This is nothing more than a guilt by association smear campaign aimed at putting yet another nail in the coffin of White America. It is an index of the power of the left that they need not dispute the economic effects of the Schumer-Rubio bill; nor do they need to rebut the data and conclusions of Richwine’s Ph.D. thesis. They simply need to make the linkage between Richwine and taboo findings—that IQ predicts economic success, underclass behavior, and use of government services so that importing low-IQ immigrants is a very bad idea. Having made these associations, they can indulge in smug sociopathic satisfaction because a young man with a wife and two young children is suddenly out of work and with much diminished prospects in life.

Richwine’s Ph.D. thesis was approved by a Harvard committee, but it’s clear that the real force behind it was Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve. In the Acknowledgements section of his thesis, Richwine describes Murray as a “childhood hero”; Murray seems to have been his de facto thesis advisor at  Harvard:

The substance of my work was positively influenced by many people, but no one was more influential than Charles Murray, whose detailed editing and relentless constructive criticism have made the final draft vastly superior to the first. I could not have asked for a better primary advisor.

So it’s not surprising that Richwine’s thesis takes seriously the work of Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen—the main figures in academic research on race and IQ. Although he also considers criticisms that have been leveled against them, it’s clear that Richwine sees this body of  work as basically correct.

Advertisement

---

For example, in discussing whether genetics plays a role in the low IQ of Mexicans, Richwine writes:

The hereditarian case is buttressed by a large amount of data showing physiological differences across races—in brain size, rate of maturation, rate of twinning, sex ratio at birth, and many others (Rushton 2000, 9). The racial rank order of these differences is almost always the same, with whites intermediate and Asians and blacks at the extremes. For example, magnetic resonance imaging has shown that Asians have larger brains than whites, who have larger brains than blacks. As discussed in chapter 1, brain size is well correlated with g. On other measures, the same physiological rank order emerges. Blacks mature faster than whites, who mature faster than Asians. Blacks also have more twins than Asians, again with whites in the middle. Far from being fringe science, these findings have been replicated by numerous researchers (Gottfredson 2005). They indicate that race is more than “skin deep,” meaning genetic differences in intelligence are not at all implausible.

Richwine also has a section on Lynn and Vanhanen’s The Global Bell Curve. After noting some criticisms, he writes:

But while their exact numbers can be questioned, Lynn and Vanhanen (LV) have drawn attention to real cognitive differences that exist worldwide. They used “culture fair” IQ tests—tests shown to exhibit the same predictive and internal validity for different ethnic and cultural groups—whenever possible, and they adjusted older test scores upward to account for the Flynn effect. They also showed that multiple tests within one country correlate at over 0.9, countering criticism that single tests in some countries are too unreliable.

Furthermore, the high correlation between national IQ and economic success supports the validity of LV’s data. Dickerson (2006) has found that IQ can account for 70% of the variance in GDP across nations, assuming an exponential relationship between the two variables. This IQ-wealth relationship is not due to very low IQ scores from the world’s poorest countries. In fact, the IQ-wealth correlation is essentially unchanged—it is stronger, if anything—when low IQ countries are discarded (Whetzel and McDaniel 2006). The predictive value of LV’s dataset, not only in terms of national wealth and economic growth, but also as a positive correlate of educational success, nonagricultural ways of life (Barber 2005), and even suicide rates across countries (Voracek 2004), is strikingly robust.

Are LV’s IQ numbers just proxies for some other factor, such as education, nutrition, or free markets? Initially, results were mixed when researchers attempted to answer this question. Weede and Kampf (2002) found a consistently significant and independent effect of IQ on economic growth, while Volken (2003) made the effect disappear by adding certain educational variables. The debate was resolved with the publication of Jones and Schneider (2006), which used the most technically sophisticated methodology on the subject. Jones and Schneider employed a version of the “I just ran two million regressions” method of Sala-I-Martin (1997), in which the significance of a particular variable is tested in thousands of potential growth models. Jones and Schneider found that IQ is a statistically significant predictor of growth in 99.8% of those models.

