Did the Jews Do It?
By • 7/13/07
The first two features on this website, “The Inverted World” and “The Reality of Racial Differences,” established that two illusions are central to the age we live in: the “whites as cancer myth” and race denial. Ever since I finished these articles, I have been trying to understand why these myths became so entrenched. I still do not know, and my quest continues. My perplexity on these points is, however, not shared by most on the racial right. Ask them why the current racial orthodoxy exists, and they will return a confident answer: The Jews did it!
The strongest arguments for this view can be found in the work of California State University psychologist Kevin MacDonald, particularly in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (CoC). MacDonald is the idol of a whole subculture and has even been published on the high-brow immigration-reform website VDARE.
Summarizing CoC is difficult, as it has two theses, one overt and one covert. The overt thesis is that a number of major 20th century intellectual and political movements—racial egalitarianism, Freudianism, Marxism, and advocacy of open borders—have been vehicles of Jewish ethnic interests. This thesis is supported by copious and convincing evidence. The covert thesis, which is never fully avowed or openly argued for, is much more ambitious. MacDonald would have us believe that Jewish activism is the major cause of the forces that he believes is bringing down the West: multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration, and the taboo against white racial identity. This thesis is manifestly implausible. MacDonald’s book is, in fact, an emotional, extravagant, and unsubstantiated indictment of Jews covered by a veneer of scholarship.
CoC is worth reading for its careful explication and substantiation of its overt thesis, which is that Jewish intellectual and political movements “are attempts to alter Western societies in a manner that would neutralize or end anti-Semitism and enhance the prospects for Jewish group continuity.”1 MacDonald argues convincingly that Sigmund Freud, for example, possessed a deep sense of Jewish identity (racial rather than religious) and was quite hostile towards Gentiles. He described himself as “a fanatical Jew” and spoke of the “many dark emotional powers” that bonded Jews together. Furthermore, he conceived of his life’s work in terms of an ethnic struggle: “I have often thought that I inherited all the obstinacy and all the passions of our ancestors when they defended their temple,” he wrote.2 This ethnic identity plainly had some effect on Freud’s work, and that of his mostly Jewish acolytes, which argued that Christian Western culture was a sort of mental illness brought on by sexual repression. By undermining Gentiles’ pride in themselves, psychoanalysts believed they would weaken anti-Semitism. Freud, in fact, once wrote of his hope to achieve “the integration of Jews and anti-Semites on the soil of [psychoanalysis].”3 MacDonald finds similar motivations in the work of Franz Boas, the father of racial egalitarianism, and in that of the Frankfurt school, whose demonization of white America I have described here.
MacDonald also leaves no question that Jews were central in the battle to allow non-Westerners to immigrate to the United States. Throughout the 20th century, Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Committee, and the American Jewish Congress took a leading role in combating laws that restricted immigration to Westerners; they eventually triumphed with the passage of the 1965 immigration act. As Nathan C. Belth says proudly in a history of the ADL published by the organization:
In Congress, through all the years when immigration battles were being fought, the names of Jewish legislators were in the forefront of the liberal forces: from Adolph Sabath to Samuel Dickstein and Emmanuel Celler in the House and from Herbert H. Lehman to Jacob Javits in the Senate. Each in his time was a leader of the Anti-Defamation League.4
This advocacy was straightforwardly motivated by ethnic interests. As Jewish social scientist Earl Raab wrote, “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop.”5
If MacDonald had confined himself to exploring the ethnic dimension of these movements, no reasonable person could object to his book. However, MacDonald’s real ambition is to convince us that the movements he discusses bear the majority of the blame for multiculturalism and all its attendant phenomena.
MacDonald introduces this agenda into the book through hints and implications, rather than overt argument. The sneaky, two-faced character of CoC is evident in his response to Paul Gottfried, who criticized MacDonald for laying excessive blame on Jews for the cultural changes in the West since 1950. MacDonald at first denies the charge: “In general, my position is that Jewish intellectual and political movements were a necessary condition for these changes, not a sufficient condition.” This plausible, if highly indefinite, assessment of the issue is immediately followed by a passage that lays the blame for non-white immigration and multiculturalism entirely on Jews.
In the case of the reversal in U.S. immigration policy, there simply were no other pressure groups that were pushing for liberalized, multi-racial immigration during the period under consideration (up to the enactment of the watershed immigration bill of 1965). Nor were there any other groups or intellectual movements besides the ones mentioned in CofC that were developing images of the U.S. as a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society rather than a European civilization. Gottfried attributes the sea change in immigration to “a general cultural change that beset Western societies and was pushed by a managerial state.” I agree that multi-ethnic immigration resulted from a general cultural shift, but we still must develop theories for the origin of the shift.6
Only one such theory is discussed in CofC. Moreover, MacDonald will later refer to the 20th century as “a Jewish century” and speak of “the present Judaized cultural imperium in the West.”7 For all his hemming and hawing about necessary and sufficient conditions then, it is clear that MacDonald’s fans have correctly interpreted his real message: The Jews did it! MacDonald never substantiates his theory by discussing other factors in the origin of multiculturalism and weighing their strength against that of Jewish influence.
A small minority of three percent cannot possibly effect major cultural changes through strength of numbers alone, so it is crucial to MacDonald’s argument that he explain how Jews convinced Gentiles to act against their own interests. He spells this out at length in the article “What Makes Western Culture Unique?” Here he casts Jewish and Gentile populations as biological archetypes locked in millennial struggle. Gentiles are inherently individualistic and possess little sense of group allegiance; at the same time, they are highly prone to feel outrage at people they consider morally blameworthy. Through the movements MacDonald discusses in CofC, Jews have managed to convince Europeans that their own ancestors were morally blameworthy, and it is this “white guilt” that has made Gentiles support the Jewish agenda.8
There is a simple, but, I believe, devastating counter-argument to MacDonald’s theory. If the Jewish/Gentile dynamic that MacDonald outlines is rooted in these groups’ biological natures, and Jews have extensive powers to convert Gentiles to multiculturalism, why didn’t anything like multiculturalism emerge before the 20th century? Jews have been present in the West since Roman times, but Gentiles in medieval European societies did not believe in white guilt, nor did they think diversity was a strength, despite the presence of Jewish minorities—indeed, multiculturalism was not only non-existent in medieval Europe, it was unthinkable. That almost all Gentile societies containing Jewish minorities have remained strongly ethnocentric is evidence that Jews have little power to weaken Gentiles’ confidence in themselves.
Since multiculturalism began the 20th century, we should seek its source in the forces of modernity. The real causes of multiculturalism will likely be found in the major changes in the economy and society of the West that characterize this period: the transition from industrial societies of scarcity to post-industrial societies of abundance, the decline of religious belief, universal suffrage, increasing levels of education, and so forth.
To refine this line of thought, the major cause of multiculturalism was not Jewish activism itself but the shifts in Gentile attitudes that made Jewish activism possible. Why was Franz Boas’ empirically unfounded theory of racial egalitarianism taken seriously? How was it possible for Frankfurt school intellectuals, with all their hatred of American society, to teach at American universities? Why did whites decide to undergo psychoanalysis and read Freud? Jewish intellectuals and activists could never have spread their harmful ideas without Gentile approval and consent. MacDonald thinks Jews are “behind” multiculturalism, but really he’s got it backward: behind every Jew that he criticizes is a crowd of approving and enabling Gentiles.
MacDonald’s desire to blame Jews for multiculturalism causes him to underestimate Gentile participation in creating and building this worldview. His claim that before 1965 only Jewish movements espoused the idea that America was a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society is actually quite untrue. In fact, an incipient form of multiculturalism was dominant in America among Gentiles as well as Jews as early as the World War II years.
Henry Luce, editor of Life magazine, wrote there in 1942, “Because America alone among the nations of the earth was founded on ideas which transcend class and caste and racial and occupational differences, America alone can provide the pattern for the future.”9
Wendell Willkie, a former Republican candidate for president, wrote in 1943:
Our nation is composed of no one race, faith, or cultural heritage. It is a grouping of some thirty peoples possessing varying religious concepts, philosophies, and historical backgrounds. They are linked together by their confidence in our democratic institutions as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution… Our success thus far as a nation is not because we have built great cities, but because we have … learned to use our diversities.10
Thus, even in 1943, mainstream Gentile writers were stating that the American national identity was based not on race but on distinctive political and philosophical beliefs. Furthermore, they believed that diversity was the essence of America and the source of its strength. Editors of popular magazines and presidential candidates are not known for radical ideas; rather, they cater to the broad mass of the public. It is clear then that a large share of the public was inclined to agree with Willkie’s and Luce’s multicultural view of America. That MacDonald would make such a basic mistake in his account of the origins of multiculturalism is enough to cast doubt on his whole book.
