American Genocide

10 Jul

I have bookmarked, or rather Evernoted, an article on a recent book questioning whether Catholics can ever be at home in the USA. The author concludes that the essential foundational structures of the USA will make it forever inimical to the Catholic Faith, and that Catholics need to focus on an “Amish” strategy in the USA if they want to remain Catholic, rather than American.

I mention this because I have of late been reading fringe Catholic E. Michael Jones’ poorly-edited masterpiece on urban planning, The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing. I have been getting angrier and angrier while doing so, as Jones connects together disparate facts to reflect what happened, and that there was a conspiracy to do what was done, not just the failure of good intentions. The utter wastelands that have resulted in former Catholic ethnic neighborhoods in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit were not mistakes of policy, but in fact their intended result.

You see, in 1940, the WASP establishment faced a conundrum. In 1930, the Anglicans had been the first Protestant group to embrace contraception, and white protestant (meaning Episcopal, Congregational, and Quaker) birthrates had dropped accordingly. In 1941, the Catholic bishop of Philadelphia could boast that the increase of Philadelphia’s Catholic population over the preceding 10 years was 50% more than the increase of population overall, meaning that if the trend continued that Philadelphia would be a majority Catholic city in a few years. Anti-Catholic Paul Blanshard (really, click the link; the guy was an even worse monster than Rousseau) noted in 1949 that the same fate awaited the whole of the USA.

The Catholics were a threat because their ethnic communities were immune to government propaganda: there was no TV, and Catholic children went to parochial schools. Many Italian and Polish neighborhoods had native-language newspapers, likewise outside the control of the elite. Because of the tight-knit parish structure, Catholic social teaching on birth control was reiterated in schools and media.

Jones also talks about how the physical structure of the rowhouse neighborhoods of Philadelphia added to this effect. As we covered in The Cost of Children, there is no economic return on children. None. Nowhere in history do kids, as a group, pay off, excepting cases where people have exploited their child stars. SO to have a lot of them, you need to pour in economic resources. Jones writes (p. 184):

In addition to the Catholic Church’s ban on contraception, a ban which had added force because of the religious cohesion of the ethnic neighborhood, one of the main things which fueled this demographic increase in Philadelphia was the rowhouse. It was cheap enough for a worker to own. It was more spacious than an apartment, and instead of paying rent and being at the mercy of landlords, a man couId own his home free and clear in the time it took him to payoff his mortgage. Since it was located in the city near public transportation, the rowhouse did not require the expense of owning a car. Since it was surrounded on both sides by other houses, it was cheap to heat. As a result, it allowed the working-class Catholic family to have a large family, and over a period of time, it allowed him to benefit from the political power which followed demographic increase, which is precisely what was causing Blanshard and the Phillips crowd concern.

This is a 1940s version of what Steve Sailer called “Affordable Family Formation,” which explains the red/blue split in America. Jones continues:

The attack on the rowhouse which the BPE orchestrated meant an attack on all of the cultural attributes that went with the rowhouse, a building which symbolized the cultural independence of the ethnic neighborhood based on religious cohesion and the economic independence of immigrant workers who could own their own homes. The attack on the rowhouse in Philadelphia was a covert attack on the Catholics who lived in them, orchestrated by a ruling class that knew, as good Darwinians, that demography was destiny and that they, because of their all but universal adoption of contraception, were on the losing end of the demographic equation. Urban renewal, like the sexual revolution which followed it eighteen years later, was the WASP ruling class’s attempt to keep “the United States from becoming a Catholic country by default.”

Now, the rest of the book details how and why the WASP elite, from the Federal level down, carried out this campaign. (The why involves the excuse that Italians, especially, might be prone to “Alpha Socialism,” and so national security concerns required their dispersal.) That it was successful in destroying Catholic ethnic enclaves is easy to see from the linked videos, which show former Irish, Polish, and Italian neighborhoods in the three cities. The effect on the Catholics who moved to suburbs like Park Forest (which the FHA and the builders insisted had to be all-white, to have it serve as an attractive refuge to the ethnic Catholics being driven out of the South Side of Chicago) was to “Americanize” these people, and for them to view housing and neighborhood in economic terms. They were now “middle class,” not Irish Catholic.

This change in status was paired with the accoutrements of suburban living. More expensive heating, the absolute NEED for a car to get everywhere, the amount of time that was now to be dedicated to commuting in single-occupancy autos instead of socializing with neighbors, the physical impossibility of the suburban street grid to connect physically close areas: all of this was what Jones calls “social engineering.” The apparent post-war boom can then be seen as the process that converted the social capital of tightly-knit communities (like the Amish and Orthodox Jews, even today) into economic capital, forcing the Catholics and others forced to the suburbs to move more of their production from the private, social realm where it couldn’t be taxed and counted in economic statistics, into the economic realm, where it could.