In the rest of his thesis, Richwine essentially corroborates LV using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth which also formed the basis for The Bell Curve, but focusing on immigrants and their children. An example of his rather chilling findings are the results of a backward digit span test (a culture-fair test) where second-generation Mexican immigrants had an average full-scale IQ of 82.1 and immigrants from Central and South America an average IQ of 89.8 (Table 2.13, p. 57).

It is noteworthy that Richwine used LV’s data from IQ and Global Inequality because this book was published in 2006 by Washington Summit Press. WSP is a project of the National Policy Institute (NPI) which is headed by Richard Spencer (whose speech at the recent American Renaissance conference was TOO‘s previously featured article). A large part of the indictment of Richwine is that he authored two articles on Alternative Right when it was edited  by Spencer. AltRight is described by Byron York in his interview with Richwine cited above as “a strong white nationalist site”—which I guess it is (for one thing, they posted me [here and here]).

It’s  good news that Richwine has been defended in some mainstream quarters, notably by Rush Limbaugh (see here and here); Limbaugh posted a link to Richwine’s thesis on his website.  Although he backs away from endorsing any policy implications of Richwine’s research, Charles Murray has a ringing defense based on First Amendment/academic freedom grounds and on traditional American culture. Regarding the latter, Murray notes:

The celebration of freedom of expression was still in full flower in the 1950s, when a play based on the Scopes trial, Inherit the Wind, was a Broadway hit. The American Civil Liberties Union of that era was passionately absolutist about freedom of expression, defending the right of free expression for even odious groups such as neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. The lonely individual saying what he believed in the face of pressure to keep silent was a staple of American films and television drama.

Right. But that was at a time when the culture of the left — already well entrenched in the media and elite universities — was  mainly concerned to protect communist  professors and other leftist dissidents targeted by McCarthyism. Inherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee) was written to oppose McCarthyism. Another famous example of anti-McCarthyism from the 1950s is Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities  Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials.

Although quite powerful, the culture  of  the left was not yet the dominant elite  that it has become since the 1960s; it had powerful enemies in McCarthy and his allies, and these forces had strong popular support. The rise of this new elite has coincided with the power of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law  Center and the ADL that  specialize in getting people fired for  thought crimes and care nothing  for  free speech. There is clearly an  ethnic aspect to this transformation. While there are endless tears (see here and here, pp. 39-40) for Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s and since promoted to cultural sainthood, don’t  expect our new elite to condemn witch hunts like the one that destroyed Jason Richwine. And don’t expect a hit Broadway play based on an allegory in which the SPLC is implicitly condemned for its persecution of race realists and White advocates.

Richard  Spencer is quite correct on the lesson for White advocates:

Our take-away from this incident is that nationalists must fund institutions, such as NPI, that can employ talented researchers like Richwine. The “conservative movement” has never been—nor will it ever be—a home for our ideas and our people.

Exactly. There must be positions for talented, honest researchers like Richwine. The secret of the success of movements like neoconservatism is that they have a well-funded infrastructure of organizations that make a career possible—organizations like the American Enterprise Institute that  formerly employed Richwine and continues to employ his mentor, Charles Murray. We desperately need organizations like that.

But lest we get carried away in praise of Richwine’s courage in the area of race-realism, basing immigration on IQ rather than race is not going to save White America. The implication of this  research is that  race is  important only as a way of predicting who will add the most value to the society. It’s an individualist/capitalist/libertarian way of thinking where the only metric is the financial and social benefit to be obtained from immigration.

Even the costs of immigration in terms of political alienation can be seen in this way. Richwine discusses Robert Putnam’s research showing that multiculturalism leads to lower social capital, and hypothesizes that, although diversity itself leads to lower social capital, higher IQ non-Whites would have less of a negative effect on social capital than low-IQ non-Whites. Again, the basic argument is to manage the effects of diversity in a way that maximizes individual self-interest of Whites and the economic interests of the society as a whole.

My hypothesis is that higher-IQ non-whites will have substantially less negative impact on social capital. People with higher IQs are more likely to build trusting communities themselves, and they could also find it easier to integrate into established high-trust neighborhoods. If this is true, then a major benefit of immigrant IQ selection is that it could make non-white immigration more tolerable in terms of maintaining social capital.

