The most gruesome multicult of all?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, 08 January 2006 06:14.

One of the most obvious of human instincts is the desire to propagate our genes. We want to reproduce ourselves, which helps to explain not only our desire to have children, but also our instinct to live in continuity amongst our own racial kin.

At one level, the political class recognises this instinct to propagate genes. It is, after all, an aspect of the Darwinism to which the political class strongly adheres. For instance, when discussing human evolution, the Australian leftist John Bradford is happy to explain that,

“Both men and women are driven by the unconscious imperative to transfer as many of their individual genes, and in as great a number as possible, into succeeding generations.”

So what we have is a strong human instinct urging us to have children and to preserve communities based on kinship, with the liberal intelligentsia giving this instinct a strong recognition in terms of human evolution.

And yet, despite this, the Western intelligentsia acts directly against this instinct by advocating unrestricted immigration and racial diversity (John Bradford, for instance, later in his article mocks white men for their “nationalist resentment” in seeking to exclude a world of “others”.)

But perhaps this should not be so surprising. What if the problem that liberals have with the propagation instinct is exactly its importance to individual life? If you are seeking to create a “free” man, who authors his own self as he chooses, then it is exactly the strongest and most deeply felt instincts which will seem most limiting or oppressive and which the “liberated” individual will most want to prove his distance from.

This does not, of course, only apply to race. What is the other great sin in the liberal order apart from “racism”? It is “sexism” – the idea that our masculinity or femininity matters to who we are or what we choose to do.

So Liberal Man is in the difficult position of not only denying his instinct to identify positively with his own race, he must also distance himself from his masculine identity.

What this means is that liberals will generally be much more radically divorced from the world than the rest of us.

As a traditionalist conservative, I am of course at odds with much of political modernity. I have much to lament about the course taken by the West. But I am merely in political exile. A liberal is likely to be, in a much more radical sense, in exile from the way the world itself is constituted.

Should we wonder, then, at the unceasing efforts of liberals to “reform” a world so falsely constituted; or that radicals have taken as their ideal a permanent revolution; or of the delight taken by many in transgressing the natural order?

Or that the liberal road leads some to want to escape the world itself?

Jonestown

Most readers will have heard about the events at Jonestown in 1978. I was still a pre-teen when they happened and the only knowledge about Jonestown which I have carried into adult life is that a charismatic cult leader, Jim Jones, led his followers in a grisly mass suicide in the South American nation of Guyana.

It was only recently that I found out about the politics behind the Jonestown settlement.

The story goes like this. Jim Jones was born in Indiana in 1931. Even as a young man he mixed his interest in religion with his political concerns. His religious style was charismatic, and included the practice of faith healing. His political views were radically politically correct, even by today’s standards, let alone those of the 1950s. It might even be said that Jones pioneered the kind of anti-white, racial diversity philosophy so influential in our own times.

Jones’ belief in “equality and justice” led him to form his own racially integrated church he first named Community Unity and later the Peoples Temple. In 1958, Jones set up what he called his Rainbow Family by adopting three Korean children and an African American boy. His one biological child was named Stephen Gandhi Jones.

Jones won favour with the authorities in Indianopolis. In 1960 the mayor nominated him “President of the Indianopolis Commission of Human Rights” with a salary of $7000 a year. He decided, however, to shift his church to California.

Again, Jones won favour with the authorities. He was elected President of the Grand Jury of Mendocino Country, and after shifting to San Fransisco, the church grew to over 7500 members. In 1975 he mobilised 800 church members to work full-time for the successful mayoral campaign of George Moscone.

In 1976 he agreed to bus in hundreds of followers to a presidential campaign meeting for Rosalynn Carter, wife of the future president. His photo appeared with Mrs Carter in the papers the next day and he was invited by the president to his inauguration in Washington. Congressman Willie Brown declared that “San Francisco needs 10 more Jim Jones” and he was appointed President of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission by the mayor.

Despite these honours, Jones decided once again to move his church, this time to a commune in the South American nation of Guyana. The commune, named Jonestown, didn’t last long. In 1978 a congressman named Leo Ryan flew to Guyana to investigate claims of human rights abuses in Jonestown.

Fourteen of Jones’ followers asked to return to the USA with Ryan. At the airstrip there was an attack on the planes by church members. Congressman Ryan and four others were killed, but one of the planes got away.

Jones then decided on a mass suicide. Children were poisoned first, then adults. Some were shot attempting to leave. In all over 900 died.

Politics

Jones eventually became a kind of communist in his politics. But much of what he and his followers stood for is very close to the politically correct views of mainstream liberalism.

Consider the following quotes from writers on Jones:

“For many members of Peoples Temple, Jonestown was seen as the Promised Land. Jonestown was free of sexism, racism and ageism.”