This process continued; more expensive housing and maintenance cut down on the number of children, and continually rising costs eventually forced the suburbanite to choose from a number of unpleasant alternatives. He could move back to a targeted or destroyed ethnic neighborhood where prices allowed him to live on his lower pay and keep his wife home, while he feared for his life and that of his children. He could work longer and harder for the capitalists who had rigged the system, in the process having even less time to lead his wife and children in his proper role as head of the family. (Indeed, I believe this to be the source of “the problem that has no name.”) He could send his wife out to work for others to bring in more money, losing his authority of her even more. The latter two courses of action were actually pursued, losing men stature and making women absolutely miserable. US Birthrates hit a peak in 1957, and declined inexorably for years afterward.

The UN Definition of Genocide includes the following:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: …

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

The WASP elite that created and enforced the policies of Urban Renewal, designed to disperse Catholics and dilute their political power, CLEARLY committed genocide under this definition. Of course, the first genocide they committed was of their own people, through contraception. The dwindling numbers of Episcopalians and other mainline groups is testimony to the consequences of committing acts of evil. The WASP elite is no longer even mildly religious, having morphed into the PC-spewing Cathedral; of course, given that they believe in things that are not only unverifiable, but demonstrably false, the Cathedral is simply another religion. A devil-inspired one; as Papist Peter Kreeft writes: “Do you know what Muslims call us? They call us ‘The Great Satan.’ And do you know what I call them? I call them right.”

I write this not to upbraid my fellow Patriactionaries, but as a warning. (I do not perceive any of them to belong to the deracinated mainline sects, but rather the more fecund Protestant groups.) First, they came for the Catholics, fought a culture war, and destroyed their enemies. Now, the focus has turned on you guys. This Papist is forever on your side against them. As for me, that “Amish strategy” I think is necessary for all religious people is simply a return to the Catholic parish model of the 1920s, before the culture warriors destroyed it. Surprisingly, this is still possible today, even with the growth of the police state and further state-driven racial animosity..



Posted by on July 10, 2013 in Uncategorized


43 responses to “American Genocide

  1. The Man Who Was . . .

    July 10, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Throwing words like genocide around is stupid. Shame.

  2. electricangel

    July 10, 2013 at 3:03 pm

    There’s nothing a Cathedraler fears more than some association with Hitler. The UN is their gig, the definitions their construct. Using Alinsky, who’s one of the architects of this anti-Catholic pogrom in Chicago, we note that we must apply the internal logic and rules of the oppressing institution against itself. (“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”) As we used to say in Brooklyn, “You got a problem wit dat?”

  3. maxsnafu

    July 10, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    “Throwing words like genocide around is stupid.”
    …unless it’s accurate.

  4. Peter Blood

    July 10, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    It’s genocide if they’re trying to genocide us. Which they are.

  5. donalgraeme

    July 10, 2013 at 6:09 pm

    As for me, that “Amish strategy” I think is necessary for all religious people is simply a return to the Catholic parish model of the 1920s, before the culture warriors destroyed it. Surprisingly, this is still possible today, even with the growth of the police state and further state-driven racial animosity..

    I am not so sure. Anti-discrimination policies inherent in most Zoning ordinances would likely make creating such a community impossible in many places. The Cathedral wanted them gone, and it wouldn’t tolerate their return.

  6. oogenhand

    July 10, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    [i]which the FHA and the builders insisted had to be all-white, to have it serve as an attractive refuge to the ethnic Catholics[/i]

    So the Catholic Church was fine with racial segregation in those days?

  7. electricangel

    July 10, 2013 at 10:08 pm


    Yes, you observe correctly. There is no way to do it through restrictive covenants; there is no way to try to control the flow of information about properties. Here’s what I imagine happening: a game-aware pastor sets up a church community, preferably in a small, burnt out city like Highland Park, MI, where houses can be bought for a song; Trulia shows plenty for less than 30K. The members of the Church buy the houses and donate them to the Church, which owns them for charitable purposes (the Cathedral doesn’t like to interfere with the First Amendment.) At some point, enough people own houses that they could be a majority on election day. They register and vote; this is why a SMALL city like Highland Park, with fewer than 12K people is important. Once you have control of City Hall, you have control of the police force, and can begin to specially tax yourselves or accept charitable donations to pay to remove every last bit of criminal activity from the city.

    Meanwhile, the Church should wind up as the owner of the homes, renting them to congregation members only. NO MAN should own any assets; rather, they should be in the hands of the Church, which is run by a council of elders. The point being, the wealth in the community is not seizable in divorce, and the strength of the community is its tightly-knit nature. A woman who wants to frivolously divorce loses access to the community, and there will be no assets or cash and prizes for her to win. If done right, within a few years you could demographically take over the whole city.

