navy Ford promptly noted that Jewish meddling had brought about this particularly unhappy inefficiency. Somewhat later, at the Ford Motor Company, a executive would find Mr. Ford alone at night, the two striking up a conversation which turned to the “Peace Ship” voyage. The executive asked Ford what he had gotten out of the venture which had ostensibly been a total failure, both in terms of its intended effects and in terms of public perception. Ford responded in a mysterious, knowing fashion,

I know who makes the wars – the international Jewish bankers arrange them so they can make money out of them.” He further added, “I know it’s true because a Jew on the Peace Ship told me.. .That man knew what he was talking about – gave me the whole story. We’re going to tell the whole story one of these days and show them up!”

It was a statement that would prove quite prophetic, for in 1920, Ford issued forth a striking, inflammatory piece in his now well-syndicated publication titled, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. A section of the article reads as follows,

The Jew is again being singled out for critical attention throughout the world. His emergence in the financial, political and social spheres has been so complete and spectacular since the war, that his place, power and purpose in the world are being given a new scrutiny, much of it unfriendly. Persecution is not a new experience to the Jew, but intensive scrutiny of his nature and super-nationality is. He has suffered for more than 2,000 years from what may be called instinctive anti-Semitism of the other races, but this antagonism has never been intelligent nor has it been able to make itself intelligible. Nowadays, however, the Jew is being placed, as it were, under the microscope of economic observation that the reasons for his power, the reasons for his separateness, the reasons for his suffering may be defined and understood. In Russia he is charged with being the source of Bolshevism, an accusation which is serious or not according to the circle in which it is made; we in America, hearing the fervid eloquence and perceiving the prophetic ardor of young Jewish apostles of social and industrial reform, can calmly estimate how it may be. In Germany he is charged with being the cause of the Empire’s collapse and a very considerable literature has sprung up, bearing with it a mass of circumstantial evidence that gives the thinker pause. In England he is charged with being the real world ruler, who rules as a super-nation over the nations, rules by the power of gold, and who plays nation against nation for his own purposes, remaining himself discreetly in the background. In America it is pointed out to what extent the elder Jews of wealth and the younger Jews of ambition swarmed through the war organizations — principally those departments which dealt with the commercial and industrial business of war, and also the extent to which they have clung to the advantage which their experience as agents of the government gave them.”

[The Dearborn Independent, issue 12, June, 1920]

The basic thesis of the sum-total text was that a largely monolithic cabal of Jewish banksters from various different countries, including America, France, England and Germany, had schemed in such a fashion so as bring about the first World War for the purposes of financial gain and their own group’s ethnic and political advancement and were now scheming to do as much again.

Ford had four paperback, feature-length books published via the Dearborn Publishing Company concerning Jewish influence, those being The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem (1920), Jewish Activities In The United States (1921), Jewish Influences In American Life (1921) and lastly, Aspects of Jewish Power In The United States (1922). These various volumes are sometimes all colloquially referred to as The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem and were widely distributed in various versions and languages, both in the US and further abroad.

Despite being a success, the volumes and articles rather predictably whipped up a fervor within the Jewish community and those who sympathized with them. It was a push-back which Ford had predicted when, in The International Jew, William J. Cameron (who penned the majority of the Jewish-critical pieces) wrote,

In simple words, the question of the Jews has come to the fore, but like other questions which lend themselves to prejudice, efforts will be made to hush it up as impolitic for open discussion. If, however, experience has taught us anything it is that questions thus suppressed will sooner or later break out in undesirable and unprofitable forms.”

[The Dearborn Independent, issue 12, June, 1920]

It was a statement that would prove all too accurate, as the articles were widely circulated (The Dearborn Independent had a peak circulation of around 700,000, though some sources place it at 900,000) and also widely read and trusted (especially by European Americans), due to Ford’s popularity as a affable captain of industry and champion of the working man – indeed, it would not be hyperbolic to say that Ford, during the 1920s was one of the best-loved and respected men in all of America. Ford was also one of the richest with a vertically integrated company worth billions (around $ 199 billion, to be precise). He ingeniously engineered cars in such a fashion so as to make them available to the common man, rather than mere playthings of the ultra-rich, as they had been since their inception. Despite his esteem and monumental accomplishments, not everyone was pleased with the industrialist’s work, especially not the Jewish-American community who swiftly began boycotting his products and sending letter after letter of vitriolic complaint to Ford. The most egregiously aroused of these poison-penners consisted of the National Council of Jewish Women, The Central Conference of American Rabbis as well as the still very active, B’nai B’rith, whose current chair was the league’s founder and prominent attorney, Sigmund Livingston.

Outraged that Ford and his agents were able to freely disseminate their “anti-Semitic” opinions, these incensed organizations pooled their efforts and sought out the Anti-Defamation League, demanding prompt and decisive action. The ADL readily agreed that something should be done about the Jewish-critical articles and set itself into a vigorous contemplation of how best to shutdown the publication and tarnish Ford’s reputation as well as his various employees and associates. The League’s first course of action was to set forth a pamphlet entitled, The Poison Pen, which harshly criticized the Dearborn Independent. The ADL’s actions were incredibly effective, so much so that shortly after the publication of The Poison Pen, then-President Woodrow Wilson, as well as former presidents, Taft and Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan, along with other prominent and ostensibly respectable individuals, signed a paper titled, The Perils of Racial Prejudice. The tract vociferously denounced The Dearborn International and vehemently urged public opinion-makers to “strike at” the “un-Christian” and “un-American” publication. All of the signees were notable in that they were all gentiles, that is, non-Jews, they were also all Christians. Continuing on this theme, the Michigan publication was also denounced by the now defunct religious coalition known as the Federal Council of Churches, a ecumencial Protestant organization comprised of thirty-two different Christian sub-demoninations.

Presidents, present and former, and ardent Judeo-Christians, however, were not the only ones to take aim at the publication and Ford himself; the well-known lawyer, Samuel Untermeyer wrote that The International Jew read as if it had been penned by a madman and additionally remarked that the piece had become, “-the Bible of every anti-Semite.”

Despite the increasing ferocity and frequency of the press vitriol against him and his paper, Ford did not back down and instead, continued on with his publications against “International Jewry” (it is here of note that during this time Jews themselves utilized the phrase “Jewry,” generally in a positive communal sense).

Eventually, Ford’s social efforts turned toward the Jewish-lead agricultural cooperation movement and its relationship to American husbandry. The movement was helmed by a man named Aaron Sapiro, a Jewish lawyer and political activist who had received notoriety in 1923 and 1924 for several prominent speeches he had given in the States and the Canadian Provinces, principally, Saskatchewan. Despite his humble origins, short statue (his growth had been stunted from malnutrition) and relatively low social standing, Sapiro’s intelligence, idealism and magnetic charisma inspired both popularity and loyalty. After years of giving numerous speeches concerning agricultural reform and progressive social issues all about the states, Sapiro began coordinating what came to be known as “The Sapiro Plan,” which advocated for agricultural cooperatives that would focus on commodity-specific strategies rather than on territory specific strategy, ideas which were initially espoused by his mentor, Dave Lubin who was a key player in the internationalization of American markets at the time.

