April 13th, 2010Kevin MacDonald: Stephen Walt had the audacity tosuggest, given Dennis Ross's close ties to WINEP, that Ross should not have a policy-making position on Middle East issues in the Obama Administration. Neocon Robert Satloff responded with outrage, claiming that Ross has been doing nothing but promoting "U.S. interests in peace and security for the past quarter-century." And he disingenuously asks, "To which country do we allegedly have a 'strong attachment'? Our foreign-born scholars hail from virtually every country in the Middle East — Turkey, Iran, Israel, and at least a dozen different Arab countries."
The best response is by M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, an organization that advocates a two-state solution to the conflict:
Steve Rosen [who was acquited on charges of spying for Israel in 2009] … cleverly came up with the idea for an AIPAC controlled think-tank that would put forth the AIPAC line but in a way that would disguise its connections.
There was no question that WINEP was to be AIPAC's cutout. It was funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC employees, and located one door away, down the hall, from AIPAC Headquarters (no more. It has its own digs). It would also hire all kinds of people not identified with Israel as a cover and would encourage them to write whatever they liked on matters not related to Israel. "Say what you want on Morocco, kid." But on Israel, never deviate more than a degree or two.
In other words, Satloff's claims that WINEP is not tied to any particular lobby or country are part of an ongoing subterfuge that fools no one except the mainstream media: "It matters because the media has totally fallen for this sleight of hand and WINEP spokespersons appear (especially on PBS) as if WINEP was not part of the Israel lobby. Some truth-in-labeling is warranted."
This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas. Because they are a small minority in the US and other Western societies, Jews must recruit support from the wider community. Their positions cannot be phrased as benefiting Jews, but as benefiting the interests of the society as a whole. As a result, these movements cannot tell their name.
A great example is the $PLC, an organization that we now know is funded by Jews and, apart from thesociopathic Morris Dees, is also largely staffed by Jews. Yet whenever there is a story about "immigrant rights" or angry White people, the SPLC is called on by the mainstream media as a "respected civil rights organization" rather than for what it is: A Jewish activist organization actively attempting to further the ethnic interests of Jews, typically at the expense of White Americans.
This sort of subterfuge was true of all the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique. As I noted in Ch. 6:
It is thus not surprising that although these theories were directed at achieving specific Jewish interests in the manipulation of culture, they "could not tell their name"; that is, they were forced to minimize any overt indication that Jewish group identity or that Jewish group interests were involved …. Because of the need for invisibility, the theories and movements discussed here were forced to deemphasize Judaism as a social category—a form of crypsis discussed extensively in SAID (Ch. 6) as a common Jewish technique in combating anti-Semitism. In the case of the Frankfurt School, "What strikes the current observer is the intensity with which many of the Institute's members denied, and in some cases still deny, any meaning at all to their Jewish identities" (Jay 1973, 32). The originators and practitioners of these theories attempted to conceal their Jewish identities, as in the case of Freud, and to engage in massive self-deception, as appears to have been common among many Jewish political radicals. Recall the Jewish radicals who believed in their own invisibility as Jews while nevertheless appearing as the quintessential ethnics to outside observers and at the same time taking steps to ensure that [non-Jews] would have highly visible positions in the movement (pp. 91–93). The technique of having non-Jews] as highly visible exemplars of Jewish-dominated movements has been commonly used by Jewish groups attempting to appeal to gentiles on a wide range of Jewish issues (SAID, Ch. 6) and is apparent in the discussion of Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy. … [Chap. 7]: Beginning in the late nineteenth century, anti-restrictionist arguments [on immigration] developed by Jews were typically couched in terms of universalist humanitarian ideals; as part of this universalizing effort, [non-Jews] from old-line Protestant families were recruited to act as window dressing for their efforts, and Jewish groups such as the AJCommittee funded pro-immigration groups composed of non-Jews (Neuringer 1971, 92).
It's an old technique, arguably present (see alsohere) from the origins of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. The sad thing is that people who should know better continue to be deceived.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 8 Comments »
April 11th, 2010Kevin MacDonald: The last time we went through the Supreme Court nomination process, there was a veritable groundswell of hyperbole for Elena Kagan — so much so that I couldn't resist writing about it here. The theme is ethnic networking. How else explain the fact that someone with a completely undistinguished scholarly record not only got tenure at the University of Chicago but was appointed dean of Harvard Law School?
She had exactly two publications in law review journals when she got tenure and has done very little since. A record like that would be a tough sell for tenure even in the nether regions of academia, never mind the most elite schools in the land. But now her lack of publications is seen by her supporters as an asset: She has no embarrassing paper trail on controversial issues.
Once again, the same people are hyping Kagan as absolutely brilliant. In a recent Huffington Post article ("Elena Kagan Emerging As Supreme Court Front-Runner"), Charles Fried says, "She is a supremely intelligent person, really one of the most intelligent people I have encountered, and I have met a lot of them, as one does in this business. She is very adroit politically. … She has quite a strong personality and a winning personality. I think she's an effective, powerful person and a very, very intelligent person, and a very hardworking and serious person." Presumably she can also walk on water.
Fried also praised Kagan effusively in the earlier round, along with Laurence Tribe, another Jewish Harvard Law professor. As I noted, "Kagan wasappointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan covered for Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar's book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal.
The religion/ethnicity issue rears its head only slightly: "There has been some superficial concern over Kagan's religion — not because she's Jewish but because without Stevens there will be no Protestants on the court." And Kagan would be the first open homosexual on the court. (Actually, it's surprising we aren't hearing more about this, given how controversial sexual orientation and issues like homosexual marriage are these days.) But not to worry: "These are distractions not speed bumps, strategists predict, if Obama chooses to go with Kagan."
No White Protestants on the Supreme Court in a country that in living memory thought of itself as WASP at its very core. But, with Kagan, there would be three Jews and no White Protestants. Who exactly are these "strategists" and what is the goal of their strategizing?
The really amazing thing is that Kagan is being framed as a conservative. But on the issues that really count — issues related to multiculturalism, executive power, and free speech, there is every reason to suppose that Kagan is on the left: Her record
strongly suggests that Kagan would be quite willing to fashion her legal arguments to attain her liberal/left policy goals, and that is exactly what her other writings show. Her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," (60 University of Chicago Law Review 873; available on Lexis/Nexis) indicates someone who is entirely on board with seeking ways to circumscribe free speech in the interests of multicultural virtue: "I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."
She acknowledges that the Supreme Court is unlikely to alter its stance that speech based on viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment, but she sees that as subject to change with a different majority: The Supreme Court "will not in the foreseeable future" adopt the view that "all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution." But in her view there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that "all government efforts to regulate such speech" would be constitutional. All government efforts.
It's noteworthy that the organized Jewish community has a long record of opposing free speech related to multicultural issues not only in the US, but in a wide range of other countries. Kagan's views fit well with the views of the organized Jewish community: Every effort should be made to restrict "hate speech" within the current legal context, but to do whatever possible to change the context so that such speech is outlawed.
Further, as the HuffPo article notes, "the praise from conservatives may sound damning to those who worry that the court is … too willing to accommodate the radical expansion of executive power. Kagan has been criticized by civil libertarians for her expansive stance on detainee policy."
The promotion of a strong executive branch and lack of concern for civil liberties is exactly the problem: The worst excesses of government power in the last century have come from the left. Knowing that Kagan advocates a powerful central government is hardly reassuring.
The picture that emerges is that of someone who would have no hesitation to expand the power of the federal government to end First Amendment freedoms and squelch any hope that a White racialist movement could achieve real power. Those ideas are entirely within the Jewish mainstream.
In summary, Kagan "sees her job as a legal scholar to find a way to ensure that these goals are achieved while paying lip service to the legal tradition of the First Amendment." And in the long run, she would just love it if the First Amendment would be jettisoned entirely.
So the hype for Kagan is dishonest on two counts: First, there is no evidence whatever that she is brilliant; all the evidence is that she has achieved far more in the academic world and in government than she deserves based on her actual performance. Second, she is inaccurately presented as a conservative. Her meager paper trail of academic writing clearly indicates that she would be a staunch warrior on the side of the multicultural left on critical issues like free speech.
And despite all the hyperbole from "conservatives" like Charles Fried, I suspect the people who are promoting her are well aware of that fact.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 20 Comments »
April 11th, 2010Christopher Donovan: It's a question in my mind. It's a well-established kabuki dance: anti-whites call conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Confederate sympathizers "racists" who are hiding their true feelings. The conservatives respond with indignation, insisting that "Southern heritage" and the free market are their real concerns.
In the New York Times this morning, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham denounces the Virginia governor's declaration of Confederate heritage month. It's a typical yawner about how bad Whites are, and I'm sure someone will complain that "we're not racists, we just want to honor the South" or some such.
