Manspreading for Lebensraum, Part 1
by Alex Fontana
“Integration is the time between the first black family moving in and the last white family moving out” — Saul Alinsky
As is the Microcosm, so is the Macrocosm
THE FEMINIST ‘social justice’ campaign first launched on Twitter against “manspreading” has made the male practice of sitting a little too comfortably in a public space into a criminal offense. The arrests that have resulted from this criminalization of public posture represent a fundamental attack upon our personal freedoms and on our own ability to govern ourselves in social situations without resorting to overarching laws and policing. John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle has taken a modern, politically correct turn for the worse. (ILLUSTRATION: Localized ethnic unity, a threat to the system.)
This also represents an attack on males, but even more so on White males, who have literally had their living spaces invaded and have been forced to squeeze aside for the ‘leg room’ of hordes of non-Whites.
The eunuch mandarins of the Liberal Left of course seem unaware that men’s genitals hang outside the body thus necessitating a spreading of the lower limbs for basic comfort. As of now, detachable penises are still not widely enough available on the market to necessitate a one-size-fits-all posture. Bruce Jenner’s hermaphroditic transformation is being so publicly lauded precisely because it symbolically represents the castration of the White male as patriarchal master signifier.
As every White country becomes flooded with non-White hordes, as our countries become increasingly not our own, as even our communities are no longer our own, why should our personal space be exempted from the general trend? This continuum of dispossession is not an accident. It is no mere coincidence that many ‘caught-on-video’ racist outbursts occur while on public transportation.
The experience of public transportation in diversified metropolises can often have the jarring effect of revealing the emptiness at the heart of our social order. The tram itself functions as a kind of metaphor for the modern world, a constantly moving, deracinated conglomerate — machines dragging the masses of humanity to their destinations, all atomized and automated, a world far removed from the rootedness of blood and soil.
The general experience of shuffling multiracial crowds onto a packed, one-size-fits-all transport system, for the sole purpose of atomized economic competition and relentless movement, reduces the city to a brutal machine. Each person is further reduced to representing the soullessness of the theory of perfect competition — unrestrained self-interest supposedly leading to the “maximization” of all participants, but in reality leading to their alienation and anomie.
When a marginalized White, finds himself a waif in his own country and looks around the bus or train — possibly he is standing because non-Whites are occupying all the available seats — he gets a sense of these non-Whites pushing him out and perhaps stealing his job through “equal opportunity employment” or leeching off his taxes.
This, along with the “leveling” of the global economic playing field, means the creation of an underclass of dispossessed Whites, psychologically unable to fight back due to disempowering ideas like “white privilege.”
Bauhaus vs. Row House
The latest attempt to encroach on the living space of Whites is coming from the Obama administration:
“The Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, a proposal from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is aimed at ending segregation found in communities across the nation.”
This mandate follows a Supreme Court decision that the 1968 Fair Housing Act aimed to prevent more than just intentional discrimination, and that the federal government has the right to use HUD to enforce integration on areas it deems to be too White. This new legislation would require cities and towns to scrutinize their racial makeup and report every three to five years on unintended racial bias in housing.
The National Housing Act of 1934 created the Federal Housing Administration as part of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Also called the Wagner-Steagall Act, it set up the United States Housing Authority to provide subsidies from the federal government to local public housing agencies, to improve the conditions of low-income families.
Catherine Bauer, who co-authored the Housing Act, was not Jewish but was a close friend of Bob Marshall whose father Louis had founded the American Jewish Committee. As such, Bauer had close links to Jewish groups, which would also explain why she was interested in studying the “recent achievements and policies in housing and city and regional planning in the U.S.S.R.” She was also an advocate of ‘sexual liberty,’ and a disciple of the Bauhaus architect Walter Gropius, who, unable to find accommodation with the Nazis, finally emigrated to the States after flirting with the Soviet Union.