In April, 1924, the former rabbinical student, Sapiro, became aware of the Independent‘s section titled, Jewish Exploitation of the American Farmer’s Organizations: Monopoly Traps Operate Under the Guise of Marketing Associations,” which was featured in The International Jew. The piece mentioned Sapiro by name and harshly criticized him and various other Jewish co-op advocates. One section of the piece noted that Sapiro’s meddling had “-turned millions away from the pockets of the men who till the soil and into the hands of the Jews and their followers.” Sapiro, a rather ill-tempered and vengeful man, took Ford to court for libel in 1925, in a federal district court in Chicago. Ford happily obliged despite concerns from his right-hand man Liebold who had, until this time, been the foremost champion of the paper’s Jewish-critical efforts.

Now the trial itself and its principal players bare some deliberation as it was a most curious affair, especially where Sapiro is concerned, for the historical narrative here gets rather polemical. Upon looking the case up online one (especially on the ADL’s website) is given the impression of a wholly one-sided play, with Aaron Sapiro playing a near-helpless yet heroically tenacious, almost messianic figure, fighting against the defamation of his people and Ford assuming the role of a cartoonishly malevolent (or sometimes incompetent) big-money bigot who simply can’t wait to crush “the little guy.”

Obviously, things were a bit more subtle and complicated than all that. One of the people who has done the utmost to bring this particular piece of history to the fore is the research professor for the American Bar Association of Chicago, Victoria Saker Woeste. Ms. Woest has done much work concerning the history of Ford’s legal disputes, typified in her most recent book upon the subject titled, Henry Ford’s War On Jews And The Legal Battle For Hate Speech (2016). From the title alone one understands immediately that Ms. Woeste is, despite her claims to the contrary, engaging in a highly polemical exercise that is painting Ford as a villain from the outset. It is clear that her work is biased from the start against Ford and upon listening to her speak or reading her work one quickly realizes that she has great admiration for Sapiro which is understandable given his accomplishments and obvious intellectual gifts for organization, rhetoric and agricultural innovation.

That being said, Sapiro was no saint and neither was he, as Woeste describes him, “-a nobody from California.” This is manifestly untrue, however. In fact, by 1925, Sapiro had amassed around 890,000 farmers from all across the nation into his cooperative network. The New York Times described him as, “-the leader of one of the greatest agricultural movements of modern times.” Clearly Sapiro was not some random roustabout, not “the little guy” or average Joe, but rather quite a powerful figure, which is not to say that one should hold this fact against him (or Ford, for that matter) but the issue should be clearly and factually stated to better understand the context of what was next to transpire.

Sapiro went for broke and sued Ford for $ 1 million dollars in damages – to put this sum in its proper historical context, then-president Calvin Coolidge was earning only $ 75,000 a year! Sapiro also went further, claiming that Ford had not just libeled him, personally, but that the auto-tycoon had also libeled the whole Jewish race. Unfortunately, for Sapiro, the case in question concerned only Ford and Sapiro himself meaning that any comments pertaining to anyone other than Sapiro were inadmissible since hate speech legislation had not, at this point in time, been wholly instantiated within America’s legal infrastructure. Furthermore, Louis Marshall, a famous lawyer and Jewish civil right’s leader who had been brought into the case by a friend of Ford’s named Earl Davis, was none too keen on Sapiro’s ethnocentric appeals. Marshall, though a supporter of the Belfour Declaration and the then-president of the American-Jewish Committee, never involved himself in cases pertaining to “anti-Semitism.” Instead, Marshall (who had staunchly opposed Sapiro’s libel suit from the get-go) wanted to settle the suit in a way that would benefit all parties involved without overt appeals to ethnocentricity (though, it should be said, Marshall very much wanted things to end in manner which would benefit the Jewish community). To this end Marshall extended his help to Ford under one condition, that the industrialist repudiate his infamous work, The International Jew – this despite the fact that Sapiro’s suit against Ford had absolutely nothing to do with the whole of the publication, but merely a 1924 addition of the paper which mentioned Sapiro by name.

Ford was stretched thin at this point in time given that his new Model A car was slated to be released very soon, additionally he had been run off the road (allegedly) during the course of the trial and may have feared for his life, thus, he readily agreed to Marshall’s plan and allowed a letter to be written which denounced his previous works and praised the Jewish peoples. Upon Marshall’s publication of “Ford’s” letter of apology (which Ford did not write nor sign) the Jewish community (for the most part) praised him. Sapiro was not convinced that his wily foe was truly repentant but decided that he had accomplished all that he had wanted – Sapiro’s legal expenses were also quite considerable, which was another factor which doubtless played into his acquiescence of the apology.

Ford himself, never apologized for the affair nor did he ever see the note of apology according to one of his closest associates, a Jew named Harry Bennett (who signed the Marshall apology). Indeed, Bennet wrote a whole book concerning the affair and Ford more generally, entitled, Ford: We Never Called Him Henry (1950).

Ford and Sapiro reached a out-of-court settlement in 1927. On December the 31st of that same year Henry Ford would close up The Dearborn Independent for good.

Ford was perhaps the most illustrious and well known of the ADL’s targets and one who, in life, they were never able to defeat. Yet in death, the organization continues to defame the great industrialist even as they (begrudging) sing his well-earned praises. For instance, in a bevvy of articles published to the ADL’s main web-page they consistently mention Ford’s name in connection with a host of disreputable and trouble-makers, such as the Nation of Islam’s vociferous racialist preacher, Louis Farrakhan who has, in the past, made a number of bizarre, empirically unverified or unverifiable statements such as, “You [black people] are not now, nor have you ever been a citizen of America. You are a slave to white America,” he has also made the peculiar remark that, “The Mother Wheel is a heavily armed spaceship the size of a city, which will rain destruction upon white America but save those who embrace the Nation of Islam.” For the purposes of clarification, Farrakhan meant the latter comment literally. Regardless of your opinion of Farrakhan, the ADL’s constant mentioning of Ford in proximity to Farrakhan seems to be a way in which to say, “Look, if you criticize ethnocentric Jews you’ll end up believing in Mother Wheels and demons!” This conclusion is somewhat speculative, I will admit, so let use turn our attention to the more fundamental and more empirically demonstrable issue – Ford’s supposed “anti-Semitism.”