There is a third position, however: White advocacy. It admits the anti-White critique that Confederate flags mask more direct racial concerns, but rejects the anti-White conclusion that the concerns aren't legitimate. Why can't this position get a hearing in the New York Times? Believe me, I've tried. But theNew York Times is like a thick, high gray wall, allowing only the perspectives that advance its anti-white agenda. Its gatekeepers are always liberal and often Jewish, and they probably know full well that if an institution as grand and respected as itself lends credence to White advocacy, the universe as they've constructed it would start to crumble.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Tags: Christopher Donovan
Posted in Christopher Donovan | 3 Comments »
April 11th, 2010Kevin MacDonald: A constant theme on this website is that Whites living in societies run by non-Whites are in physical danger. From the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution to contemporary Africa, the lesson is the same: Loss of political power means murder and mayhem directed against Whites by minorities with deep historical grudges.
Right now racial tensions are escalating in South Africa following the death of Eugene Terreblanche, leader of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB). The mainstream media in the US has generally failed to even mention the violence directed against Whites, but today's LA Times in an exception. An earlier report in the Times stated that Terreblanche's killing was merely a dispute about wages. But today's storynotes that "police also say the killers stripped and humiliated the 69-year-old in a way that suggested extreme racial hatred."
White people are not merely being murdered, but they are being horribly and gruesomely tortured by people that can only be described as psychopaths:
Chris Van Zyl of the Transvaal Agricultural Union said in a phone interview that in one recent case, a man's soles were stripped from his feet while alive. An elderly woman's breasts were sliced off; another was gang-raped. Another was raped with a broken bottle.
The police and government have no statistics on farm killings. Van Zyl's group has recorded 1,266 slayings and 2,070 attacks since 2001. Other groups say more than 3,000 farmers have been killed in the last 16 years.
Van Zyl said that 78 farmers were killed in 2008, 55 last year and 19 this year, and that nonfatal attacks had increased dramatically. Most victims were elderly people on isolated farms.
Julius Malema, the powerful youth leader of the African National Congress, has been at the center of the storm. Malema revived the "Shoot the Boer" song from the war against apartheid, and recently he "threw a white BBC journalist out of a news conference after calling him a 'bloody agent' and 'bastard' with a 'white tendency.'"
The AWB has vowed revenge. But apart from a successful revolution to establish a White homeland or simply leaving, it's very difficult to see how the plight of South African Whites can be alleviated. Hatred against Whites will continue not only because of the hatreds stemming from the period of White dominance, but also because of the present poverty of much of the Black population — due mainly to the traits that characterize Africans everywhere, especially low average IQ. The "ANC government [is] unable to deliver its promises to improve healthcare, education and other services. In the meantime, Malema capitalizes on the vast, disillusioned black underclass by turning its anger and despair against whites and "imperialists."
But no African-led government or even a White-led government can ever develop a society in which the desires of the Black underclass (which continues to expand demographically) can be met. The result will therefore be continued hostility and friction — and increasing White desperation.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 18 Comments »
April 10th, 2010Christoper Donovan: At VDare.com, I see that the class action plaintiffs in the Mohawk RICO suit havesettled for $18 million. Attorney Howard Foster's idea was that by hiring so many illegal aliens, carpet giant Mohawk depressed the wages of American citizens working for the company. This was a creative legal strategy, a nice victory, and the type of suit that benefits Whites (for the most part — one plaintiff was herself a legal Hispanic). With a recovery of $250 per worker, the suit was largely symbolic, but it should make big companies think twice about brazen mass hiring of illegals.
In reading the account, I was surprised at what had happened to a Mohawk employee who made complaints while the suit was pending. Norman Carpenter (not sure if he's White, but I assume so) went to management about the number of illegal aliens working for the company. In response, aHispanic lawyer for the company was dispatched to meet with him — and allegedly threatened him with termination if he kept complaining about illegals. But Carpenter kept talking, and he was fired. That turned into a wrongful termination claim, in which Foster sought the deposition of the lawyer, Juan Morillo. Interestingly, new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has let stand a decision that Morillo bedeposed (perhaps she angled for the opinion in the hopes that it would cast her in an independent light).
I would be interested to see what happens to Morillo, whose career got a nice boost from networking withco-ethnics and clerking for a Hispanic judge. No doubt he felt tingly flexing his prestigious legal muscles in defense of his race, but he's run into a bit of a problem: the whistleblower laws.
If Hollywood weren't run by Jews, a character like Morillo would make for a great movie villain: a self-satisfied minority fat cat whose trajectory screams "affirmative action" and who makes big bucks representing huge companies and bullying work-a-day Whites who toil in carpet factories, only to be brought low by a scrappy attorney who had justice on his side.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Tags: Christopher Donovan
Posted in Christopher Donovan | 2 Comments »
April 9th, 2010Kevin MacDonald:I heard Naomi Cahn and June Carbone talk about their book, Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture (Oxford, 2010),on Commie Radio Pacifica, so you can be sure there is a "progressive" message. As summarized in their op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor, the idea is that families in Blue State America are thriving, while families in Red State America are failing because they are too hung up on old fashioned ideas like sexual abstinence.
There is an obvious dishonesty in this approach because it completely ignores race in the analysis in an effort to pin the blame on traditional sexual beliefs and customs. Blacks and Latinos who live in urban areas and in very Blue States exhibit high rates of teenage pregnancy, non-marriage, and dropping out of the education process — much higher than Whites in Red State America.
So what they are really trying to explain is variation in family patterns among White people. And there they have a point. Red State White America is in a crisis. (Indeed, it's no accident that Red State America is where most of the much-commented-on White anger is coming from.) The data they are summarizing really relate to some of the correlates of education which is in turn linked to IQ. But we have known at least since The Bell Curve that higher IQ people not only are more likely to go further in the educational system, they are more likely to have stable marriages, they don't have babies outside of marriage, and they begin child bearing later. These people are more likely to live in large urban and suburban areas where there are jobs for educated people.
The Whites in non-urban Red State America have a lot to be angry about. The present economic crisis is just the most recent disaster in the long pattern of dispossession of Whites who are less educated. Good jobs in the private sector have pretty much evaporated — the unions are gone and the jobs have been shipped overseas. These people see their communities invaded by racial and cultural aliens, many of them illegal, making a middle class life impossible. They see themselves losing political power to the coalition of minorities and elite Whites that has become the Democratic Party.
As The Bell Curve emphasized, since World War II the cognitive elite are pulling away from the rest of America. Hard economic times only make it worse.
And hard times are always difficult on families. As Cahn and Carbone note, "the latest studies show that as the economy has gone south, teen and nonmarital births and abortions have all increased. … Employment figures also demonstrate that male employment has fallen even further than female employment, making youthful weddings that much riskier."
In evolutionary terms, the high-investment style of reproduction becomes non-viable as men are unable to provide for their families. Women start having babies sooner and don't expect to receive support from males over a long period of time, especially where welfare programs are available.
Being on the left, however, C & C use this opportunity to propose that the real culprit is traditional family values. If we could just get rid of those Bible Belt ideas, all would be well:
Missing from this debate is recognition of the bankruptcy of traditionalist family values as policy for the postindustrial era. …
In the United States, states that emphasize abstinence-only education, limit public subsidies of contraception, restrict access to abortion – and, yes, oppose gay marriage – have higher teen birth and divorce rates.
Yet the failure of the family values movement simply produces another round of moral panic and calls for more draconian restrictions.
Their solution combines typical leftist utopianism with a very real program of lowering the birth rate of people with traditional values.
The solution? As we outline in great detail in our book "Red Families v. Blue Families," there are three critical steps we can take: (1) promote access to contraception – within marriage as well as outside it; (2) develop a greater ability to combine not only work and family, but family and education; and (3) make sure the next generation stays in school, learns the skills to be employed, and cultivates values that can adapt to the future.
This is a nice distillation of the bizarre idea that all Americans have the potential to be college graduates with lots of skills suitable for a post-industrial economy. IQ never enters the equation. But this utopian future is just not going to happen. A far better program would be to provide better economic opportunities for White people, especially White males, whose prospects have been blunted by the present regime.
The fact is that traditional sexual attitudes worked perfectly well in the West to produce a very adaptive culture of high-investment parenting combined with individualist social institutions. C & C attempt to tar traditional values with the stigma of Muslim and African societies where female virtue is prized: "We are entirely sympathetic with those inclined to lock up their daughters from puberty until marriage, but we do recognize that the societies abroad most insistent on policing women's virtue are locked into cycles of poverty."