In his book The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal As Ethnic Cleansing, E.M. Jones quotes a revealing speech Gropius gave in the Soviet Union:
“Without the liberation of the land out of this private slavery, it is impossible to create a healthy, development-capable urban renewal that is economic in terms of society in general. Only the Soviet Union has fulfilled this most important requirement without reservation, and thereby opened the way for a truly modern urban planning.” (Page 83)
Shortly after this speech, Gropius became the chairman of the architecture department at Harvard. From then on, he refrained from using phrases like the “immoral right of private ownership.” Instead, he talked about things like “our belief in democratic government.”
While Bauhaus is routinely praised as a forward-looking and disinterested modernist architectural movement, the truth is quite different. In his book From Bauhaus to Our House (1986), Tom Wolfe criticizes Bauhaus as creating buildings that resemble “a duplicating-machine replacement parts wholesale distribution warehouse,” and likening their model for houses to an “insecticide refinery.” For Wolfe such architecture was a “reprimand for the fat on one’s bourgeois soul.”
The “vision” of replacing the humble row house with Bauhaus architecture was interlaced with notions of social engineering. Bauhaus, also known as the “international style,” was in Jones’ words “the architectural expression of social engineering.” Gropius was head of the school of architecture at Harvard, while László Moholy-Nagy, a Hungarian Jew, opened the New Bauhaus that would become the Chicago School of Design.
Given Bauhaus’s radical leftism and obvious Jewish elements, you may not be surprised to learn that Tel Aviv has the largest collection of buildings built in the “international style” anywhere in the world:
“Bauhaus architecture flourished in Tel Aviv (as elsewhere in the country) in the 1930s due in great part to the fact that 17 former Bauhaus students, worked locally as architects.”
Housing, however, did not truly become a social justice issue until the Fair Housing Act, a corollary of Lyndon Johnson’s 1968 Civil Rights Act. When Johnson inaugurated the act he thanked “the public housing experiments of the 1930s and 1940s, led by that great adventurer, Nathan Strauss, in the Roosevelt administration.” Strauss was the son of a wealthy Jewish merchant who co-owned Macy’s department store.
From its inception through to its realization, integrated urban planning has had a strong Jewish influence, raising the suspicion that one of its aims was to create a form of social engineering that could break the bonds of kinship that would otherwise naturally form amongst European Americans.
As we see from the infographic (right), “integration” and “desegregation” are code words for taking away White living space. By contrast, there is no talk of forcefully integrating areas with high concentrations of Blacks. As you can see, Black neighborhoods have grown and spread, strongly White areas have become negligible, and gray areas, neither entirely White nor Black, have proliferated. This urban level of integration is a micro manifestation of the macro process of global multiculturalism, in which only white countries are forced to integrate.
In The Slaughter of Cities, Jones tells us that “the Quakers and the Jews were allies in the housing struggles in post-war Chicago.” From this image (below) we see that violent crimes are predominately in areas with high concentrations of Blacks, while those areas with the least violent crimes have fewer Blacks.
We also see from this graphic of Palestine that what is occurring on both a macro and micro level in the US and in Europe is analogous to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people. While blacks and Jews both prefer to view themselves as the victims, it is plain to see that they are the ones gaining new ground. Diversity really does mean chasing down the last white person.
From WASP to “Hostile” Elite — Social Engineering through the Ages
There is a long precedence of the federal government dangling the carrot of funds and the stick of criminal conviction in order to implement “integration” in US cities. The first time this strategy was implemented, it was, as now, a bi-partisan effort. As E. Michael Jones explains in The Slaughter of Cities:
“Upper-class WASPs, largely Episcopalian and Quaker, united politically with the blacks they brought up from the South to work in their factories during World War II to defeat the group in the middle, namely, the largely Catholic ethnics who lived in neighborhoods like Kensington.”
World Wars facilitated the process wherein unprecedented levels of social engineering could occur through the implementation of federal government centralization under wartime provisions, that bypassed local lawmakers and normal democratic processes.
