A Defector Gene

As we watch the globalism crisis unfold, it is interesting to watch different reactions from different populations. There does seem to be a bit of the Hajnal Line working within the EU as Eastern Europe & Italy are moving to secure sovereignty while Western Europe has a less strident posture but makes statements about securing production. The clannishness of the Mediterranean seems to be working against globalism, as well as within the US, the clannish whites are saying “Bring manufacturing back, immigration moratorium now”. It feels cultural and even genetic in origin.

This could be a systems thing with the outbreeding project. Outbreeding selected and bred for a population that was cooperative and open to working with others. This has devolved into ethnomasochistic behavior with the help of Jewish immigration endeavors. This is outbreeding creating a negative loop. Now casting societal wide problems aside, drilling down to the individual, could treason be genetic? If behaviors are hereditary, why would treason be any different than intelligence, agreeableness, etc.? Look at the Philby family.

Many fans of 20th century history and the Cold War will know the name Kim Philby. Philby was part of the famous Cambridge Five; the circle of spies within the bureaucracy of the spy world learning information for the Soviets. The Anglos were already socialist, so helping the Soviets who were communists fight fascism had some appeal. Philby had multiple Jewish women recruiting him in the ’30s to help the cause. What is interesting is how immediately he identified with the “other”. Philby’s love affair and identification with the cause of worldwide communism or socialism intertwined, but had him hooked even after his separation from his initial communist lover.

Was there something to Philby? He graduated in 1933 and was working with the communists immediately. He had been spotted for tendencies and inclinations in school. This was not difficult to spot in Western universities at that time. Harvard had pinkos as well as vocal and open socialists by the cartload. The Oxbridge crowd was not any different. As is often repeated, it was a WASP and Jewish crowd. Along those lines of cultural determinism, was there something else, something genetic? His father reveals how.

Harry St John Philby is a rather odd case of a British foreign intelligence officer. Harry St John “Jack” Philby called himself the “first socialist to join the Indian Civil Service”. Philby was stationed in what is now southern Iraq to protect the oil fields of the empire and inspire an Arab revolt. The Arab revolt was spurred on by Lawrence of Arabia, but Philby made inroads deep into the Arabian peninsula with the Ibn Saud clique and puritanical Wahhabis.

Before his son Kim was setting the template for Cold War treason, Jack Philby went native. This was not all that uncommon as plenty of Brits went native in their different assignments and some garnered worldwide renown in doing so. There is a difference between his behavior and Lawrence of Arabia’s or some other agents. Those agents worked with native populations, romanticized their ordeals, loved their lands et cetera, but they still fit it into the context of what was best for the Empire. Sympathy and empathy are common among ambassadors and foreign service agents, but Philby took this to a new level. Philby had a more hands on and different approach.

Philby decided even as far back as during the Great War, and against official British foreign policy, that it would be better if the Saudis ruled the entire Arabian peninsula. Philby did not act as an agent for the British as much as he acted as an agent for the Ibn Saud clique. Philby pushed the Brits to allow Ibn Saud to take over Kuwait, which would have been a betrayal of the sheikh of Kuwait that the British had aligned with. Philby sent confidential information to Ibn Saud, had unauthorized correspondence with Saud and nudged the Ibn Saud crew to ruffle feathers and cause unrest in their area for their gain. Philby then went on to perform public relations for the Saudis in his correspondence to the Brits back home.

Philby set up shop with a private job in Jeddah and was the voice in King Saud’s ear for decades. Philby did not just wear the robes and LARP to later put it away and return to England. He went native. He also took it one step further in 1930. In 1930, he converted to Islam. This was no quick conversion in a government office to become a Muslim for perks or better access. His Muslim name was Abdullah, which means God’s slave. The king that he installed on the throne as King of the Arabs repaid him with a new slave bride for retirement. Philby was not done as he worked against British interests while advising the Saudi king in the ’30s and even made overtures to the random fascist nations and the rising global power, America.

This was all going on with Jack Philby before and then at the same time that Papa Philby was pushing his son Kim towards a career with MI6. It is a biblical lesson passed on from ancient days that the sons shall bear some burden for the sins of the father. That is not just a punishment concept but a warning that it might be wise to treat a son harshly or put him under more scrutiny because of his father’s actions. How could MI6 have been so blind as to not see what Jack Philby had done and worried that Kim Philby would repeat the same deeds just with a different “other”? They tossed it aside. They pulled him into their government and promoted him up the ranks. Philby was the chief liaison between British-American intelligence agencies, and his Cambridge cronies and own cloud of suspicion would haunt James Angleton for decades as he became obsessed with moles.

Kim Philby is a figure that makes it into Cold War specials. Most of the Hollywood films on intelligence moles are modeled after his career in MI6. Practically no one knows of his father. No one asks why such a well oiled Empire could lose sight of one of their own going to the other side yet select that same man’s son for sensitive jobs. Few if any in the 1930s would consider the security concerns and if there may be a hereditary component to the ability of men and women to turn on their own for the “other”. No one today would even be allowed to publicly think in that manner.

-By Henry Delacroix