But there is far more wrong with Muslim and African societies than policing the sexual behavior of women — including low average IQ and social institutions like cousin marriage and clan-based social and political systems.
The reality is that social support for high-investment parenting has always been a critical feature of Western social structure until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Since then, all of the markers of family stability have headed south — including divorce rates and births out of wedlock for all races and ethnic groups. (Nevertheless, there are very large differences between races and ethnic groups in conformity with Rushton's lifespan theory of race differences.)
But this relative lack of social support for marriage has had very different effects depending on traits like IQ. For example, a well-known study in behavior genetics shows that the heritability of age of first sexual intercourse increased dramatically after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. In other words, after the social supports for traditional sexuality disappeared, genetic influences became more important. Before the sexual revolution, traditional sexual mores applied to everyone. After the revolution, genes mattered more. People with higher IQ were able to produce stable families and marriages, but lower IQ people were less prone to doing so, and these trends have been exacerbated by the economic climate. Hence the Red State/Blue State dichotomy among White people observed by C & C.
And this brings me to thinking about Jews and particularly Jewish influence on sexual culture. In their book, C & C note that Jews tend to exhibit the Blue State pattern— an unsurprising result given Jewish IQ patterns. A theme of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique is that the psychoanalytic assault on traditional Western sexual culture had a disparate impact on different IQ groups and benefited Jews:
Jews suffer to a lesser extent than [non-Jews] from the erosion of cultural supports for high-investment parenting, and Jews benefit by the decline in religious belief among [non-Jws]. As [Norman] Podhoretz (1995, 30) notes, it is in fact the case that Jewish intellectuals, Jewish organizations like the AJCongress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union … have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. The evidence of this chapter indicates that psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement is a central component of this war on [non-Jewish] cultural supports for high-investment parenting. …
Although other factors are undoubtedly involved, it is remarkable that the increasing trend toward low-investment parenting in the United States largely coincides with the triumph of the psychoanalytic and radical critiques of American culture represented by the political and cultural success of the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s.
I then go into the academic version of the ideas presented here, especially the greater importance of social controls and traditional religious beliefs for people on the left side of the Bell Curve. (See here, in the Conclusion).
There is nothing wrong with traditional Western sexual codes. C & C are trying to rationalize the destruction of the last vestiges of that culture by noting that people with traditional religious ideas on sexuality increasingly behave in ways that are contrary to those beliefs. But the problem is not the traditional culture. Rather it is the economic dispossession of non-elite Whites combined with a media culture that glorifies expressive individualism and uninhibited sexuality — a media culture that, in my view, was critically shaped by the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed in The Culture of Critique
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 25 Comments »
April 7th, 2010Edmund Connelly: I recall that someone—perhaps it was William F. Buckley—said that you can't have both affirmative action and nuclear power.
His point, of course, is obvious: merit of the highest order is necessary to invent, build and maintain a highly complex system like America's nuclear power industry. To the extent standards are bent or diluted in favor of political goals such as increasing the number of minorities and women—though they be less qualified—a cost will be paid in efficiency, reliability, and potentially safety.
Despite this truism, America and other Western nations have headed down the road to diversity despite these costs. Thus, we have seen robust efforts to change the demographic face of life-saving occupations such as firefighting, where highly qualified White males are often passed over in favor of politically favored groups such as Blacks, Hispanics or women. For example, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor famously ruled against White firefighter Frank Ricci (the pre-Sotomayor Supreme Court overturned the ruling, a rare instance of justice and safety winning out over political correctness).
Another instance where ability and inclination still prevail over politics is commercial aviation, which has remained solidly in the hands of White males. Among commercial airline pilots, for example, only about 2% are women, with blacks accounting for far less than that. The Organization of Black Airline Pilots reports around 700 African-Americans working for U.S. airlines, about fifteen of whom are women.
In many areas of life, however, stakes are far lower, so blatant affirmative action policies elicit far less concern or reaction. For instance, does it really matter if your freshman English teacher at a community college is male, female, Black, White or other? Probably not that much. Even at better schools it is not a matter of life and death, though cumulatively it could affect the culture in some way.
Thus, the humanities have been able to politically alter the make-up of university faculty across America. Where White males overwhelmingly filled professorial roles through the 1960s, today's academy is the dream-come-true of the minority activists of the 70's (though not of today's activist, where complete absence of straight White non-Jewish able-bodied males is taken for granted as the holy grail).
As you leave the humanities and move toward the more quantitative subjects, however, political gerrymandering gets a little harder. By the time you are in the highly objective fields such as mathematics, engineering and physics, ability and merit are harder to fudge. Then-president of Harvard Larry Summersran smack into this uncomfortable fact when in 2005 he commented on why, in the previous year, 88 percent (28 of 32) of newly tenured faculty had been men. Despite having reliable evidence on his side, his conjecture that men and women could have differing abilities in some fields created an uproar. (See Steve Sailer's take here.)
As is so depressingly common under our multicultural regime, Summers was forced to apologize repeatedly, "in the style of a Communist show trial," in the words of one observer. Wikipedia gives us the follow-through:
Desperately trying to keep his job, Summers quickly appointed female historian Drew Gilpin Faust, head of Harvard's Radcliffe Institute For Advanced Study, to lead Harvard's Task Forces on Women Faculty and on Women in Science and Engineering.
Heather Mac Donald noted in Harvard's Faustian Bargain in City Journal:
"Faust runs one of the most powerful incubators of feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country."
Eventually, Dr. Faust brought back a $50 million wish list of payoffs to feminist interests, which the beleaguered Summers immediately agreed to fund. Hey, the money wasn't coming out of Larry's pocket, so why not?
Such aggression on the part of Dr. Faust did no harm, as she now sits in the Harvard president's office, where her website proudly displays endeavors such as this: Empowering girls all over the world.
This is all meant as background material for our current leading example of The Disappearing of the White Male Academic: Shirley Tilghman and Princeton. As Kevin MacDonald reported in this blog space, "Once again . . . all of our elite institutions are essentially enemy-occupied territory. Princeton's president, Shirley Tilghman, is the sort of White person that is absolutely poisonous to our cause…. She is also doing her best to absolutely eliminate White males from high-profile positions." MacDonald noted something that stood out for me as well: "My favorite is making a woman dean of the School of Engineering even though she is not an engineer." What could be more blatant than this?
And don't think that Tilghman is alone as a female president of an Ivy League school. Currently half of the eight Ivy League universities have women presidents, with Ruth Simmons being the only African American. (I'm not sure if this is better or worse than the days when six or seven of the Ivy League presidents were Jews.)
This topic of White male displacement in academia has cropped up in other instances this week as well. For example, a friend who earned a graduate degree in the field of American Studies sent me information on gender representation in the discipline to justify his decision to abandon a career in the field. (This reminded me of Alex Kurtagic's own justificationMemoirs of a Dissident Student in Postmodern Academia.)
American Studies was once a White male preserve that sought academic diversity by combining the study of American literature and history in an interdisciplinary way. Since then it's gone the way of most other humanities departments and hosts minority activist groups such as The Minority Scholars Committee, Ethnic Studies Committee and Women's Committee.
The women's committee, of course, looks after the interests of women. Fair enough.
What, then, are we to make of the fact that women in American Studies today by far outnumber males? And by the looks of it, this disparity will only increase in the future, for recent Ph.D.s become future faculty, and they too are overwhelmingly female.
Last year, for instance, freshly-minted female Ph.D.s outnumbers males 65% to 35%. In 2008 it was a whopping 75% to 25%. I told my friend he should inquire about why American Studies still needs a Women's Committee. (Better yet, why not agitate to establish a men's committee? Yeah, right.)
Anyway, I can only thank my lucky stars for the fact that I was born with and continue to enjoy White male privilege.
Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.
Tags: Edmund Connelly
Posted in Edmund Connelly | 23 Comments »
April 7th, 2010Kevin MacDonald: Stephen Walt has once again raised the issue of dual loyalty of American Jews — this time in the context of the role of Dennis Ross in shaping Obama Administration policy in the direction of Israel. As I have argued previously, I think that Walt (and Mearsheimer) tend to underestimate the problem of Jewish dual loyalty. It's often been said of Jews that they are just like everyone else, only more so. In the case of dual loyalty, it's certainly true that other people have various loyalties, but no other group has had such a passionate attachment to a foreign country. As The Israel Lobby shows, the American Jewish community is galvanized around doing the bidding of a foreign government. Dissent within the Jewish community has been effectively silenced, and the most energized, radical elements of the Jewish community determine the direction of the entire community.
Given all that, it is certainly not surprising that issues of loyalty would be raised. And, because of their status as a wealthy, powerful elite, Jews, far more than other minority groups, have been able to influence American foreign policy in the direction of Israel despite making up less than 3% of the population.