Such an exaggeration suggests that MacDonald is motivated by animus against Jews. This impression is confirmed by the crudely emotional language that he sometimes uses to describe Jewish activism. For example, he says at one point, “The best strategy for a collectivist group like the Jews for destroying Europeans is therefore to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy.”11 The phrase “destroy Europeans” implies a Jewish/Gentile dynamic that is very different from the one MacDonald explicitly argues for: Jews are suddenly transformed from reasonable people trying to make a place for themselves in a hostile world into murderous fanatics, even Morlocks preying on Eloi. Nowhere in his book does MacDonald argue that Jews ever wanted to “destroy Europeans”; the phrase is a sort of slip of the tongue. Yet slips of the tongue, as one of MacDonald’s bugbears knew well, often reveal our true feelings.
CofC is thus not of great help to those of us who seek to understand the causes of the illusions that afflict our age. Indeed, the book is more likely to do harm than good by seducing us from the hard labor of circumspect inquiry with a theory that is at once easy to understand, superficially plausible, and flattering to Gentile vanity. In the end though, we racially conscious Gentiles must accept that we are not innocent victims cruelly deceived and exploited by alien masters. Rather, the transformations that we so bitterly resent took place in our own country, controlled by our own people, and we must accept responsibility for them.
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. |
- Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, First paperback edition (First Books, 2002), p. v. ↑
- Quoted in Culture of Critique, p. 107. ↑
- Quoted in Culture of Critique, p. 111. ↑
- Quoted in Culture of Critique, p. 259. ↑
- Quoted in Culture of Critique, p. 244. ↑
- Culture of Critique, pp. viii-ix. ↑
- Ibid., p. lxix. ↑
- MacDonald, “What Makes Western Culture Unique?” Occidental Quarterly 2, no. 2 (Summer 2002): 9-38. Link ↑
- Quoted in Michael Lind, The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution (New York: Free Press, 1995), 105. ↑
- Wendell Willkie, One World (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1943; reprint, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1966), 192-93. ↑
- Culture of Critique, p. xxix. ↑
Click here to join the Inverted World mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever IW publishes new entries.
Clearly the idea that 2% of the population did this on its own would entail that the other 98% of the population of whites and non-whites are very easily manipulated. On the other hand, sometimes a person can pioneer an idea that goes very far, such as the bible, it shaped an entire civilization.
The realist here challenges the idea that Jews on their own pushed this demographic nightmare onto America. I think he does it fairly well by pointing out others who are guilty.
Like I said have said in other places, its correlation vs causation. Just because Jews tend to be liberal and want certain things to happen doesn’t mean its because of them that it happens. Jews could want an earthquake, and they may get it, but that doesn’t mean they caused it or that there wasn’t another bigger reason.
The realist did not hit on how the general wn idea of WHY jews in general are leftist is wrong, and admitted that certain Jewish organizations are motivated more by ethnic strife than by human compassion (something I’ve always said of a few Jews, but not Jews in general). Of course, I always add that other white ethnic groups have had certain members engage in similar behaviors, too, and those who would resist this comparison are closing their eyes to the truth.
By on 7/14/07 at 4:08 am
Thanks for your comments, Daryl.
My priority in writing this piece was to argue that the “Jews did it” explanation of the rise of multiculturalism is of limited value. However, once one has grasped that, I do think it’s important to recognize the genuinely illuminating aspects of MacDonald’s work. CoC had a deep effect on me when I first read it, which was in 2002 or 2003: it added a whole dimension to my understanding of intellectual movements that I had been reading about for years. I had never realized the strong ethnic identification that people like Freud and Boas possessed and how their work advanced an ethnic agenda. I emerged from my reading of MacDonald with a very different perspective on all the movements he writes about. That is high praise.
In fact, the main reason why my news editor left is that I would defend MacDonald’s work in my conversations with him. The man, who is a Jew, thought drawing any connection at all, no matter how qualified, between Jewish interests and the rise of anti-Westernism was a slander on his people akin to 9/11 conspiracy theories. This, despite the fact that he had never read any of MacDonald’s books. I urged him to, but he said he couldn’t possibly, as though they emitted deadly radiation or something. He also greatly resented my article on Adorno, which he thought was too much in the MacDonald spirit.
Some people think this website has a pro-Jewish agenda, despite the fact that little of what I’ve written deals with Jews, and none of that actually praises them. In fact, I’ve been sharply critical of Theodor Adorno and Susan Sontag. No, really all I do is follow where the truth leads me according to my best lights. The consequence seems to be that I offend everyone.
By on 7/14/07 at 11:31 pm
“I do is follow where the truth leads me according to my best lights. The consequence seems to be that I offend everyone.”
By The Realist on 7/14/07 at 9:31 pm
Hang in there Realist, your perspective is greatly appreciated and rings of common sense. I for one never could comprehend the assertion that Jews are THE sole cause of White ethno-masochism and decline. Many Jews indeed have had a great negative impact on Western culture, but to assign them as THE reason Whites are declining is absurd on it’s face. One would have to believe Jews are a SUPER race of people that demonstrate super-powers! Reality clearly shows us otherwise.
I think, in general,Jews are a paranoid group of people…for good reason. It is said that paranoid people feel everyone is out to get them so they,in turn, irrationally go on the attack. They attack any and everyone they perceive to be a threat. Hence, Jewish interest groups constantly attack on Whites they see as a threat to them. That would include WN because Jews perceive them to be in league with the Nazi’s. Many in the WN movement are confused by the Jews paranoic behavior, they think it’s deliberate calculated hostility towards gentile Whites.
By on 7/15/07 at 2:10 pm
1 or 2, WN is openly anti-Jew so it makes sense for Jews to attack it. I agree that Jews, as a group, resent anti-Semetism (I’m 1/4 Jewish myself), but I don’t agree that Jews as a group resent the west.
The question to me about anti-semetism is not whether Jews are guilty.
Jews have as a group ran to the left. I think its understandable as they were persecuted and are involved in institutions that teach them those values. The question is whether it is productive.
I don’t think anti-semetism is good because it only encourages Jews to fight you, and it generally makes you look like you don’t have any class.
By on 7/15/07 at 4:59 pm
The most important point in this entire post is contained in one sentence (or more accurately, one clause in one sentence):
the major cause of multiculturalism was not Jewish activism itself but the shifts in Gentile attitudes that made Jewish activism possible.
The real issue is: what is it about us (white Gentiles) that made us unwilling to defend our own civilization and territory? All other peoples, and even animals, defend their own kind instinctively. I’m sure that if somebody in Japan suggested that that country should dilute its culture as much as possible by importing hostile, ignorant denizens of the Third World by the millions, and that the hallmark of intellectual erudition is contempt for everything Japanese, he wouldn’t get very far. Why did we so enthusiastically, and knowingly, adopt beliefs that obviously can lead nowhere except to our own destruction?
The Realist suggests some possibilities:
Since multiculturalism began the 20th century, we should seek its source in the forces of modernity. The real causes of multiculturalism will likely be found in the major changes in the economy and society of the West that characterize this period: the transition from industrial societies of scarcity to post-industrial societies of abundance, the decline of religious belief, universal suffrage, increasing levels of education, and so forth.
But where is the causal link? And what can be done about it? These are the life-or-death questions currently confronting us.
By on 7/15/07 at 5:06 pm
I would think the increased ability of Jews to influence their host societies’ way of thinking is a consequence of the decay of medieval Christian corporate society. This decay, and the “enlightenment” which was its ideological expression, was to some extent a consequence of increasing material prosperity. The origins of contemporary multiculturalism and hyperindividualism are to be sought in the eighteenth century. Jewish “emancipation” was also a part of the enlightenment program, of course. MacDonald does note the pivotal importance of the enlightenment (and the failure of expected Jewish assimilation) in the history of Jew-Gentile relations.
By on 7/15/07 at 5:42 pm
1 or 2,
Thanks for your encouragement. It means a great deal to me.
“Reality clearly shows us otherwise.” That gave me a good chortle. But now that I’ve quenched my annoyance with my former news editor, it’s time to give him his due. For six months, he spent a large part of his days diligently searching for news articles for this site. And he did a good job. He did more for this cause than most people ever will. And for that he deserves credit.
Chicago Amren and F. Roger Devlin pose the tough questions. Hopefully, I’ll get around to giving them serious answers this evening or tomorrow morning.
By on 7/16/07 at 8:55 pm
Another key question to ask here, is how do Jewish “elitists” attitudes reflect the same destructive proclivities as those of Gentile white “elitists,” in terms of the multicultural myth of utopian construction, through societal “deconstruction.” Both groups hold prominent and powerful sway over their countries as a whole, so why seek to “deconstruct” them into that which will (at least in theory) bring about “equality” and the elimination of cultural and political norms, that benefit them the most currently?
