America Awakes
By • 6/22/07 |
This finally got the message across. |
Recent weeks have been a heartening time for race realists. For decades, we have watched white Americans sleepwalking into the horror of racial dispossession. Mass non-white immigration seemed an unchangeable fact of American life and the reign of diversity as our central cultural value seemed impregnable. However, the rejection of the immigration bill supported by President Bush has been so galvanic that it marks a basic cultural shift. Whether or not the bill passes—and it is looking increasingly unlikely that it will—, we have seen the emergence of a new immigration restrictionist consensus both among American whites and the mainstream conservative commentators who speak for them. While couched in racially neutral terms, moreover, the new restrictionist consensus is clearly rooted in an incipient race realism.
Commentators still commonly oppose amnesty on the grounds that it rewards law-breakers and is unfair to legal immigrants who wait their turn. However, it is plain that the reaction against the Bush immigration bill involves much more than indignation at the unfair treatment of Bangladeshis patiently waiting to become Americans. Rather, the focus on illegal immigration has made Americans aware of the problems created by non-white immigration in general, whether legal or not. Americans have come to recognize that Hispanics and other immigrant populations bring the plagues of gang crime, poverty, teen pregnancy, and other underclass phenomena. Furthermore, the intense anti-American nationalism of Hispanics has forced whites to confront basic issues of racial power. Finally, the American majority has seen that mass immigration is promoted by the business community to keep labor cheap, and thus works against the majority’s own interests. The result of all these recognitions is a white population that is up in arms.
Majority resentment is so powerful that intellectuals have begun to respond. The conservative commentariat has deserted Bush en masse on the issue of amnesty. Beyond this, establishment columnists have started promulgating ideas that would have been considered hair-raisingly radical even five years ago: Peggy Noonan, the consummate voice of the conservative mainstream, has proposed an immigration moratorium; Ann Coulter has written of the threat of a future non-white overclass. It is plain then that a sea-change is occurring in American consciousness.
White Americans and Immigration
Whites are without anything that can be called a “viewpoint.” While all other racial groups are allowed, and even encouraged, to have their own racial viewpoint on issues that impact them as a group, whites, by contrast, remain racially unconscious by and large, and often stubbornly so. A combination of genetic traits (which leads whites towards greater abstract and universalist thinking) coupled with the prevailing anti-white leftist cultural dynamic encourages whites to remain racially unconscious. Most whites assume a kind of generous reciprocity among all groups, which is not in fact evenly shared. The Chinese and Japanese, both very intelligent groups, nevertheless have a strong sense of ethnocentrism. General Douglas MacArthur was able to impose many changes on the post-World War II Japanese, but a widespread sense of racial guilt for their wartime atrocities was not among them. Indeed, the Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians and other groups are often exasperated at Japanese refusals to own up to their racial crimes.
By contrast, it is much easier to inculcate guilt in whites. Indeed, as the Realist has argued, the average white has been convinced that his people’s history consists of one racial crime after another.
 |
| This too. |
Despite their lack of racial consciousness, immigration nevertheless is an issue that rankles the majority of whites for reasons they are still, as yet, unable to articulate. It is one of those “gateway” issues (like the proverbial “gateway drugs”) that can lead them on to harder positions and a more developed racial consciousness. This is no doubt why our political elite class has tried, and is now failing, to keep whites ignorant of the demographic transformation of America and the cultural transformation that is its inevitable result.
Immigration is not, of course, the only racially charged issue in American political life. The clear racial antagonism underlying the debates over affirmative action, multiculturalism, and bilingualism can also stir up white indignation. However, these other issues have failed to lead to white racial consciousness because the conservative establishment has obfuscated their nature. Conservatives have defused racial conflict around these issues by treating racial conflict itself as a noxious atavism. The problem, in the establishment’s view, is not that whites refuse to fight and win racial conflicts; rather, it is that minority groups persist in seeking their own interests. By insisting on racial preferences and multiculturalism, the argument goes, minorities prevent America from achieving the egalitarian, color-blind Utopia that is the natural state of man.
The immigration debate, however, unavoidably raises questions of racial power. This fact explains why our political elite class has historically assiduously ignored the obvious demographic transformation of America. The media, the educational establishment, Big Religion, politicians, bureaucrats, and the not-for-profit foundations go to great lengths to keep white Americans from pondering their demographic future, or indeed, their everyday safety at the hands of nonwhites.
 |
| An early voice for our side. |
Up until 2001, the strategy worked. Even though illegal immigration was occurring at unprecedented levels in 2000, there was little conservative anger at George Bush’s plans for amnesty during his first presidential campaign. Immigration took a back seat to Social Security reform, tax cuts, and education in that election, and Pat Buchanan failed to garner even 500,000 votes.
The key event in the shift in white consciousness was 9/11. The World Trade Center attacks confronted whites with the hostility of non-white populations in their midst. The coverage of radical Islam that resulted from the attacks deepened the sense of threat, as did investigations into the scandalous failure of immigration authorities to keep dangerous people out of the country.
The Minuteman Project, despite its present-day internal turmoil and avowed racially neutral approach, nevertheless also helped to raise awareness of our broken borders. That it took ordinary citizens with lawn chairs, binoculars and walky-talkies to “do the job our own government won’t” was a vivid illustration of the failure to enforce the law. The fact that the Minutemen were attacked and vilified by President Bush only brought greater attention to their cause.
Likewise, the huge rallies last summer of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens in cities across the country forced whites into awareness of how rapidly America was changing. The rallies, to a large extent, backfired on their organizers. The sea of Mexican flags at the rallies, and the desecration of the American flag at the hands of some protesters, left a lasting impression on white America. “Diversity” was not the peaceful mutual enrichment of the races that it had been billed to be. Rather, diversity seemed to be leading to a struggle for racial dominance, and the American government did not seem to be fighting on the right side. The fact that hundreds of thousands of illegals could flood our streets while the law did nothing outraged many white Americans who were previously unmotivated on the issue, with talk radio as a barometer.
The American awakening was aided by a new breed of conservative commentators who made immigration their central focus. Michelle Malkin’s detailed investigations of the ineptitude of immigration law enforcement and Hispanic nationalism were crucial, as were Heather MacDonald’s reports on immigrant crime and social dysfunction. Lou Dobbs cast illegal immigration as part of the “War on the Middle Class” waged by business seeking cheap labor.
Today, the issue of immigration is the overriding concern of conservatives. Compare the beginnings of the 2008 presidential campaign with that of 2000. John McCain’s long advocacy of amnesty has already damaged his campaign, probably beyond repair. Mitt Romney’s outspoken rejection of the immigration bill has, by contrast, bolstered his campaign. Rudy Giuliani, though pro-amnesty in the past, has denounced the current bill. These politicians are responding to the increasingly well-organized mass of American whites who are willing to telephone congressmen, complain on talk show programs, and post messages on website forums by the millions urging that the tide of non-white immigration be stopped.
 |
| Doing the job his government wouldn’t. |
Poll numbers reveal that restrictionist sentiments are not confined to a radical minority, but are broadly shared. It is well known that a large majority of Americans oppose the current bill. A Rasmussen poll found only 26 percent of Americans supported the bill, while 48 percent opposed it. Moreover, the poll made it clear that all of the attention devoted to illegal immigration has led to a reaction against legal immigration as well. Steve Sailer, working with the polling data collected by Rasmussen, found that 73 percent of whites, 81 percent of blacks, and 57 percent of other races rated immigration reduction as “very important.” When asked whether legalizing the status of illegal aliens is very important, only 27 percent of whites agreed, along with 28 percent of blacks and 47 percent of others.
A detailed poll on attitudes towards immigration conducted by Phyllis Schlafly’s conservative Eagle Forum found that 70 percent of whites thought too many legal immigrants were allowed into the country each year, along with 84 percent of blacks, and 61 percent of other races.
It is significant that blacks are even more likely to be opposed to high levels of immigration than whites. This attitude clearly stems not from any great love for white America, but because blacks are the native racial group that is most directly in competition with immigrants.
While most poll questions show whites’ views on immigration are in line with those of other Americans, there is some evidence of white radicalism on the issue of deportation. No less than 42 percent of whites in the Eagle Forum poll said they strongly supported deporting America’s 12 million illegal aliens, and 25 percent somewhat supported it. A majority of black and other race voters felt the same way, although the numbers were lower, with 57 percent and 58 percent respectively supporting deportation. That so many people, and especially white Americans, would tell a pollster they support deportation is very significant in this politically correct age when saying the wrong thing can cost someone his job. Sentiment in favor of mass deportation may be even higher than the poll numbers indicate; after all, four percent of whites answered “not sure” on this question.