The charge of dual loyalty is an ancient one (reviewedhere under the heading "The Theme of Disloyalty"), present in Jewish religious writing. In the Book of Exodus, Pharaoh states, "Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land" (Exod. 1:9–10).
Walt writes that the accusation of dual loyalty was "a nasty anti-Semitic canard in old Europe." But, then as now, dual loyalty accusations had much more than a grain of truth. For example, between the mid-19th century and the Bolshevik Revolution, there can be little doubt that the Jewish Diaspora throughout Europe and America opposed the Russian government and often influenced policy in other countries to oppose Russia — often in opposition to the governments of those countries. In 1911, long before Jews attained the level of power in the US that they have now, there was a successful Jewish campaign to abrogate a US trade agreement with Russia aimed at getting Russia to change its policies on Jews in opposition to the views of the Taft Administration.
The similarities to today are striking: AIPAC has rammed through punitive trade restrictions on Iran not because such restrictions benefit the US, but because Iran is seen as threatening Israel. And now there is a major push to get the US to bomb Iran — again promoted by Israel's friends in the US. (Here'sBill Kristol stating that it's better for the US to attack Iran than for Israel to have to do it.)
Walt writes:
Needless to say, in a melting-pot society like the United States, it was inevitable that many Americans would also have strong attachments to other countries. These different attachments may reflect ancestry, religious affiliation, personal experience (such as overseas study), or any number of other sources. The key point, however, is that in the United States it is entirely legitimate to manifest such attachments in political life. Americans can hold dual citizenship, for example, or form an interest group whose avowed purpose is to shape U.S. policy towards a specific country. This is how the American system of government works, and there is nothing "disloyal" about such conduct.
Dual loyalty issues therefore mesh with America as a multicultural society. Jewish dual loyalties are no different, say, from Mexican dual loyalties. But, whatever its legitimacy in multicultural America, dual loyalties are surely not ideal for the country as a whole because they detract from cohesion and sense of common interest and purpose. Whereas in the past assimilation was the norm (and was easy because the vast majority of immigrants were European ethnically), immigrants now are encouraged to retain their own language and culture, and they are encouraged to retrain powerful ties to their countries of origin.
Historically, this ideology of multiculturalism was the product of Jewish intellectuals (prominently Horace Kallen) designed to legitimize Jewish separateness in America while at the same time legitimizing the continuing ties between American Jews and the rest of the Diaspora. (Kallen, for example, was a strong Zionist and activist on behalf of Jews in Eastern Europe.) In the future we can expect that the US will be increasingly Balkanized as different ethnic and national groups jockey for political power in the US and seek to influence foreign policy in favor of the countries they left behind.
But I have to agree with Walt that even accepting the legitimacy of a multicultural model, people like Dennis Ross should not be allowed to have a voice within the administration. Walt points out that Ross has a long involvement with pro-Israel activist organizations, such as being director of WINEP.
But Ross's ties to Israel are even deeper than that. Until his appointment as Middle East envoy in the Obama Administration, from 2002–2009 Ross was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. This organization has assumed the role of long term planning for the Jewish people, not only in Israel but also the Diaspora. The JPPPI is an independent think tank thatreports to the Israeli government and has close ties with other Jewish organizations. Its mission is "to promote the thriving of the Jewish people via professional strategic thinking and planning on issues of primary concern to world Jewry. JPPPI's work is based on deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people with Israel as its core state."
The JPPPI's report Facing Tomorrow 2008 is interesting because it focuses on the threat of Iran and but also because it sees people like Stephen Walt as a threat to Israel:
The Jewish people must, as the highest priority, develop an appropriate response to the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and to global stability as a whole. While there is no ambiguity about the need to do so in Israel, it is necessary to mobilize Jewish opinion around the world as well. The American Jewish community cannot be intimidated either by a post Iraq syndrome in the United States, or by the false and pernicious allegations of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, or former President Carter.
In other words, Jews around the world are encouraged to mobilize to combat the threat to Israel represented by Iran. The assumption is that Jews have common interests as Jews no matter what country they happen to live in. Dennis Ross is doing his best to promote exactly this view within the Obama administration.
One might think that such a view would leave Jews in the Diaspora open to the charge of disloyalty, but the problem is easily finessed: Jews in the Diaspora are told to frame Israel's concerns about Iran as a global threat, not simply as a threat to Israel.
Of course, that's what we are seeing now. But we needn't be naïve. Jews like Dennis Ross are clearly far more loyal to Israel than to the US. Speaking as a psychologist, they wouldn't be able to see a conflict of interest between the US and Israel if it was staring them in the face. Indeed, as Gore Vidal said of Norman Podhoretz, they are unregistered agents of a foreign government.
In a sane society, there would be a huge groundswell of public opposition to Ross's appointment–as there has been for a number of Obama's appointments. But that won't happen.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 17 Comments »
April 6th, 2010Christopher Donovan:Despite a decade-long career as a pro-White thought criminal, I know precious little about Eugene Terreblanche, the South African political figure ("White supremacist" per the MSM) who was beaten to death by two Blacks recently. To the media, he was an evil figure for opposing ceding power to Blacks in South Africa. They use the word "supremacist" at every opportunity in describing him.
Recently, on a chatboard where I spar with liberals and conservatives alike on the issue of race, a poster mockingly offered me condolences on the murder of Terreblanche. "You and your white-hooded buddies must be in mourning", she said.
I responded with a post about Amy Biehl, the White Californian and Stanford student who traveled to South Africa as an anti-apartheid crusader. Biehl, as it happens, met the same fate as Terreblanche: she was brutally killed by Blacks.
Yet Biehl was at the opposite end of the spectrum, politically. She'd gone to South Africa to "help" Blacks. They returned the favor by beating her to death. Her father, in an act of thoroughgoing racial groveling typical of today's White male, forgave her killers and shook their hands.
My point: whether a White person's intentions toward Blacks are "good" or "bad", it doesn't matter. Whites end up dead either route. Whites imagine that Blacks distinguish between "good" and "bad" Whites, and that while a figure like Eugene Terreblanche might suffer a violent fate, a figure like Amy Biehl would be protected. Thus, to earn their protective coating, Whites strive to be politically correct, sensitive toward Blacks, and so forth. But Blacks aren't thinking it through like this. And the more Whites capitulate to Blacks, the more Blacks seem emboldened to lash out.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Tags: Christopher Donovan
Posted in Christopher Donovan | 40 Comments »
April 5th, 2010Kevin MacDonald: Trudie Pert's current TOO article (Post-Genome Princeton) illustrates once again that all of our elite institutions are essentially enemy-occupied territory. Princeton's president, Shirley Tilghman, is the sort of White person that is absolutely poisonous to our cause. She doubtless feels morally superior as she champions Black causes, investing millions of dollars in faculty and facilities for the Black Studies Department and admitting Blacks with an average of 230 points less on the SAT than Whites. She is also doing her best to absolutely eliminate White males from high-profile positions. My favorite is making a woman dean of the School of Engineering even though she is not an engineer. Non-Jewish Whites are vastly underrepresented as students by a factor of around 4, while Jews are overrepresented by a factor of around 5 (unusually low for an Ivy League University).
It is common among White advocates to see White politicians and at least some anti-White activists (such as Morris Dees) as sociopaths, and there is much to recommend this point of view. I don't think that is the case with people like Tilghman, even though she has profited mightily from her position (>530,000 salary + millions in stock and stock options from being on the Google Board of Directors). People like Tilghman believe in what they are doing with a moral fervor. They feel good about themselves, and they really are virtuous people — exactly the sort you would want in your tiny hunter-gatherer band during the Ice Age. I think it's that Puritan moralismthat seems to be so common among White people:
What is striking is the moral fervor of the Puritans. Puritans tended to pursue utopian causes framed as moral issues. They were susceptible to appeals to a "higher law," and they tended to believe that the principal purpose of government is moral. New England was the most fertile ground for "the perfectibility of man creed," and the "father of a dozen 'isms.'"
There was a tendency to paint political alternatives as starkly contrasting moral imperatives, with one side portrayed as evil incarnate—inspired by the devil. Whereas in the Puritan settlements of Massachusetts the moral fervor was directed at keeping fellow Puritans in line, in the nineteenth century it was directed at the entire country. The moral fervor that had inspired Puritan preachers and magistrates to rigidly enforce laws on fornication, adultery, sleeping in church, or criticizing preachers was universalized and aimed at correcting the perceived ills of capitalism and slavery.
My view is that this is an ethnic trait of our people — adaptive in small ingroups during our evolutionary history and massively maladaptive now given the current anti-White moralism that pervades our culture.