He then supports his hypothesis by findings that there is less of a decline in social trust by Whites when they are in neighborhoods with Asians than in neighborhoods with Latinos or Blacks. Importantly, he does not find this effect when the data are controlled for income and education: importing Asians results in the same decline of social trust as would occur with Latinos or Blacks, all else equal. Higher IQ ameliorates the lack of social trust resulting from ethnically mixed neighborhoods, but it certainly doesn’t erase it.

In any case, the problem here is that the racial interests of Whites are not part of the equation.  Basing immigration on IQ would make immigration less expensive and prevent a huge increase in underclass behavior; and it would lead to less angst about dysfunctional families and underperforming sch0ols (where performance must be blamed on anything but the academic ability of the students). But importing millions of high-IQ Asians would have the same effect in terms of the decline of White America and indeed might be worse because it would intensify ethnic competition for high-IQ jobs.

IQ is indeed an important part of the big picture. But having IQ at the center of the analysis is a far cry from an analysis in terms of ethnic interests. We need to internalize the ideas of Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests (the most recent discussion in TOO of Salter’s work is Ted Sallis’s “The Pareto Principle,” but there have been quite a few others).

Making White interests and identity acceptable and legitimate among mainstream Whites (beginning with the intellectuals) is a sine qua non for a mass movement that will begin to push back against the anti-White onslaught.

This speech was delivered at the 2013 American Renaissance conference, which took place on April 5–7 near Nashville, Tennessee.  It was posted originally at the website of the National Policy Institute

For as long as anyone can remember, immigration has been the chief political concern at gatherings such as this. At last night’s cocktail party, “amnesty,” “illegals,” and various heroes and villains in Washington were discussed with great interest.

For people like us—who are asylumed away to the margins—one could say that immigration is our connection to the outside world.  It makes us feel like we have a horse in the race—maybe even that, through our silent partners in the Beltway, we can affect national policy.  We even, we should admit, get captivated by the political theater of “immigration reform.” Ann Coulter’s speech at the last Conservative Political Action Conference, for example, was catnip for racialists. Ann staked out the far rightward territory of respectable debate; and though she used the language of Republican electioneering, she seemed to be winking and nodding at us the entire time. . .

Whenever any issue or idea receives universal accord—when it become an assumption, when it’s taken for granted—it’s time to put it under serious scrutiny.  We should ask what an issue like immigration can tell us about ourselves—about what our goals are, and should be, and how we could best engage in political action. I hope we can do that today.

Advertisement

---

---

* * * 

That we have failed to stem immigration in our 45-year struggle is obvious enough.  Some major amnesties have been halted due to energetic, grassroots activists, but mass-immigration proponents have walked away from these battles with confidence that “we’ll get it done next time.”

That we have continuously failed is not, in itself, an argument against continuing along this course.  Still, sometimes when we focus on various political skirmishes (like the current one over “amnesty”), we lose sight of the big picture—we lose sight of the fact that we have failed on a much deeper level than mere policy.

In the summer 2011, the Census Bureau reported that the majority of children born in the United States are non-White.  Thus, from our perspective, any future immigration-restriction efforts are meaningless.  Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were miraculously halted tomorrow morning, our country’s demographic destiny would merely be delayed by a decade or two.  Put another way, we could win the immigration battle and nevertheless lose the country, and lose it completely.

And we shouldn’t focus too much on the “2050” date, when Whites will become a minority, as if once Whites drop to 49 percent, a bell will go off announcing the end of the American Dream. We are at a major crisis point now. And we are well past the point of no return with regards to “patriotic immigration reform.”

Furthermore, this insight into the irrelevance of immigration reform holds for the whole kit-and-caboodle of “conservative” causes. Should we, for instance, really be fighting for “limited government” or the Constitution, so that the Afro-Mestzizo-Carribean Melting Pot can enjoy the blessing of liberty and a sound currency? (To ask the question is to answer it.)

Symbolic Politics

Beyond failure, there’s always been something . . . mendacious about immigration reform. Leftists (who sometimes understand us better than we understand ourselves) have always sensed this; they know that when we talk about immigration, we’re not really talking about immigration.