The poll also found that Protestants were tougher on immigration issues than Catholics, Evangelicals, and those of other affiliations. Married people and those with children were more likely to support deportation and immigration reduction than the single and childless. As far as income level goes, the only consistent difference was that the wealthy were more sympathetic to immigration than the poor and the middle class. For example, 66 percent of those earning less than $100,000 per year supported deportation, but only 51 percent of those earning more did. This split is consistent with the thesis of “The Ideology of the Professionals,” the last column on The Inverted World, which argued that anti-ethnocentric bias was the basis of the identity of America’s wealthy, professional class.
Although polling shows sizeable majorities of white Americans want less immigration (and even sizeable majorities of nonwhites), politicians will only respond to problems that generate voter intensity. While the average white wants less immigration, he also wants less government, less regulation, and less taxation. Generally, however, whites do not feel passionate about any of these issues. However, both polls reveal that immigration does evoke intense feelings. In cases where the polls gauged intensity of sentiment, respondents were more likely to express strong than moderate support of immigration restriction.
Conservatives and Immigration
As whites have become more aware of the threat of racial conflict and the growing non-white underclass, they have dragged their so-called “leaders” in the conservative movement towards a harder line. Before 9/11, immigration restrictionism was not a central conservative issue. Some of the giants of the conservative movement, such as Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Russell Kirk, and so forth, showed little awareness the issue was brewing during their days. Outlets like the Rush Limbaugh Show, Human Events, the Heritage Foundation, and the Fox News Channel, went on year in and year out without ever talking about the increasingly obvious demographic transformation of America. Perhaps they avoided the issue in an attempt not to antagonize donors in the business community. Only a few conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Michael Savage made immigration a central concern in the 1980s and 90s, and were ostracized by the Republican establishment for doing so.
After 9/11, the new breed of mainstream conservative immigration critics like Malkin, Mac Donald, and Dobbs arose, and their message has proved so powerful and popular that their viewpoint has now become dominant among the conservative commentariat.
 |
| Peggy Noonan surprised us. |
Indeed, the debate surrounding the last two attempts to pass an amnesty bill saw the emergence a new restrictionist consensus among conservative commentators. Many who used to support Bush down the line have broken bitterly with him. A good example is Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speech-writer whose column appears the Wall Street Journal, hardly an organ of populist radicalism. Noonan was one of the most ardent of Bush-boosters during his first term. In 2003, she dubbed him “President Backbone” and spoke of him in terms reserved for great presidents: “George W. Bush is an American of the big and real America. He believes in it all—in the vision of the founders, in the meaning of freedom, in the founding and enduring ideas of our country… . America appears to have a President worthy of its people.” Although Noonan never seems to have praised amnesty in her columns, she never criticized Bush’s immigration policy during his 2000 campaign and first term, and was generally favorable to Hispanic outreach.
In the succeeding years, Noonan’s attitude toward Bush progressed from euphoria, to sympathetic criticism, to active disappointment, and finally to resolute enmity. There were many causes of the progression—doubts about the conduct of the Iraq War, and disapproval of Harriet Miers and excessive federal spending—but clearly, the overriding one was amnesty. Noonan began criticizing the President on amnesty in 2005 and has devoted three of her last four columns to the issue. Her savage rejection of Bush is evident in passages like the following:
Naturally I hope the new immigration bill fails. It is less a bill than a big dirty ball of mischief, malfeasance and mendacity, with a touch of class malice, and it’s being pushed by a White House that is at once cynical and inept. The bill’s Capitol Hill supporters have a great vain popinjay’s pride in their own higher compassion. They are inclusive and you’re not, you cur, you gun-totin’ truckdriver’s-hat-wearin’ yahoo. It’s all so complex, and you’d understand this if you weren’t sort of dumb.
Although Noonan’s anger is particularly intense, the same sentiment about Bush is evident in many other writers who used to ardently defend him, including Laura Ingraham, Cal Thomas, and Mark Steyn.
Noonan’s writing reveals another interesting aspect of the progression of conservative opinion on immigration: the pundits are not merely rejecting amnesty, but have started opposing the very principle of mass immigration. Although Noonan pays deference to the nation of immigrants rhetoric that has always been fundamental to her beliefs, she comes out in favor of an immigration moratorium:
We should close the border, pause, absorb what we have, and set ourselves to “patriating” the newcomers who are here. The young of AmeriCorps might help teach them English. Those reaching retirement age, who happen to be the last people in America who were taught and know American history, could help them learn the story of our country. We could, as a nation, set our minds to this.
As novel as this sort of proposal is in mainstream conservative writing, Noonan shows no recognition of the horror that mass immigration could potentially visit upon America. However, there are glimpses even of that in the writing of Ann Coulter, who has always shown white nationalist impulses. In “Bush’s America: Roach Motel,” Coulter recognizes the full danger of racial conflict in a white minority America:
In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.
One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.
Coulter’s makes oblique, but unmistakable, reference to biological racial differences and their effects culture:
If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation’s history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.
 |
| She has clear white nationalist sympathies. |
Coulter is no fringe writer. Though controversial, she is an icon whose columns are read by millions. That Americans would respond to such a clear appeal to racial self-interest speaks volumes.
It is also worth noting that the career of neoconservative Hispanic Linda Chavez is finally taking a long overdue corrective. For years, she was somehow able to pass within the conservative movement as a “reasonable voice” on Hispanic issues. However, her attacks on immigration restrictionists as racists were liberal boilerplate.
This changed after her last column, in which she called amnesty’s opponents “a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths backed by political opportunists who exploit them.” Chavez’s attempt to discredit the immigration reform movement through the cliché of the angry, ignorant white racist cut no ice whatsoever among conservatives. As Ramesh Ponnuru of National Review Online’s Corner said, “That anyone who disagrees with her about immigration policy is a racist is all that Chavez seems to have learned from her years of work on the issue. I will never trust her judgment again.” It appears that among conservatives at least, the charge of racism has been defanged when it comes to immigration.
Ponnuru’s response reveals the enduring weakness of the new restrictionist consensus, however, as does the very name of the person who wrote it. Race realists will agree with Chavez that the race is central to the immigration debate, despite their abhorrence of her anti-white, pro-La Raza interpretation of race. Moreover, race realists believe that immigration must be opposed from a specifically pro-white perspective that an Indian commentator is unlikely ever to understand.
However, immigration reform is a big issue that will require a large and politically centrist coalition to bring about. In the near term at least, the most good will be done by commentators and activists who use non-racial arguments. Dan Stein, president of the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform offers a good example of such coalition-building. He takes Linda Chavez on at National Review Online here:
Chavez seems no different than the Southern Poverty Law Center — she is an enemy of intellectual freedom trying to control debate and discussion through intimidation. The immigration issue is complex and emotional, and it is ill-served by ad hominem namecalling.
Furthermore, the new conservative restrictionism, while couched in egalitarian terms, is like a cocoon in which the chrysalis of realism slowly matures. Although the new conservatives reject the idea of innate racial differences and superficially oppose white racial solidarity, their commentary on minority social dysfunction, the betrayal of the American majority by the government, and anti-American immigrant nationalism buttresses the position of race realists and creates an atmosphere in which we can thrive.
The opponents of illegal immigration also give race realists an example to emulate. The new restrictionist consensus began with the activism of a small base. Is it too farfetched to hope that a base of activists could inculcate in Americans a deeper awareness of the reality of race?
Finally, on a personal note, I am amazed at how easy it now is to be outspokenly critical of immigration among white people, even those I have only just met. For a long time, we knew the polls were in our favor, but people would still not feel comfortable speaking openly about the issue. All that has changed. The open borders advocates are finally on the defensive. The battle is now joined.
Sam Raymond is a writer and attorney.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
“The poll also found that Protestants were tougher on immigration issues than Catholics, Evangelicals, and those of other affiliations.”
I hate to pick a nit here, but the overwhelming majority of self-identified Evangelicals *are* Protestants. “Evangelicals” are in effect a subset of American Protestantism, usually arising from the Baptist tradition (although they usually see themselves as “nondenominational”) and are seen as being in contrast, or even conflict, with “mainline” Protestant denominations, such as the Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Lutherans.