We have to convince people like Tilghman that there is a morality in White advocacy as well. The ultimate irony is that without altruistic Whites willing to be morally outraged by violations of multicultural ideals, the multicultural utopia that they envision is likely to revert to a Darwinian struggle for survival among the remnants. But the high-minded descendants of people like Tilghman won't be around to witness it.
What is striking is the moral fervor of the Puritans. Puritans tended
to pursue utopian causes framed as moral issues. They were susceptible
to appeals to a "higher law," and they tended to believe that the
principal purpose of government is moral. New England was the most
fertile ground for "the perfectibility of man creed," and the "father of
a dozen 'isms.'"13 There was a tendency to paint political alternatives
as starkly contrasting moral imperatives, with one side portrayed as
evil incarnate—inspired by the devil.
Whereas in the Puritan settlements of Massachusetts the moral fervor
was directed at keeping fellow Puritans in line, in the nineteenth
century it was directed at the entire country. The moral fervor that
had inspired Puritan preachers and magistrates to rigidly enforce laws
on fornication, adultery, sleeping in church, or criticizing preachers
was universalized and aimed at correcting the perceived ills of capitalism
and slavery.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 66 Comments »
April 3rd, 2010Kevin MacDonald: A very encouraging recent trend is the emergence of some very talented young people in the movement for White advocacy and cultural preservation. One of the reasons I was attracted to American Third Position was the presence of young men willing to go out into the street and very publicly proclaim their beliefs. Young men are the backbone of every revolution in history, and the revolution to take back America and the West will be no different.
Of course, it's still rather dangerous to do so, as I discuss in an article on the A3P website (Being White in Public) two A3P people manning a booth in San Juan Capistrano were harassed by a Latino gang. Vastly outnumbered, they had to withdraw.
Peter Brimelow has recently documented the obvious fact that although there was a media-driven moral panic about the Hutaree militia, the left has repeatedly engaged in violence and intimidation:
"Political violence" in the U.S. and throughout the Anglosphere exclusivelycomes from the Left. Who shut down the recent American Renaissance conference with death threats? (An atrocity, incidentally, that the Washington Post did not deign to report, although it happened in its home town). Who prevents Ann Coulter or Tom Tancredo from speaking on campuses? Has this ever happened toany Left-wing group or speaker?
As I note in the article, Anti-Racist Action is quite upfront about their willingness to resort to violence to keep White advocates off the streets. We have to be willing to be publicly visible. I think one of our first priorities should be to loudly and proudly participate in public events aimed at explicit White advocacy. Doing so in large numbers would make it very difficult for the left to shut it down.
The encouraging thing is that the number of intelligent, articulate young people who are willing to do that. These people have somehow grasped the depth of the problem faced by their people in the teeth of wall-to-wall propaganda directed against White identity that they have endured throughout their school years and the enormous social pressures they face as adults against advocating for their people.
Another very promising group of young people isYouth for Western Civilization — an organization aimed at college students that certainly deserves financial support as they try to fund a full-time staff. (Needless to say, A3P is also deserving offinancial support and for the same reasons.) Kevin DeAnna, the founder and president, is a very articulate and effective spokesman for the preservation of our culture and traditions. And he understands that in the end it's about the people who will make up the country. His excellent video, linked below, shows the true face of the immigrant invasion: Ethnocentric and unassimilable non-Whites with historical hatreds against Europeans; commitment to far left ideologies rather than constitutional government and the rule of law; trampling on the American flag while waving their own flags; minority activist organizations like La Raza, often with an explicit ideology of conquering the US for their people — well-funded by corporate America and leftist foundations; unions of public service employees such as the Service Employees International Union, led by Andy Stern, that are committed to big government and non-White immigration; and sell-out politicians like Dick Armey who are attempting to influence the Tea Party movement to welcome immigration amnesty as somehow good for the Republican Party.
As the film shows, Armey is indeed a sell-out, receiving huge fees from pro-immigration activist groups. One of our biggest problems is that it is financially lucrative for Whites to become whores for the interests of people who hate them. Funding organizations like A3P and Youth for Western Civilization means that a critical mass of young people have a viable career option in what amounts to pro-White activism.
As DeAnna says toward the end of the film, if the Republican Party accepts amnesty, it really means the end of the country. He is absolutely right. And the sad thing is that even if amnesty is defeated, it will simply slow down the process of White displacement. Unless the illegals are deported and legal immigration is stopped, White America is doomed. That is the position of American Third Position.
March on America from Western Youth on Vimeo.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 25 Comments »
April 2nd, 2010Kevin MacDonald: Part II of my review of Podhoretz is now posted on Alternative Right. Quite a bit of it relates to the current discussion of Jewish intellectual style on this site. I agree with Podhoretz that Jews are attracted to religious thinking in which they accept theories that explain everything but are incapable of disconfirmation. The problem is that Jews have advanced these religious theories as "scientific" not only in the social sciences and humanities, but also, perhaps, in theoretical physics, as some have argued here.
The other point is to underline the fact that the only theory that can account for Jewish political behavior in the Diaspora is that it is motivated by ethnic conflict with the White, Christian majority seen as the historical enemy. I note that the status as an elite outsider has grave moral implications. In fact, Jews are actively engaged in making alliances with the soon-to-be non-White majority. Whites should be deeply concerned about what this portends for the future.
It's interesting that in the Comments section Paul Gottfried agrees with my analysis but also points to White guilt as a critical factor. I agree with that and have written about it several places. For example, White predispositions to guilt and the manufacture of White guilt by prominent Jewish intellectual and political movements is the topic of my review of Eric Kaufmann's The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. (see also here.)
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 15 Comments »
March 31st, 2010Christopher Donovan: The rage isn't, in fact, about healthcare. Nobody is throwing bricks through windows in defense of insurance companies. Bricks get thrown when people are angry about very fundamental things, like racial displacement.
So, Frank Rich, the Jewish New York Times pundit with a history of white-bashing, is at least half right in the notorious Sunday column that drew 606 reader comments. He is more correct on that point than "Laurie from Bartlett, NH", a "tea party" sympathizer and one of 606 commenters on the column:
Dangerous piece. Horrified when I read this because this writer obviously has never attended a "tea party" and knows not of what he speaks. The Americans who are giving of their precious time,limited funds and heart wrenching courage should NEVER be demonized and misstated like this.There were 10,000 people in Nevada today,there will be thousands in Boston on 4/14…these are faithful,hardworking,honest Americans. They have seen the takeover of our biggest freemarket institutions by government. They are frightened,concerned and,yes,angry. How dare you misinterpret and misrepresent the message of this great uprising. This has NOTHING to do w/race..it has everything to do with what our fathers,grandfather,greatgrandfathers fought for..LIBERTY!! LIBERTY!! LIBERTY!!!
Laurie from Bartlett, NH
Rich is more correct on the white rage point than even the venerable Pat Buchanan, who weakly suggests inthis reaction column that because some non-whites think immigration needs controlling, the "tea party" crowd isn't necessarily white resistance by another name.
But Laurie is wrong. Pat Buchanan is wrong.
It is about race.
Where I part sharply with Frank Rich, of course, is whether the white anger is justified — and requires organized action by whites to act on that anger. He dreads the prospect, while I cheer it.
But Frank Rich, to my mind, is only part of our problem. "Laurie from Bartlett, NH" is an equally bedeviling problem for white advocacy. Here's a (no doubt) conservative white woman who appears to have convinced herself that "This has NOTHING to do w/race…" It instead has to do with "LIBERTY!!" Among the liberating aspects of race realism and white advocacy is the abandonment of the belief that anyone anywhere is motivated by abstractions like "freedom" or "liberty". Of course, they're not. Blood and soil is more like it. It seems to me that a more important task for us to persuade "Laurie from Bartlett, NH" to shake herself from slumber and realize what's really going on. I don't think debating with Frank Rich will do any good.
There are fewer more disturbing trends than your average white conservative's hyperventilating that "I'm not a racist" and "race has nothing to do with it — it's about the free market!" Trust me, white-conservative-in-denial: admitting that race is real — and that whites have legitimate group interests — is like untying that other hand from behind your back.
As a reader service for TOO, I waded through all the comments. Most, disappointingly, cheered Rich on. Some openly disparaged whites, like this likely Jewish commenter:
We can't say the GOP is not diverse. They run the gamut of white billionaires, white millionaires, white run-of-the mill McMansion "owners", white trailer inhabitants, white gun nuts, to white oolitical opportunists, etc., etc.,
Anne Green from Columbia, MD
The "conservative" responses all took the tack of "Laurie from Bartlett, NH": don't smear us tea party activists as "racists."