Was for a anti-Semite? Well before we can answer that question we must accurately define our terms. Taken literally, anti-Semite seems to mean someone who is opposed to all Semites – that is to say, to all who speak a Semitic language. The problem here is that this definition would include a large array of other ethnic and religious groups, such as Arabs who, in turn, are merely a people who speak Arabic. One never hears Muslim-critical speech defined as “anti-Semitic” nor are the originators of such speech ever described as “anti-Semites.” Clearly, the phrase anti-Semite is not, in common parlance, meant to be taken literally, which, in my opinion, is highly unfortunate as any word which has multiple and non-literal meanings gains the troublesome attribute of identity-amorphism, that is to say, it seems to be a thing when one wishes it to be a thing and not, when one does not.

Given that we are talking primarily about the ADL, let us turn our attention to their definition of “anti-Semitism” for the purposes of further clarification. According to the ADL, anti-Semitism is defined as:

The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them.

It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.

Now this definition is, in fact, even more broad then the literal definition of the term. For where it says, “-to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them,” we must ask who is the “them” to which they are referring? Even though the ADL itself oft complains when any individual looks upon the whole of the Jewish peoples as a monolith, this seems to be, here, precisely what they are doing. That being said, let us see if the ADL’s definition, poor and amorphous as it is, applies to Ford himself.

Certainly Ford did not consider ALL Jews a monolith, for the very title of his book, The International Jew, attests to this very fact. Whether you think he was largely correct or largely incorrect as regards his (and Cameron’s and Liebold’s) theories about this international group is irrelevant to whether or not he believed ALL of the Jewish people acted ever in concert. If Ford really was opposed to ALL Jews in uniformity he simply would have named the book “The Jew,” leaving aside the descriptor “International.” In addition to this, we must also consider the fact that Ford had many Jewish friends and employed thousands of Jews at his factories (which he paid just the same as any of his other employees). Ford himself was shocked at the vitriolic outrage he received from some of his Jewish friends after the publication of his papers, yet many of those very same friends remained by his side all throughout the car-king’s battles with Hollywood, the ADL, Sapiro and various international forces. In fact, Ford was so fond of one of his Jewish friends, a popular rabbi named Leo Franklin, that once, every year, the industrialist would send him a brand new car – free – as a show of appreciation. Yet, once Ford and Cameron began publishing their Jewish-critical pieces, and the next year came, Franklin rejected the car, telling the driver, “I can’t accept that.” Ford, confused and concerned, called his friend, asking, “Rabbi, has something come between us?” Franklin responded, “Yeah, you’re attacking Jews. I can’t accept anything from you.” Ford responded matter-of-factly, “No, I’m not attacking Jews, I’m attacking bad Jews. I would think you’d be supportive of that.”

The rabbi wrote of The Dearborn Independent’s articles,

“Such venom could only some from a Jew-hater of the lowest type, and here it was appearing in a newspaper owned and controlled by one whom the Jews had counted among their friends. It was veritably a bolt out of the blue.”

Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate, Neil Baldwin (2003)

Despite the rabbi’s misgivings, and obvious sense of disappointment and resentment, he and Ford eventually patched up their relationship and remained fast-friends until Franklin’s death in the late 40s. Additionally, Ford was also considered, both at the time and in modern-day publications by most liberal thinkers to be “ahead of his time” on race and gender issues (so long as they were not race and gender issues related to Jews). For instance, Ford employed both women and blacks at a time when very few other companies would – not only that, but he also paid them the exact same wage as his white, male workers.

In his book, Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate, the cultural historian, Neil Baldwin writes that Ford’s social views were indicative of a “-almost bipolar trait.” Yet there is nothing “bipolar” about dichotomizing any given ethnic group into good and bad categories so long as the distinctions made are accurate. Such a principal holds regardless of whether one disagrees or agrees with Ford and Cameron’s conclusions. Indeed, the United States government does as much to this very day, they merely do not call it as such; for why would a government note race-&-religion in crime statistics if those who compiled them were not interested in mapping out and dichotomizing said groups along such lines as good and bad individuals? The answer is clear, they would not, for unlike a think-tank, the government is not collecting such information merely for academic purposes but for future enforcement of law and the safeguarding of their interests. Additionally, many of the Jewish groups which Baldwin seems to think were horribly maligned were doing precisely what he criticizes Ford for (in that many Jews considered Ford to be a bad euro-American) – were they “bipolar?” I shall not put words in anyone’s mouth – one would have to ask Mr. Baldwin to be sure – but it doesn’t seem a stretch to assume his answer would be a resounding, “No.” At this point I am hopeful that the reader will discern that, though Ford, though he certainly made mistakes, was not the ignorant, hateful schizoid who so many scholars seem to make him out to be; nor was he a “anti-Semite” even by the ADL’s own proffered definition of the very word.

Popular opinion held that Ford was the loser of the affair, albeit a fairly gracious one and Aaron Sapiro the victor. Such sentiments, however, betrayed the truth of the matter and all that was later to transpire for the libel case had nearly bankrupted Sapiro who had moved from New York City to Chicago where he was warmly embraced by the Jewish community. More damaging than that, however, was a series of incidents in Chicago that seem to lend some credence to the claims that Ford and William J. Cameron laid out against the Jewish lawyer. On July 28th 1933, Aaron Sapiro was implicated in a Chicago-based racketeering scheme alongside none other than crime boss Al Capone as well as Capone’s likely heir, Murray Humphreys. The Michigan Daily describes the event thusly,

Chicago’s War On Gangsters

NEW YORK, July 27.-(AP)-Aaron Sapiro was taken to Police Headquarters late today, charged with being a fugitive from Chicago, where he was indicted on a charge of racketeering conspiracy.

CHICAGO, July 27.-(W)-Reputable attorneys and industrial arbiters, labor union bosses, plain hoodlums and Al Capone himself were named alike in a blanket indictment today, charging 24 men with bombing, acid-throwing and restraint of legitimate trade through terrorism. A eminent among the defendants were:

AARON SAPIRO, New York attorney, who once sued Henry Ford for $1,000,000. He is a pioneer organizer of the co-operative marketing movement in the United States, named because he was counsel for nearly a year of the Chicago Laundry Owners Association. He quit June 2.

DR. BENJAMIN M. SQUIRES, University of Chicago lecturer on economics, Federal labor mediator who was appointed head of the Master Cleaners and Dyers Institute of Chicago for the announced purpose of eradicating the gangsters.

ALDERMAN OSCAR NELSON, Republican leader of the City.Council, attorney for the Dye House Drivers Union.

AL CAPONE, who might still be the czar of Chicago’s outlaw labor rackets, ruling by the gun, had the Government not put him in prison for 11 years on an income tax evasion conviction.

MURRAY HUMPHREYS, successor to Capone as Public Enemy No.1, business boss of the syndicate, a fugitive now from Federal indictments charging that he dodged his income tax bill.