Here, it would make a sort of twisted sense of shortsighted long term calculating (given the Holocaust) for Jews to wish to accomplish this, but not Gentiles. Here, I speak very broadly though, because near recent events in Zimbabwe and South Africa should convince Jews in any Western society that nonwhites view them as whites too, or worse in the same irrational terms of the ultimate “exploiters” in a Marxist “Liberationist” framework that mirrors Nazi and other right wing anti-Semitic political philosophies. Since many Jews in Western societies excel up to or beyond middle class status, to nonwhites they can be seen as nothing less than this; hence, the vicious anti-Semitism of groups like the Nation of Islam or La Raza.
Again, we are at the point of having to accept as a very generalized position, that it is a top down process of an irrational “across-the-board” Western guilt for having comforts and other material successes, that drives this absurd but also eerie process. In the Judeo-Christian ethos, it is charity that “absolves” one of the “sins” of greed or social prominence. In many respects, this charity does not have any limits or qualifiers directed toward larger outcomes, only that the intent and initial outcomes are “good.” Thus, since the American poor who are white (regardless of ethno-religious considerations) are better off than poor American blacks and other nonwhites, they can take a backseat to them. So too, poor American nonwhites, can also take a backseat to the even more “oppressed” peoples of the lands where nonwhites actually “run” things. Like a night of drunken debauchery, it provides instant gratification and later consequences that are simply not grasped until the hangover and genital warts are endured.
The Judeo-Christian ethos is not the problem, but the twisting of it by the few for the many which is the problem here. Much like sexual “freedom,” it is only viable when individual and societal responsibilities are considered fully. A sort of forgetting of the fact, that doing onto others as you would yourself has limits when the cheek turned is again violated in reciprocation. That was never meant to be an option, only a humbling lesson to the first blow! Moreover, this twisting of the Judeo-Christian ethos does not require that I actually turn my cheek if I am “blessed” and “enlightened,” only that you do so if you are not?
Hypocrisy and Chutzpah have a meeting place?
For now yes, in the next two or three decades, I think not?
If not, God help us all!
By on 7/16/07 at 10:23 pm
F. Roger Devlin and ChicagoAmren,
You both make comments about the causes of the decline of white racial consciousness. As I say at the beginning of this article, I’m still looking for the causes. Lots of vague theories swarm around in my head, and I seem to change my mind every day.
The explanation that I currently favor is that white racial consciousness declined as a result of the triumph of the urban/secular/cosmopolitan mindset over the rural/religious/traditionalist/nationalist mindset. Essentially, the first is the modern outlook, and the second the pre-modern one. From the beginning of the century, you saw a battle between secularist cosmopolitans and religious nationalists in America—witness H.L. Mencken’s campaign against what he called “Ku Kluxery.” The modernists effectively portrayed the pre-moderns as ignorant, narrow-minded, and dangerous. The critique was so effective that to this day anyone arguing for white racial identity simply can’t get a hearing.
As much as we may resent this characterization, effectively combatting modernism requires giving it credit. The fact is that the secular/cosmopolitan mindset won on its merits. The modernists defended evolution over creationism; indeed, the Scopes trial was one of the main battles in the conflict between the two camps. The modernists chose the right side, because evolution is true. Modernists favored a broad-minded appreciation of Western culture as opposed to a parochial Americanism, which is also an intelligent position. Modernists favored pragmatic relativism over “foundationalism,” the belief in transcendent, universal truths, and there is a great deal to say for relativism, given the inevitable limitations of any individual’s perspective.
Anyone who espouses white racial identity is stigmatized as a moral idiot who is incapable of appreciating the strengths of the modern outlook. The key to resuscitating white identity is to acknowledge the strengths of modernism, and even, to a certain extent, to incorporate them into our philosophy.
An absolutely disastrous position is to call modernism “Jewish subversion,” which is essentially what MacDonald does. Gentile America was converted to modernism through rational persuasion, not through demonic trickery. Traditionalism, and along with it white racial identity, was abandoned simply because there were very good reasons to prefer the Mencken/John Dewey worldview over “Ku Kluxery.” Resuscitating white identity will not be achieved by returning to a pre-modern outlook, but by progressing through and past modernity.
Such is my current broad, hazy, intuitive, hand-waving perception of the crucial issue.
By on 7/17/07 at 9:37 am
The key to resuscitating white identity is to acknowledge the strengths of modernism, and even, to a certain extent, to incorporate them into our philosophy.
I agree, old school racialism is a tribalistic type of viewpoint. But new racialism should be based on biology, and based on askinging the question “can’t we all get along” and answering it with “no.” It should basically paint liberalism as unscientific, rather than praise nazis and confederates.
By on 7/17/07 at 12:29 pm
Kevin MacDonald is a dinosaur expounding upon old bugaboos of Jewish conspiracy and domination. Seems he’s found a scientific basis for them, I’m sure he’s partly right. But Ol’ Kev is stuck in the past, stuck on stupid, thinking he’s a heavy hitter for scrutinizing the Jews when it’s really Islam that’s the question for our times, that would be interesting to see him deconstruct. Islam is a much more pertinent subject to study, to expose the group evolutionary strategy of. But cowardly MacDonald would get a beating and more if he exposed Islam’s group evolutionary strategy. America is threatened by radical Muslims who swim in a sea of 1.1 billion Muslims where they get lots of support. There are 14 million Jews in all with about 5 million in the USA. There is no way Jews can call the shots in an America of 300 million now or in the past. Same for the world. Islam is what I worry about every day. Islam threatens my way of life with its hold over oil, the lifeblood of our economy. We are expending our blood and treasure in Iraq because of Islam and the murderous critters it spawns. We might bomb Iran any day because we don’t want Iran to get a lock on Mid East oil along with China and Russia, this will impact hard on world oil prices
Professor MacDonald:
This Jew has seen your wrings on the internet. You have made your bones studying the Jews, their choseness and their strategy for group survival and dominance. The Muslims are even more interesting. There is a Muslim supremacism many times stronger than Jewish choseness plus Islam proselytizes (Jews don’t) with Saudi Arabia spending billions worldwide and in America on Mosque building and propaganda. Now that’s what I call a real “group evolutionary strategy” for world conquest. In fact Islam proclaims that Jihad is eternal until the whole world is Muslim
What you attribute to the Jews, choseness, supremacism, drive to dominate host populations, is a thousand times more true with the Ummah, the worldwide Muslim community. Everyone is talking about how Islam can dominate European host nations in a generation due to explosive birthrates. Islam is opposed at birth control and abortion. Now how’s that for a group evolutionary strategy? Pretty darn good as far as I can see. And where is Kev MacDonald? Missing, too busy adding to his Jew scribblings
Polygamy is a very clever way to increase your numbers. The men left without marriage partners have an incentive to go to war and Jihad for women to forcibly convert and make new Muslim babies. Islam permits Muslim men to marry non Muslim woman provided she agrees to convert, meaning dedicating her womb to Islam. But a Muslim woman is forbidden to marry outside Islam because this way Islam loses a womb and the babies it births. Jihad increases the population and territory under Muslim rule. People become Muslim due to forcible conversions.
There is lots of Muslim cousin marriage which strengthens clans and keeps wealth within clans. it makes them inbred and closed off. women are often murdered if they refuse to marry a designated cousin. Stanley Kurtz has written much on this cousin marriage. All of the above Muslim ways are very interesting subject matter and starting points for Kevin MacDonald. But he never will because he is Jew obsessed and a chickensh!t.
By on 7/17/07 at 4:04 pm
Jews represent the boogey men to some whites. Yes, many Jews have been involved in egalitarian nonsense, but look at liberal Irish fruitcakes like Leahy and Kennedy and numerous other liberal white idiots.Look at big money gentile “good ole boys” who are very powerful. Also, if the all seeing, all powerful Jew was as powerful and ubiquitous as the Judeo-phobes believe, wouldn’t he attempt world domination in a more subtle fashion (ie not through ADL?)
People and groups are more nuanced and less monolithic than CoC would have people think. Liberal Jews are no different than liberal Irish or Italians. Those who are able to grasp the nuance are able to better deal with reality than are those whose perspicacity has a lower ceiling.
By on 7/17/07 at 5:25 pm
To The Realist, regarding:
“The modernists defended evolution over creationism; indeed, the Scopes trial was one of the main battles in the conflict between the two camps. The modernists chose the right side, because evolution is true. Modernists favored a broad-minded appreciation of Western culture as opposed to a parochial Americanism, which is also an intelligent position. Modernists favored pragmatic relativism over ‘foundationalism,’ the belief in transcendent, universal truths, and there is a great deal to say for relativism, given the inevitable limitations of any individual’s perspective.
Anyone who espouses white racial identity is stigmatized as a moral idiot who is incapable of appreciating the strengths of the modern outlook. The key to resuscitating white identity is to acknowledge the strengths of modernism, and even, to a certain extent, to incorporate them into our philosophy.”