There was, that I saw, a lone pro-white comment:
what a disgusting article. the real people who face discrimination are whites (that is, people of european descent). white students are purposefully rejected from colleges just because of affirmative action for 'minorities' (who will very soon become the majority.) meanwhile, white adults are denied jobs just for the color of their skin! this, my friend, is racism.
whites are becoming a minority in the usa, canada, europe, australia, etc. europe will become majority muslim. and yet, it is a sin to want to preserve one's heritage? in the usa, we have indian groups, asian groups, black groups, but white groups are racist!
it is about time we fight for our rights, and values and culture. it is not racist, everyone else is doing it. it is just fighting against racism and discrimination that is facing whites all over the world.
John from USA
Quite right, John from USA.
As a post-script, I'm doubting that my letter will run in the NYT. Here's a piece by letters editor Thomas Feyer that sheds light on why. He is, he says, the son of "survivors of Nazism." Where does this crap end, for God's sake?
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Tags: Christopher Donovan
Posted in Christopher Donovan | 28 Comments »
March 31st, 2010Kevin MacDonald: Dan Michaels' current TOO articleon Jewish-German conflict in physics raises some fascinating issues about intellectual styles between the two groups. He quotes Johannes Stark, a Nobel laureate and leader of the German Physics movement as follows:
The dogmatic approach seeks to extract scientific knowledge from the human mind. It builds thought systems based on human concepts of the outside world and sees in these only manifestations of their own thoughts and formulas. Our pragmatic approach [i.e., experimental physics] draws its knowledge from careful observations and planned targeted experiments. Our own imagination is used only as a means of planning the experiment. If the plan does not confirm the experiment, then it is replaced by another concept that better corresponds to reality. … The pragmatic [experimental] approach seeks to understand reality in patient, often yearlong laboratory work and limits itself to the publication of the results so obtained..
This struck a chord with me because one could say the same about the ideas in the Jewish intellectual movements described in The Culture of Critique. Psychoanalysis is a paradigm: Freud and his followers projected their own ideas of reality onto the world and then spent the next century elaborating on the ideas without ever being bothered that no one could prove the ideas one way or the other. For this effort in mental gymnastics, Freud was deified not only by his followers but lavishly promoted in the media as a genius.
Meanwhile, American behaviorists of the early 20th century began slowing building up knowledge one experiment at a time — using rigorously controlled methods and altering the theories as new data became available. Behaviorism finally ran out of steam when psychologists showed that human learning couldn't be explained without cognition, and since then cognitive science has been slowly and gradually accumulating knowledge of the inner workings of the human mind.
It was the same in American sociology, where Jews committed to Marxist ideology conflicted with native Protestants committed to an empirical science framework. From Ch. 2 of The Culture of Critique:
The ethnic conflict within American sociology parallels to a remarkable degree the ethnic conflict in American anthropology that is a theme of this chapter. Here the conflict was played out between leftist Jewish social scientists and an old-line, empirically oriented Protestant establishment that was eventually eclipsed:
American sociology has struggled with the contrary claims of those afflicted with physics envy and researchers . . . more engaged in the dilemmas of society. In that struggle, midwestern Protestant mandarins of positivist science often came into conflict with East Coast Jews who in turn wrestled with their own Marxist commitments; great quantitative researchers from abroad, like Paul Lazarsfeld at Columbia, sought to disrupt the complacency of native bean counters. (Sennett 1995, 43)
The struggle of the Frankfurt School to produce empirical data that would be acceptable to American social scientists (reviewed here) provides an interesting saga in its own right. In the end, they managed to produce data that at least had the appearance (and only the appearance) of supporting their a priori commitment to producing a politically effective intellectual rationale for White displacement.
It is tempting, then, to think of Einstein as part of this Jewish tradition in the social sciences, and several commentators over the years have mentioned this to me as a research project. There may be something to this. But one problem is that, unlike psychoanalysis, Marxism, or the ideas of the Frankfurt School, the subject matter of Einstein's theories cannot be seen as directly furthering Jewish ethnic goals (even though Einstein himself was a strong Zionist and had the usual Jewish fetishes about Jewish racial purity and racial superiority; see here). For example, the theories of Freud and the Frankfurt School were used in the battle to make people think that Whites with a sense of White identity and White interests have a psychiatric disorder and pathological family relationships. These theories were also used to fashion malignant and self-serving theories of anti-Semitism in which Jewish behavior is irrelevant. This was not the case with Einstein's theories.
Further, whatever else one may say about Einstein's theories, they have produced an enormous amount ofresearch attempting to confirm them — unlike the Jewish intellectual movements discussed in CofCwhere agreement was enforced by simply expelling and ridiculing dissenters. In the end, providing a theory that produces a lot of new research is perhaps all that any good theory can do. Of course, this does not absolve Einstein from the allegations that he didn't adequately acknowledge the contributions of his predecessors — always an issue in the academic world where priority is everything.
Still, there seems to be a difference in intellectual style between Jews and non-Jews. One of the quotes that was left out of Culture of Critique (because I didn't know quite what to make of it) was from John Maynard Smith, the prominent British biologist. He made the following statement on contrasting intellectual styles in evolutionary biology:
By and large, those who held that [natural] selection played a major role in evolution were English country gentlemen, but…those who were not have largely been urban Jews….I mean urban intellectuals, people like Stu Kauffman andSteve Gould . It's the search for universal truths. They seem to say, if there are not universal truths, how can you do science? Natural selection appears to be too ad hocfor them, just opportunistic adaptation. For me, that's the way nature is.
Again we see the contrast between the Jewish style of universalist abstraction and the style of patient naturalists like Darwin steadily accumulating data over many years — fascinated with finding out how nature works, developing their theories inductively on the basis of evidence and not having any preconceived ideas about how nature works. E. O. Wilson titled one of his books The Naturalist and another Biophilia, reflecting his fascination and love of the natural world and how it works. Sociobiology, his 1975 synthesis of theory and data on the social behavior of animals and humans, remains a paradigm of powerful theory firmly grounded in empirical reality.
Of course, people like Gould also had ethnic reasons for disliking natural selection since, as Jewish leftists, they feared the development of a robust evolutionary science of humans. (Gould is a major villain in Ch. 2 of CofC.) Gould was a well-known critic of sociobiology and research on race differences.
Indeed, it is interesting that the only example in CofCwhere Jewish social scientists deviated from a commitment to weakly grounded universalist abstraction comes in the attack on Darwinism as it applied to the human social sciences. Here the method was radical skepticism and the enshrinement of an anti-theory of the differences between cultures and differences between human races. Gould is a prominent example, but the most important figures historically were Claude Levi Strauss and Franz Boas whose influence meant that anthropology would deify the minutiae of cultural differences rather than seek the sort of unifying theory that had been elaborated by the Darwinian anthropologist Louis Henry Morgan on the basis of patiently accumulating and synthesizing data.
As is the case in other arenas, Jewish intellectual style can be altered radically to suit Jewish interests. Whatever is good for the Jews and all that. As I note in Ch. 6 of CofC,
Within the intellectual world, the greatest potential danger for a collectivist minority group strategy is that science itself as an individualist enterprise conducted in an atomistic universe of discourse could in fact coalesce around a set of universalist propositions about human behavior, propositions that would call into question the moral basis of collectivist minority group strategies such as Judaism. One way to prevent this is for science itself to be problematized and replaced by a pervasive skepticism about the structure of all reality.
As I argue elsewhere, the decline of the non-Jewish intellectual elite inspired by Darwin was a critical factor in the decline of WASP America and the West generally.
Apart from this destructive effort directed against Darwinism, the thesis of Culture of Critique is that Jewish intellectuals have a long track record of developing theories in the social sciences and humanities that are very difficult, if not impossible, to test. Rather than empirical testing, group cohesion was maintained by ingroup consensus and fealty to god-like figures, with dissenters being expelled. This was also true of traditional Jewish groups: These groups saw the world through the lens of a non-falsifiable, abstract theological theory, and they were centered around charismatic rabbis, with heretics and other non-conformists expelled from the group.
At the same time, these theories — both the religious and secular versions — have been very useful to Jews politically. In traditional societies they enabled cohesive, effective groups where any event (e.g., anti-Jewish persecutions) could be explained by the theory (e.g., Jews had strayed from God's law). And since the Enlightenment, these theories have been used as weapons against non-Jews and their culture. Conceptually, these theories are similar to Einstein's theory in being internally consistent and difficult to verify. But Einstein's theories have resulted in a lot of novel research attempting to confirm them and it is my (unsophisticated) understanding that aspects of his theories have been confirmed. And I rather doubt that Einstein's theory satisfied Jewish political aims in quite the same way as the theories discussed in The Culture of Critique. Nevertheless, I await comment by people trying to make a case for a stronger relationship.