There are very good reasons, of course, for any nation to oppose lawless entry. And there are unalterable mathematical factors at play: all things being equal, more workers equals lower wages. These are (and should) be the concerns of the “respectable” immigration-reform movement.

But these are not our concerns.

The issues the Beltway immigration reformers focus on are essentially quantitative in nature, as you can see by the names of their organizations: “numbers,” “carrying capacity,” etc.

Our concerns are qualitative. As it should be. For in war, art, and enterprise, great quality can predominate over mere “numbers.” Our race’s history is replete with examples of this: of continental or overseas empires—the globe itself—being administered by a central elite. More impressive still are the examples of one man with little money or support—whether it be Copernicus, Martin Luther, or Nietzsche—overturning whole schools of thought and institutions and society’s most basic assumptions.

Quality should have a practical effect on how we think about the immigration issue. What would we say and do, to take a hypothetical example, if a million Swiss or Russian “boat people” washed up on a seashore, due to some international catastrophe.  Would we oppose granting them citizenship, out of some devotion to legality and fairness? I wouldn’t.  I would become a bleeding-heart liberal and argue that these refugees would improve our economy and enrich our culture (as they likely would). And such an example might not remain hypothetical. In the foreseeable future, we may very well face this exact situation with the Boer people of South Africa.  We need to think now about how we will react and articulate our position.

For us “immigration” is a proxy for race. In that way, immigration can be good or bad: it can be a conquest (as it seems now) . . . or a European in-gathering, something like White Zionism.  It all depends on the immigrants. And we should open our minds to the positive possibilities of mass immigration from the White world.

Taking a step back, it seems that for everyone, “immigration” is a proxy, a mask, a lie.  Perhaps all of political activism and wonkery are manifestation of deeper, largely unconscious desires for power. When we hear any professional “Latino” support this or that social program, we sense in our guts that her policy proscriptions are rationalizations for nationalism. She might say “more immigration is good”; she means “The Anglos are finished!”

In turn, we are right to view “conservative” activism—especially those hokey and embarrassing events like Glenn Beck rallies—as symbolic in-gatherings of America’s historic majority, as ways for Whites to feel a sense of belonging and identity in a world that is increasingly cold and hostile. Generic “conservatism”—despite itself—has become a kind of White identity politics.  And however flawed, all of its prominent ideological features resonate in the hearts of decent White people: self-reliance, freedom, uprightness etc.  And when White men talk about “restoring the Constitution”—or, more so, “Taking Our Country Back”— leftists and non-Whites are right to view this as threatening and racialist: it implies a return to origins and that the White man once owned America. However much we might critique these conservative ideas, we cannot deny this basic symbolism.  Indeed, it is due to this symbolism—and not policy—that conservative leaders like Glenn Beck have to envelope all-White events in “Martin Luther King” and the most useless political issues possible. They can’t let the natives get out of hand. . .

* * *

Now, if we accept that generic conservatism is symbolic, we should ask a higher-level question—whether this proxy is actually good for our movement and, more important, for our race and civilization.

We were able to understand the futility of the immigration issue by asking not what would happen if the movement lost, but what would happen if it actually won.    In turn, we should ask an analogous question: what exactly would conservatism “restore” or “take back”?

We can look to history for answers.

In 1789, we had the Constitution. We had a government that was a mere flea in comparison to the elephant that rules us today. Confiscatory taxation was unheard of; the invasions of personal privacy we experience today were not only rare but were, for the most part, infeasible.  We had a more republican, indeed, aristocratic, political system. We had bounteous natural resources and no threatening world power bordering our country.

Yet, within 75 years, we had inflicted upon ourselves a devastating Civil War—one that was brought on by the presence of Negroes on the continent and which decimated the Founding stock of the country.  Within 125 to 150 years, our political system had become dominated by the same kind of liberal egalitarianism that rules today.

Why should we believe that if we could “restore the Constitution,” the outcome would be any different? One should not rewind a movie, play it again, and then be surprised when it reaches the same unhappy ending.