Sapiro was acquitted of the charges, namely, labor racketeering, but then again, so were all of the 22 defendants, several of whom were then or are now, well known criminals, chief among which is notorious Chicago-based, prohibition era crime boss, Al Capone. It should also be noted that Sapiro’s freedom was only assured after the Illinois attorney general killed himself. Let us also note that a

Sapiro’s affiliation to syndicated crime lends some credibility here to Ford and Cameron’s assertion’s over shady dealings and plans. There is also the fact that Dave Lubin and Sapiro’s plans would have effectively cornered the wheat market across international lines, which, regardless of intentions, was something which wasn’t at all irrational to oppose.

Regardless of whether Sapiro was guilty of the racketeering scheme, his agricultural plan would have done nearly everything which Cameron and Ford accused him of – the principal question here is merely of motivation, was it nefarious or benign? That is a matter still of historical dispute and thus I shall not take pains here to answer it and leave it up to the reader to decide. Instead, I wish to re-direct our attention, for Sapiro was not the only was he indicted on charges of a racketeering scheme (which he may, or may not have been a part of) he also had a very close association with a man whose name conjures up the blackest of villainy.

Meyer Lansky.

Yet Sapiro was the least of the players involved in the Ford affair who were connected to organized crime; the most prominent of them all was none other than the ADL itself.

Persuasion Fixation and Optics Obsession

There is a recent Dilbert comic written by Scott Adams wherein the titular character speaks with his boss who says:

  1. Boss: I don’t like the optics of your plan.
  2. Dilbert: Its the only plan that can work. Should I change it to something that looks good but won’t work?
  3. Boss: Excellent idea, you might have more management potential than I’d thought.

Now this is a very incisive parody of office politics but it is also a panel which runs counter to a great deal of the ideas which Adams himself expresses and champions. If you want a example of just what I’m talking about all one has to do is listen to one of the cartoonists’ periscope broadcasts or read one of his blogs. Here is a good sample from Adam’s blog to illustrate my point (bold-face mine):

To me, that all seemed clear enough. I completely understand Sam’s criticisms of President Trump’s use of hyperbole and his casual relationship with the facts on the stuff that generally doesn’t matter. (As I like to say, President Trump is consistently “directionally accurate” even when he is playing loose with the facts. Persuasion looks exactly like that.


He is right, of course, that persuasion can easily be achieved by “playing loose with the facts,” and by continuously maintaining a “casual relationship” to them. Yet, sacrificing forthright speech, honesty and factual accuracy for Adam’s opaque notion of “directional accuracy” is inherently and fundamentally championing dishonesty. There is just no other way to spin it.

Adams’ condescending response which is, itself, a evasion of the points raised.

Additionally, what is “the stuff that generally doesn’t matter,” that Adams speaks of so blithely? More to the point, it doesn’t matter whether or not one’s falsehoods come back to bite them or anyone else, what matters is that said individual lied in the the first place. Extenuating circumstances aside, lying is almost always bad, for everyone, including the liar in the long run and what Adams is doing is re-framing every conversation about truth, honesty and fact as one that is instead about looking good, sounding good and being persuasive, what is generally referred to in political parlance as “optics.”

The quickest way to lose a argument is to evade response and simply declare by fiat that your opponent is spouting “nonsense” especially since that “nonsense” were, verbatim, things that Adams had previously said.

Obviously, optics are exceedingly important but – as Adam’s own creation Dilbert tells us – they aren’t everything and should never be placed about the truth. Yet Adams regularly does this when he talks of Trump’s “directional accuracy.” He is, in essence, contradicting himself in the strongest of possible terms as all direction accuracy means is “That guy accomplished his goals, he just had to bury a lot of inconvenient facts along the way to do so.”

Adamsites vs rogue feminists

I should like to here take a moment to preempt some predictable criticism, criticism which Adams and his followers have vigorously rehearsed, namely that anyone who would criticize Adam’s for what Sam Harris criticizes him for must be a “anti-Trumper.” Now it does appear true (from what I have seen via social media outlets) that Adam’s primary detractors over the question of honesty-and-integrity-vs.-optics-and-illusion are the kind of hysterical leftists who have hashtags like #resist in their bios, but this denotation is completely unfitting for me. Not only am I not a leftist, nor an anti-Trumper, I’m far more Right-wing in any traditional or classical sense than Scott Adams. Naturally, this is wholly irrelevant to the previous points but all too many Adamsites, if we can call them that, seem to think this is very, very relevant – such people take political paradigm as argumentation.

It should also be noted that this isn’t about Trump or Harris, but rather about Adam’s message and those who gobble it up – for he is, in no uncertain terms, praising trickery and untruth of one’s enemies and friends alike as one of the highest expressions of statecraft. Whilst it is obvious that governments should keep secrets, that you don’t need to know everything about what they are doing and in many cases, shouldn’t (as it could cost lives, ect) it should also be just as obvious that a preferable system is one wherein the governmental officials tell you what they are not going to tell you, where they strive ever to be upright and honest and principled; where they never place optics and persuasion above the truth. 

A flailing Adamsite

Defamation Factory, Prt.1: The ADL’s Founding Lie

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Why do we talk of politics? We do we engage in that stressful, brain-wracking contest of ever-warring tribes when we can just ignore the whole damnable mess? I can not, nor shall I attempt to, speak for anyone but myself, and so I shall tell you why I speak about politics. I speak about politics because, on matters of first principal, chaos, entropy, is the enemy of civilization whilst all that moves to order and truth – all that holds chaos at bay – is its soothing balm.

I care deeply, dear readers, about our shared civilization – that is, euro-American civilization – which, it is no exaggeration to say, is the most powerful, profligate and sought after in the history of the world. Most of all, I care for the continued well-being of myself, my family, my friends and fellow countrymen and all their line and all that that line may yet become. These are my first and primary political concerns which informs and directs all of my political positions.

Therefore, when one discovers a dark and terrible entity which runs counter to all hithertofore mentioned values that I seek to protect and advance it would be, not just irresponsible, but downright unconscionable to ignore the profligate, so-called “hate watch” group known as the ADL. However, I shall show you, incontrovertibly, that the ADL is anything but. Indeed, I shall show you that they are the precise opposite of a group looking out for the common good, for the man defamed, I shall show you that the ADL is, in no uncertain terms, a hateful, slanderous and law-breaking guild of ethno-tribalist radicals who stand for everything they decry. It is the height, the very summit of irony that the organization which brands itself as the premier outfit for fighting against defamation is one of the primary, generative machines thereof.


Despite the fact that the ADL ostensibly operates under the auspices of being keen to, “-stop the defamation of the Jewish people-,” the events which lead to the founding of the group had absolutely nothing to do with defamation and absolutely everything to do with a savage, cold-blooded murder. The murder of a innocent, 13 year old girl.

On Saturday, April 26, 1913, little Mary Phagan, a young girl who toiled for the well known National Pencil Company of Atlanta, Georgia, stopped by her place of work to obtain $1.20 in earnings from the company superintendent, Leo M. Frank. She would never be seen alive again.