You speak many truths here; however, only incorporating so much of “modernism” and being scathingly critical of its shortcomings, will allow the racial realist movement to succeed. The inherent hostility to religion and the arrogant acceptance of “secular humanism,” as its replacement by the modernists being a excellent example of this. Here, we not only have the modernists beat, we also have a vast majority of the American people behind a “pre-modernist” principle that isn’t going to change (short of divine intervention) anytime soon. Indeed, Americans believe in the existence of God by a crushing majority of 90% or better.
In many ways, this has sustained the success of the Republican party from the 1980s onwards. Where the modernist Democrats seek to secularly “humanize” our country, the Republicans are perceived as defending our religious traditions; where the modernist liberal Democrats were seen as accommodating toward the godless Soviets and Maoists, the conservative Republicans were seen as opposing them without intended quarter during the Cold War; and even now in the “War on Terror,” the principles of a sober Judeo-Christian ethic is questioned by the Neo-Marxist Democrats in relation to Islam, but not forgotten by the equally treasonous Neo-Con Republicans, at least superficially. In fact, it could be argued that it is the very superficial nature of their “intoning” of the Judeo-Christian ethic, that now leaves El Presidente and his fellow Neo-Cons currently twisting in the wind, in regards to the “Religion of Peace” and the “War on Terror.”
After all, does not Heaven help those who help themselves, as opposed to shooting themselves in the foot?
To say nothing of the eyes and teeth!
By on 7/17/07 at 8:41 pm
Realist,
I discovered your website two months ago and I’m inspired by the seriousness with which you investigate these questions. But on this one I think you argue yourself into a kind of box.
If you agree with Professor MacDonald that A) Jews led major intellectual and political movements that relentlessly critiqued Gentile society out of a drive to make the world safer for Jews, and B) these movements succeeded in undermining white racial consciousness to the detriment of white people’s interests, doesn’t it follow that C) whites should have OPPOSED those movements… AS Jewish movements? (The way the Nazis chased Jews out of the universities?)
Doesn’t it also follow that whites TODAY should oppose similar Jewish-led intellectual and political movements (like neoconservatism)… AS self-interested Jewish movements? (The way David Duke does?)
In other words the question of whether Professor MacDonald lays too much blame at the feet of the Jews is irrelevant. If he is correct that these Jewish movements did have some damaging effect… and that the movements were pushed because of Jewish self-interest… then it makes sense, then and now, to oppose these movements in explicitly anti-Jewish terms.
We don’t have to believe in magical demonic Jewish powers in order to oppose Jewish influence… AS Jewish influence… in universities, in media, and in government. You come right up to the doorsteop of this conclusion without embracing it. It seems like you’re bending over backwards to avoid the obvious conclusions of your own case.
By on 7/18/07 at 1:59 am
The immigration of today is the unintended consequences of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. That act was passed as a tribute to JFK was killed 18 months prior. JFK was not a fan of the immigration quota system and the act was part of the whole Civil Rights movement. Thus since the 1965 Act ended the quota system which greatly favored British, Irish and German immigrants, we “reformed” immigration to end whites-only immigration and make everyone eligible so that could coincide with civil rights at home. the 1965 Act was kind of like a worldwide civil rights act as per the supporters of the reform. MacDonald is a relic with tenure. He used a method of finding individual Jews who make leftist comments and imply they are leaders of America’s 6 million Jews and thus are speaking on behalf of Jews. Can I imply since MacDonald is Irish, he is speaking for the 17 million Irish-Americans? There’s lots of blame to go around. MacDonald is too blind to see it.
By on 7/18/07 at 2:16 am
Greco,
I have absolutely no problem with whites recognizing Jewish interests and opposing Jewish activism of the type MacDonald describes; in fact, I would be delighted if this happened. However, such opposition must proceed in a responsible and ethical manner, without conspiracy theories and scapegoating, and certainly without concentration camps. That’s the difference between me and the Nazis.
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/theinsanityofdavidduke/
I don’t think all Jews should be chased out of universities either, just the ones who oppose the formation of a white racial identity and white self-determination.
I’m also uncomfortable with calling “neo-conservatism” a Jewish movement. Certainly, the extent to which this movement is motivated by Jewish interests has been greatly exaggerated by the anti-war crowd. More on this, hopefully, in my next column.
By on 7/18/07 at 7:53 am
It is sooooo easy to blame problems on Jews in times of crisis. Yes there are Jews that are problematic. There are also others, especially bleeding heart Irish Catholic do-gooders in the north, whose heads are firmly up their asses. But CoC implies ALL Jews benefit from this conspiracy, That is as silly as saying ALL white Gentiles benefitted from slavery or ALL white gentiles are benefitting from cheap Mexican labor . MacDonald has some great analysis in his books but he stops short of delving into the complexities inherent in human affairs.
By on 7/18/07 at 2:32 pm
I closely follow MacDonald’s thesis. There are, however, multiple trends that threaten the Jewish influence on Western nations.
Jews Have a Nation-State Jews have become adept at plying “host” states to their interests because that was the only way to determine their destiny - that was their only expression of sovereignty. They now have their own nation-state institution and will gradually develop a less “critical”, less “subversive”, more conservative perspective (a NEO-conservative one!).
Judaism is Declining Jews are rapidly secularizing, and losing their religion that promotes ethnic solidarity as they secularize. While there is secular nationalism (like my own), Zionism is becoming a less potent force in Jewish circles.
Jews in the West are Breeding Out With each passing generation, the genetic distinction between White coastal elite types and American Jews diminishes. Within a couple more generations, nearly everybody on the East Coast will have a smattering of Jew in them just like Midland/Appalachian Whites all have a smattering of Cherokee.
Jews in Israel are Even Worse Off The average IQ in Israel is 92. The “Jews” in Europe that we’re familiar with - the intelligent and powerful ones - are merely one group of Jews in the larger Jew family, which includes Black Jews, Arab Jews, all kinds of Jews.
The Internet is Democratizing Everything Jewish media control consists of Jews showing what they think is important and bringing up issues that they believe are topical. It’s not complicated and it’s not secretive. But the Internet is exposing perspectives, stories, and topics that the government and media can’t influence. The Duke Rape Hoax and the recent immigration bill come to mind.
By on 7/19/07 at 12:10 pm
Realist surprises me with his respectful treatment of MacDonald. It will require all of my ingenuity to continue to disagree strongly with him.
MacDonald is an acute observer and utilizes the vocabulary of evolutionary biology (which leads to formulations that understandably trouble Realist politically) to organize his observations. He writes quite well for a social scientist but I am struck by a lack of professional rigor in setting out his argument. He describes behavior by Jewish elites and asserts that such behavior is best explained as a group evolutionary strategy. It sure is, if MacDonald is allowed to play the trump card of a secret agenda that is always assumed and never proved. When non-Jews exhibit similar behavior, MacDonald is challenged to retrofit a competitive evolutionary strategy so he tends to dismiss such episodes as aberrant (or parasitical: George Will as the cadamite of Alan Bloom). I find MacDonald to be provocative, entertaining, original, but not scientific.
On the question of how & why Americans became receptive to multiculturalsm (deracinated) I think that cold war passions are often overlooked. As we were locked in an ideological struggle, our identity as “proposition nation” was exaggerated, even warped. Segregation would not suit a shining city on a hill. How would it look to Frenchmen or Italians who might even vote Communists into a coalition government? The Soviets used the oppression of the negro to their advantage and our government sought to clean house. After all, we aspired to bring freedom to the world (we evidently still do) and this required us to regard ethnic subdivisions as essentially interchangeable. (The Soviets made the same mistake at ruinous cost).
Thus, the right and the left converged to favour equality over liberty in the ‘60s & ‘70s. Nixon—who often resisted the blandishments of philosemitism and actually thought negroes to be biologically inferior—pushed affirmative action as a species of wartime surtax. White ethnic interests never stood a chance. The machinery of dispossession has been chugging along ever since.
My quarrel with Realist, to the extent it persists, is over Jewish influence. The 2% is not distributed randomly—he will strain to find Jewish mechanics in Toledo. Jewish opposition to white interests is dangerous because of Jewish power, particularly in the media. This will not have gone unnoticed among many readers. There were plenty of idiot WASP bureaucrats in the Ford administration who plagued the white working class. But they have Alzheimer’s now, in Arizona. The mainstream media reflects Jewish prejudices & Jewish neuroses of the kind described journalistically if not scientifically by MacDonald and it scrambles alertly to defend its airspace from our sorties. That’s the only reason for my judeo-preoccupation. (If you’re being chased by a bear, you become ursine-obsessive for at least the length of the chase).
You fight this, first by identifying it.
(By way of footnote—Realist’s selection of the Wilkie quote would likely amuse MacDonald who documents the evisceration of Lindbergh as the first credited kill of a philo-semitic media.)