    If done correctly, with enough community adhesion, you could create a walkable, safe, high-community-value place, and it would be a place where a workingman could buy a house for his family for, say, 40K, so little that I believe one person working for $10 an hour for a 40 hour week could pay it off.

    I will eventually flesh all this out; I have been thinking about it for a while. I will need to talk to a priest to see if there’s a way for a Catholic to do this; I think only the Prots would allow Parish/Church affairs to be directed by a board of directors (with no directoresses), but I don’t know. Eastern Orthodox, maybe?

  8. electricangel

    July 10, 2013 at 10:14 pm


    [i]which the FHA and the builders insisted had to be all-white, to have it serve as an attractive refuge to the ethnic Catholics[/i]

    So the Catholic Church was fine with racial segregation in those days?

    No, the Church was not, at least not de jure. Every parish priest I’ve read so far in the book insisted he would welcome black Catholic parishioners.

    The people insisting on the all-white nature of the new suburb, Park Forest, were the FHA, a division of the Federal Government, run by WASPs at the time, and the builders, a consortium of liberal Jews. Think about it: why would you sell your less-expensive house in a racially mixed close-in community to move 20 miles away to a more expensive house in a racially-mixed community. Federal social engineers knew what effect they were after, and if they had to hypocritically build public housing in white ethnic neighborhoods with one arm, while not insuring mortgages for blacks in the suburbs with the other, they were willing to do it. They destroyed concentrated Catholic neighborhoods and power, and economically sterilized the Papist threat. I don’t think they really gave a damn about their black pawns.

  9. oogenhand

    July 10, 2013 at 10:37 pm

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    Very interesting read about hidden methods of ethnic cleansing.

  10. Will S.

    July 11, 2013 at 12:11 am

    Rich mainline liberal Protestants like the Rockefellers bankrolled liberal Protestantism and promoted its growth; I could hardly be surprised to learn that their ilk were deliberately bent on weakening strong Catholic social and community bonds through legislative means, etc. Too bad it seems to have worked, all too well…

  11. More Anon

    July 11, 2013 at 12:19 am

    At one point in Jones’ book, he recounts how a pastor of a large Philadelphia Catholic parish, desperate for more Catholics to move into nearby houses at a time of racial “succession,” announced from the pulpit that several houses nearby were for sale and that good Catholic families should buy them.

    The pastor ended up getting a phone call from the Philly assistant district attorney, because he violated the city’s fair housing act through his speech.

    This means several things.

    1. The priest was informed upon by his own flock (or by interested interlopers who wanted his parish empty)

    2. the city establishment was willing to harass the priest over this.

    Even if Catholics were to try to imitate the Amish, I suspect they would be sabotaged.

    Still, there’s nothing preventing you from keeping an eye out for houses on sale within walking distance of a good traditional church and spreading the word via social media. I think the spies are focused elsewhere at the moment.

  12. electricangel

    July 11, 2013 at 1:09 am

    @more Anon
    Still, there’s nothing preventing you from keeping an eye out for houses on sale within walking distance of a good traditional church and spreading the word via social media. I think the spies are focused elsewhere at the moment.

    I think Trad Catholics are the ones to pull off this strategy. Their fecundity exerts replacement pressure on the Catholic liberals who sold out their co-religionists for fear of being called racist, just as liberal, annoying, rich Reform Jews will be swept under the demographic tide of conservative, endearing, middle-class Orthodox Jews. The future does belong to those who show up for it.

    In the book, the parish you are talking about is Most Blessed Sacrament, in the formerly Irish neighborhood of Kingsessing. The bishop would do nothing to back the parish priests, telling them to look on the newcomers as a conversion opportunity. Jones says that the church went from 6 full Sunday masses to one empty one by the 2000s, even though over 100,000 people were alumni of the parish. I did some research on the current status: in 2007, two years after Jones’ book, the church closed, and in 2012, its interior was stripped and given to a church in far-suburban Bucks County.

    The neighborhood is much less populated today, and the rowhouses are beat up, but salvageable. If Trad Catholics could secure their safety, they could restore it, while benefitting from the same cheap but good housing that once allowed Depression-era Catholics to out-reproduce other groups. Since there are so many layabout young men and so few REAL jobs in the modern economy, perhaps these young men could walk the streets in gangs of 10 to escort the more vulnerable parishioners around. After a while, with increasing population, they could own the whole area again, and preserve it as turf. I think using the masculine protective nature of young men in this positive way would benefit them as much as the parish.

  13. electricangel

    July 11, 2013 at 1:11 am


    Been watching The Borgias on DVD. The Rockefellers are like the Medici, in using their money to buy soldiers and power. However, when a demographically superior power, like France, confronted them with larger numbers, they gave up without a fight. Ultimately, you win this culture war in the bedroom, not in the streets or comboxes.