Her body was later found in the Pencil Company basement, mutilated. Her undergarments were torn and ugly bruises stood out upon her neck and the whole of her body was covered in the ashes of the nearby incinerator. She had been strangled to death with a wrapping cord, likely after the assailant failed to rape her.

It was Confederate Memorial Day.

The murder set the town awhirl. The Southern locals were rightly outraged and demanded justice. After a thorough investigation many were suspected but none more so than the lecherous superintendent, Leo Max Frank. Frank’s guilty verdict was announced on August 25th, 1913. Frank was eventually convicted of the grisly, barbaric crime and sentenced to death by hanging. On October 1913, after Frank’s conviction, Adolf Kraus, then president of the Jewish-American fraternal order, B’nai B’rith, created the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith which issued forth this statement of purpose in their League charter:

The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.”

Despite the best efforts of Kraus’ newly formed Anti-Defamation League as well as the masonic inspired, B’nai B’rith, Frank was eventually executed, but not through lawful jurisprudence. Rather, he was let off the hook by a outgoing governor, John M. Slaton, after a great deal of back-door dealing. Frank’s sentence was transmogrified from death by hanging to life behind bars. The denizens of the town were so enraged by this obvious corruption of justice that they decided to take the law into their own hands and subsequently dragged Frank from the courthouse and summarily executed him. He was lynched from an oak tree in Mary Phagan’s hometown of Marietta, Georgia on August 16, 1915. The Phagan Family’s house was the last thing Leo Frank ever saw.

Contrary to the widely held misconception that Frank was the first Jew ever to be lynched, he was far from it. In 1868, a Jewish store owner in Franklin Tennessee named S. A. Brierfield and a black worker, Lawrence Bowman were lynched by initiates of the KKK for supporting The Reconstruction; in 1915, the Jewish writer and convicted murderer, Albert Bettelheim was lynched only two days before Frank himself was slain. What markedly differentiated the Frank Case from the previously mentioned incidents was the enormous media firestorm that ensured and the way in which the case transformed the sociopolitical landscape of the region.

In the many years since the Phagan murder, Leo Frank has become a venerated figured among many Jewish-Americans; so much so that it might be said without hyperbole, that he is viewed by the ADL as their patron saint; as a man whose death serves as a reminder of the depths of depravity to which man can sink when in the grip of xenophobic hatred. This holy martyr reverence shines through in many of the articles written by members of the League that are still archived on the site to this day. To provide some context to the ADL’s feeling about the Frank Case consider this excerpt from their article, Remembering Leo Frank,

During this same time, an event in Georgia made the need for the organization painfully clear. Leo Frank, a Jewish businessman who moved to Atlanta to manage his family’s pencil factory, was convicted of the rape and murder of a 13-year-old female employee, following a trial that was defined by anti-Semitism.

Note the last line, “-following a trial that was defined by anti-Semitism.” This idea is one oft touted by modern historians (especially liberal ones). Given the prevalence of the notion that Frank was innocent of the crime but was hanged due to rampant anti-Semitism, Southern idiocy and the tendency to always defer to perceived authorities, (a tendency which runs counter to many of the claims of American egalitarians – but more on that later) most of the American public tends to believe the blood-libel narrative as well. But is it actually true? Was Frank actually innocent of killing Mary Phagan?

Short answer, no. He was most decidedly guilty. With that said, let us turn our attention to the facts indicating just that.

Pertinent Facts Concerning Leo Frank’s Guilt:

Fact 1 – P.A. Flak, a fingerprint expert who was tasked with investigating the Phagan murder crime scene, lifted fingerprints belonging to two men, Newt Lee, the afro-American night-watchman of the National Pencil Company who had first discovered Phagan’s body and Leo Frank.

Fact 2 – Lee testified in court that Frank had called him at night, previous to the discovery of the corpse, to ask if everything was alright. This, Newt Lee stated, was exceedingly strange, as Frank had never before directly telephoned him.

Fact 3 – Frank explicitly stated whilst testifying at his trial that he did not know Mary Phagan by name yet numerous female employees of the Pencil Factory testified to the fact that they had seen Frank talking with Phagan on various occasions, sometimes putting his arm upon her shoulder. One young woman, a 16 year old named Dewey Hall stated in court that Frank would talk to Mary Phagan “-two or three times a day.” These same women also testified to the fact that Frank was possessed of a decidedly lascivious nature and would regularly make sexual advances upon female factory workers, sometimes slipping away with them into a private room for suspiciously long stretches of time.

Fact 4 – Leo Frank told police that John Gantt, a factory worker who was a friend of Mary Phagan’s, had been “intimate” with the dead girl. This obviously contradicts Frank’s earlier statement that he did not know Phagan at all. For, after all, how could Frank have known Gantt had any ties to Phagan if Frank did not even know Phagan by name? Clearly, Frank was lying.

Fact 5 – Frank and Conley were the two primary suspects and it is believed by many today who think Frank innocent that Jim Conley was the real killer. However, Conley worked on the ground floor for his entire shift, this means that if he had been the killer he would have had to attack Mary Phagan almost as soon as she entered the building where there was effectively zero privacy given the constant stream of people. Conley was not perceived as being particularly intelligent, this coupled with the fact that there was nowhere to kill and effectively hide someone at his work station undetected put him entirely out of the realms of possibility as a suspect. Furthermore, Leo Frank, however, did have a secured area upon the second floor where one could do all manner of things without sight or sound from anyone; Frank also admitted to the fact that he had been alone with Mary Phagan upon the second floor where he (quite a tall man) could have easily killed her without oversight.

Fact 6 – Newt Lee, the night watchman who was an early primary suspect in the case and who had no motives against anyone involved, arrived at the Pencil Factory before Phagan’s body was discovered and found Frank there and told him he would sleep in the basement (where Lee ultimately discovered Phagan’s body). Frank refused to let him and further forced him to leave, saying that Lee had to, “Have a good time.” This was not only extremely odd, it was also against the National Pencil Company’s corporate policy which stated that the night watchman, once he entered the building, was not to leave until he had passed along his keys to the day watchman. What this suggests is that Frank knew Phagan’s body was in the basement and that, if Lee retreated to the factories bowels, the crime would be discovered.

Fact 7 – Lee left as Frank commanded but returned later at six to discover Frank so nervous and agitated that he could not do even the most basic of functions, such as operating his time clock. However, it should be noted that two mechanics who worked at the factory disputed Lee’s story, with both claiming that Frank had acted perfectly normally.

Fact 8 – On April 30th 1913, a friend of Mary Phagan’s, a fifteen year old named George Epps, testified that Phagan was afraid of Leo Frank because he had flirted with the little girl and made several sexual advances towards her.

Fact 9 – May 9th, 1913, a young girl who worked at the factory named Monteen Stover stated that she had arrived to work at the National Pencil Factory at 12:05 PM the day of the murder (near the same time Phagan arrived) and that when she arrived Frank was not in his office. This directly contradicts Franks testimony in which he stated he had stayed in his office the entire time the murder was supposed to be taking place at the factory.