By on 7/19/07 at 1:28 pm
I might add that I very much look forward to Realist’s examination of neoconservatism.
If it is not condescending to describe it as such, in Realist’s surprisingly tightly reasoned exegesis of MacDonald he asks why nefarious Jews could not have injected multiculturalism into pre-modern Europe. Multiculturalism cannot exist without an advanced case of moral relativism. Moral relativism would have been < welcome in 13th century Europe.
Interestingly, Leo Strauss stood as a bulwark (a stone wall for the Confederate partisans among you) against moral relativism on the late 20th century American campus. Indeed, Levin took Bloom to task for emphasizing moral relativism at the expense of race norming as his explanation for the decline in campus discourse. I am troubled to admit that I side with Bloom in this argument.
Leo Strauss was the anti-Freud, the anti-Boaz. Strauss and his intellectual heirs opposed the culture of critque; indeed for the decade between 1975-1985 Straussean partisans might have represented the only organized academic resistance. It is salutary and instructive to experience & appreciate the integrity of a Jewish moral giant. Neoconservatism is not necessarily synonomous with Strauss, nor is he to be blamed for errors or excesses. He is to be credited with creating a distinctively Jewish patriotism—more than that, a Jewish passion for western values & achievement.
I would be interested in Realist’s take on the Straussean achievement.
By on 7/19/07 at 10:38 pm
ironic jihad,
I don’t know why MacDonald would be amused by my Willkie quote. He says that there were no non-Jewish intellectual movements pushing the idea of a multicultural America before 1965. The Republican party in 1943 was a non-Jewish movement, and its leading spokesman advocated multiculturalism, so this plainly contradicts MacDonald.
By on 7/20/07 at 8:19 am
Multiculturalism and the race denial movement started in the second-half of Twentieth century, so it is obvious; it was triggered by something that happened in 20th century. Without much thinking it is clear that it was the WWII, particularly the Holocaust.
Multiculturalism and racial egalitarianism were promoted to check extreme form of nationalism, which forms the heart of Nazism and Fascism. The Europe and America had already witnessed the horror of narrow nationalism, so Europeans and Americans left no stone unturned in saving the future generations from clutches of extreme nationalism. The best way was to promote the Multiculturalism, to deny the existence of races, to promote democracy. The Jews vehemently supported it because they were the worst victims. The White gentiles also supported it as they were sufferers too. The European Union was also created solely for this: to curb any form of nationalistic feelings and to promote pluralisms. The same thing happened in Japan too, Japan was stripped of its army, democracy was established and nationalistic feelings were suppressed. But they resisted multiculturalism, this s where white guilt comes in. In America and Europe, anyone who spoke in favor of white interests was demonized and he was labeled as a ‘Nazi’. Anyone who took pride in the western culture and defended it was discouraged. It was done ,so that horrors WWII never repeat in future.And even today, most so-called White Nationalists stick to the dangerous views of National Socialism and White supremacism (and these includes both Kevin McDonald and David Duke) So most whites , whether Christians or Jews, resent them.So the Spanish journalist Sebastian Villar Rodriguez said “We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!”.
Just as fear of Fascism and Nazism, brought drastic changes in Europe and America, if people become aware of dangers of multiculturalism people will act against it too. People need to be reminded that protecting the white race and defending the western civilization has nothing to do with Nazism and everyone who does so is not a Hitler. (In fact none is)
By on 7/20/07 at 9:54 am
It was a minor point but I suppose I should trouble to challenge your characterization of Wilkie’s statement. Wilkie sounds more like Ben Wattenberg than he does Susan Sontag. In other words, he was an astraleopithicus neocon at worst.
The distinction is serious: the Wattenbergs of the world accept western values (i.e. the constitution, the declaration of independence as recited by Wilkie) while denying that those values have anything to do with the ethnic composition of the valuers. They are rational, logical, reasonably mistaken and one can argue with them. Multiculturalists are distinguished by their nihlism: no civilizational value system is superior to any other civilizational value system with the exception that western values are always the worst. They detest the constitution, the declaration of independence, and individualism. (Note that Wilkie essentially elevates individualism in the implicit argument that voluntary alleigance transcends ethnicity).
If I may use a Catholic simile the difference between Wattenberg/Wilkie and the west-hating multiculturalists is like the difference between a Protestant and a devil-worshipper. You may have to occasionally trade shots with the former, but you burn the latter at the stake wherever found.
I think your Wilkie quote represented a tendentious lapse in what was otherwise a strong article. MacDonald would associate Jews with the west-hating extremes of multiculturalism (though Wattenberg is not exactly an Irishman, is he?). You’re going to have to dig pretty deep to find Republican quotes supporting Noam Chomsky.
If multiculturalism involved nothing more sinister than getting misty-eyed every time an immigrant took the oath of citizenship, our campuses would not be the intellectual gulags they are.
By on 7/20/07 at 12:08 pm
Ironic jihad,
in fact the primary Jewish neoconservative magazine Commentary ws the biggest publicizer of the race and intelligence controversy and supporter of the minority opinion in the elite media. Look at the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant James Q. Wilson, the Scots Irish Charles Murray and the Jewish Dan Seligman, Richard Herrnstein and Michael Levin as examples.
To state that neoconservatism is Jewish liberalism that calls itself conservatism is true, but an oversimplification. There is much that of the movement that was flawed, but 2 things that make it conservative are:
Fierce opposition to communism and socialism
Denouncing of affirmative action and admitting to hereditary differences in IQ between races.
By on 7/20/07 at 2:26 pm
ajo wrote,
“2. Denouncing of affirmative action and admitting to hereditary differences in IQ between races.”
These are two separate issues. The latter clearly is a conservative position, but the former is not restricted to conservatives at all. Even the mainstream mostly liberal Jewish community swerves right on affirmative action. Although, perhaps actually denouncing affirmative action (and consistently so) is conservative. So maybe you’re right.
Source: http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11671
By on 7/21/07 at 3:43 pm
You’re right DK. Combatting AA is one of few issues that are supported mainly both by the right half of the political spectrum and the Jewish community. MacDonald notes this and says that Jews tend to see AA as a window dressed 1910s colleges keeping Jews out, except now they’re filling them up with blacks and Hispanics instead of WASPs. Buchanan, who is also one of the strongest people against AA, asya AA is equivalent to WASPs in the early part of the century blocking Catholics like himself and Jews. Since Jews materially lose out on affirmative action, they oppose it.
The question is what will WNs’ position on AA be in 50 years when without it, Asians, Indians and Jews combined will form a majority of elite colleges, and with it, Hispanics and Blacks will demand large shares of the pie. I personally think meritocracy is the best way to go. It’s in the tradition of American “conservatism” even if its technically classically liberal in that it exalts the individual’s accomplishment.
By on 7/22/07 at 1:21 am
Only fools let Kevin “Tangled up in Jews” MacDonald set the order of battle as Jews first, first we deal with Jews and by extension Israel
No one has referred to my previous post. You all continue to miss the boat. Jews past, present and future are a distraction, are the sideshow. The main show is Islam, Islamic control of petroleum and what the West will do to respond. Kevin Mac is pure misdirection, you have fallen for his slight of hand that Jews are the issue when it’s really Islamic Jihad that’s the issue for our times
Previous poster referred to how Europe assassinated 6 million Jews, then eagerly took in 20 million (lot more really) Muslims. Europe is in the vanguard of the great cave in to Islam.
Hugo Chavez the ultra Mestizo allies himself with Iran and China. For you race realists out there Iran is cozying up to the Aztecs and Spanish of Nuevo España-Mexico. Judaism was a reaction to paganism and its human sacrifice cults. Iran-Mexico accord is where two human sacrifice cults link up, find common ground while you all squander time churning Kevin MacDonald and his cult of the Jewish controllers
Iran-Mexico reach agreement on creating joint economic commission
Madrid, July 22, IRNA
Iran-Mexico-Joint Commission
Iran and Mexico reached an agreement to set up a joint economic commission next year.
In a meeting between Iran’s new Ambassador to Mexico Mohammad Hassan Qadiri-Abyaneh with Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister Lurdes de Aranda the agreement was achieved.
Qadiri also invited Mexico to attend the Non-Aligned Movement foreign ministers meeting in Tehran on human rights and cultural diversities.
Iran’s plenipotentiary and extraordinary ambassador to Mexico expounded on Tehran stances on regional issues, especially Iraq and the results of Iran-USA negotiations about Iraq security and said Islamic Republic of Iran policy is to support national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Iraq.
Mexico deputy FM, for her part, said her country’s policy is to support peace, security and independence of the countries and has always defended negotiation and dialogue as a way to solve disputes between the countries.
The Mexican senior diplomat also expressed her country’s readiness to expand ties with Iran especially in cultural and economic fields.