By on 6/23/07 at 2:43 am
Irish,
The Eagle Forum poll broke Evangelicals and mainline Protestants out separately, and rightly so I think, as these are distinct social groups with very different politics.
http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/2007/poll-results.pdf
By on 6/23/07 at 9:14 am
‘Evangelicals’, Pentecostals, and Charismatics are like a cult and most of them have no historical background. They are a new movement and school of thought apart from historical Christianity - Catholic or Protestant. And that is in a very bad way BTW. I was raised Protestant and we view these 3 groups as a pack of irrational looney tunes. I was watching some of these people on TV a few weeks back and they are all for amnesty for illegal Mestizo aliens from Mexico. They say that if we legalize them they will all vote to overturn Roe Vs. Wade and outlaw Abortion *insert eye roll*. They even have a Republican Senator in their ranks,Sam Brownback (no pun intended haha)who believes all this.
By on 6/23/07 at 2:43 pm
If the slanderous term “cult” had meaning before your post, Anglo-Teutonic - you killed it. I’m sure that you and your Protestant family view all religions other than your own as irrational looney tunes <<insert eye roll>>. Catholic and Protestant denominations, churches, and individuals are up to their ears in multiculturalism and sedition, too.
The Episcopal Church, hardly a cult, is presently trapped in a power struggle between homosexual deviants in America and the Episcopalian church’s HUGE and homophobic Black African faction. The Catholic Church is at the forefront of the seditious efforts to bring illegal aliens here. How you think that evangelicals, charismatics, and pentecostals are somehow uniquely traitorous is beyond me.
In fact, the Mormon Church, which is almost certainly on your list of looney tunes, is about as White and family oriented as any major religious organization can be. Have you read the Book of Mormon? God color-codes everybody from black and wicked to white and righteous. I don’t know how it gets more black and white (pun intended) than that.
By on 6/23/07 at 10:59 pm
Did Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have these White Nationalist sympathies while they were sleeping with Dinesh D’Souza?
By on 6/23/07 at 11:42 pm
Wikitopian: I’m Agnostic, i was only raised in the Church (Lutheran). And yes, I know protestant groups dabble with multiculturalism. I got some magazine in the mail last week from a Lutheran publisher and one of the main articles was “The Sin of the (Racially) Divided Church”. But the Evangelical grouping embody the racial egalitarianism and universalism aspects of Christianity like no other. They make religion the center of their lives. They want all humanity to be one church inheriting one world. The majority of the Lutherans I know still identify themselves as White, American, Western,Individuals, etc. And put their religion as just another aspect amongst them. Hence i am not suprised to see that eagle forum poll show they are tougher on illegal immigration than evangelicals.
Billy Grahm said something to the effect that he didn’t care if Whites exist 5,000 years from now, as long as people were ‘Christian’. Most old time Christians (protestant, orthodox, or other) would find this appalling. And the article i mentioned before, ‘The Sin of the Divided Church’, most Lutherans would dismiss it and defend their white congregations.
I would not group the Mormon church in with Pentecostals,Evangelicals,Charismatics. Although they do have some unorthodox views. I was also aware of their basic opinions on blacks. But these days that has changed as well it appears.
“I’m sure that you and your Protestant family view all religions other than your own as irrational looney tunes” Sorry to disappoint but no, they don’t.
By on 6/24/07 at 1:54 pm
I wouldn’t call Ann Coulter a white nationalist. 1st, it reflects poorly on a woman who has been monumental for the conservative movement, despite countless aspects of her that I can’t stand. Calling her a white nationalist will enable liberals to play the race card against her.
Also, is there any indication that she has more sympathy towards whites than any other ethnic group in the US? No. She just looks at the numbers coolly and realizes that countries with majority white populations are far more successful than countries with majority non-white populations. In that sense, she is practical.
By on 6/24/07 at 3:43 pm
It’s kind of amusing that Ann Coulter can be as crude, insensitive, irreverent, primitive, and deliberately partisan as she is - but still be more welcome in the court of public opinion than Jared Taylor. Ann Coulter makes the old error of associating American religiosity with racialism, presumably because they sank in the same sociocultural deluge of the 60’s.
The whole thing is a straight “Does Not Compute” for me. The abolitionist movement in America, the Special Rights Movement of the 60’s, and modern initiatives are all spearheaded by Reverends and religious radicals.
By on 6/24/07 at 8:52 pm
One thing those who reject Judeo-obsessivism should consider is to reject the terminology of the Judeo-obsessives. It is stormfront and vnn etc. that call themselves “white nationalists.” Stormfront is “Stormfront white nationalist community.” I think a better term for us to use is “race realists.” That way it is clear that they are not one of us, and we are not one of them. We are a new movement, and they are an old movement.
Coulter and Buchanan are clearly sympathizing with racial realism, and fringe whakos are not needed as a middle-man, the goal is to influence important people who matter. Auster has influenced Buchanan (according to his blog) and public figures should be the target, not fringe lunatics.
By on 6/25/07 at 12:33 am
Race realism implies a more narrow scope than White Nationalism. It’s apples and oranges. I only speak for myself when I say this, but I believe that “race realism” indicates that there are substantial and immutable differences in nature that only separateness and sovereignty (ethnic nationalism) can address.
I’m nearly as averse to the spectre of my people oppressing or exploiting other people as I am to the spectre of my people being oppressed or exploited. Madison Grant quoted mainstream biology in asserting that, in nature, two sub-species do not share the same ecological niche. History, common sense, and the daily news all support the proposition that every nationality ought to be afforded a nation within which it can be sovereign.
To me, being a race realist without being an ethnic nationalist is like believing you’re in a pot of boiling water without being compelled to hop out.
P.S.
As an “American” of English, French Huguenot, and Irish descent, my ethnicity is an amalgam of White European Caucasian ethnicities. Ethnicity does not necessarily imply race, though it happens to do so for me and the majority of White Americans.
By on 6/25/07 at 8:50 am
It’s kind of amusing that Ann Coulter can be as crude, insensitive, irreverent, primitive, and deliberately partisan as she is - but still be more welcome in the court of public opinion than Jared Taylor. Ann Coulter makes the old error of associating American religiosity with racialism, presumably because they sank in the same sociocultural deluge of the 60’s.
The whole thing is a straight “Does Not Compute” for me. The abolitionist movement in America, the Special Rights Movement of the 60’s, and modern initiatives are all spearheaded by Reverends and religious radicals.
Conflating racialism and religion works, as the majority of Americans are nominally religious still. Also, Ann Coulter’s blond hair helps.
Christianity is a universalist religion, so it would be immune to narrow minded racialism, except among blacks whose Christianity is different.
The problem with the 1960s was not that people failed to see biological racial differences. It was Franz Boas’s school of anthropology that was to blame for that. Rather, the 1960s signalled a break not only in religious Christianity in the United States, but in loyalty to the family, community and patriotism to country.
White nationalists will help have their problems solved by returning the importance of family, community, Christianity and American patriotism to its original prominent and right place.
True, the liberal and abolitionist Englishmen of the 18th century, such as Wilberforce, were Evangelicals, but I agree with them, as I also see slavery as evil.
Even regarding the civil rights era, there were injustices against blacks such as lynchings and Ku Klux Klan murders, and the state laws mandating segregation were an infringement on private property.
And one more point, there is nothing wrong with establishing a Christian commune that sees membership to the Church, and not race, as the binding factor. The fact is, we all have only one God.
By on 6/25/07 at 12:21 pm
What are those of us who allow that there appear to be different skill sets and propensities among different peoples, and think that whites have as much right to group think and ethnic identity as everyone else, including preserving their American culture, but don’t see every group as a threat to their interest?
I had a guy screaming online at me about Hindus. He’s worried about the Hindus. I mean…I gotta be honest over here…I don’t like shipping jobs to India, and I abhor the caste system and everything, but when I get on the subway at 2am, I’m not worried that the Hindus might start up with me, and I am more than happy to have a little India within my city limits. While the benefits of diversity may be limited, restaurants are such a tangible benefit. Sorry, Mr. Taylor.
My point is (I’m getting there) that a lot of time is spent on this site on the divide over the Jewish issue. But I suspect there are many more issues that divide the respective camps of RRs and WNs.
What would you call those of us who actually like other peoples, but just don’t want any other group to take power from the whites? I mean, aren’t there two main fears driving most of us in terms of immigration? 1) the fear of becoming a Latin American country, and 2) the fear of becoming like France or Holland, besieged by a fundamentalist Islamic threat?
By on 6/25/07 at 1:17 pm
This is a very heartening article. At last the penny seems to be dropping in mainstream conservative circles- the only ones with the power to close the immigration floodgates.
The crucial power of the left to close down debate by crying racist wolf seems to be losing its potency. It is not racially neutral to seek to displace a majority ethnic group whether in Tibet or the United States.