  14. Will S.

    July 11, 2013 at 1:17 am

    Indeed. Make lots of babies, married reactionaries of all stripes! 🙂

  15. infowarrior1

    July 11, 2013 at 5:04 am

    @Will S.

    My is Rockerfella even a Christian?

  16. cecilhenry

    July 11, 2013 at 7:03 am

    Africa for Africans, ASia for ASians, White Countries for EVeryone!!!

    That’s GENOCIDE.


  17. More Anon

    July 11, 2013 at 1:04 pm

    Many cities also have subsidized low-income housing carve-outs that trads should exploit.

    I know of a few low-income setaside apartments in a gentrifying area within walking distance of a Catholic cathedral, a major Knights of Columbus hall and the state capitol building that could be useful for a young man trying to establish himself.

  18. electricangel

    July 11, 2013 at 2:14 pm


    Africa for Africans, ASia for ASians, White Countries for EVeryone!!!

    That’s GENOCIDE.


    Government policies have not been that supportive, Cecil. Still, have you thrown away the contraception that the Anglicans initiated their self-genocide with? That then made the hyphenated-american Catholics a threat to be destroyed? Did you know that the Madison Grant crowd did not consider those Catholics white?

    In the book, Jones uses the metaphor that what happened in the US in the 1930s was a civil war between two branches of WASP America, the Progressives (the modern Cathedral), and the Madison Grant immigration restrictionists. When Japan FINALLY got the US into the war that the Progressives wanted, with Hitler stupidly obliging them by declaring war on the USA, the America-First WASPs were defeated. Since then, the Progressives have been targeting their enemies, first Catholics, and after that the Madison Grant Protestants. That their system creates anomie, alienation, suicide, and the world’s highest female Prozac use is not a problem to them. As they say in Silicon Valley, it’s a feature, not a bug.

  19. Will S.

    July 11, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    @ infowarrior1: I don’t know who Rockerfella is, but the Rockerfellers self-identified as Christians, though as liberal mainline Protestants, we indeed may rightly question whether they really were, IMO.

  20. Will S.

    July 11, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    @ EA: I do know that some WN types don’t consider Portuguese to be pure white, and attribute their skin and hair colour / types to reflect African heritage. I find that laughable – are all Mediterraneans part African? – but even if true, so what; Portuguese are unquestionably Europeans, just as much as Greeks and Italians and northern Europeans.

  21. electricangel

    July 11, 2013 at 7:13 pm


    the Rockerfellers self-identified as Christians, though as liberal mainline Protestants, we indeed may rightly question whether they really were, IMO.

    I think Matthew 19:24 is appropriate here.

  22. electricangel

    July 11, 2013 at 7:19 pm


    I do know that some WN types don’t consider Portuguese to be pure white, and attribute their skin and hair colour / types to reflect African heritage. I find that laughable – are all Mediterraneans part African? – but even if true, so what; Portuguese are unquestionably Europeans, just as much as Greeks and Italians and northern Europeans.

    It wasn’t black people per se that the Catholics were fleeing. If you read dispatches from the time in the afflicted parishes, it was “Negro sexual mores” and predation on other groups’ women that the Catholics objected to. So the Catholics were not WN types, and I think it’s antithetical to the religion to be so. However, with an illegitimacy rate of 70% in the USA, blacks are certainly not observing traditional Catholic morality, and this would offend Trad Catholics against admitting them to parishes today, I think.

    Now, here’s a loaded question: suppose a Trad Catholic group adopts a policy that anyone with an abortion or bastard child in his (or especially, HER) past could not be a parish member. This would have a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics in the USA today, as their rates of illegitimacy are both over 50%. Could the government sue?

  23. Will S.

    July 11, 2013 at 10:35 pm

    @ EA: You misunderstood me, I’m talking about the Madison Grant types who as you pointed out hated Catholics as much as blacks. They’re the same type of idiots who hold that Portuguese aren’t even white. I never thought that Catholics as a collectivity bore any particular animus against blacks.

    Yes, that passage from Matthew is most appropriate. As is Matthew 7:16.

  24. infowarrior1

    July 12, 2013 at 12:13 am

    @Will S.
    “Competition is a sin”

    John D rockefeller

    That’s why I call him rockefella. A play on words good fella. Implying the gangster like nature that he is of.

  25. Will S.

    July 12, 2013 at 12:26 am

    Makes sense. 🙂

  26. slumlord

    July 12, 2013 at 8:29 am

    I disagree with the thesis EA.

    Rowhousing, or as we call it here in Australia, Terrace housing, was seen as low class type of housing which aspirational people wanted to move out from. Here in Australia, it was the WASPs who moved out of the row houses and into the detached dwellings. They were considered cheap and low class. After WW2 Australia had massive migrant influx (especially from Southern Europe) which actively settled in these houses. As soon as these migrants became affluent they moved out.
    There was no WASPy plot to break them up.