“... in an effort to create a new, multi-racial society, Jones promoted bi-racial partnerships and the adoption or birth of bi-racial children”

“A diary kept by Temple member Edith Roller, for example, reported a boxing match between a young man accused of sexism, and a young woman. The woman knocked out the man, to the delight of the crowd in attendance.”

“The manifesto of equality for everyone remained an utmost virtue with Peoples Temple.”

“His hatred of racism, sexism, elitism, and mainly classism, is what prompted him to make a new world for the people – a paradise in the jungle.”

“A society based on economic inequality cannot allow an organisation such as ours, which advocates racial and economic equality to exist.”

It’s interesting to note that white males did not get to play much of a role in Jones’ “anti-racist” paradise. About 80% of the followers were black and it is said that “Jones surrounded himself with intelligent but gullible white women as his chief assistants”.

In Jones’ world view white men were viewed as a devilish enemy. Jones believed, for instance, that the world might be destroyed either through nuclear war or a genocide against people of colour. His church members were put through radical loyalty tests called “white nights”, so named because of Jones’ belief that “white men are trying to ruin our project”. One church member wrote a final testament praising Jonestown because there were “no more racist tears from whites and others who thought they were better.” Even the decision to suicide was blamed by Jones on the defection of some of his white followers, who sought to escape with Congressman Ryan.

Why weren’t all people free and equal? Jones, it seems, thought that white males were the powerful evil oppressor group preventing this possibility.

Jones did veer away from mainstream liberalism in many of his political methods. Despite all the talk of freedom and equality, Jones and a group of committees ran Jonestown in a highly authoritarian and manipulative way.

There were demands for couples to divorce and remarry partners chosen by Jones himself; Jones demanded the right to have sex with members of his congregation; there were public beatings for the children of Jonestown; armed guards patrolled the perimeter of the town; adults who failed to meet work targets or who made criticisms might have their heads shaved as a punishment or be required to wear a yellow hat or a special badge to signal ‘dishonour’.

Conclusion

There are two main conclusions I think we should draw from the Jim Jones story. The first is simply that politically correct liberals ought to be endlessly embarrassed by what took place at Jonestown. A pioneer of racial diversity and feminism led a large movement of people to a most grisly end of murder and mass suicide.

If a conservative nationalist had done this we would never be allowed to forget it. As one (libertarian) writer has put it,

“It would be easy to forget it all, as most of the ‘left’ doubtlessly will, or to sweep it all aside as some trivial or insignificant event: a lot of religious nuts bumping themselves off in some far away jungle. But this isn’t good enough.”

It’s actually not clear exactly how religious Jones was. He once said, “If there is no rich, no poor, if everyone were equal, religion would soon disappear.” One Jonestown survivor, when asked if Jones was primarily interested in socialism or Christianity answered “Jim was a socialist first and an atheist second.”

Consider also the following statement by Laura Woods. She set out to write a paper on Jim Jones, and as a political modern was seduced by his politics. So much so that she concluded her essay with the following ringing endorsement of the life, and death, of the Jonestown settlers:

“The world hasn’t learned anything from Jonestown because Peoples Temple has been long written off as religious zealots. Jonestown can and will happen again because no one respected their lifestyle. If the world was what Peoples Temple hoped it would become, events like this would be a nightmare, not a testament to reality. Instead, sides were divided and war was declared against Jim Jones. The members were tragically caught in the crossfire. All they wanted was a society free of sexism, racism and ageism. On November 18, 1978, their dream shattered tragically and for whatever reason, 918 people died. And why? In the final words of Annie Moore, “we died because you would not let us live in peace.”

And then there is the conclusion with which I began this essay, namely, that one outcome for political moderns is to feel divorced from the way the world is constituted. Jones took this feeling to a most radical conclusion. Not only did he try to reconstitute society in a utopian commune, he then advocated an even more “revolutionary” act against the world, the rebellion of suicide.

“We were too good for this world” said Jim Jones as his followers prepared to suicide. One devotee left behind a note addressed to Jim Jones, in which he wrote, “Dad, I can see no way out, I agree with your decision ... I am more than tired of this wretched, merciless planet and the hell it holds for so many masses of beautiful people.”

“It is living which is treacherous” was one of Jones’ last pronouncements before he too committed what he himself had labelled “revolutionary suicide”.

Tags: History

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 10:38 | #

I did not know of the politics of Jim Jones and Jonestown and had assumed that insane religious zealoutry was the explanation for events there. I am grateful to you, Mark, for providing this startling information so succinctly. A very interesting and thought-provoking post.

Posted by Phil on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:34 | #

I had never heard of this nutcase. Not surprising. Think of the number of TV programs we had about the cultists at Waco, Texas (crazy Armageddon obsessed Christans).