We can identity a three-pronged process, in which Obama’s “Fair Housing” campaign is but the latest stage. The first stage corresponds to the shaping of ‘public opinion’ through the growth of the mass media. The second stage arrives with the Roosevelt New Deal, which gave the Federal government increased powers over housing, and removed the right of eminent domain from property owners. The third stage can be linked with the reformulation of civil rights as a housing issue, which then sought to take away White spaces from White ethics.
The First World War facilitated the formation of something akin to a socially-engineered national consciousness. A supposed democracy like America ostensibly required a majority consensus to get into the war on the side of Britain. The Committee on Public Information was formed in order to overcome the historical neutrality of American opinion and its anti-interventionist nature.
The sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-boat, resulting in the deaths of 114 Americans, greatly helped, even though the ship had been smuggling American munitions and contraband for the British war effort. As the influential Jewish journalist Walter Lippmann explained: “While the war continued it very largely succeeded, I believe, in creating something that might almost be called one public opinion all over America.”
The forging of this public opinion was in answer to the psychological requirements of the war, as Lippmann was well aware. His experience as a Captain in army intelligence during WWI shaped his perception of journalism as “intelligence work” serving as a go-between between policymakers and the public. Lippmann believed that “a specialized class whose interests reach beyond the locality” had to decide the public’s beliefs for them.
Lippmann and Edward Bernays, someone else who worked in intelligence and propaganda during WWI, and later Louis Wirth, who worked for the OSS in WWII, were Jews who were able to rise within elitist circles, because:
“Unlike nativists and people like Henry Ford, the East Coast WASP elite was perfectly willing to adopt Jews into their class if the adoptee was willing to espouse the same Enlightenment environmentalist philosophy they espoused…” (The Slaughter of Cities, p.106)
Thus a strange assortment of bedfellows — Jewish brains, East WASP elitist ethnocentrism, and Negro numbers — converged to dismantle and destroy the cohesion of ‘ethnic’ neighborhoods, mostly directed at Southern and Eastern Europeans, like Poles, Czechs and Italians, but also Irish and Germans, whose Catholicism threatened the WASP establishment.
Jones points to Paul Blandshard’s anti-Catholic bestseller, American freedom and Catholic power, as expressing the idea that Catholicism represented an “impassible barrier to democratization” and a danger to WASP power.
Brave New Worlds
Blandshard was a liberal protestant minister who dropped out of the ministry in favor of socialism, sexual liberation, and the WASP positivist school of Bertrand Russell and John Dewey. His views of cultural anthropology were seeped in heavy doses of materialism and atheism derived from Comte, leading to his belief that man was a product of his environment who could be molded — i.e. socially engineered. Both the WASP elite and the Jews shared this view as well as suspicions about Catholicism, which was seen as inherently fascistic:
“In fact both Blanshard and Bertrand Russell would claim that Catholicism and fascism were politically indistinguishable” (The Slaughter of Cities, p.101).
Jones points to the WASP fear that Catholics were taking over the country numerically, because unlike the WASPs who had embraced birth control, they procreated. As Blandshard put it, “in the name of religion, the hierarchy fights birth control and divorce laws in all states… and censors the cultural diet of these children.” The last part can be read as Catholics rejecting the propaganda of WASPs and their Jewish coconspirators like Lippmann and Wirth.
The threat that ethnic whites presented was therefore both numerical and cultural, but as Jones tells us, these Catholics lacked a cohesive group consciousness — i.e. as a shared Catholic ‘ethnic group’ — that could protect their interests, unlike the enemies who conspired against them.
Bertrand Russell, the influential British philosopher who helped shape American WASP opinion was a driving force. E.M Jones refers to his program for social reform:
“Many observers are astonished at how pervasive its provisions are today. To illustrate, we will look at four of his key tenets: sexual liberation and the destruction of the nuclear family; social control through the means of psychology and the use of addictive and psycho-tropic drugs; one-world government; and population control.”
In case anyone is wondering where Aldous Huxley got his ideas for Brave New World from, look no further!
* * *
Source: Alternative Right