    The fact of the matter is that from the 1920’s to the 1960’s nearly everyone turned their back on traditional architecture. Bauhaus inspired designs had one thing over traditional architecture–they let in lots more light. Bauhaus architecture was light and airy in a way traditional architecture never was. And people loved the effect.

    I was recently talking to an architect (a child of those Southern European migrants) who discussed the her experience of living in this type of housing. The houses themselves were devoid of much natural light and she hated it, as did her mother. They moved out of the house primarily for this reason and into a new suburb. Her new house was light and airy, but she found that it took forever to reach her friends or travel to a store. A motor vehicle was de rigur. She started missing the services and facilities of the rowhouse suburb, but not the rowhouse. She now lives in a rowhouse, but only after incorporating several skylights and light-wells.

    Modern housing developments are a direct consequence of the writings of Ebenezer Howard and his concept of a Garden Suburb. It was the WASP establishment who flocked to these suburbs first, Hampstead Garden Suburb in London being a prime example.

    One of my pet interests is urban design and planning and its interaction with the human being. I don’t write about these things because most people’s eye’s glaze over when I start talking about it but I can drone on about the subject for hours.

    Rowhousing and streetcar suburbs are very good things, but their abandonment was not because of some sort of anti-Catholic plot, rather, the reasons were more complex.

  27. electricangel

    July 12, 2013 at 11:55 am


    When I was young, we lived in a detached house. My father then bought a townhouse with more bathrooms for his large brood, and later complained about having gone “from tenement to tenement in three generations.” There is no doubt that conventional rowhouse architecture DID lack light. If it were not obvious, then my own wife’s delight in the current house we live in would explain it to me; she had grown up in rowhouses, and insisted on a lot of light in the one we purchased, despite my misgivings about its inadequacies (which have since cost us many thousands of dollars.)

    Rowhousing and streetcar suburbs are very good things, but their abandonment was not because of some sort of anti-Catholic plot, rather, the reasons were more complex.
    The book details an anti-Catholic plot. There is no other way to talk about it. The rowhouse neighborhoods were only in Philadelphia and Boston, and not in Chicago or Detroit, the four cities covered. If you can secure a copy and a week to read it (it’s over 600 pages, and could REALLY have used some editing), you will have to agree.

    The point about rowhouses being, yes, they were substandard compared to the lighting provided in detached housing. Yes, there was no front yard, and practically no back yard to speak of. But there was a common, shared, safe space. Jane Jacobs talks about the ideal design for urban streets, and insists that sidewalks should be at least 16 feet wide to allow children to play. This is so totally at odds with modern American practice, with a swingset in every yard, that it seems like a dispatch from a different country. It is.

    Those blocks and blocks of rowhouses seemed to me overwhelming in their monotony when I first gazed upon them. They must have overwhelmed not just Ebenzer Howard, but Corbu and the rest of the Jacobins in the planning trade with their dullness. Recall also that, as Jones notes, these planners were in the grip of “environmentalist” equalitarian fantasy, that the buildings caused crime, not the residents. But there’s a different function to long unbroken blocks of houses, rigidly lined up to the property line in straight rows. As recounted in Suburban Nation and I think in Defensible Space, those straight lines actually make us feel like the street is a wall and an extension of the house, so that we engage with the public realm, feeling sheltered and protected in it. Large, open, empty plazas, as built in New York after the 1961 zoning law changes, have now been abandoned as public building policy. People scurry across the edges of them, as our ancestors on the savannah must have stuck near the safety of the trees where the lions of the open field could not catch them.

    The fact of the matter is that from the 1920′s to the 1960′s nearly everyone turned their back on traditional architecture.
    The book goes into detail about this. It was NOT done willingly. For example, the anti-New-Deal Republican mayor of Philadelphia turned down 19MM in Federal money to build Bauhaus-style housing projects. This was an offense to the Quaker/WASP Cathedral types in power at the Federal level, so they plotted to bring in a reform Democratic government to implement these ideas. As to the psychological impetus behind Bauhaus, I would refer you to J H Kunstler’s The Geography of Nowhere. In a nutshell, Hitler and Stalin were both pro-neoclassical and anti-Bauhaus, so anti-Naziism and anti-Communism mean embracing Bauhaus. (Fascist architecture, by the way, was remarkably Bauhaus-like) Of course, modernism in Catholic, Hapsburg Austria produced the exquisite Steinhof Chapel (courtesy of your landsmann Zmirak)

    Perhaps when I finish the book I am working on, you would do me the honor of reviewing it. It’s in an area we both seem able to drone on about for hours.

  28. slumlord

    July 12, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    I’ll look forward to the book.