I’m hoping against hope that the revolt against Kennedy-Bush and the new Sarkozy government in France will prove to be a sea change.
By on 6/25/07 at 7:56 pm
Despite not being racialist- hell, I outright despise it- I’m glad to see this. I really don’t want to see things in this whole amnesty debate decided on purely ethnic grounds, but this whole assertion helps not only whites, but America as well. Though it’s rather- well, inane of you to think that this defense means it’s giving credence to “race realism”. It’s not. This has far more to do with ethnic and cultural boundaries than anything, not a focus on racial genetic differences. And it’s not something to be too realistic about either- what with racialism’s whole ignorance to nearly all considerations of history, religion, culture, anthropology, ethnicity, and everything else that makes us human. That, and a hilarious distorition of evolutionary biology, contrary to how you people think you have the upper hand. Let’s bring back segregation, tear apart decades of social and political progress, along with any such future progress, and assault the humanity, dreams, and hopes of millions upon millions of people. All in the name of things, like, er, race and violence. Yeah guys, it’s definately not like the pathologies of blacks haven’t been seen expressed on scales of equal and sometimes greater magnitude by every other ethnic group throughout history- whites included, woops.
Care to explain the case of people like the Mongolians and Huns? One being east asian, the other a racial mix of whites and central asians, and two of the most murderous people in history.
And I just love this:
“A combination of genetic traits
(which leads whites towards greater abstract and universalist thinking)”
A huge portion of that comes from christianity- having it’s roots with a single non-white semetic jew.
And are you seriously suggesting that whites are genetically incapable of securing their own racial interest? Wow, looks like we’re pretty inferior there.
By on 6/26/07 at 12:01 am
One thing those who reject Judeo-obsessivism should consider is to reject the terminology of the Judeo-obsessives. It is stormfront and vnn etc. that call themselves “white nationalists.” Stormfront is “Stormfront white nationalist community.”
Define “judeo-obsessivism.” I don’t consider myself a “judeo-obsessive,” that is, I do not believe America’s racial problems are entirely reducible to deleterious Jewish influence upon our culture. Blacks, for example, were granted U.S. citizenship during Reconstruction. Indians were granted U.S. citizenship by special acts of Congress in 1887, 1901, and 1924. Chinese laborers were allowed to settle in California before the Chinese Exclusion Act. Japanese immigrants were allowed to colonize much of Hawaii before TR’s Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan. Most states in the American North had already passed anti-discrimination laws by 1900. Jews had nothing to do with that.
At the same time, Duke et al. are not entirely mistaken about the Jewish role in the decline of American racialism: Jews really are drastically overrepresented by several factors in the news media, entertainment media, government, academia, financial sector, etc. They really were drastically overrepresented in destructive left-wing anti-racist political movements: in the Civil Rights Movement, amongst the Freedom Riders, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, Students for a Democratic Society, NAACP legal team, financiers of the NAACP, and journalists who covered the segregationists negatively. During the twentieth century at least, it is not inaccurate to say that Jews really have had a massive distorting effect upon American culture, American foreign policy, and American domestic policies relating to race.
Are you suggesting that American racialists are unjustified in resenting that; that Jews alone are to be granted a special dispensation in discussions of how we have been brought to this point? If we can discuss Catholics and Protestants (or “Big Religion,” as Mr. Raymond styles them), professionals and the education establishment, non-profits and ethnic activist groups — every other aspect of this question — why not Jewish involvement as well? Granted, Duke, Linder, et al. are prone to exaggeration and have a tendency to oversimply what is in fact a complex issue, but that hardly warrants throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and embracing an equally irrational position merely to spite anti-semitic White Nationalists.
“I think a better term for us to use is “race realists.” That way it is clear that they are not one of us, and we are not one of them. We are a new movement, and they are an old movement.
Jared Taylor is a “race realist.” A “race realist” is someone who 1.) accepts the existence of racial differences, 2.) believes they are relevant to public policy, 3.) considers forced integration a failure, 4.) believes whites are morally justified in reassuming their racial identity and 5.) organizing themselves politically to advance their racial interests, as other groups currently do. This political stance does not necessarily entail anti-semitism or endorsement of a separatist solution to America’s racial problems, but I don’t believe it precludes it either. This notion that philo-semitism is somehow integral to being a race realist is a recent innovation.
Coulter and Buchanan are clearly sympathizing with racial realism, and fringe whakos are not needed as a middle-man, the goal is to influence important people who matter.
As I pointed out above, Ann Coulter used to date Dinesh D’Souza. I would say her willingness to share her bed with an Indian-American conservative is a fairly reliable indicator of the extent of her sympathies with White Nationalism. Pat Buchanan clearly does have racialist sympathies. That much is clear from his latest book. At the same time, Buchanan also knows the score on the Jews, and is unabashed about speaking about the matter; so how is this a vital point of disagreement between Buchanan and the “fringe whackos”? Few mainstream political pundits have endured the barrage of verbal abuse that Buchanan has from the American Jewish community over the years and survived the onslaught.
Another one of those “important people who matter” would be John Derbyshire. Although Derbyshire has an Asian wife and two biracial children from his mixed marriage, aside from Buchahan, he is clearly the second most sympathetic mainstream conservative to race realism. Last summer he even appeared in public with Jared Taylor to discuss race and conservatism. This suggests to me that he doesn’t share the concerns expressed here at Inverted World about “the decline of American Renaissance.” Furthermore, Derbyshire recently had an unusually frank exchange with Joey Kurtzman at Jewcy in which he discussed Jewish influence in our culture and Kevin MacDonald’s work. Like Buchanan, Derbyshire is also fully aware the reality of Jewish power in this country; his own views aren’t all that different from those of the “fringe whackos”:
http://www.jewcy.com/dialogue/02-26/kevin_macdonald_derbs2
“To your next point (I am working from the bottom up again) that my professed fear of ticking off Jews is some kind of affectation or pose, I can only assure you that this is not so. Almost the first thing you hear from old hands when you go into opinion journalism in the U.S. is, to put it in the precise form I first heard it: “Don’t f*ck with the Jews.” (Though I had better add here that I was mixing mainly with British expats at that point, and the comment came from one of them. More on this in a moment.)
Joe Sobran expressed it with his usual hyperbole: “You must only ever write of us as a passive, powerless, historically oppressed minority, struggling to maintain our ancient identity in a world where all the odds are against us, poor helpless us, poor persecuted and beleaguered us! Otherwise we will smash you to pieces.”
Auster has influenced Buchanan (according to his blog) and public figures should be the target, not fringe lunatics.
The public figures within the conservative movement you wish to target already largely agree with the “fringe lunatics” re: the Jewish Question. The difference is that they are unwilling to flush their careers and comfortable standard of living down the toilet by speaking out publically about the matter. Race, too. If you think simply saying nasty things about the anti-semites is going to solve all our problems, then you are in for a rude awakening. These people have no incentive to work with you either. What do they have to gain from such an alliance … other than a guarantee of being Imus’d by the press?
By on 6/26/07 at 1:56 am
Conflating racialism and religion works, as the majority of Americans are nominally religious still. Also, Ann Coulter’s blond hair helps.
Except for the fact that racialists 1.) are disproportionately atheists and agnostics (as are the highly educated, generally) and 2.) every mainstream religious sect in the country — the Mormons included — now condemn racialism. While it is true Americans are still largely religious, it is not true they have a strong sense of racial consciousness. Finally, is it really a good idea to set racialism on a creationist foundation? This sort of racialism went out of fashion two centuries ago after the rise of Enlightenment naturalism. It also has zero standing in the scientific community.
Hint: The best way to win biologists over to our camp isn’t to associate racialism with the laughable “Intelligent Design” movement, or worse, Ken Ham’s Fred Flintstone creation museum in Kentucky.
By on 6/26/07 at 2:14 am
Rather, the 1960s signalled a break not only in religious Christianity in the United States, but in loyalty to the family, community and patriotism to country.
90% of Americans believe in God. About 95% believe in God or some sort of “life force” or “higher power.” Only about 3% of Americans self-identify as atheists. Of all the problems America is suffering from, a lack of Christianity is not amongst them.
By on 6/26/07 at 2:18 am
Are you suggesting that American racialists are unjustified in resenting that; that Jews alone are to be granted a special dispensation in discussions of how we have been brought to this point? If we can discuss Catholics and Protestants (or “Big Religion,” as Mr. Raymond styles them), professionals and the education establishment, non-profits and ethnic activist groups — every other aspect of this question — why not Jewish involvement as well?