Finally, whatever one thinks of Einstein as a scientist, the media hype for Einstein is unquestionably intense, and there can be little doubt that the pervasiveness of the cult of Einstein as a Jewish genius has overtones of Jewish influence. For example, in 2000 Einstein wasTime Magazine's "Person of the Century." Einstein is useful not just as a Jewish intellectual genius (and all the positive aura that provides for Jews generally). He is also useful because he had values typical of a very large section of the Jewish Diaspora in Western societies then and now – the same values that publications like Time wish to celebrate and that dominate the mainstream media and elite intellectual and political discourse now. The implicit logic is that really smart people have left/liberal attitudes — just the sort of person all non-extremists want to be. Indeed, this suggests that a really interesting Einstein project would be to try to figure out how influential Einstein and his cult were in molding elite opinion during the crucial 20 years following World War II.
This is from the Time article, written by Frederic Golden, who is careful to quote non-Jews who worship at the altar of Einstein:
Following World War II, Einstein became even more outspoken [with his leftist political views]. Besides campaigning for a ban on nuclear weaponry, he denounced McCarthyism and pleaded for an end to bigotry and racism. Coming as they did at the height of the cold war, the haloed professor's pronouncements seemed well meaning if naive; Life magazine listed Einstein as one of this country's 50 prominent "dupes and fellow travelers." Says Cassidy: "He had a straight moral sense that others could not always see, even other moral people." Harvard physicist and historian Gerald Holton adds, "If Einstein's ideas are really naive, the world is really in pretty bad shape." Rather it seems to him that Einstein's humane and democratic instincts are "an ideal political model for the 21st century," embodying the very best of this century as well as our highest hopes for the next. What more could we ask of a man to personify the past 100 years?
I'm guessing Prof. Holton is a philo-Semite.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 148 Comments »
March 31st, 2010Edmund Connelly: No sooner did I get my column onSelective Moral Panics in Higher Education done than a perfect new example popped up in front of me. CNN is now spawning yet another moral panic:
Police in New Jersey arrested a teenager in connection with a public-address-system announcement telling "all Blacks" to leave a Wal-Mart store, a police spokesman said. The 16-year-old boy is from Atlantic County, New Jersey.
I remember when such a thing was merely called a prank. Now the national media has gone into overdrive to cover it. Let's think a little more about why that is.
Here again I turn to James Edwards and his crew fromThe Political Cesspool, specifically his co-host Keith Alexander. Mr. Alexander was unknown to me a year ago when I was invited to appear on The Political Cesspool to talk about my Hollywood writing. My interview went very well thanks to the professionalism of both James and Mr. Alexander. In fact, I was flattered to discover that Mr. Alexander was very familiar with my writing for The Occidental Quarterly.
Since then, I've learned to download the weekly show and have become even more enamored of the show, especially the first-hour banter between James and Mr. Alexander. First, to this Northerner, it is an eye-opener to discover what great manners these Southern gentlemen have. Further, their facility with the English language leaves me embarrassed. It is a superior form of communication.
Last week (March 13) we were treated to two hours of James and Mr. Alexander talking, and Mr. Alexander perfectly placed what was happening with these anti-White moral panics. First, they presented a list of cases where minorities were given exaggerated attention for alleged offences against them.
For instance, as was recounted on the radio show, a black man driving through Georgia is now suing Georgia police for $10 million because he was stopped and arrested. Never mind, as Mr. Alexander pointed out, that the arresting officer was also black. White racism is at fault.
Then there was the case where police posted a sketch of a black serial rapist. When a White man called in a sighting of the rape suspect, he was investigated for a hate crime.
Finally, we were treated to the story of three White Los Angeles school teachers charged with racism and suspended for allegedly mocking Black History Month by giving students pictures of Dennis Rodman, RuPaul and O.J. Simpson. The kicker is that all three African Americans were on a list approved by the school district for inclusion in Black History Month.
As James Edwards summed it up:
Got that? Is that incredible, or what? In other words, these three teachers have been fired for following the approved curriculum. The school had actually approved these three, including a tranny and a double murderer, as appropriate subject matter for Black History Month, but when "white males" follow the curriculum, they're suspended and are probably facing termination.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Alexander was able to draw a larger lesson from these stories. He explained during the second hour (go to the 25 min. 40 sec. mark) that these developments constitute what the late Sam Francis identified as "anarcho-tyranny." Let's allow Wikipedia to describe it for us:
Anarcho-tyranny
Samuel Francis argued that the problems of the managerial state extend to issues of crime and justice. In 1992, he introduced the word "anarcho-tyranny" into the paleocon vocabulary. He once defined it this way: "We refuse to control real criminals (that's the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that's the tyranny)."
In one of his last essays, he explained the concept:
What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through "sensitivity training" and multiculturalist curricula, "hate crime" laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.
Francis argues that this situation extends across the U.S. and Europe. While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy). He says that "laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals" routinely go unenforced, even though the state is "perfectly capable" of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny.
The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites … or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and "pathological" elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms—people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible—not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.
I have mixed feelings about all of this. Was the hard fist and truncheon of Soviet control more deadly to our race, or is this American form of White dispossession actually more effective? Personally, as I've written time and again, I think what we Americans have seen thus far heralds a move to the far deadlier tactics of Soviet tyranny.
Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.
Tags: Edmund Connelly
Posted in Edmund Connelly | 16 Comments »
March 30th, 2010Kevin MacDonald: I have a rather longish review of Norman Podhoretz's Why are Jews Liberals? posted at AlternativeRight.com. I thought I would post a summary here to encourage commentary. Part I is "Remaking the Right: Liberals, Jews, Conservatives" and deals with how Jews see their history in Europe — the lachrymose view of European history in which Jews have been the victims of irrational hostility ever since the origins of Christianity. The take home point is: "It's a very short jump from blaming the culture created and sustained by Europeans to the idea that Europeans as a people or group of peoples are the problem. Ultimately, this implicit sense that Europeans themselves are the problem is the crux of the issue."
This then feeds into the Jews as a hostile elite theme that is so apparent today. What's really scary is that the Jewish Republican branch of the hostile elite represents itself as conservative. A conservative elite hostile to the traditional people and culture of the US. Orwell would love it.
The other theme is how neocon Jews like Podhoretz displaced true conservatives from the Republican Party in the interests of aiding Israel. However, they have not shed any of their hostility toward Europeans and their culture. Indeed, they have been complicit in the movement for massive non-White immigration. As I note, "With conservatives like these, who needs liberals? "
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 14 Comments »
March 30th, 2010Christopher Donovan: The legal job market is awful. Even when it's not, the promise of fulfilling and plentiful $100K+ jobs is a lie. Law school creates huge debts (often on top of college debt) that can't be paid down easily by most lawyers, who sometimes earn less than the police officers they work with in criminal law or the accountants they work with in civil law.
By now — exacerbated by the economic slump — everyone's on to this as you can see from this articlein the Wall Street Journal.
On a personal note, I can vouch for all this. I went to a modestly-ranked law school in New York City and graduated cum laude, but this was nowhere near enough to land an associate position at the likes of Sullivan & Cromwell — or even many lesser firms. And it seems that no matter what you end up doing — transactional work at a big firm, insurance defense or Legal Aid — it's going to be mind-numbing, repetitive, unglamorous work, with pay that's better than journalism (my earlier career) but still not always so impressive.
But going to law school, for me, wasn't all about the possibility of getting rich. Part of my motivation was the anti-White discrimination I'd experienced in my life, and the dawning realization that Whites as a group were getting pretty unfair treatment. Thus far, being a lawyer has paid some dividends, and I hope it pays more. Even if you never take up the White cause as a lawyer, understanding the law gives one a great advantage in a society that's become ripped apart by multiracialism and turns to lawyers for every little thing. In simply blogging about the issues, I write from a stronger position than someone unfamiliar with the working of American law.
For college-age White advocates out there, consider law school. Jews through the years have correctly recognized that the legal arena is a great place to advance your cause, and they have done so with undeniable success (and have caused undeniable harm to us). Whites should take note.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Tags: Christopher Donovan
Posted in Christopher Donovan | 11 Comments »
March 29th, 2010Kevin MacDonald: Frank Rich, writing in theNYTimes, thinks the battle is over and his people won. (Not for the first time. See here.) The basic idea is that it's a bit too late for all those middle and working class White folks all up in arms (some literally) and saying that they want to take back their country. Rich is happy to report that in 2008 Whites represented only 52% of the births, and by 2012 they will be a minority. And that means that the Republicans can decide to be an all-White minority party — "That's their right." (Thanks!) But, according to Rich, what they can't do is encourage the "mass hysteria" among Whites who see themselves being dispossessed.