Fact 10 – June 3rd, 1913, Minola McKnight, Leo Frank’s afro-American cook states in a statement to local police authorities that Frank was exceedingly nervous, agitated and also remarked that he drank heavily after he had returned home the night Mary Phagan was murdered.

Fact 11 – The other prime suspect in the case, Jim Conley, though initially one of the prime suspects due to his own admissions of aiding in the murder and history of violence (he once threatened his wife and a employee at gunpoint) was a known serial liar and his story continuously changed throughout the course of the case and often made no sense at all.

Fact 12 – July 30th, 1913, Frank had testified that he had not seen Mary Phagan’s body at the undertaker’s yet a man named W.W. (Boots) Rogers, testified that Frank had indeed been to the undertaker’s and had there seen the body of the young, murdered girl.

Fact 13 – Jim Conley testified that he had often acted as a look-out man for Frank during his liasons with young factory works. Conley also testified to the fact that he had helped Frank move Phagan’s body after the murder (letters found near Phagan’s body were noted to be in Conley’s handwriting) and that Frank had confessed to the killing and was so shaken with what he had done that he had gripped Conley for support. Though many points in Conley’s story changed marked from its first telling, these points always remained consistent. On August 7th a railroad worker named C.B. Dalton testified to the fact that he had often met with women in the National Pencil Factory’s basement and that, during these libidinous ventures, Conley had often acted as the lookout – a fact which only reinforces the veracity of Conley’s testimony. Furthermore, Dalton went on to state that, on numerous occasions during his ventures to the factory, he had seen Frank privately meeting with women. Also, two hundred dollars were known to have been on the premises of the Pencil company, this was the same amount of money which Jim Conley said Frank had showed to him during their meeting after the murder.

Lastly, let us examine this notion set forth by the Frank defense team and carried on by the ADL that the whole arc of the case was carried, in whole or in part, by racial bigotry and lay it swiftly to rest. Contrary to popular belief, the South, at the time, was not anti-Semitic but rather philo-Semitic. The racial animus during the trial was not, principally, directed towards Frank, but rather, towards Jim Conley, a negro janitor who worked for the National Pencil Company. Conley was, admittedly, a drunkard and a liar, a man of low-repute, but the vitriol he received passes all boundaries of decency. For instance, during the course of the trial, Conley was targeted by numerous instances of abuse from Frank’s defense attorneys, Luther Rosser, Rueben R. Arnold and Frank Hooper.

Arnold insisted that Conley was a, “-a drunken, crazed negro, hard up for money.”

Hooper contended that the black janitor was a, “Dr. Jekyll,” who, “when the shades of night comes, throws aside his mask of respectability and is transformed into a Mr. Hyde.”

Rosser scathingly remarked that Conley was, “-a filthy, lying nigger,” who probably snorted, “-tons of cocaine.”

However, the presiding Prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey (whose sister was married to the son of Luther Rosser), took umbrage to the remarks of the defense and also wholly denied that Frank was being tried due to some untoward feelings concerning the Jewish People upon whom he remarked, “This great people [the Jews] rise to heights sublime, but sink to the depths of degradation, too, and they are amenable to the same laws as you or I and the black race.”

The outspoken agrarian populist and publisher, Tom Watson, wrote extensively and critically of the case, paying special attention to the charges of anti-Semitism; His publication, Watson’s Magazine, echoed sentiments similar to Dorsey’s.

In his magazine, Watson wrote,

Far and wide, the accusation has been strewn, that we [Southerners] are prejudiced against this young libertine [Frank], because he is a Jew. If there is such a racial dislike of the Hebrews among us, why is it that, in the formation of the Southern Confederacy, we placed a Jew in the Cabinet, and kept him there to the last? Why is it, we are constantly electing Jews to the State legislatures, and to Congress?”

[Watson’s magazine, Jan. 1915]

Given all these facts we can very firmly establish several concrete truths. Frank lied, often, during the trial. Frank had motive to do the deed, namely, perverse lecherousness, which, once rebuked, reacted with fury that eventually resulted in the murder. Only Frank could possibly have killed Mary Phagan since, as previously stated, he was the only one in the factory at the time who had a enclosed and segregated space to do such a deed unobserved and he later admitted that he had “unconsciously” gone into the very room where Phagan had been murdered. Additionally, anti-Semitism clearly was not the driving force for the case, especially not in the philo-Semitic, Christian South (devout Christians, after all, typically tend to view Jews as fellow people of the good book and as God’s chosen). For instance, when the aforementioned prosecutor, Hugh Dorsey, made his remarks about Frank shaming his lofty Jewish ancestors, he was greeted with cheers by the locals once he emerged from the court house for the day which is clearly not the sort of thing you would expect out of a bunch of irrationally heated Jew haters. What “anti-Semite” would cheer for someone who was defending the honor of the Jewish people?

Frank was, in no uncertain terms, a sexual deviant, guilty of the hideous crime; for the great heft of the vast bulk of all the evidence was and is against him. This, the researchers at the ADL know very well, just as they likely knew it at the time, yet despite the obvious, they have maintained Frank’s innocence for over 100 years, all to protect their reputation – who, after all, would take the Anti-Defamation League at their word if they knew the truth that the ADL was founded on a grievous lie?

Sources/further reading:

The Ugly Truth About The ADL by E.I.R. (Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review)

 Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Case Records (1913, 1914)

Atlanta newspaper accounts of the trial and aftermath (1913, 1914, 1915)

Watson’s Magazine (1913-15)

Site Update: Articles Will Be Sparser As TLC ramps up production on new e-book

Greetings and salutations, dear reader. If you have been following the site for some time you will know that I have published one e-book previously (which you can obtain free, here) with the intention of releasing more in the future. Our first original content ebook, Defamation Factory: The Sordid History of the ADL, will shortly be released here on the site. Naturally, the work has required a substantial amount of research and contemplation and has subsequently eaten up a good deal of time. Therefore, articles will be published with slightly diminished frequency until the book is released.

Defamation Factory Cover

Thank you, as always, for your patronage and readership.


K.E. – administrator

Sex, Violence, Death, Toil: A Brief Primer on Fiction Writing, Prt.5 [Coda]

Those that wish to shift any power structure will need to pervade not just in the military, the media and the legislation-complex but also in the arts.

– A Brief Primer on Fiction Writing, Part. 4

In the previous installment of this series I briskly documented the strange case of the self-styled “Leftist Fight Club,” created by the organization, Knights of Socialism (no, really, that’s what they call themselves) of the University of Central Florida. The group was inspired by the film Fight Club which was, in turn, inspired by the fictional novel of the same name by freelance journalist and transgressive novelist, Chuck Palahniuk. I illustrated this organization due to how starkly it showed the way in which art can work as a model for human action (outside of a momentary shaping of consciousness – that is to say, that which moves well beyond merely evoking a, “Ah, that’s cool.”). But it is far from a isolated incident.