Griffin defines it well here
“Three things identify a Judeo-obsessive:
1. The idea all Jews are evil.
2. The idea everything Jews do is evil.
3. The idea all our problems come from the Jews. “
That is also my definition. I’ll take it.
Are you suggesting that American racialists are unjustified in resenting that; that Jews alone are to be granted a special dispensation in discussions of how we have been brought to this point? If we can discuss Catholics and Protestants (or “Big Religion,” as Mr. Raymond styles them), professionals and the education establishment, non-profits and ethnic activist groups — every other aspect of this question — why not Jewish involvement as well?
This is the where you have different goals than I and it shows. I am trying to work with Jews, and I realize while Jews are on both sides of every debate, a lot are liberals. And so I try to condemn this liberalism without condeming Jews themselves, in a “constructive crticism” way. You have the luxury of not trying to win over Jews. You don’t have to be so creative.
This notion that philo-semitism is somehow integral to being a race realist is a recent innovation.
I agree that I have been pushing this angle, the truth is a race realists asks “can’t we all get along” and answers it with “no.” Most “realists” are not judeo-obsessed but not philosemtic. People like Ixabert (a poster on another forum who posts here too) and I are a new breed.
As I pointed out above, Ann Coulter used to date Dinesh D’Souza. I would say her willingness to share her bed with an Indian-American conservative is a fairly reliable indicator of the extent of her sympathies with White Nationalism. Pat Buchanan clearly does have racialist sympathies. That much is clear from his latest book. At the same time, Buchanan also knows the score on the Jews, and is unabashed about speaking about the matter; so how is this a vital point of disagreement between Buchanan and the “fringe whackos”? Few mainstream political pundits have endured the barrage of verbal abuse that Buchanan has from the American Jewish community over the years and survived the onslaught.
Buchanan downplays the Jewishness of neo-cons (of course not all neo-cons are jewish) and makes it an issue of people posing to be conservatives when they are really still liberals. Bush is a neo-con for example, but not a jew. That’s a different approach than naming of Jews. Someone like Auster is not a neo-con, but is a Jew. Coulter obviously has a message which can be used even if she isn’t ideal, its a message one can take and run with and try to spread to others with more crediblity by having a big figure behind it.
The public figures within the conservative movement you wish to target already largely agree with the “fringe lunatics” re: the Jewish Question. The difference is that they are unwilling to flush their careers and comfortable standard of living down the toilet by speaking out publically about the matter. Race, too. If you think simply saying nasty things about the anti-semites is going to solve all our problems, then you are in for a rude awakening. These people have no incentive to work with you either. What do they have to gain from such an alliance … other than a guarantee of being Imus’d by the press?
I think the only thing you can do is set your goals high and try hard to reach them. Try to at least attack political correctness and multicuturalism.
By on 6/26/07 at 9:48 pm
Scimitar wrote,
“Derbyshire is also fully aware the reality of Jewish power in this country; his own views aren’t all that different from those of the “fringe whackos”:”
I don’t see that at all. Claiming that despite their often declared historical oppression Jews in fact have power and utilize it to their benefit (and attack their enemies) is quite different than claiming Jews are inherently demonic or near so. It’s quite different. Which is why Derbyshire was invited to (and he accepted ) an invitation to a salon discussion on Jewcy, a Jewish website. Duke is called for quotes by some Jewish newspapers on issues that concern him, but he is hardly invited to submit an op-ed, now, is he?
By on 6/26/07 at 10:21 pm
Sure, it’s sort of lonely in the “atheist racialist” tent - but scientific data is accumulating on our side. With every week that passes, more scientific information disproves the mythology of both Christian Creationism and bio-Marxist egalitarianism. “Percent of population” is a notoriously unreliable way to measure the political or sociocultural influence of a group.
Besides, if one wishes to be Machiavellian in promoting their “atheist racialist” agenda, why merely masquerade as a Christian? Why not be in it to win it at “the art of the possible” and not even claim to be a racist? Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo have accomplished more for White interests than all of the racialists combined.
By on 6/27/07 at 12:09 am
Furthermore, Derbyshire recently had an unusually frank exchange with Joey Kurtzman at Jewcy in which he discussed Jewish influence in our culture and Kevin MacDonald’s work. Like Buchanan, Derbyshire is also fully aware the reality of Jewish power in this country; his own views aren’t all that different from those of the “fringe whackos”:
Here is John Derbyshire’s review of Kevin B. MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique in The American Conservative.
One can decide for himself:
http://www.amconmag.com/03_10_03/review.html
I personally don’t think Derbyshire is anti-Semitic in any way shame or form and actually was a bit too lenient on Jews in that review. (I am Jewish, by the way). The blog on http://www.Jewcy.com was interesting, and as you said, “frank”.
I don’t think Derbyshire is even a white nationalist, as is evidenced by his marriage, but his views and white nationalists’ definitely coincide at times.
By on 6/27/07 at 12:43 am
I don’t see that at all. Claiming that despite their often declared historical oppression Jews in fact have power and utilize it to their benefit (and attack their enemies) is quite different than claiming Jews are inherently demonic or near so. It’s quite different. Which is why Derbyshire was invited to (and he accepted ) an invitation to a salon discussion on Jewcy, a Jewish website. Duke is called for quotes by some Jewish newspapers on issues that concern him, but he is hardly invited to submit an op-ed, now, is he?
That’s a caricature, DK. Even David Duke respects several anti-Zionist Jews like Israel Shamir and Norman Finkelstein. When I said above that Derbyshire’s views about Jewish power “aren’t all that different from those of the “fringe whackos,” I meant he largely agrees with the cornerstone thesis of the anti-semitic wing of White Nationalism: that Jews are drastically overrepresented in the mass media, exercise a hegemonic influence over discussions of race, and use their media power to impose social pricing on pro-whites and anti-semites.
The precise formula we are all familar with: Jews control the media. That’s another oversimplification (much of the media is profit driven), but the argument is not without merit. The limited version of it given above is true. In the exchange with Kurtzman at Jewcy, Derbyshire acknowledges this, and cited Sobran’s formulation of the theory:
“You must only ever write of us as a passive, powerless, historically oppressed minority, struggling to maintain our ancient identity in a world where all the odds are against us, poor helpless us, poor persecuted and beleaguered us! Otherwise we will smash you to pieces.”
One last thing. While it is true anti-semitic racialists often demonize the Jews, is the reverse not also true? Do Jews not demonize racialism? From Franz Boas to Ashley Montagu to Stephen J. Gould to Richard Lewontin to Tim Wise — the anti-semites can fairly point to over a century of hostility to racialism by American Jewry. The Realist has written several articles about what he styles the “theology of Jewish evil.” Were Jews like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Susan Sontag not instrumental in crafting the “theology of white evil” that prevails today — and precipitating the reaction against it by anti-semitic racialists?
I know this is a playground argument, but the anti-semites are correct when they say, “Jews started it.” Historically speaking, American racialism has not been anti-semitic. This only dates back to George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party. The Jim Crow laws that reduced blacks to second class citizens in the American South never applied to Jews. During the 1960s, the segregationists like George Wallace never attacked Jews as Jews, even though Jews were dramatically overrepresented in the Civil Rights Movement. Jews have always been free to immigrate to the U.S. and naturalize as American citizens, with all the legal privileges of other whites. In this light, the demonization of the Jews by anti-semitic racialists is at least understandable; they are simply returning fire.
By on 6/27/07 at 12:47 am
Scimitar,
it is clear that the West, especially Europe, has become less religious during the course of the 19th century and even more so during the 1950s. Patrick Buchanan aptly documents how the main split in the United States is cultural and religious, with its elitist enemies’ main attempt to eradicate Christianity. There are no shortage of Jews who have also taken the fight against Christianity, and Buchanan well knows this.
Those who believe in a supernatural being frequently believe in a scientologist or Buddhist one.
An atheist western society will ask itself the lethal question: what is the point of preserving civilization when we are just like the bacteria and there is no guiding hand?
As for Christians rejecting racialism, you are right because Christianity is a universalist religion. It is what built this civilization. There is an inherent contradiction in that it supports erasing any and all boundaries with the rest of humanity. That is the problem with the west and liberalism in general.
But even Christians draw lines to preserve themselves without baiting those of other races at the same time. For exsmple, if the US Congress decided to pass a law deporting all illegals and demanding that all new immigrants read, write and speak English fluently before arrival, accept an American identity and not be Muslim, you would have nothing to worry about.
By on 6/27/07 at 12:52 am
One more point, scimitar,
I read The Culture of Critique and more or less agreed with it. But a few points.