Rich presumably sees this as a moral imperative that is so obviously true there is no need to explain why White people have no right to be extremely angry about what is going on and to try to change things as they see fit.
According to Rich, Republicans have every right to be the party of the White folks as they peacefully head off into the political sunset. The main role for Republican elites should be to quell the rage and prevent things from getting out of hand. Republicans should strive to make their members into a new model minority that accepts their minority status and rejects any claim to having a right to hold onto the country as their ethnic possession as it was only a few short decades ago — until people like Rich, who dominate the most prestigious and powerful positions of our media, academic, and political culture, prevailed in their long campaign to displace the traditional people and culture of the US.
Sadly, I have no doubt that the Republican elites will do their best to comply with Rich's marching orders. After all, they wouldn't want to be called racists by people like Rich.
Rich:
If Obama's first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory [of White rage]. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It's not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend's abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan "Take our country back!," these are the people they want to take the country back from.
They can't. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reportedthat births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven't had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.
If Congressional Republicans want to maintain a politburo-like homogeneity in opposition to the Democrats, that's their right. If they want to replay the petulant Gingrich government shutdown of 1995 by boycotting hearings and, as John McCain has vowed, refusing to cooperate on any legislation, that's their right too (and a political gift to the Democrats). But they can't emulate the 1995 G.O.P. by remaining silent as mass hysteria, some of it encompassing armed militias, runs amok in their own precincts. We know the end of that story. And they can't pretend that we're talking about "isolated incidents" or a "fringe" utterly divorced from the G.O.P.A Quinnipiac poll last week found that 74 percent of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while only 16 percent are aligned with Democrats.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 129 Comments »
March 28th, 2010 Kevin MacDonald: Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the US, says that the US-Israel relationship is at its lowest ebb in 35 years. Well, maybe. But the Israel Lobby is far from dead. Half of Congress turned out at the recent AIPAC convention in Washington, and there were pledges of eternal support by Hilary Clinton, followed up by a host of politicians. In the conflict between the Obama administration and Netanyahu, the media was solidly lined up on the side of a foreign country. Indeed, asPhilip Giraldi notes, "The Washington Post led the charge, calling on 'expert' analysis of the situation from Elliot Abrams, Danielle Pletka, David Makovsky, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Curter, Martin Indyk, and Charles Krauthammer while excoriating the White House with its own lead editorials."
Dominating the mainstream media definitely has its advantages.
Meanwhile, more than 3/4 of the House of Representatives signed on to a statement asserting "unbreakable bonds" between the US and Israel and ludicrously asserting that "A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East."
We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu's commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises [a municipal Jerusalem announcement on approval of another step towards the construction of 1,600 apartments in a post-1967 Jerusalem neighborhood during U.S. Vice President Biden's recent visit to Israel], however unintended, will not recur.
In other words, the House is satisfied that Israel will not to make any surprise announcements that coincide with a visit of a US dignitary. But the House does not expect Israel to stop confiscating Palestinian land and building housing for Jews. Business as usual. Don't ask. Don't tell.
There is a long history in which Congress is far more susceptible to pressure from the Israel Lobby than the administration. Congress understands that opposition to the lobby means that their opponents will suddenly have a great deal of money donated by Jews who live outside their districts and they will have far less positive media coverage.
On the other hand, American presidents must at least make a show of promoting peace in the region, and that means putting up a credible facade to other countries. All American administrations since Carter have officially opposed the colonization of the West Bank, and this has at times led to well-publicized conflict. For example, in 1992 the first Bush administration attempted to withhold loan guarantees for Israeli housing. It backed down, with Bushfamously saying "I'm one lonely little guy" up against "some powerful political forces" made up of "a thousand lobbyists on the Hill." Bush seems to believe that his defeat in the 1992 election stemmed from this action, and I can vividly remember the sudden shift in media coverage of Bush at the time. George W. Bush's awareness of the power of the Israel Lobby from conversations with his father may well have been a primary force in making him the most pliable president in history to the pleadings of the Israel Lobby.
The clincher from the House statement is: "Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability." And therein lies the rub for AIPAC. For all its influence on Congress, it will be much more difficult to get an angry Obama and his administration fully on board with the Israel Lobby's project of destroying Iran. The reality of the Lobby's power even in presidential politics, as indicated by what happened to George H. W. Bush, is doubtless sobering to the Obama administration. But it's one thing to effectively turn a blind eye to Israeli colonization and apartheid (as, in the end, all US administrations have done). It's quite another ball of wax to get the US to lead the charge in a confrontation with Iran after 5000 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and a $3 trillion price tag just for the war in Iraq. This in an era where the federal deficit is already through the roof. Doing the Israel Lobby's bidding on Iran requires a great deal of pro-active effort in getting international cooperation in the teeth of Israeli intransigence on settlement issues and the spectacle of Israel as an expansionist apartheid state for all the world to see.
Indeed, in her speech to AIPAC Hilary Clinton pointedly noted that "We cannot escape the impact of mass communications" — perhaps a comment that the reality of Israel's brutal program of expansion is a very hard sell to the rest of the world, especially in the age of the Internet when there is more and more leakage in Jewish control of the media in the US and elsewhere. The statement by General David Petraeus that Israeli policies oppose US vital interests in the Middle East is all over the Internet — much to thechagrin of the ADL. Petraeus himself has done his best to limit the damage by disputing this account.
It's the same for Joe Biden's statement that Israeli policy is dangerous for the US. It's also all over the Internet, quoted, for example, by John Mearsheimer in his blog – despite denials by Biden that he ever said it. As Mearsheimer notes, "it is now commonplace to talk about the lobby in the mainstream media and almost everyone who pays serious attention to American foreign policy understands – thanks mainly to the internet – that the lobby is an especially powerful interest group."
With information about Israel more available than ever, with the costs of doing Israel's bidding ever more prohibitive, and with Israel getting ever uglier with the passage of time, the job ahead for the Israel Lobby is going to be increasingly difficult. And Israel can't escape its ugliness. The slow motion ethnic cleansing and land grabbing, the apartheid, the vast open air prisons for 3.8 million Palestinians simply can't be stopped by any force within Israeli society. And it certainly won't be stopped by the Jewish Diaspora no matter how much hypocrisy that entails given its commitment to multiculturalism and its opposition to White ethnonational interests. The racialist and religiously fundamentalist right is firmly in charge in Israel, and all the Jewish demographics are on their side. The extremists, as always, will win the day. That forecasts a very bloody future in the Middle East and beyond. And here in the US, AIPAC and the ADL have a long, tough road ahead.
Tags: Kevin MacDonald
Posted in Kevin MacDonald | 28 Comments »
March 27th, 2010Christopher Donovan: "Fresh Air", the NPR program hosted by Terry Gross (see past criticism here), last week gave its platform to one of America's foremost haters of whites, the SPLC's Mark Potok. (Listen to the show here. Note that in the copious comments, not everyone's a blind worshipper of the SPLC.) Needless to say, Gross, a liberal Jewish woman, never once disagreed with Potok, or even asked a semi-skeptical question (Potok apparently had a Jewish father and leads a life perfectly consistent with Jewish aims). The entire program was a love-fest between two powerful figures who act in mutually reinforcing ways: The SPLC provides "news" for NPR to report, and NPR, by quoting the SPLC, confers upon it the status of "respected civil rights group."
A hundred points could be made: Gross and Potok ignore the evidence of violence and threats of violence from the left (including the cancellation of American Renaissance), they paint with a broad brush everything to the right of Mao as "extremism", and of course never delve into whether any particular frustrations are justified. Toweringly, the same reduction of a movement or people to nasty names is exactly what the SPLC is practicing itself. If it's "extreme" to say Obama is a "socialist", isn't it just as "extreme" to say that tea partiers are "racist"? But any conservative might make such observations.
An equally important point is that Gross and Potok are strongly identified with secular Jewish lifestyles and political aims. Both NPR and the SPLC are as important to Jews as the Temple Mount. When they both report for work in the morning, their desks are essentially cockpits of jet fighters that rain down hostile fire on Whites, and Jews are as happy to fund NPR and the SPLC as they are Birthright Israel.
Potok is right on one point: the "rage on the right" is indeed largely driven by White frustration, something the "tea party" set won't admit. But here's a suggestion for the tea partiers: Frustration is in fact the source of your anger, and there's nothing wrong with that anger. You, as a White person, have every right to be angry about a Black president who wants a health care program that forces you to subsidize non-whites. They're going to call you a racist anyway — so you might as well be honest, right?
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
Tags: Christopher Donovan
Posted in Christopher Donovan | 18 Comments »
« Older Entries--
Peace. Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@
Gmail.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
Posted by 