Of course, history is not determined; it is not a film reel or script. But looking dispassionately at our current situation, we can only conclude that if we could hit a political “reset button,” this time around, the outcome would be far worse.

We are entering a world of resource scarcity (not abundance), and we are not dealing with Blacks that are socially and politically inferior, but some hundred million non-Whites who are empowered by our political system.

Thus, we don’t have to speculate about whether Rand Paul (and any other “right-wing” Republican) really wants to restore constitutional government or would actually be able to do so. This is all irrelevant.  The goals themselves are wrong and must be abandoned.

Supporting Paul, or whatever version of the Tea Party or Republican “immigration hawk” comes up next, is not “pragmatic”; it is, to the contrary, entirely impractical.  And it would be devastating for our movement politically: we would be spending our limited resources of time, energy, and money on politicians whose rosiest conceivable outcome would not change anything.  “Restoring the Constitution” and “patriotic immigration reform”  are just more in a series of safety valves and escape hatches preventing us from confronting the real issue facing our race.

Before we can move forward, we must come to terms with some rather dismal truths. There are no policy prescriptions or politicians currently open to us that will fundamentally alter our destiny.  And, most likely, within our lifetimes, we will not see the kind rebirth of Occidental civilization that we in this room know is necessary.

What we can do now is begin to set a new and different course.  Our challenge is to reorient our people, spiritually as much as intellectually and politically, to a world that will be hostile towards them and towards a future beyond the United State of America.

Minority Report

I’m sure that when many heard the title of my talk, “Facing the Future as a Minority,” they cringed at the very notion.  It insults our pride and dignity to think that I might be suggesting we go out and find ourselves a White Al Sharpton, who could speak at demonstrations after various hate-crime hoaxes and badger politicians until Whites got a seat at the trough.  Perhaps I might start calling myself  “The Reverend” Richard Spencer and hold prayer vigils after some celebrity misused the word “cracker.”

Believe me, I find this just as offensive as you do.

The good news is that the “Al Sharpton” option will never be open to us.  Whites are and will always be the exception to multiculturalism; we will never be allowed to play the game.

We must also recognize that not only will we always be at odds with the multicult, but, at least at the beginning, we will be at odds with the people we seek to defend.  In White America’s unconscious, they are America.  And the process of letting that dream go will be painful.

Moreover, the era of mass immigration into Western countries coincided with stunning advances in consumer capitalism, technology, and access to higher eduction. In the public’s imagination, multiculturalism was linked (however irrationally) with increased living standards and general “progress.”  For some, a White society might seem to be a retreat, towards less prosperity and dynamism.

Suffice it to say, this will be a hard path.

One characteristic that we adopt as White minority advocates is a new openness to alternative political forms, even things that have previously made us cringe. One of those was suggested by our friends outside protesting our gathering.  No, not “Bomb Dresden Again!” but “Go Back to Europe!”  Emigration with an E is, of course, not practical for all Whites in North America, and at the moment at least, it seems that Western Europe is dedicated to its destruction almost as much as Americans.   But we should be open to this option.

I would also direct you to the work on racial separatism of two men: Michael Hart and Rabbi Mayer Schiller, both of whom have presented real plans for dividing up the existing United States, mostly on the basis of race and partly on ideology.  (Michael generously offers Liberals the chance to live in a “Diversity” canton if they so desire. . .)

There is, I admit, a certain pie-in-the-sky quality to these proposals, as if a map-maker in his study could create new countries.  But we should remember that in the last century, racially defined nation-building was a major “progressive” cause. We now think that the so-called “liberal elites” are dedicated to multiculturalism and race-mixing.  This is not quite the case, as liberals have a history of adopting “national determination” and even “ethno-nationalism” as their cause.  In 1919, following the Great War, world’s statesman met in Paris to, for lack of a better term, re-map the world after the dissolution of the defeated empires. New countries were invented (the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs, Slovenes), old ones were reborn (Poland), and ethnicities got their day in the Sun (Czechoslovakia).  Related to this process was the Balfour Declaration and British mandate for a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.  Nationalists of many different stripe had captured the hearts and minds of political actors.