1391/1771
By on 7/22/07 at 10:33 pm
dennisw,
You call us fools for disagreeing with your perspective and bemoan our failure to follow up your comment as proof of our failure to “get” it. Please be patient with us fools, as it will take time for us to learn all of your opinions so that we may wholeheartedly agree with them.
As for your point…
We all understand that the Muslim invasion is a serious threat to our way of life. What some people are arguing - and it’s an argument I take seriously - is that Jews are instrumental in creating the sort of “tolerant”, “multicultural”, and “post-nationalist” political climate where such an invasion is tolerated.
I hate to imply the AIDS analogy, but I believe that even productive and pleasant “invasive nationalities” have an obvious and simple interest in disabling the nationalism, nativism, and intolerance of the host nation. Swedish Finns do it in Finland. Jews do it in the US. Whites discourage “Azanian nationalism” in South Africa.
That being said, I believe the solution to our “Jewish Problem” is to guarantee the sovereignty and safety of Israel while encouraging the ones who are here to integrate and Americanize. The nationalist/Zionist ones will go to Israel and the rest will seamlessly integrate with the American national identity as have innumerable other White ethnic groups.
So, dennisw, while it seems blisteringly obvious to you that Muslims and Mexicans are problematic, I have agreed with you and asked myself “Why are we so powerless to defend ourselves from these militarily and economically inferior populations?” One proposal is that America’s Jewish population is instrumental in dissuading us from developing nationalist sentiments.
P.S. I forgive anybody who fails to respond to my post and I will try to be patient with any fools who may have an alternative (incorrect) perspective.
By on 7/23/07 at 9:54 am
“The main show is Islam, Islamic control of petroleum and what the West will do to respond.”
You couldn’t be more right, dennis. Every major power is maneuvering their forces—both politically and militarily—to gain control over the oil fields in the middle east. Whoever gains control of those oil fields wins the international chess game.
What really scares me is leaders in countries such as Iran and Syria (not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah) are threatening to wipe Israel off the map. If, say, Iran drops a nuke on Tel Aviv, the government of Israel promises to wipe out every major Islamic population center in the middle east via “The Sampson Option.” If that happens, the entire world will immediately plunge into war, chaos, and barbarism. The “End Times” surly are at hand.
By on 7/23/07 at 1:37 pm
AJO -
There is a respectable minority of Jewish intellectuals who have argued effectively against affirmative action. For the most part, such birds of paradise tend to be academics of high integrity and not thoroughly politicized. They are defending the integrity of the data. They are found among neoconservatives, neoliberals and even the odd socialist.
I do not agree that “denunication of affirmative action” is a defining characteristic of neoconservatism. Neoconservative commentators (or politicians) tend to be less reliable on the issue than paleoconservatives. Charles Krauthammer, the leading neocon commentator, has burbled happily about the prospect of a Colin Powell Presidency and then a Condi Rice Presidency because of the delicious symbolism and has waived away objections about liberalism on social issues (including most jarringly, affirmative action).
Part of the liturgy of neoconservatism is to genuflect at the memory of “Scoop Jackson” who was a socialist anti-communist. Richard Perle & George Will actually served on Jackson’s senate staff (Perle for many years). Will has since favoured us with many books about the essential conservatism of the welfare state.
The political polemicists most prominently identified with neoconservatism would have been happy with a more or less permanent Hubert Humphrey incumbency: a left of centre cold warrior. Because the Democratic party switched sides in the cold war around 1982 (if not 10 yrs before) neocons had to make do with Republican bedfellows which made them politely reticent about their social liberalism. They have become somewhat less reticent of late (Podhertz, jr. denouncing Steve Sailer as “racist scum”).
Like all generalizations, this one admits of exceptions. But by and large the neocons—Jewish and otherwise—are not our friends.
By on 7/23/07 at 2:14 pm
Dennisw says the real threat is Islam and the Mestizos. But who has had a major hand in weakening our ability to oppose those forces on civilizational grounds, by demonizing white racial consciousness, mocking Christianity and Christian values and opening the floodgates to immigration from those very forces.
By insisting that Jews by immune from any critique (and by calling people “fools”) you’re the one trying to distract and intimidate and manipulate.
By on 7/23/07 at 2:29 pm
Dennisw says the real threat is Islam and the Mestizos.
You are a general fighting the last war Greco. Jews are not making Jihad, Islam is making Jihad. You go to extremes, I don’t exempt Jews from “any critique”. My first post said that some of what KevMac writes about Jews is true. Jews have weakened white ability to fight back but the greater blame lies not with a few Jews but with many whites. Unless you believe Jews are so superior, such powerful svengalis they can manipulate the white population of the US.
Who were the legislative promoters of this years Amnesty? George Bush, Mel Martinez, Carlos Gutierrez, Ted Kennedy, John Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John McCain. Not a Jew among them. Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security was the only high ranking Jew pushing it
As far as the mestizo threat keep your eyes on Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Mexico which drives its mestizos into the lands of the once feared Anglo, the United States
By on 7/24/07 at 2:04 am
I am inclined to agree with dennisw.
I have fenced with Realist, and a few others (all well worthy of my steel), over the role of Jews in the deracination of white America. You can call it, as MacDonald does, a group evolutionary strategy; you can call it, as McCain might suggest, a banana.
But with aberrant exceptions (“affirmative speech” doctrines) Jewish elites are sold on due process and democratic structures. Jewish elites defend due process rather energetically in point of fact. Happily their religion is exclusionary as opposed to evangelical and is frankly not often taken seriously - as such - by adherents. (To revise the usual formulation, Jews earn like Episcopalians and pray like Unitarians).
Jewish mischief tends to be defensive and neurotic. Islamic mischief is offensive and psychotic. We accuse Jews of promoting an excess of tolerance. Consider that for a moment. Compare that, to the threat presented by Islam: slavery & misogyny. There is no comparison.
(In truth, there is a secular subschismatic sect of Judasm that spews anti-western bile so indiscriminately as to supply comfort to our Islamic enemies. Chomsky is their avatar. David Horowitz is patrolling that border most effectively. Jews cannot be held accountable for the self-haters among them.)
If I may be permitted to descend to the level of the anecdotal, I have had Islamic social acquintances—fashionably dressed, superfically socially adjusted, trained to laugh at SNL sketches—seriously urge the literal impalement of Danish cartoonists (and their defenders). These were not radicals, they were as assimilated as Muslims get. Am I more troubled by that kind of insane atavistic hatred or by Norman Lear?
Sorry, I don’t think that one is even close.
By on 7/24/07 at 12:09 pm
Wikitopian wrote,
“One proposal is that America’s Jewish population is instrumental in dissuading us from developing nationalist sentiments.”
I would have to concede that many of the leading Jewish “defense” organizations have an inappropriately pro-multicultural and “diversity” position, and worse, focus, particularly publicly, and wield a powerful legitimizing voice to these positions. As someone relatively outspoken against this in the secular, affiliated Jewish community (even if I am just a minor someone) and takes heat for this on occasion, I have a few theories about this, as well as about the division which exists and simmers divisively usually below the surface, where there are resentments and differences that aren’t reflected in institutional “defense” groups.
Many of the Jews who came prior to 1925, though our numbers have shrunk considerably due to assimilation, simply have less fear of white racial consciousness (as opposed to hardcore White Nationalism) than the Jews who descend from Holocaust survivors. This division plays out in other areas beyond just immigration and American nationalism (as opposed to Zionist nationalism, or a Neocon conflation of the two), in terms of Holocaust museum after museum, a tragedy which happened in Europe, for crying out loud. Now, leaving aside for the moment the deleterious effect this has on American Jewish identity for young Jews (not relevant here, but an important selling point to convincing the Jewish community to repeal this negative identity), I would also note that the resentment of the pre-1925 camp towards the Holocaust survivor descendants in terms of their perception of the U.S. as in some way a potential Germany. Quite frankly, post-genocidal stress disorder should not be crafting Jewish communal policy as it currently all too often is.
A main reason Wiesel started this Holocaust Museum proliferation anyway was out of Zionism, (I can prove this), not specifically out of a prophylactic attempt at stopping either American fascism specifically or international genocides generally, but that’s another issue.
It is incumbent for Jews outside of Holocaustism to stand up to descendants of Holocaust survivors, and quite frankly, it’s going to be a difficult internal fight, if it happens, though in many ways it already began heating up in the 90s (with the flourishing of these museums, and corresponding Jewish communal backlash), even if the division isn’t cast in pre-War, post-War communal terms.
The thing is — American Jews not bound by Holocaust-centric identity need to understand why this is happening, and speak out, as it is understood to be absurd to call us self-hating Jews (which is attempted, but is not particularly successful, particularly when the Jews challenging this identity are affiliated and Jewish educated, perhaps non-Zionist, but not anti-Zionist).
For American Jews to live in the past according to victimology is simply not a luxury the U.S. nor the Jewish community can afford.