Art as a model for human action.  (continued)

Casting our attention back in time to the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte we can see the power of dynamic art to sway the minds and hearts of men by the numerous cartoons which were printed by the British to defame him after that once venerable sovereignty had set its sights upon the newly founded French Empire.

The Plumb-Pudding In Danger, by James Gillray. The pictured-above is the most famous of the Napoleonic Cartoons & features the Emperor himself [right] seated across from British Prime Minister, William Pitt [left].
Such ridiculous caricatures upset the Emperor nearly as much as it amused its target demographics. In fact, the artwork so perturbed Napoleon (who as a master statesman knew well enough the import of “optics”) that he attempted, unsuccessfully, to convince the British newspapers to suppress them which only further inflamed the pre-war tensions between the two countries and invariably contributed to Britain’s ultimate decision to topple the new, and seemingly ever-expanding, French regime. The British, however, were not the only one’s utilizing art to their political ends, for Napoleon himself commissioned numerous paintings of himself, typically highly romanticized, after each of his successful battles to the effect that every battle was garnished in a aura of sacrality. The most popular of these numerous portraits, Napoleon Crossing The Alps, is still endlessly reproduced today.

Napoleon Crossing The Alps by Jacques-Louis David

But let us return to our central concern, writing, and flash forth to 1909, Paris.

Le Figuro has just published a most shocking text upon the front page of their magazine.

“Housing with external lifts and connection systems to different street levels”, from La Città Nuova, by Futurist Architect, Antonio Sant’Elia

The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism.

The text, penned by the avante-garde Alexandrian-Italian poet, F.T. Marinetti,  venerate the arrival of the machinic age and establish, “-war as the world’s only hygiene-,” and “-scorn for woman-,” as well as a whole host of revolutionary political aspirations which were as negatory and violet as they were prescient and constructive. The document would go on to spawn the socio-political art movement known as Futurism (not to be confused with Futurology – someone who is interested in prospective technology, a term which, today, is often used interchangeably with what we shall call lowercase ‘futurism’). The Futurists in their near 40 year reign, lead by Marinetti, aided in the creation of Fascism, guided the rise of Mussolini, championed both World Wars (and fought in them), pioneered the arts with the creation of noise music and free word poetry and inspired three of the most well known modern art movements, Dada, Vorticism and Surrealism – all three of which, in turn, continue in their own subtle ways, to influence art to this very day.

The reason futurism was so successful is that, despite it’s chaotic veneer, it, rather uniquely, was expressly designed and consciously, methodically implemented into every sphere of life. There were futurist theories on war, aesthetics,  dance, music, politics (they advocated for women’s suffrage and sexual liberation for the express purpose of destabilizing society). They even had futurist cook books. But more than all of the ephermera, Futurism was a philosophy of life, wherein one strove ever to extend and glorify, not just one’s self, but the whole of the world even at the cost of its selfsame destruction. It was the endless, ceaseless, remorseless, ripping away of all that which was stultified and corrosive and hurling oneself at the world with, as Marinetti put it, “-ardor, splendor, and generosity, to swell the enthusiastic fervor of the primordial elements.”


All this from a five page short-story/manifesto written by a relatively unknown, non-native-born poet.

Remember that when next you doubt the efficacy of your penmanship.

Lift up your heads!

Erect on the summit of the world, once again we hurl defiance to the stars!

-ending verse of the Futurist Manifesto

Sex, Violence, Death, Toil: A Brief Primer on Fiction Writing, Prt.4


Art as a directional model for human action.

All human endeavors bespeak of ourselves; such is the case with fiction, which gives form and function to the nebulous, scattered and fevered energy of the brain’s wild imaginings which roil up from from the instinctual chasm. 

-Brief Primer on Fiction Writing, Part. 3

In the 1996 book Fight Club, Chuck Palahniuk, a socially satirical, psychological thriller, a socially alienated, weak and emasculated corporate drone meets a bedazzling political radical. The two men strike up a bizarre friendship and eventually create a underground fight club where they are able to release their pent-up frustrations about the decline of masculinity and the vacuous wage-slavery that is their lives, by viciously beating each other until one contestant concedes defeat. The book was highly popular, so much so that three years after its publication, a film of the same name was created by David Fincher, with a screenplay by Jim Uhls; it is this iteration of the tale that most people are familiar with.

Fight Club was and still is extremely popular, as much for the acting and aesthetics as well as for the pointed and clever social commentary – it is especially popular amongst socialist radicals (which is rather ironic given that one of the principal points of the film is that radical insurrection is all very well and good until lives start being ruined and people start dying) which can be seen by the creation of the self-styled “Leftist Fight Club” for the express purpose of “Bashing the fash.” The “fash” that they are referring to are the illusory fascists that such Antifaesque organizations seem to see everywhere. The club’s only condition for entry: Don’t be a republican – for as everyone knows, all republicans are fascists.

You might here be wondering why I’m bothering to mention this seemingly trivial, though curious, affair. I mention the Palahniuk inspired Leftist Fight Club because it is the perfect modernistic example of life imitating art which is the single most powerful thing any piece of art can conceivably do. It is, I think crucial to highlight such cases when looking through the analytical lens of political outside-dissent. For those that wish to shift any power structure will need to pervade not just in the military, the media and the legislation-complex but also in the arts. That being said we will dive into a manifold sampling of those past and present instances where some work(s) have powerfully influenced the directionality of human action – Leftist Fight Club was just the tip of the iceberg.

[continued part 5]


The Eater of Time

Time kills all gods.

Or such is what the graphic artist and sculptor AJ Fosik proclaims in his latest exhibit. This, however, is a fundamental confusion which plays upon the fear of “running out of time,” which, in essence, is a fear of death which is itself a fear of entropic force. Even the triumphalism inherent in such a statement – Fosik’s work is devoted to the creation of ferine idols who are representative of deities bearing no following, name or attribution, a assertion of man’s creativity expanded in the absence of organized religion and the totalizing, centralic force of Providence – is misguided. The reason why it is misguided is that if time can kill even the gods then Man, against that primal force, has not a single chance of survival (my fundamental presumption is that most people, most of the time wish to survive, which seems so obvious a truism that it requires no refutation – what man, after all, does not shrink in terror at the prospect of imminent destruction?). Yet, here, there is hope.

Time is not a god-killer.

Time is a conception and conceptions have no murderous weight without accompanying action – yet time is a lever without a hand to pull it. For the idea of time can exist only so long as there are minds to conceive of it, force-patterns that will, eventually, again, conceive of mind. Thus, given sufficient duration, even time will die. But its arrow lives yet on.

The Maw of Entropy Swallows Even Time.