Today, in the public imagination, “ethnic-cleansing” has been associated with civil war and mass murder (understandably so).  But this need not be the case.  In 1919, we have a real example of successful ethnic redistribution—done by fiat, we should remember, but done peacefully.

Our Cause

Like the nationalists of a century ago, we need a cause—and one that is different, greater, and more advanced than the conservative “hot button” issues that are fading into irrelevance.  We need to be more than mere “reactionaries” who spasmodically ignite in the face of some new liberal innovation—all the while being gradually pushed in their enemies’ direction, towards accepting their enemies assumptions, towards defeat. We need a telos, an outcome or end goal—something that we are working towards, that channels our energies. We need an ideal. And ideals are greatest when they at first seem impossible.

The ideal I advocate is the creation of a White Ethno-State on the North American continent.

Vis-a-vis most contemporary states that are putatively based the Rights of Man and “democracy,” our project would be a new kind of political and social order. It would be state for the 21 century—or 22nd: reflecting advances in communication and transportation, it would be a home for Germans, Latins, and Slavs from around the world. On one level, it would be a reconstitution of the Roman Empire. The Ethno-State would be, to borrow the title of a novel by Theodor Herzl (one of the founding fathers of Zionism), an Altneuland—an old, new country.

* * * 

I’m sure there’s no shortage of people, most likely even people in this room, who’d tell me that an Ethno-State would be beautiful but, alas, “infeasible.”  In the face of this, we need to remember something very important: the creation of a White Ethno-State on the American continent is perfectly feasible. Indeed, it is a modest project in comparison to bringing democracy to the Middle East, narrowing the SAT score gap, or inspiring young women to become mathematicians, or countless other looney and infantile trillion-dollar initiatives with which the American government is currently engaged.

We shouldn’t forget that before the current government dedicated its resources to equalizing mankind, it could channel billions—create industries, indeed, create whole cities—for the goal of space exploration. (It has given up this project in favor of boosting the Muslim world’s self-esteem.) When I traveled to my home town recently, I noted the wealthy Whites of Dallas, Texas, have dedicated their disposable income to a charity hospital skyscraper, built in the hopes of taking care of other peoples‘ children and other peoples‘ problems. (It’s hard to get them to give 100 bucks to AmRen or NPI.)

Action is, in a way, the easy part.

Channelling action, setting a goal, identifying a telos—saying yes and saying no—that is what is difficult.

In this way, our challenge is one of the spirit.

Our task is to capture the imaginations of our people (or the best of our people), and shock them out of their current assumption of what they think is possible.  The means of doing so is not to promise a 20-percent reduction in immigration or sales taxes—or the narrowing of the scope of government. To the contrary, we need to offer our people what Herzl called “the voluptuous idea.”

We need an ethno-state so that our people can “come home again,” can live amongst family—to put it banally, so that they can feel safe and secure. But we also need an Ethno-state so that Whites can again reach the stars.  Before the onset of equality sclerosis, Europeans had a unique ability to risk everything for ends that are super-human. We must give up the false dream of equality—not so that we could “wake up to reality; reality is boring—but so that they can take up the new dreams of channeling our energies and labor towards the exploration of our universe, towards the fostering of new people, who are healthier, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, more athletic.  We need an ethno-state so that we could rival the ancients.

In Altneuland, Herzl wrote, referring to his “utopian” plan for Jewish state in Palestine: “If you wish it, it is no fairy tale. …  If you don’t wish it, it is a fairly tale and will remain one.”

Or, to quote another historical figure: “I have a dream.”

Both Green and Rich remained on the F.B.I’s Ten Most Wanted list for over a decade, until the pace of Rich’s appeal effort increased in intensity around 1999. During his period of self-enforced exile, Rich made repeated efforts to extract strategic advantage from the fact his daughter was dying of leukaemia, and later in his petition to the White House he claimed that he had been prevented from returning to her bedside and from attending her funeral because of Federal prosecutors. The authors of House Report No. 454 write (p. 155) that “nothing could be further from the truth. Rich knew that if he returned  he would receive bail, and that he would not be incarcerated unless convicted of crimes he had been accused of committing. He was prevented from returning to visit his dying daughter only if he refused to face the U.S justice system. Rich’s desire to have his cake and eat it too, makes it difficult to generate sympathy for him in this matter. In fact, the only possible conclusion is that Marc Rich placed his own needs over those of his daughter.”