1)Jews are certainly largely resonsible for what went wrong, but not the primary factor. Liberalism of the intelligentsia, inherent in the west, was.
2)Not all Jews are leftists. Myself for example.
3)Jews themselves are experiencing a problem of anti-religion and leftist movements that isn’t the same but similar to the west’s troubles. The anti-religious movements in Judaism are stronger than among gentile whites, but the racial egalitarian movements are weaker but certainly existent, especially in Israel.
Also, an anti-Jewish Jew is almost always anti-Christian but an anti-Christian Jew can be of any religious commmitment to his Judaism.
By on 6/27/07 at 1:03 am
Scimitar wrote, “Granted, Duke, Linder, et al. are prone to exaggeration and have a tendency to oversimply [sic] what is in fact a complex issue, but that hardly warrants throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
David Duke has a tendency to promulgate insane conspiracy theories: see http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/the_insanity_of_david_duke/
He also pals around with people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who wish to engage in wholesale slaughter of Jews. And, from what I know of it, Linder’s work is much the same.
I also don’t believe that Jews should be immune from reasonable criticism, but the work of Duke and Linder is indefensible. Any critic of Jewish influence must explicitly reject this work to gain the trust of reasonable people.
By on 6/27/07 at 8:05 am
Ajo claims that
“An atheist western society will ask itself the lethal question: what is the point of preserving civilization when we are just like the bacteria and there is no guiding hand?”
Only the firmly religious are of the persuasion that lack of religion necessitates nihilism and self-destruction. Anecdotally, atheists appear to care MORE about life, with more education and better jobs.
Childrens’ teeth would still fall out even if they didn’t believe in a tooth fairy, too.
By on 6/27/07 at 9:24 am
One last thing. While it is true anti-semitic racialists often demonize the Jews, is the reverse not also true? Do Jews not demonize racialism? From Franz Boas to Ashley Montagu to Stephen J. Gould to Richard Lewontin to Tim Wise — the anti-semites can fairly point to over a century of hostility to racialism by American Jewry. The Realist has written several articles about what he styles the “theology of Jewish evil.” Were Jews like Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Susan Sontag not instrumental in crafting the “theology of white evil” that prevails today — and precipitating the reaction against it by anti-semitic racialists?
I know this is a playground argument, but the anti-semites are correct when they say, “Jews started it.” Historically speaking, American racialism has not been anti-semitic. This only dates back to George Lincoln Rockwell and the American Nazi Party. The Jim Crow laws that reduced blacks to second class citizens in the American South never applied to Jews. During the 1960s, the segregationists like George Wallace never attacked Jews as Jews, even though Jews were dramatically overrepresented in the Civil Rights Movement. Jews have always been free to immigrate to the U.S. and naturalize as American citizens, with all the legal privileges of other whites. In this light, the demonization of the Jews by anti-semitic racialists is at least understandable; they are simply returning fire.
There is a difference between demonizing an ideology, like racialism, and demonizing a race or religion. There were racialists of all races and religions.
I am not condoning demonizing racialism, but if you don’t understand the difference between that and anti-Semitism or any other form of religious bigotry or racism, than I can’t connect to you.
And yes, I admit that the anti-Semitism among racialists was very understandable.
And yes, there were Jews who were anti-Christian and anti-white, and being that is as bad as being anti-Semitic.
By on 6/27/07 at 4:59 pm
I came a bit late to this debate—excellent exchange—to which I propose to contribute respectfully if slightly mischievously.
A plurality of neurotic, obsessive ideaologies have contributed to the elevation of multiculturalism and the repression of white self-interest. Coulter’s position is very nicely representative of the most venerable of these. In a relatively recent column she outed low black IQ scores and proceeded to remind us that as a Christian she does not conflate spiritual value with intellective power. Why do we value human beings? Why they have “souls”! Inside every human being, is this immortal floating ghost that Jesus commands us to love. By the way, did you see Passion of the Christ! What he went through! The least Coulter could do is to sleep with Romesh who has a particularly attractive inner floating ghost. Suffering Jesus would be almost as pleased by her affirmative action attraction as he would have been with her chastity which is—evidently not an option for her. If we love souls rather than minds, we cannot be race realists, even if we are cranky and iconoclastic enough to make similar noises now & again. (It was Coulter’s ancestral Christian masochists who ran the Freedman’s bureau with nary a Jew in sight, thanks to Grant’s virulent Anti-semtism).
Jewish prejudice against white gentiles, whether reflective of an elaborate group evolutionary strategy or obsessive, paranoid ethnic hatred has played an important role because of Jewish overachievement. If the Irish controlled the media, we would only get English villans. (I am hesitant to project an Irish Anthropology.) Realist is not, to use his favourite epitath, insane to think that some Jews could be swayed to the race-realist position.
The question distills to: how many lies do we have to tell to meet our recruitment quotas? Knowing how much to lie is central to any political undertaking. To recruit Jews effectively, we will need to lie about history, which troubles Scimitar and not Realist (blame Hitler for Boasian anthroplogy? Easy!). To recruit Christians we will have to wade into their febrile hermeneutics (Paul told slaves to be good to their masters! Slaves can have healthy inner ghosts even when we starve them!)
I am sometimes led to conclude that solitary misanthropy is the only proper course. But, in a better mood, I delegate the political art to masters like Realist while admiring Scimitar’s lapidary logic.
By on 6/27/07 at 7:23 pm
ironic jihad behaves like a typical Judeo-obsessive in that he slanders anyone who challenges his obsessive, simplistic, mono-causal interpretation of the origins of multiculturalism. I obviously never blamed Hitler for Boasian anthropology. What I did do was say that American abhorrence of Nazi Germany was of the major originating causes of the “whites as cancer” myth. His dig at me for calling Duke insane implies that he agrees with Duke’s theory that Israel was complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Is that true?
It is ironic jihad who is guilty of lying, not me.
I think that those who seek excuses to abuse allies like Ann Coulter—she slept with Dinesh D’Souza, she makes perfunctory bows to political correctness—are secretly motivated by a desire to prevent race realism from becoming popular. They view themselves as the pure partisans of the truth, and any sign that their views are becoming widely shared threatens their sense of uniqueness. Such people are numerous in any kind of radical movement, but true friends of the white race are motivated by love of the truth and compassion, not by vanity.
By on 6/27/07 at 9:12 pm
I seem to have touched a nerve. Realist tends not to publish my rebuttals to his abuse so I challenge him to publish this one. (I would only make non-financial bets on his sense of honour).
Since I assigned blame in (at least) equal parts to Christian mysticism and Jewish prejudice for the process of white American decracination, it is unclear how I can be accused of a “mono-causal interpretation of the origins of multiculturalism”. The phrase is as awkward as the argument.(Certainly Realist writes badly enough to be an academic but there are lacunae as we shall see).
In fairness, Realist blamed Hitler for the Frankfurt school and not for Boasian anthropology as such. The arguments are interchangeably incoherent. The Jewish academic adversary culture predated Hitler by decades.
Now I will quote Realist directly, which is admittedly cruel of me:
“His dig at me for calling Duke insane implies that he agrees with Duke’s theory that Israel was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.”
This sentence belongs in logic receivership. To dispute that N is “insane” does not imply substantive agreement with N on any given political issue or historical theory. This is Realist’s epistomological problem. He seems to literally believe that anyone disagreeing with him is either a liar or a lunatic. This suggests (but does not dispositively establish) a clinical problem.
Finally, Realist declined to post my earlier response to his cognitively distressed theory about “mainstream expert” consensus which is his theoretical justification for labeling all dissenters as “insane”. (This is ironic given Realist’s own deviation from the “expert consensus” on race). It is efficient to delegate research where scholars (agents) are not operating under a conflict of interest. If expert/agents are writing about fish, our default position should be deference. When they tackle subjects like the Holocaust, where dissent invites certain professional ruin (Professor Finkelstein most recently) and possible criminal prosecution it is quite another thing. It is quite simply stupid to defer to a coerced consensus, which fully justified Jared’s agnosticism on the Holocaust issue. But Realist wants confessions from witches, not reasoned debate.
Realist is a multi-culti Inquisitor cross-dressing as a race-realist. He advances a perverted experiment in race-realist-neocon ideaology.
But, as I don’t take any of this personally, he should have a very nice evening indeed.
By on 6/27/07 at 10:34 pm
By way of postscript let’s consider what a friend Coulter has been to our people.