Jews need to impress upon Jews that,
1) Diversity and multi-culturalism as ideals are harming and will further harm both the U.S. and the Jewish community. They probably need to understand the latter in order to accept the former.
2) Why and how the immigration issues we are facing today are very different than in 1921 and 1924, when Jews were blocked from immigrating to the U.S.
3) While the vocal, if small, far-Left is unreachable, as are many of the social liberals (much more of a problem), there is a moderate Jewish Left that is much more reasonable, and can be influenced. The challenge is they are much less active in terms of Jewish communal affairs.
I realize many in the right-wing camp do not differentiate between moderate-Left and Very Liberal Left, but there most certainly is, for instance, the social-democrats (whose ancestors came in the 19th and early 20th century) mostly stood on the sidelines during the Civil Rights Movement, assessing that this was not their fight. Though considered more left-wing than the Neocons, I would note that some of the important Neocons were from a much more hardline Left than the social-democrats, whose socialist forebears and their leaders were ferociously anti-Communist generally, not just anti-Stalinist specifically. See the beginning chapters of “The New York Intellectuals” for corroboration of this.
4) Once this is understood, then and only then will they force Jewish “defense” organizations to change their tune, or at least, face greater and more frequent challenges. The American Jewish Committee might be the first of the large Jewish “defense” orgs to shift policy, and could neutralize the ADL to some degree.
5) Imagine if Jews would successfully explain to themselves and then to whites that a white identity — let’s call it European Americans, have every right to such an identity and pride in such an identity (just like every other group is allowed an identity, including Jews or Hispanics, the latter a very broad identity containing numerous specific nationalisms), and that it has absolutely nothing at all in common with Nazism or fascism, which was True White Nationalist’s point above. If respected Jewish leaders said this (moderate and affiliated Jews, Auster doesn’t cut it, he’s Episcopalian and quite right-wing, no offense to Auster, seriously…I’m just saying) clearly and consistently, it would be a powerful affirming voice that no other minority group would be able to successfully veto.
Steinlight breached the dam to some degree. But there is so much change that needs to happen internally within the Jewish community…
Whites can’t live in the shadow of guilt over racism, despite the horrors of slavery. No other nation lives in this constant state of shame over their slavery, as The Realist has pointed out previously. I mention this, because obviously, this is an issue that affects whites, and this is not a Jewish issue, but continues to take its toll on European American morale and pride. This is anyway solely between European Americans and American blacks, not other “diverse” peoples. So too, Jews can’t afford to live in a European past. This is not an American issue. Jews need to understand and accept this, and tell European Americans the same thing.
The past can cripple a man, and apparently, it can threaten a civilization. If you let it.
Why let it?
By on 7/24/07 at 5:41 pm
Ironic Jihad, I did not mean to imply that the neocons were our friends, just that they were visibly to the right of modern liberals, at least 20 years ago.
Dennis W, Islam is the bigger threat, as there are 1 billion of them. But the US can help solve it by keeping the Muslims out, sealing both borders and bolstering defense. The Jews are the more insidious threat in that they seem to advocate on behalf of the general white population. Take the original neoconservatism as one of many examples.
It’s clear that many Jews are big advocates of Islamic immigration and possibly costly intervention in Israel. Stephen Steinlight and Lawrence Auster, both Jews, have demonstrated it. The Jews who are against Muslim immigration are usually neocons who advocate other non-white massive immigration.
Steinlight, for example, only wants to restrict Muslim immigration because it’s “bad for the Jews” but otherwise doesn’t care much about immigration restriction.
By on 7/25/07 at 2:06 am
“Clearly the idea that 2% of the population did this on its own would entail that the other 98% of the population of whites and non-whites are very easily manipulated.”
How does 2% of the population own nearly ALL of the mass media? They run Hollywood, MTV and all the other popular networks that SHAPES OUR CULTURE!
By on 7/25/07 at 6:38 am
Jason asked… “How does 2% of the population own nearly ALL of the mass media? They run Hollywood, MTV and all the other popular networks that SHAPES OUR CULTURE!”
Allies. Any anti-nationalist group has the natural political army of the state’s other minorities. It’s doubtful that the social Marxism initiatives would have had the same traction without America’s large (and growing) dissatisfied minority contingency.
IQ. Charles Murrey and other IQ statisticians emphasize that a relatively minor change in the average IQ has a profound impact on the “tail” (the most gifted). They are, on average, more intelligent than us. As the world gets more complicated, the world will increasingly belong to those capable of running it.
Motivation. The “Andy Griffith”-style White America until recently had very little idea this was happening. The vast majority of the decline and decay was going on in America’s cities. We rural folks always knew the cities were corrupt, but didn’t realize (due to media massaging) how pervasive the invasion and decline of our cities was. The most recent wave of illegal immigrants has went directly into small town America - offering the first taste of diversity to tens of millions of White Americans who beforehand had no reason to care about the multicult madness. You’re seeing that group mobilize now.
Affirmative Action. In academia, there are subjects where you can BS and there are subjects where you cannot. Since Affirmative Action and diversity depend on this BS factor, White and East Asian males go to safe ground - the hard sciences and engineering career paths. Those pay well, but their peers are being trained as social engineers, journalists, media types, attorneys, “political scientists”, and others who wield a disproportionate social and political influence.
Jews are only peripherally affected by Affirmative Action as Whites. Their merit means that they can crowd out less meritorious Whites within that Affirmative Action category. Imagine if Affirmative Action were extended to “protect” Jews from discrimination and guarantee they were represented as about 3% of professions. All of the “future leaders of the world” are disproportionately those who benefit from multiculturalism, diversity, and the present Affirmative Action status quo.
- Teamwork. Even the secular Jews Adam Sandler and Jon Stewart giggle to each other about the rabbi and laugh heartily about their eccentric Jewish relatives and friends. Jews don’t have to be Zionist or conspiratorial for their interrelatedness to have a synergistic effect. Fraternities are empowering. White Americans are hopelessly fractured along political, religious, and class lines. Besides, we’ve reached a point where we feel that merely creating a group to protect our interests is tantamount to firing up the gas chambers.
By on 7/25/07 at 10:09 am
“Clearly the idea that 2% of the population did this on its own would entail that the other 98% of the population of whites and non-whites are very easily manipulated.”
To paraphrase Plato, He said: The masses of people are incurably ignorant.”
Jason asks: “How does 2% of the population own nearly ALL of the mass media? They run Hollywood, MTV and all the other popular networks that SHAPES OUR CULTURE!”
Actually it’s only a tiny fraction of that 2% that shape our culture. I believe there is coordination/collaboration—or a consensus if you will—between super rich elite Gentiles and Jews in deciding which direction our culture should be headed. For instance, just look at the amnesty issue for illegal aleins . The majority of American citizens unequivocally rejected it, but the power elite are going to—one way or another—ram it down our throats anyway. This last failed attempt to get the “Comprehensive immigration reform bill” passed in the Senate was a victory for our side, but it was only a symbolic victory. The fact of the matter is: non-White third-worlders are still invading our country by the thousands each day. This process will not stop until the NAU comes to fruition.
True, many Jewish lawyers are working to craft legal arguments in order to grant citizenship to the illegal invaders. Most Jews may be applauding the demographic change in our once White country, but it is mostly rapacious wealthy Gentile businesses that are the main facilitators and economic beneficiaries of the illegal alien invation.
From my point of view, we as White preservationists are fighting both a class and a race war.
“““““““““““““““““““““`
ironic jihad wrote:”If I may be permitted to descend to the level of the anecdotal, I have had Islamic social acquintances—fashionably dressed, superfically socially adjusted, trained to laugh at SNL sketches—seriously urge the literal impalement of Danish cartoonists (and their defenders). These were not radicals, they were as assimilated as Muslims get. Am I more troubled by that kind of insane atavistic hatred or by Norman Lear?
Sorry, I don’t think that one is even close.”
Not only do we have 1.1 billion potential Islamists wanting to convert or kill all the Infidels, we now have 1.3 billion Chinese openly, beligerantly, challenging our military hegemony in the Asian Rim. Pray tell, what will happen if China makes a military move on Taiwan?
Between the Islamists and the Communist Chinese, it makes the Jewish issue look puny by comparison?
By on 7/25/07 at 10:52 am
Dennis W, Islam is the bigger threat, as there are 1 billion of them. But the US can help solve it by keeping the Muslims out, sealing both borders and bolstering defense. The Jews are the more insidious threat in that they seem to advocate on behalf of the general white population. Take the original neoconservatism as one of many examples
Very sad and incorrect commentary Ajo. Islam is coming after you baby. How will you and your descendents feel living in a world where Europe is Muslim controlled 50-70 years from now. Europe is the homeland of the white people you speak about.