The frankly unbelievable level of cynicism seen in Rich’s behaviour towards his daughter, and the deeply immoral core of this particular aspect of the petition was by no means the only significant problem with it. Government investigators state (p. 154) that “the centrepiece of Marc Rich’s effort to obtain a Presidential pardon was the pardon petition, which was put together by the Marc Rich legal team. … The resulting document, which had a number of misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies, was a surprisingly poor effort, considering the amount of time and money that went into it.”

Funny, I was thinking precisely the same thing the other day about the thousands of shoddy works of history, philosophy and junk science that take up valuable space on the shelves of our libraries. The petition consisted of over thirty double-spaced pages, the first twenty of which “attempted to cast Rich and Green in a favorable, even likeable light.” The authors of House Report No. 454 comment that “these statements seem almost laughable given what the world knows about Marc Rich and Pincus Green.”

Advertisement

---

The statements also resurrected, and not for the last time, the charge of anti-Semitism. Entirely absent from the petition was any reference to the fact that that (p. 155) “Marc Rich’s business was built by supporting corrupt and dictatorial regimes across the world,” or that “deals with Third World countries meant that Rich himself gained monopolies over commodities that often paid developing nations less than fair-market prices.”

In fact, the Jewish activists behind the petition claimed that rescinding the charges on Rich would be in keeping with a ‘confluence of interests’ shared by Rich and the United States. Where have I heard that before? In the petition, signed by, among others, Abraham Foxman, it was stated: “Marc Rich has made amends. Over the past twenty years through his foundations he has donated over $100,000,000  to educational, cultural and social welfare programs. … His life has been committed to making the world a better place.”

A better place for who? For Jews. According to the authors of House Report No. 454 (p. 189), almost every cent that Rich donated went to Jewish causes, Jewish politicians, and Jewish organizations. The logic of the petition then is this: Rich defrauded United States taxpayers, 97% of whom are not Jewish, to the tune of over $100 million, and illegally funded a then enemy power, but because he funnelled this illegal cash into the coffers of his own tiny ethnic group he should be free from punishment.

My, what a fine confluence of interests. I certainly love it when my tax dollars fund Birthright Israel! According to the authors of House Report No.454 (p. 167), Mr. Foxman’s letter was “one of the most prominently displayed in the petition,” something they attributed to the fact that “Rich has given the ADL a total of $250,000 since he fled the country in 1983.” There’s that confluence of interests again — you see, all that illegal cash can now support the ADL’s efforts to teach your children that they’re bigots.

Although Foxman was to deny any quid pro quo in his involvement in the petition, government investigators wrote (p. 168): “Notwithstanding Foxman’s denial of quid pro quo, the payment to the ADL raises the general question of Marc Rich’s tactics in drumming up support for his pardon petition.”

What they mean by this is that Rich brought the full weight of Jewish influence to bear on his case. Among those organizations that were mobilized, “Marc Rich attempted to secure the assistance of the American Jewish Commmittee (AJC) with the promise of a large contribution.” Rich also “pledged $5 million to Birthright Israel” an organization run by Rich’s “long-time friend,” and fellow crook, Michael Steinhardt. Steinhardt subsequently “wrote a letter that was included in the petition.” The authors of House Report No.454 write that: “As with the public statements of the ADL and the AJC, a spokesman for Birthright Israel denied any quid pro quo relating to the $5 million pledge.” True exemplars of this impeccably moral group!

Further investigations revealed (p. 168) that following more cash donations, “yet another person with a connection to Birthright Israel also wrote a letter on behalf of Marc Rich. Rabbi Irving Greenberg, Chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Council, wrote a letter on Holocaust Museum Council letterhead in favor of Marc Rich.” Greenberg was also President of the Jewish Life Network, “an organization that is a partner with Birthright Israel.”