Sparing any overly academic descriptions, entropy is the tendency towards ever increasing levels of disorder within closed systems. It might best be illustrated by analogy: consider a fish-tank into which is poured a ruby colored food-dye. Everyone knows what will happen before they even pour it, the dye will spread throughout the water until it is wholly uniform therein. No matter how many times you repeat this experiment, the result will always be the same (statistically speaking, a upset is theoretically possible but so infinitesimal that, for practical purposes, one might as well consider it “impossible”). This is the product of the emergent property of entropy, which, it is theorized, will eventually lead to universal thermodynamic state wherein no work will be able to be done due to a lack of free energy, that is to say, a period in time where the universe reaches maximal entropy thus causing thermodynamic equilibrium wherein all energy in uniformly distributed (just like the dye in the tank).

This state has been referred as Heat-death.

It would be total eradication.

Why it matters.

Though the previous may strike one as similar to a kind of abstraction that has little to no bearing to actual life but this would be a mistake. The notions of time and death are omnipresent, they have played a role in every single philosophy that has ever existed worth remembering. But the crucial error entailed in so much of western philosophy is placing a symptom as a cause. A excellent example is the idea that the primary problem facing the Western nations is a ever growing abundance of nihilism, it is not nihilism, as such – for Universalism, secular humanism, religious liberalism and so on, are no nihilistic regimes – no, the primary problem is that those forces which are counterpoised to the prevailing attitudes of western civilization are fundamentally entropic. That is to say, they work towards ever greater forms of chaotic disruption – the immigration crisis is a perfect example of this, everyone knows that allowing such great and divergent masses to pour into a nation in a tiny period of time can lead only to disaster but they do so anyways because their ethos’s directionality is one that is wholly predicated on further and further forms of entropy (in the case of immigration, multicultural integrationism, citizen-of-the-worldism).

Consider the end goal of the one-worlders: they see a world of one race, one nation and one creed. What, here, is the difference between the one-worlder’s view and the enthropic principal of dye-spreading in a well filled fish-tank? There isn’t any.

Radical Universalism is heat death.

The solution to this problem is to work towards a methodology of particularistic anti-entropy. All that has, classically, been defined as “the good” has been that which resists the permutations of ever increasing waves of disorder. Whether that be self-control, which is, by definition, against disorder, child birth and rearing, which is the pseudo-immortality that laughs in the face of disintegration, or the continual domination of nature, the end goal of which must be the complete and utter eradication of entropy itself.



Navigating The Spectrum: Future Universalistic vs. Present Particularistic

In my previous article, On the Prospects of Popular Right-wing Unification in America: The Starting Point of Unification, I wrote,

“To speak of unification with those who are counterpoised to order (and thus, opposed to civilization) is to beat one’s head against a wall. With that being said, unity is absolutely desirable among the right in as far as it is possible given the prolific predominance of Leftism (the ethos of the US is, let us not forget, one that is fundamentally communistic), specifically for the purposes of civilizational maintenance and restoration, as civilization is birthed and bound by unity. America can be greatly transformed by chaos as it has numerous times before (emancipation, civil rights, sexual revolution) but that transformation itself will then only be able to be sustained by its opposite; that is to say, a largely unified political body that stands for order.”

However, before we can even begin to talk about political unification we must clearly define who and what we are unifying – that is, the political right. So let us set ourselves to clearly defining our terms. I’d first like to hastily dispense with economic differentials, that is to say, the well-tread: capitalist vs. socialist. Far too facile. Yes, yes, Ben Shapiro might well define Italian Fascists as “Leftists” but he is in a unquestionably small minority. I wholly reject this Shapiroesque differentiation, it is far too particularist, for it means that no matter how nationalistic, no matter how concerned with thede and loyalty, a particular political party might happen to become, if it doesn’t have some variation of “free” market capitalism then it is “Leftist.”

No, the fundamental distinction between the political left and the political right is to be found, not principally in adherence to economic particulars, but rather, in loyalty. Leftists devout themselves to abstract ideals and tailor their loyalties accordingly. Rightists, in stark contrast, devout themselves to people, their people, and adjust their ideals accordingly.

Take the communists or international socialists, for instance, they do not give their fealty to any social body, to any man. Their principal failing is in pledging themselves to man as they wish he were rather than to man as he is. They give their unflinching loyalty to a kind of Rousseauian industrialism, rather than those of their flesh and blood – kith and kin matter little when placed side-by-side with the “Brotherhood of Man!” Secular Humanists follow a similar trajectory, their immediate loyalty is to the expansion of empathy to all humanity – in so thinly spreading their physiological resources they end up neglecting their own countrymen, their very own neighbors and families for the sake of people whom they will never meet, nor even see other than in photograph. Leftists only give their loyalty (with few exceptions) to other members of their in-group due to their ideological adherence (as can be easily seen by how swiftly they are currently devouring themselves – “You’re racist!” “No, you’re the racist!” “No, you two are both racists!” ect.), failing this, the dissident is silenced and cast off, exiled. This is not, of course, to say that the ring-wing does not sometimes exercise their own forms of ideological in-fighting, purity spiraling and shunning, but the scale and frequency of such action is simply incomparable.

There will always be a certain degree of ideological dissimilarity that prevents two groups from acting in harmonious concord. If group X wants peaceful cooperation and group Z wants the subjection of all groups not Z then there can, obviously, be no parsimony between X & Z. Such is axiomatic. What I am attempting to drive at is that forces typically connected to leftism, such as socialism, communist, globalism, deconstructionism, sexual freedom, ect, are all fundamentally predicated upon the notion that one’s primary, nor secondary nor even tertiary duty is not to their own people (whomever that may happen to be) but rather to one’s self OR to some version of the personal self that has yet to become a extant reality.

Primacy of the individual is a phrase often used by both the political right and left but the left’s highest values are bound up not merely in the primacy of the individual, it is, rather the primacy of all individuals, everywhere in the world, at all points in time even those periods of time that have yet to come to pass. 

This is obviously and axiomatically impossible, since not all individuals will be able to have the power to act as perfectly self-governed actors nor does it accurately account for moral hazard, for personal failing and the intense need for corrective oversight (children for instance, are now given absurd leeway due to the ethos of the “primacy of the individual,” to such a degree that one is now seeing a rise in child-transgenderism – if Tommy says he’s a girl, who are you to say otherwise? You’re not a bigot are you???).

Due to the obvious corrosive effects of future-extrapersonal loyalty, the ethos of empathy widening rather than correct distribution and control of empathy and general governmental universalism (as opposed to particularism), the political right should ever affirm loyalty to one’s own people as a a foremost principal, subordinate only to order itself, or, a different formulation: loyalty to order as the highest principal – for there is no lasting of those other splendid things, most cherish in human life, without stability.

In contrast to The Left (as a political establishment or burgeoning political body), who looks upon his dissident brother and says, You must be corrected or expunged! The true Right (not merely those playing the pose) looks upon his brother and takes his full measure first and foremost before committing to judgement.

In short,

The Left is future universalistic, whilst The Right is present particularistic.