She has been a cheerleader for the catastrophe in Iraq from day 1 to the presnet day. Now Realist does detest Muslims—I do not take the position that he is wrong about EVERYTHING (randomness does not discriminate against him)—and the idea that we would instill democratic values in this blighted part of the world arguably was “insane”. Coulter is thus a better candidate for institutionalization than Duke or, for that matter, even Realist.
Coulter wears short skirts and sleeps around a lot which only partially make up for this mistake. She is very, very funny in a Bizarro Mort Sahl kind of way. But she is a Christian universalist. She will bleed us because bleeding excites her (Passion of the Christ was her porn).
Finally, why is it that we assume Dinesh actually got lucky? The official word is that they “dated” (presumably using non-destructive methods). That means sex for everyone but Christians. Maybe she didn’t go all the way. Maybe she drew the line at verbal abuse. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on this point. (She also “dated” Guccionne jr. Again, I admit she is an interesting Christian….)
By on 6/27/07 at 10:52 pm
1)Jews are certainly largely resonsible for what went wrong, but not the primary factor. Liberalism of the intelligentsia, inherent in the west, was. <i>
I also agree with Lawrence Auster re: the liberalism issue. The matter has been discussed ad nauseum at Majority Rights in recent weeks by myself and others. Much of the current racial insanity of the United States dates from the Reconstruction period. Virtually every state in the American North had already passed post-1964 style civil rights laws by 1900.
<i>2)Not all Jews are leftists. Myself for example.
I acknowledge that. There are pro-racialist Jews. Unfortunately, they are a tiny minority of the Jewish community in the United States. Thus, it is difficult to negotiate a ceasefire and/or alliance between Jewish and Gentile racialists when the perception exists amongst the latter that they are still under attack. From their perspective, Jews are still shooting at them, and Jewish racialists are demanding a unilateral unconditional surrender on their part while offering little in return.
3)Jews themselves are experiencing a problem of anti-religion and leftist movements that isn’t the same but similar to the west’s troubles. The anti-religious movements in Judaism are stronger than among gentile whites, but the racial egalitarian movements are weaker but certainly existent, especially in Israel.Also, an anti-Jewish Jew is almost always anti-Christian but an anti-Christian Jew can be of any religious commmitment to his Judaism.
The most destructive Jewish anti-racists tend to be those who are alienated from their own religious tradition and the host culture that surrounds them. I would strongly recommend that Jewish racialists spend more of their time trying to bring their co-ethnics to reason and less time baiting the anti-semites.
By on 6/28/07 at 12:56 am
Realist,
It is topical that Ann Coulter was in a relationship with D’Souza. D’Souza got Sam Francis fired from the Washington Times. That’s despicable on levels other than merely the miscegenation one. Also, sane people hold insane views all the time. Many Whites are for Affirmative Action. Billions of people hold neolithic superstitious traditions to be above reproach.
Sure, Duke’s 9/11 stuff is batty, but accusing those who don’t join in your criticizing him of holding his most absurd positions is a bit of hyperbole, no?
There is a threat to race realists in allowing the mainstream conservatives to superficially parallel race realist positions. What if race-blind conservatives switch to a merit-based immigration system? That’s what follows from their SIMILAR but DIFFERENT non-racist rhetoric. Our nation could be flooded with foreign nationals who are not White, are not Western, and feel more comfortable with America’s coastal elites than Middle America.
The literate and legal aliens tend to feel a greater political bond with the illiterate and illegal aliens than they do with “Middle America” - a group they openly and venomously despise with the most crude stereotypes.
I agree that race realism needs to be extricated from David Duke and that respectable mainstream people need to be recruited. But if we compromise the core of this, our own ethnic nationalism, for meritocracy or deracinated paleoconservatism, then we’ll lose.
By on 6/28/07 at 1:18 am
David Duke has a tendency to promulgate insane conspiracy theories
I don’t agree with David Duke’s theory of the 9/11 attacks, and personally I have paid little attention to him over the years. At the same time, just because David Duke is wrong on some issues, it hardly follows that he is wrong in everything he says. Re: the Jewish influence in the American mass media or the grip the pro-Israel lobby has over American foreign policy, Duke is largely correct.
“Insane conspiracy theories” are not exclusive to anti-semitic white racialists either. Just read some of the arguments puts out by the neocons over the last several years. Whoppers like “Saddam has WMD,” “Saddam is working with Bin Laden,” “Saddam is getting uranium from Niger” are what got us into the Iraq War in the first place. Why don’t you complain about things like that? The debacle and Iraq - not to mention the war the same crowd are urging us to get into with Iran - have been infinitely more destructive to American interests.
He also pals around with people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who wish to engage in wholesale slaughter of Jews. And, from what I know of it, Linder’s work is much the same.
That’s am irrational guilt by association argument. It is also non-responsive to Duke’s claim (and Derbyshire’s too) about Jewish influence in the media. Are Jews drastically overrepresented in the mass media? Do they use this influence to demonize racialism and impose social pricing on pro-whites? The answer is “yes” on both counts.
I also don’t believe that Jews should be immune from reasonable criticism, but the work of Duke and Linder is indefensible. Any critic of Jewish influence must explicitly reject this work to gain the trust of reasonable people.
Any reasonable person should be aware that a proposition isn’t necessarily false because 1.) the reasons given in defense of it are invalid or 3.) because of the character of the person asserting it.
By on 6/28/07 at 1:24 am
I think that those who seek excuses to abuse allies like Ann Coulter—she slept with Dinesh D’Souza, she makes perfunctory bows to political correctness—are secretly motivated by a desire to prevent race realism from becoming popular.They view themselves as the pure partisans of the truth, and any sign that their views are becoming widely shared threatens their sense of uniqueness. Such people are numerous in any kind of radical movement, but true friends of the white race are motivated by love of the truth and compassion, not by vanity.
That sounds like an “insane conspiracy theory” to me: skeptics really don’t want race realism to succeed. Actually, I have simply pointed out that your argument that Ann Coulter is an “ally” of race realists or a “sympathizer” is extremely dubious. Her own actions (in the most intimate way) clearly show otherwise. Fortunately, you are in a position to prove me completely wrong: all you have to do is send Ann Coulter an email, propose your alliance to her, and then post an article for us explaining what she had to say. In the sciences, we like to test our theories.
Also, while you are at it, why not send off some other emails to the AJC and ADL? Inform them that you have broken completely with the anti-semites and seek their endorsement of your version of race realism. Let us know what they think of your proposal. This would certainly be more persuasive than the amateur psychoanalysis you offer above.
By on 6/28/07 at 1:38 am
The posts by ironic jihad and Scimitar demonstrate a breathtaking double standard in judgment. While both of them stop short of endorsing Duke’s theory of Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks, they are both up in arms over my judgment that he is insane and seek reasons to defend him. Yes, he was wrong about 9/11, but he’s right about the Jewish media and at least he didn’t support the Iraq War. However, our Judeo-obsessives show no such indulgence when it comes to evaluating the work of academic historians who study the Holocaust or the US government’s rationale for starting the Iraq War. In their view, Duke is someone who occasionally exaggerates in his righteous war against Jewish evil, but the academic community, the Bush administration, and Ann Coulter are just plain liars.
Both ironic jihad and Scimitar suffer from a dogmatic anti-authoritarianism that makes them automatically side with fringe figures against the mainstream. This causes serious distortions of judgment. There is absolutely no evidence at all that Israel had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, but, as just one example, there was evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger. Both British and American assessments of the evidence for this claim have found it was well supported (see http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20148 and http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22003). The claim that Bush “lied us into war” is, in fact, a long-discredited piece of liberal propaganda that some anti-Bush right-wingers have swallowed wholesale.
I could go on and on like this, but I could never get ironic and Scimitar to see the distortions that their dogmatic anti-Semitism imposes on the world. I sometimes allow people like them to comment on my website in the hope that they might actually say something useful and intelligent, but I’m always disappointed. The fact is that such people are not interested in inculcating race realism in the American public. Rather, their motive is adolescent rebellion against authority and the mainstream. This is the motive behind extreme leftism as well, which explains ironic and Scimitar’s views on Iraq converge with those of the left.
By on 6/28/07 at 9:33 am
Ann Coulter, by writing one column, did more to make White people aware of the precarious situation we find ourselves in. Her audience is bigger than all the WN web-sites put together. A simple litmus test can be used to see if Ann is on our side: just look at the type of people she agitates. Remember good folks, she operates within a very confined framework (MSM) where PC doctrine is the law. Under those circumstances, she’s doing a damned good job!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21029
Btw- As much as I respect scimitar and ironic jihad, you guys aren’t close to her in intellectual or rhetorical skills. Me thinks you guys should find another target to criticize.