The extent to which liberalism distorts the mind is astonishing.

But I think Conservatives (and/or Traditionalists) are going to have to accept the fact that there is something in man’s soul that yearns for these goals and which then leads him on an endless quest for absolute “equality”. If that wasn’t the case, such large numbers of people would not come under the sway of these ideas.

Thanks for the information Mark. One wouldn’t have guessed reading the CNN Report.

Posted by onetwothree on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:38 | #

If a conservative nationalist had done this we would never be allowed to forget it.

Occasionally, Nietzsche’s sister’s husband’s colony in Paraguay is dredged up for ridicule.

Posted by voice on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:18 | #

Mark,

Brilliant essay that brought a unique perspective on white liberal mindset.

Phil,

“But I think Conservatives (and/or Traditionalists) are going to have to accept the fact that there is something in man’s soul that yearns for these goals and which then leads him on an endless quest for absolute “equality”. “

Could we change this agreeable paragraph to “white man’s soul”? Non-whites when espousing liberal rubbish are acting in their own ethnic interests.

Posted by Phil on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 18:56 | #

Voice,

Mao wasn’t white. But he did murder 65 million people in the name of equality. The worst genocide in the history of mankind. That was like Jimmy Jones multiplied by 65,000.

Posted by sr on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 19:00 | #

I have heard that Jonestown funded itself largely through government payments to individuals, such as Social Security checks, and recruited members specifically for the income streams they brought from the US Treasury.

Posted by Voice on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 21:50 | #

Phil,

Point taken.

But how do we separate the power crazed communist model aimed at class to the new one worlder ,leftist, cultural marxist model which is happy to hold hands with Globalist/Business elite free marketers?

This new strain is not interested at all in taking away the creature comforts(“parasity”) of “people of color” ,but more focussed on mass immigration into white lands along with fleecing through income distribution the white man’s ingenuity through taxation.

Here is where I was trying to make a point that our current enemy is a new strain which sole focus is the destruction of European’s genetic and cultural heritage.

Maybe I shouldn’t separate the two, I need to think about this some more.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:30 | #

For anyone interested in further reading on this subject, there’s an interesting “remembrance” by a former member of the Peoples Church, which gives some idea of the mindset of those who joined.

A quote from the above:

“I had a lot of out front political/professional type “missions” while in Peoples Temple. From my perspective, it was wonderful to live in an integrated community because it was billed as being like no other place on earth, that could equal its commitment to the masses of poor and downtrodden.

“It was sold as place where everyone was equal and therefore treated equally, where any person, regardless of race or class or gender, was believed to have the power and the support for confronting and overcoming any injustice.”

The emphasis is on a kind of protected political left-liberal family rather than religion.

Posted by Phil on Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:59 | #

Voice,

That’s a good point. The Asians have not demonstrated those suicidal tendencies - yet.

As I noted on another thread, Taiwan already has a powerful pro-gay movement and some of the most pro-Gay laws in Asia.

Things like easy acceptance of Homosexuality, the political power of women etc. are harbingers of great future change.

In the 1960s who could have thought that those wooly-headed hippies would institute modes of thought that could threaten our entire civilization with annhilation?

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 02:46 | #

Phil,

It wasn’t the hippies. It was the Left.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 03:32 | #

The Hippies WERE the Left; what we’ve seen in the last 40 years, with a partial remission during the 80s, is the slow playing out of all the idiot fallacies of the 60s as the ghastly generation that spawned them acquired more and more power.

Fortunately (except for those of us who still need an income) that generation is now being slowly ousted from positions of power. BY 2015, hopefully with the help of a good cathartic recession, a completely different set of beliefs will be in control. Probably also obnoxious, but at least different.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 04:00 | #

The Hippies WERE the Left

Absolutely not. To a large extent they were a product of the left, but they were not the Left. Abbie Hoffman, Mario Savio, et al. were not hippies.

Posted by Phil on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:45 | #

Ben,

Ok we’ll go with the left rather than the odious hippies. So I rephrase it accordingly.

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:57 | #

I guess Ben is reminding us that the three focii of rebellion in the sixties - civil rights, the drug culture, the peace movement - were all heavily Jewish at the organisational level. Savio was Jewish. There was a Jewish, let us say, over-representation among the Chicago Eight (ie the seven plus Bobby Seale), who were:-

Radical pacifist David Dellinger, the Yippie (Youth International party) leaders Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, National Mobilisation Committee organiser Rennie Davis, former Students For A Democratic Society activist Tom Hayden, Black Panther leader Bobby Seale and student leaders John Froines and Lee Weiner.