Defense is not good enough against the Islamic Jihad. Left to it’s own devices Iran will control Mid East Arab oil. Russia and China will back them up militarily. When Iran gets into this position it will charge Europe and USA 30$ per barrel above spot price for oil. And favored 3rd world nations will get a substantial discount. Iran and Venezuela already sell oil cut rate to friendly countries
So is Islam the larger threat when you think it through a bit? Yes! Islam is your prime enemy, not Jews within the United States
My caution to you is don’t stay on automatic with these Jews of yours. Think it through. Chart new territory
By on 7/25/07 at 10:54 am
Steinlight, for example, only wants to restrict Muslim immigration because it’s “bad for the Jews” but otherwise doesn’t care much about immigration restriction.
Incorrect Ajo. From the above URL:
Besides, Steinlight did not think that Latino immigration was desirable either. The reason is that, while most white Americans are very sensitive to Jewish concerns, immigrants from Latin and Central America are.
Also at that VDARE page Steinlight is forthright about the history of Jewish influence on American immigration policies. Steinlight is saying Muslim and mass immigration is “bad for the Jews” but I’m sure if he would say it is bad for America as a whole, if he was asked. Would you bet against that? As an American Jew I always think about what is good for America at the same time as what is good for my tribe
By on 7/25/07 at 6:56 pm
Wikitopian wrote,
“Jews are only peripherally affected by Affirmative Action as Whites. Their merit means that they can crowd out less meritorious Whites within that Affirmative Action category.”
I have to disagree, for the following reasons:
1) In the public sector minorities are given such an advantage that they beat out candidates whom they don’t even come near to challenging according to merit. The disparity is incredible — Jews are hardly immune.
2) You are contrasting quotas set according to population than compared to a true meritocracy. Clearly, Jews benefit better now than they would if there were a quota set according to their percentage of the population. But they would do better if there were pure meritocracy. I read an article in Commentary that claimed that Jews would receive one out of affirmative action slots engineered though affirmative action for minorities if it were a pure merit system. If this is even remotely true (he didn’t reference the study, so I don’t know if I but it) this is a tremendous amount.
3) Everyone, including minorities, pays a social price when someone less qualified has a sensitive position.
Wikitopian wrote,
“Besides, we’ve reached a point where we feel that merely creating a group to protect our interests is tantamount to firing up the gas chambers.”
This has to change. No doubt.
dennisw,
Nothing will stop Islam’s march as long as we (and others) are addicted to oil. Nothing. We are fueling our own demise.
http://www.setamericafree.org/
By on 7/25/07 at 9:18 pm
dennisw,
“I’m sure if he would say it is bad for America as a whole, if he was asked. Would you bet against that?”
I noticed that as well, and think Steinlight may, in fact, be most concerned with what a massive Hispanic immigration may do to the U.S. generally, and that his point in arguing that it is bad for Jews specifically is to allow Jews to hear that. On a core sensitive, knee-jerk issue like immigration, Jewish orgs often need to see why it is bad for them before they can justify revisiting their policy, or they get 1925 slammed in their faces, and that’s the end of the discussion. Steinlight knows this — he worked for the AJC for years. This was a sound strategy. Remember, his goal is to get Jewish groups to shift policy, not endear himself to paleo-Conservatives generally.
By on 7/25/07 at 10:01 pm
Between the Islamists and the Communist Chinese, it makes the Jewish issue look puny by comparison?
AKA fighting the last war all over again. The real war against whites come from the two that you mention plus the mestizo battering ram used by the Spanish oligarchy of Mexico/Central America. The pale face Spanish elites of Mexico are warring against the nominatively Anglo United States same as Spain and England contended for centuries.
Indians want revenge so Chavez the mestizo is messing with us big time. Prior to Hugo Chavez the Spanish elites always ruled Venezuela, they sold us oil without all these complications
The “Jewish Question” is a diversion. I’m objectively right on this one even though I’m Jewish, have been transparent about this, thus gifting you ammunition to claim I write only in my Jewish self interest
By on 7/25/07 at 10:20 pm
Thanks to all who have commented on my main point here.
Here is one of my fellow Jews who is dangerous to America, who is suitable grist for KevMac’s mill.
Schumer: ‘No more confirmations of Bush high court nominees’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.
By on 7/28/07 at 10:34 am
This was your best work yet Realist!
“Resuscitating white identity will not be achieved by returning to a pre-modern outlook, but by progressing through and past modernity.”
This was my favorite statement and reflects the biggest difference I have with most pro-white people. Most want to return to the past. I guess so they can go through it all again.
“Such is my current broad, hazy, intuitive, hand-waving perception of the crucial issue.”
LOL!
By on 7/31/07 at 11:44 pm
This is one of the best articles on Arutz Sheva yet: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7323 I usually don’t agree with the station’s religious fundamentalism and nuke Iran campaigns, but this one gets at the heart of the matter plaguing western civilization in a way that few other mainstream publications are willing to express. Instead of obsessing over attacking Israel, whites and Jews should unite to fight common menaces.
By on 8/10/07 at 4:15 pm
The Realist says that we should not blame the transformation of the west on “Jewish subversion”:
“Gentile America was converted to modernism through rational persuasion, not through demonic trickery. Traditionalism, and along with it white racial identity, was abandoned simply because there were very good reasons to prefer the Mencken/John Dewey worldview over “Ku Kluxery.””
This is extremely tendentious. Are there very good reasons to believe in Freudianism, Marxism, Boasian anthropology? Let alone the “pragmatic” tradition to which Dewey belongs, one central theme of which is a rejection of any notion of objective truth. And is it reasonable to accept Darwinism, which you cite as one aspect of the “modernist” view, while ALSO accepting racial egalitarianism, multiculturalism, “cultural” anthropology, etc.?
You allow that the theories of Boas and the Frankfurt School are “empirically unfounded” and bizarre. You also allow that, as MacDonald has shown, these Jewish theorists were motivated by ethnic interests and animus. How likely is it, then, that despite these facts, the “modernist” world view of egalitarian race blindness (combined with evolutionism) was supported by “very good reasons” by the time it reached the general population? If I cook up some bizarre, baseless theory for purposes that have nothing to do with finding out the truth, it would astronomically unlikely that there are, coincidentally, good reasons to believe the theory.
But in any case, if you allow that
(a) these kinds of theories were in fact very influential, indirectly, in shaping the views of ordinary people, and
(b) they were devised by Jews who hoped that these theories would help to dismantle features of gentile society that Jews find threatening or otherwise inimical to Jewish interests,
you’ve already accepted premises that imply that one very important cause of the societal changes you’re concerned about is precisely “Jewish subversion”. To do things that weaken and disorder a society, for the purpose of weakening and disordering it, just is to subvert that society. And if one does those things because one is Jewish and in the pursuit of what one takes to be Jewish interests, one is involved in Jewish subversion of that society.
Now Jewish subversion is not the only cause, and maybe it’s not the most important. And of course it isn’t “demonic”, just plain old human nastiness and ethnocentrism on the part of a very powerful and self absorbed minority. So MacDonald is wrong, if he says any of those things (although you haven’t shown that he does say that). But you can hardly say, as you seem to, that Jewish subversion is not an important part of the explanation.
By on 12/1/07 at 5:12 pm
I don’t think anyone, including MacDonald, believes Jews “cooked up” worldviews like Freudianism and Marxism for the purposes of subverting the West. Rather Jewish intellectuals were attracted to these ideas mostly because of their inherent interest, although the ethnic factor did also played some role.
These modernist worldviews contain much that is interesting, although also much that is false. Consequently, not only Jews, but other Westerners were attracted to them. Certainly, they were more interesting than “Ku Kluxery.”
It’s crazy to believe that major intellectual trends are the products of conspiracies. Why would people believe them if they weren’t genuinely illuminating in certain respects? While I’m not a Freudian or a Marxist, I do believe there is an unconscious and class conflict and that Freud and Marx were important thinkers for having illuminated them.
The more I read about these issues, the more convinced I become that MacDonald’s obsession with Jews causes him to misunderstand the reasons for the emergence of multiculturalism. I’m less inclined to find value in his work now than when I wrote this article. Eric Kaffmann in the wonderful book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America has traced multicultural ideas in the American Protestant establishment since the 19th century. In the post-World War I period already, anti-nationalism was dominant among the Protestant elite, including opposition to immigration restrictions. Multiculturalism was a natural development of this position. I think multiculturalism would probably have arisen in America even if there were no Jews here at all.
By
Jews as a group do support leftist causes but I believe their over-representation in higher education has a lot to do with it, rather than a fear of racial consciousness. Colleges and Universities at times seem to be the factories of liberalism.
I think some Jewish activists, but not Jews in general, have perceived multiculturalism to be in their interests but the Kennedy’s for example proved that other groups like the Irish are capable of doing the same. Also, some Jewish activists like the JDL and JTF (www.jtf.org/e) do not take this pro-displacement ideology.
By on 7/14/07 at 12:46 am