    With regard to Bauhaus architecture. I think you’ve got to remember that the WASPy community was turning profoundly to the left from the 1890’s onwards. Their embrace of modern architecture was not as much anti-catholic (Catholics were thought to be primitive and inferior) as much as it was to be pro-modern and “progressive”. Their opposition to the row-houses was not due to their monotony, but rather the associated squalor. High density living was equated with filth and disease and therefore there was a big push by social hygienists to rid the towns of this type of housing.

    But if you look in Europe, even in the Catholic bits of it, the same stuff was going on. Holland, France, Italy all turned their backs on traditionalist architecture. It was a case of the elites “knowing what was best” for the workers. In the Anglosphere, the elites happened to be WASPs thus the association. I think, if you look at the data carefully, that the WASP elites enforced the same policies on their lower class brethren, and more importantly, themselves.

    As for the Steinhoff Chapel, I’m not a really big fan of it. There is something diabolical about it in my view, even though I’m a great fan of Otto Wagner. I’ve only seen it in pictures and never in the flesh so maybe my opinion of it will change when I get a chance to do so. The Viennese Secession wasn’t exactly an upholder of traditional values.

    Whilst I don’t like the aesthetics of the Bauhaus, some of their design philosophy I do admire. They designed with mass production in mind. In other words, they embraced the machine and their products* were just so much cheaper that the that of the British Arts and Crafts movement which could only be afforded by the very few. Part of the success of the Bauhaus may lay in the style’s economic advantages. ( So many skilled artisians were killed in WW1 that the price for traditional decorative finishes became exorbitant). In the 20’s there was a big pushback by the architectural profession (in the West) towards classicism but economics and socialist philosophy won in the end.

    *The Victorians also embraced the machine and technology. Trads need to recognise that mechanisation and aesthetic ugliness and not inexorably linked.

  29. electricangel

    July 13, 2013 at 1:32 pm


    With regard to Bauhaus architecture. I think you’ve got to remember that the WASPy community was turning profoundly to the left from the 1890′s onwards. Their embrace of modern architecture was not as much anti-catholic (Catholics were thought to be primitive and inferior) as much as it was to be pro-modern and “progressive”.

    My own thinking: in abandonding a “catholic” church, Protestantism became more and more narrowly focused on racial and ethnic terms. The “Progressives,” the modern Cathedral, grew out of the less doctrinal WASP Protestant class. Jones talks about how Quakers near Philadelphia, because of their religious beliefs, could basically assert “because God told my conscience so” and no other Quaker could oppose. But the other Prots were also facing the struggle. You can see signs in Germany that, especially with Hegel, there was a despaerate attempt to find a new religion to replace the one that they knew they could not believe in. In this regard, Bismarck was a new Prophet, and Hitler and Goebbels were the ultimate implementors of the replacement for Lutheranism, what you termed “Alpha Socialism.” So the period from 1914-1945 is another 30 years war, this time to determine which version of Protestantism would be supreme in the West. The Cathedral won that war. (It was years after thinking this thought that I found Belloc had had it long before me)

    Holland, France, Italy all turned their backs on traditionalist architecture.
    In the period before WWI, there was unity in much of the continent in favor of the last “Christendom” style, Art Nouveau. You can see it in apartment blocks in Milan, Austria, France, and as far afield as Poland and Norway. Its effects were limited in the UK and US; I know of only the Liberty department store in London in the style. Its successor, Art Deco, captured some of the West, but it was not international in the same way; what was interesting was how common motifs united Jugendstil, Art Nouveau, and Lo Stil Liberty, but it was still different in each land. This all disappeared after WWi; I had never thought of the connection of the deaths of all those artisans, but it seems obvious in retrospect.

    They designed with mass production in mind.
    I think this is where we part company. I would once have agreed with this notion, but I see it now as tightly engaged with a system geared to produce oligarchs and proles as part of its design. Marx saw this in Manchester, but his solution was even worse than the alienation that he observed. Jane Jacobs observes the difference between Manchester and Birmingham; the latter had an economy of small firms not controlled by the malefactors of capital, and it wound up as a more stable economy for all. Manchester’s wealth wound up supplying capital to layabouts like Marx and Engels!

    Have you ever done any reading on the Mondragon group? Founded by a Catholic priest, it’s the only workable, extant version of Catholic social and economic thought in an applied manner that I have found.

  30. slumlord

    July 14, 2013 at 6:29 am


    With regard to the Mondragon group; I had heard of them in the past but only vaguely. I do notice though that new workers are put on a probation period before they are allowed to join. I’ve got no problems with workers co-ops though they seem suitable for only certain types of people. Personally, I’m more an ordoliberalist.