The fertility of the Ashkenazic imagination in matters of the perfection of gentile society is endless. The question is whether - and when - it is motivated purely by ethnic competitive considerations. I’m not a mind-reader so I don’t know. But I do admit the possibility at a high level of probability, and consider those who will not do so to be unwise.

Posted by John J Ray on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:57 | #

Wow!

I am amazed that lots of people did not know Jones was a Leftist.

Old guys like me can lose perspective.

I put up lots on history but I see that I need to put up stuff on relatively recent history too

Maybe there are even some people here who have bought the line that Pim Fortuyn was a Rightist

Posted by Voice on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:21 | #

Guessedworker,

Could you expand on your post in the future as maybe a main posting. I would very much like to learn on specifics of Jewish involvement in 60’s. More on the ground stuff like “chicago eight”(link didn’t work)

I have read Culture of Critique and all the Frankfurt school etc but would be interested in knowing who and how it was clinically carried.

It sounds like you know the details.

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 09 Jan 2006 20:16 | #

I guess Ben is reminding us that the three focii of rebellion in the sixties - civil rights, the drug culture, the peace movement - were all heavily Jewish at the organisational level.

Actually, my point was more that the focus of the hippies was largely directed inward, whereas the energy of the Left was directed outward at society in general.

For example, LSD guru Timothy Leary’s slogan was “Turn on. Tune in. Drop out”—not “Turn on. Tune in. Tikkun Olam.”

Posted by Andrew on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:17 | #

A little of the thread here, but:
Casting your minds back to the Cronalla riots: Up to date charge report from the detective superintendent in Charge, (up until tomorrow at least).
28 charges lade against rioters, bad news is, they are all white, admitting there was not any Lebanese charged with rioting or anything. So we know our Politicians are on Holidays, and so will this senior Policeman soon, you are not to know about this racism displayed by your very own Government and apparatchiks.
I would summarize it for you, If Police were able to arrest any Middle Eastern Scum, it would be civil war on Sydney streets, How the hell would I know, well, the police report on the Sunday night told us so, orders came down not to move in on the Scum, as it would be dangerous, and police would be out gunned, Now did you hear that on BBC, ABC or CNN no I did not think so. Not the WHITE ANGLO”S with the Guns, MIDDLE EASTERN MOSLEMS. And not a single one has been charged with anything. UNDERSTAND THAT.

Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 04:04 | #

Do Australians still have a right to trial by jury? If so, is there any doubt they will be acquitted?

Posted by Andrew on Tue, 10 Jan 2006 05:49 | #

They do Ben, but our system is laced with Lefty land thinkers as Judges, being White, if they could, would have them executed if they thought they could get away with it.
On the other hand, with our raping rampaging mongrels Moslems, they would tickle their toes and more than probable give them a reward.
Often in the juries system, if there is a Moslem in the juries, it would not matter what facts are on show, if it is a Middle Eastern Scum, they will deliberately sabotage the finding and “Not Guilty” finding-(Only takes one) and the case ends in dismissal. So true on so many occasions, We Australians believe it is deliberate it is that obvious. But the time is coming closer.

Posted by PCA on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:33 | #

Here is a transcript of Jim Jones explaining to the ‘flock’ why they must commit suicide;

http://employees.oneonta.edu/downinll/mass_suicide.htm

I found it very interesting. Look particularly at the discussion with ‘Christine Miller’.

She embodies every female left wing moron I have ever met. The splendid balance of being intelligent, but yet jaw droppingly stupid at the same time.

I have a feeling our forced conversion to multiculturalism; will turn out to be a suicide cult as well.

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 14:09 | #

Andrew - whats happening in Sydney now? Is the “trouble” over?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:04 | #

“I have a feeling our forced conversion to multiculturalism will turn out to be a suicide cult as well.” (—PCA)

If clueless women voters have anything to do with it, it will.

Extending the franchise to women without also taking the crucial precaution of removing certain issues from “the electoral table”—from the list of things that can be decided simply by popular vote—puts a country on the path to certain death, utter national eradication down to the last vestiges, within one-and-a-half generations, the time that elapsed in the U.S. from women getting the vote to the passage of the nation-destroying 1965 Immigration-Holocaust Act.

Posted by jlh on Wed, 11 Jan 2006 19:52 | #

Terrific post, Mark, and many good comments. I knew that many, if not most, of Jones’ followers were black because I was 20 when it happened and read many accounts, and even Time magazine ran gruesomely explicit photos of the dead clinging to each other in piles. But I had not ever read anywhere all the anti-white racialism that according to your post animated much that happened. Imagine that! Thanks.

Posted by Smitty on Thu, 12 Jan 2006 20:31 | #

So they killed themselves for “the planet” they were “humanatarians”, “Man is evil” now if we can get the rest of the liberals to adopt this policy of “self sacrifice” for the “unworthy” we’ll get some real change.