By on 6/28/07 at 11:14 am
What exactly do the posters here want from Ann Coulter? She said unequivocally that there are on average differences in intelligence between races, something neocons rarely have done recently, and that she wouldn’t mind if this were true because, unlike the posters here, she is a religious Christian who believes that each man is created in the image of God, unlike the secular pagan Nazis. If “race realism” or whatever you are trying to spread through the rest of the west means daily sacrificing of animals to Odin and Norse, I hope you don’t succeed, and you probably won’t.
Yes, she may be a neocon with regards to foreign policy, but the war in Iraq is not related to the subject matter of this thread.
I have more respect for the Evangelicals than the nordicists, odinists and atheists who happen to be race realist. Read up and find that there is a Christian, including Roman Catholic basis to modern Western culture. Don’t be brainwashed by your liberals at public schools but instead read the founding fathers’ own words and find that Christianity and God were central to their lives.
By on 6/28/07 at 1:10 pm
The Realist appears to be in possession of a unique ability to stray remotely from the academic, media, and government consensus while retaining the language and tone of one who hasn’t. His language adopts the Frankfurt School’s own lexicon and verbiage in defending the “Authoritarian Personality” - which is a neo-Freudian fiction to begin with. He is also fluent in the use of an esoteric ad hominem which is the diagnosis of one’s debate opponent with a psychological condition.
A more effective method of dealing with Ironic Jihad and Scimitar may be to concede some reality, and spend more time explaining the context to them. Explain to them that their disproportionate control of the media and academia is a natural function of their enhanced intelligence and integration into America’s coastal elite. Explain how Swedish Finns have undermined Finnish nationalism as a survival strategy so that Jews aren’t seen as uniquely sinister for having done so.
Jews predisposed toward nationalist sentiment have Zionism. Jews predisposed to a more liberal perspective have America’s coastal elites to integrate with (and eventually disappear into). The Jews who see themselves as part of Western Civilization or as White are hosed by a tsunami of anti-Semitism and “false flag” accusations if they’re even (brave/dumb) enough to attempt to participate in the white nationalist or racial realist movements.
Rather than insulting or censoring “Judaeo-obsessives”, attempt to offer boring explanations.
By on 6/28/07 at 1:37 pm
Thank God for Ajo and Fan of Ann! Sometimes I think the whole world’s crazy, but they are proof that common sense still exists.
By on 6/28/07 at 9:04 pm
Realist,
Every single Christian denomination in America except for an itsy-bitsy handful of Christian Identity loons reject White ethnic nationalism. Ajo’s proposition is factually bankrupt, as this Christian racialist mainstream no longer exists and cannot be resurrected. Even the sort of racialism that paleoconservative Christians support(ed) is a sinister and supremacist sort that’s predicated on chosen groups, cursed groups, and biblical passages promoting slavery.
Meanwhile, secular data continues to pour in, supporting racialism. If history is any indication, then Christian superstition will give way to secular materialism and multiculturalism will go the way of Soviet Communism. One day people will just wake up and remove “Martin Luther King” from every street name with the same zeal that the Russians removed Stalin and Lenin from their city and street names.
Today is the best day for race realists in decades. We won huge victories today in both the legislature and the judiciary today. The media and elites are losing their grip and a peasant’s revolt is thwarting a united front of foundation elites and big business. You and Ajo can bank on Ann Coulter’s insipid vitriole and a rebirth of the Jim Crowe mindset. I will patiently wait. I have many reasons to be optimistic.
By on 6/28/07 at 10:05 pm
In truth, I only became “paleoconservative” a few years ago, and I don’t identify as a white nationalist. I don’t think Ann Coulter does either, and there is much I don’t like about her opinion and personality wise. But the column that Ironic Jihad was referring to written a year ago in Human Events summarizing her book Treason was on the dot with regards to racialism. The same with her more recent column, even though I find offensive the term “roach motel”.
There is no need worrying about anti-Semites like David Duke. They simply don’t have followings. You SHOULD be able to get across an opinon without worrying that he will concur. At the same time, Jews like myself have to ask ourselves serious questions.
Ann Coulter also never criticizes Jews per se because that is taboo in the mainstream, and she has a neocon foreign policy. But she gets important opinions across that aren’t heard elsewhere.
My problem with white nationalism is its tribalism. Who cares if one belongs or doesn’t belong to the “movement”? Also, particularly in the United States, I see myself as an American. The only large LEGAL ethnic group that is so separated from the rest of mainstream society are the blacks. So white nationalism is pointless. It seems also doomed to fail until whites become a minority.
By on 6/28/07 at 10:15 pm
Re: definition of Judeo-obsession.
To the list provided by Daryl, I would add that the Jew-obsessed are fixated on Jews rather than on ideas. If the Jews were to disappear tomorrow, liberalism, multi-culturalism and such would live on, unabated. Also, I think we can identify the Jew-obsessed by asking: What is to be done? That is, what are the solutions proposed by those obsessed with Jews? Should we outlaw Jews from certain professions? Should we deport them? To where? The Jew-mongers rejoice at the thought of the destruction of Israel, so not to the Middle East, I imagine. It appears that the only solution is the “final solution” because no matter what where the Jews are or what their condition, they will always be a nefarious and mystical causal agent, working against whites with their all-powerful Jew-beams.
I don’t see the utility of “daring” to criticize Jews. If Jews tend to be liberal and/or opposed to racialism, so what? Again, what can we do about it? Cow them into silence? It is more productive to argue against false ideas and false ethics and to try to convince all liberals, Jew and gentile, of their folly.
By on 6/29/07 at 4:53 am
In the following when I refer to majority, I wish to infer a large enough portion to have an effect or to make a noticeable difference.
I believe the majority of white Americans are extremely complacent. Heck, they have trouble complaining about a bad meal or bad service so forget about the more complicated or difficult subjects. I also believe it is one of the dominating factors that have caused the current national dilemma to take hold (multiculturalism). And, the white majority I refer to, as we all know, is Christian. In the United States, most white ethnic groups that are Christian began to focus less on their ethnic identity as they became more “Americanized.” Generation after generaton was heavily encouraged by the government to be “only American” and for good reason. It just wasn’t for the multi-ethnic. I am not saying they didn’t take pride in their ethnic origins, I am simply saying that most didn’t intentionally maintain cultural identity and customs. Forget the food part! It simply was not focused on.
However, for most Jews, no matter what generation, being American is still heavily entwined with being Jewish. It simply is far more of a focal point in their lives. Take most couples where one is Jewish and one is Christian, chances are the Christian will be the convert and the offspring will be Jewish or identify as Jewish. Far more wealthy Jewish Americans involved with philanthropy give to Jewish “causes” than their Christian counterparts (ethnic or religious causes). I would also bet that most Jewish Americans on this site would be able to state the majority of prominent Jews in this country whereas the Irishman or German could barely name a few of his own and it is not because they don’t exist. So, is the loss of racial identity caused by the loss of ethnic identity? Or, as I stated before, do some whites merely feel it is beneath them or perhaps even unAmerican to think along the lines of race when identifying themselves?
By on 6/29/07 at 4:36 pm
Ajo,
You claimed that White nationalism is pointless because America’s White racial hegemony is unchallenged. I looked for other ways to interpret what you said, and there aren’t any. Half of the births in America are non-White. Many of our major cities like Detroit, Miami, and Los Angeles have been forfeited altogether to “minorities”. One American city falling to non-American invaders is one too many, but we have dozens.
Why do you always debate in this sort of defeatist “this won’t happen so we might as well…” fashion? It’s depressing.
“America’s overwhelmingly Christian, so atheists will never be taken seriously.”
“White Nationalism is doomed to failure until we’re in the minority.”
“We race realists never be taken seriously so we have to hope that people who are not race realists (like Ann Coulter) will prance in the general direction of our views.”
This time last month it was a “foregone conclusion” that America’s grassroots couldn’t take on a unified front of the presidency, the congressional leadership, big business, the ethnic lobbies, and the mainstream media in a coordinated blitz.
So I have good reason to believe there is hope.
You can keep your sanity. I’ll keep my hope, my optimism, and my uncompromised beliefs.
By on 6/29/07 at 7:18 pm
Hopefully our opposition continues playing into our hands with massive seditious illegal alien rallies, threats to “do something” about talk radio, and increasingly shrill cries of “racist” at every thought until the word falls into the garbage heap of historical slanders.
This site is producing some great work!
By on 6/22/07 at 11:14 am