  31. electricangel

    July 15, 2013 at 12:07 pm


    You cannot fire a worker in a Mondragon corporation, so you have to be sure he’s not a slacker. Curiously, an expert I consulted said that slacking was not a problem, that most companies are small enough that social opprobrium prevents the moocher from living off the efforts of his co-producers. Sure beats the modern bureaucratic corporation!

    Thanks for the link to ordoliberalism. Aligned somewhat with Roepke, my next read.

  32. thrasymachus33308

    July 17, 2013 at 10:10 am

    Reblogged this on Deconstructing Leftism and commented:
    Economic independence of whites is crucial. MW will like the part about no need for a car! I have this book sitting me but haven’t started it yet.

  33. thrasymachus33308

    July 17, 2013 at 10:15 am

    The question is, which Catholics? I’m well into middle age and the Catholicism I grew up with was nothing more than the values of the progressive elite with bad guitar playing. Did Vatican II totally coopt and corrupt the American church?

  34. electricangel

    July 17, 2013 at 4:06 pm


    The funny thing is, by the standards of the 1920s, the Catholic ethnics in the cities weren’t “white.” Jones makes the point that the Church did not move them toward the idea of being “Catholic” instead of, say, Irish, and so they had to find their own identity. They chose to consider themselves “white” in opposition to the blacks who were ethnically cleansing their neighborhoods. They could not have known that the moniker they were adopting was the standard-bearer of the Madison Grant crowd that had been defeated by the Progressives when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and white nationalism was lumped with National Socialism and Fascism. The Progressives (the Cathedral) will always remain on guard against their deadliest enemies (and the only group they consider a threat to defeat them), and identifying as “white” will bring about the reaction from them.

    As to which Catholics, I grew up with the same Papism. I attended Catholic schools, but never once did I see a Catechism. I was so uninformed that I pronounced the word “cat – a – chizm” with the “ch” pronounced as in cheese at one point. No one would fight or die for a wishy-washy watered down faith like that, and the Church has lost millions of cradle Catholics in this fashion. Benedict XVI has restored a lot of the features that went underground, like the Latin Mass. I suspect that the ongoing persecution (at least the Church has now admitted to the culture war being waged by the Culture of Death against it) will strengthen it.

  35. fnn

    July 17, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    The funny thing is, by the standards of the 1920s, the Catholic ethnics in the cities weren’t “white.”

    That’s POMO BS:

    For a while jokers like Noel Ignatiev have been promulgating “whiteness studies” claiming that groups like the Irish were not initially considered “white”. My comment no longer appears at Reason, but I tried pointing out to Ron Bailey that even turn-of-the-century racialists who embraced the concepts of “Nordic”, “Alpine” and “Mediterranean” still considered European immigrants to be white. Lothrop Stoddard’s notorious book “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy” (which you can read for free online) is quite explicit on that point. At the same time, what we consider salient depends on the context. So if the only people who can effectively vote are white men (an important legal distinction inclusive to these supposedly non-white immigrants), intra-white distinctions are going to be salient in politics. In other situations where people are homogenous in race and language they might divide over religion, as in Northern Ireland.

    Recently I came across one of the rarest of things, an anonymous comment at the iSteve blog which is actually worth reading. It links to the American Journal of Sociology paper Defining America’s Racial Boundaries: Blacks, Mexicans, and European Immigrants, 1890–1945 by Cybelle Fox and Thomas A. Guglielmo. The paper is unfortunately gated, but anonymous provides an excerpt:

    In stark contrast [to the black-white boundary], there was essentially no SEE-white boundary [SEE=Southern and Eastern Europeans]. Contrary to the arguments of many whiteness studies historians and the social scientists who have drawn on their work, we contend that wherever white was a meaningful category, SEEs were almost always included within it, even if they were simultaneously positioned below NWEs [=Northern and Western Europeans]. Some individuals and an occasional institution questioned—or appeared to question—the whiteness of SEEs and other Europeans, blurring the boundary in limited contexts. But the categorization of SEEs as nonwhite was neither widely recognized nor institutionalized. In fact, quite the opposite. Federal agencies including the census, the military, the immigration service, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and others all counted by race and placed SEEs firmly within the white category. No court ever denied Europeans the right to naturalize as free white persons at least in part because race scientists and the “common man” placed SEEs within the boundaries of whiteness. Furthermore, when SEEs saw Whites Only signs in movie theaters, restaurants, swimming pools, playgrounds, buses and streetcars, and at places of employment, they could—with near certainty—be confident that those signs were not meant to exclude them. Similarly, when housing covenants restricted the sale of homes to whites, when unions declared that their membership was restricted to white workers, when schools declared that their doors were open to white children only, and where marriage laws prohibited miscegenation, SEEs quickly learned that the category “white” included them, too.


  36. Will S.

    July 17, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    @ EA:

    “the Church did not move them toward the idea of being “Catholic” instead of, say, Irish, and so they had to find their own identity”

    Indeed; I saw a movie recently, which showed Irish and French-Canadians in the early 19th century in Lowell, Mass., fighting each other. That also happened up here in places like Ottawa; certainly, there was no ‘pan-Catholic’ solidarity by any means. Irish, Scottish Highlanders, French-Canadians, all squabbled. And the English and Scots and Scotch-Irish Protestants no doubt laughed – while squabbling amongst themselves, naturally. 🙂

    @ fnn: That’s interesting.

  37. electricangel

    July 19, 2013 at 11:10 am


    I cannot disagree with the idea you stated, that, for example, a Greek or an Italian on a bus in the de-jure segregated South would be identified as “white” and not grouped with the blacks.

    When I wrote the the Catholic ethnics were not “white,” that derives directly from the Catholic viewpoint as Jones writes it. Essentially, Catholics were concerned with “ethnos,” not race, and that translates more as “nation” than race. It seems curious to us today, but there was fierce competition between the Irish, who ran the Church in America, and all the other ethnicities. The Irish were smart enough to give each ethnic group its own parish to keep them happy, while holding the reins of power themselves. Jones talks about this pattern as both creating the cohesion in, say, Polish neighborhoods, as well as leaving Catholics divided in the face of the common threat from a demographically declining Protestant establishment (they’re still on the losing side, demographically, but now it’s the evangelicals they need to target). Given that their hierarchy would not offer them a common ehtnicity as “Catholic,” they chose to self-identify as “White,” pairing up with the Protestant majority in the country.

    Now, on the point of the MAdison Grant crowd. One of the great counters to the people who accuse that group of white supremacy is to actually read what they wrote. I recall discussions of two groups strongly affected by the 1924 law, Chinese and Italians. The speaker was in fact quite conciliatory towards Italians; paraphrasing from memory: “It is not that we think that we are more civilized than you. It is not that you do not have a great tradition of your own. What we are for is to keep this country as a place for us; it implies no disparagement of the people we want to keep out.” This is simply NOT the way that the Grant crowd is depicted today.

    There was, in fact, a three-way “White” Kulturkampf going on. The Progressives did not care for the Madison Grant Crowd (see their depiction of the “rubes” in Inherit the Wind), and the Madison Grant crowd did not care to be swamped by southern and Eastern Europeans. Rather than allying in common cause with the Catholic ethnics against the budding Cathedral, the MAdison Grant crowd used its last moment of political supremacy to cut off Catholic immigration and the renewal of ethnic neighborhoods. The Cathedral scored a two-fer with WW2: they got to stick it to the Madison Granters, who wanted to stay home, and they got to treat ethnically solid Catholic neighborhoods as potential hotbeds of fifth column support for Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. I start to wonder if the Cathedral backed the 1924 act to keep the Catholics and the Fundamentalists apart, which would work until Roe v. Wade would unite them in common cause, 50 years later.

  38. Patrick B.

    July 29, 2013 at 1:38 am

    You guys should move into my neighborhood! We are working to implement a sort of Amish strategy here in Tallahassee.

  39. electricangel

    July 29, 2013 at 9:27 am


    Thanks for the link. IT seems like it’s a Catholic-oriented subdivision. I would guess that you are prohibited from keeping non-Catholics out, however. I would guess that anyone who did NOT want to pay to maintain the Cross and other items there would simply not buy in to it. A step in the right direction.

    Things to improve: 1) It seems like the whole community is based around auto transport. How is a child who lives in house 11B supposed to visit his friend in house 23B? Because the layout is conventional cul-de-sac with all roads focused on a feeder, a very short walk winds up requiring a car; the fact that your streets are built to “county standard” likely means that traffic will go too fast (they’re too wide) for him to safely ride to his friend’s house, unless you have built sidewalks? Read the book Suburban Nation for some ideas here; Jones criticizes a street layout like the one you possess because it discourages walking and mixing; connect La Concepcion Drive and Guadalpana Court… for the children. 2) The houses are still privately owned, meaning they will pay property taxes for the schools that your homeschooling target audience will not use. (Better to keep your children away from the state, but still.) Being privately owned, they are economic assets to a marriage, and can be used as part of the cash and prizes to be awarded to women who dynamite their families in divorce. Better would be for a parish-centered community where the Church owns all the houses and rents them to parishioners as part of its charitable organization; this avoids property tax and disincentivizes wifely divorce rape.

    For an example of a wholistic Catholic-originated social living model, read what one socialist had to say about The Mondragon Group. It seems to be a model in accord with Catholic social teaching, not socialist, and highly successful.

  40. Patrick B.

    July 30, 2013 at 9:47 pm

    It certainly isn’t perfect, but like you say, it is a step in the right direction. Walking and biking around is quite safe. There is actually very little traffic on the roads, and the neighborhood is intersected by trails through the woods.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s