Israeli support came following Rich’s contribution of $25,000 to Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert’s 1993 campaign. Olmert later wrote (p. 169) “a letter to President Clinton that was included in the petition.” The pardon petition (p. 189) contained letters from the Israeli minister for Foreign Affairs, a former Israeli ambassador to the United States, the speaker of the Knesset, a former Minister for Finance, a former Minister for Justice, the Israeli Government Secretary, and a former Director of Mossad. Attempts were also made (p. 190) to enrol Shimon Peres, Israel Singer (Secretary General of the World Jewish Congress), and Edgar Bronfman (President of the World Jewish Congress). Most of the legwork in getting all these figures on board was done by Avner Azulay, whom the authors of House Report No.454 describe (p. 196) as a “former high-ranking Mossad agent.”

Page 171 of the report shows organized international Jewry in all its glory, as letters in support of Rich poured in from the Chief Rabbi of France and the President of the Jewish Committee of Madrid. Both made frequent mention of Rich’s “philanthropy” but no mention of the exclusively Jewish nature of his philanthropy. I don’t know about you, but I just love it when the Chief Rabbi of France gets a say in a legal case pertaining to my tax dollars.

I also sympathize with the Spaniards. The authors of House No.454 state (195) that King Juan Carlos of Spain even wrote letter for Rich. They add that “It is unclear why the King took this action on Rich’s behalf. It is possible that the King was motivated by Rich’s support of Madrid’s Jewish community.”

Let’s simplify — King Juan Carlos was motivated by Madrid’s Jewish community, and the authors of House Report No.454 add (p. 195) that the king had also been lobbied by Israeli Foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben Ami. Let’s simplify it further — a group of Jews whistled and the King of Spain rolled over. Unless of course there’s evidence that King Juan Carlos was acting due to another ‘confluence of interests.’

It gets better. Part of the petition was a tax analysis from two academics which ‘proved’ that Rich hadn’t actually committed fraud at all. This particular piece of fiscal sleight of hand was (p. 156) produced by the delightfully named but now both sadly deceased Professors Martin Ginsburg and Bernard Wolfman. You can safely bet your last cent these gentlemen weren’t Episcopalians. On page 160 of House Report No.454, the authors write that although the petition contained pleading claims that Ginsburg and Wolfman were “independent,” this was misleading. The authors write (p. 160): “Professor Ginsburg, husband of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was paid $66,199 for his work on the Rich case.” Wolfman was paid $30,754, after being hired as a consultant by one of Rich’s firms and paid between $300 and $400 per hour. Nor did they come to their conclusions independently of each other — “rather they worked jointly.” The authors add (161) that “Ginsburg and Wolfman sold their names to the highest bidder.” Of course, none of this has been mentioned in the gushing obituaries afforded to both men by such prestigious journals as the Harvard Law Review. Wolfson and Ginsburg weren’t the only ones on the take.

Between 1993 and 2000 Denise Rich, ex-wife of Marc Rich, gave over $1 million to the Democrats (p. 175), and between 1998 and 2000 she gave $450,000 to the Clinton Library (p. 176). Ehud Barak led a lobbying effort to Clinton in 2000, and claimed (pp. 188, 643) in a phone call to the President on December 11, 2000 that Rich was guilty only of “violating certain rules of the game.” Oh, is this the game in which U.S. taxpayers were illegally deprived of over $100 million, and only Israel and diaspora Jewry benefited? Gee I love that game, can we play again?

Once the petition was lodged, Jewish America’s much-lauded ‘moral authority’ was brought to bear on the White House. Some wise-guy had the idea that Elie Wiesel possessed the “the moral authority” to present Rich’s case. Wiesel (p. 193) claimed to investigators that he refused these advances, not because of Rich’s obvious guilt but because “he had already written a letter requesting a commutation of Jonathan Pollard’s sentence and … felt that he could not make another request.” Didn’t want to use up all that ‘moral authority’ in one go?

Government investigators subsequently found out that Wiesel was being frugal with the truth (not for the first time in his life I suspect), and that (pp. 193–4) “while this seemingly would have been the end of Wiesel’s involvement in the Rich pardon campaign, there is evidence that it was not. Several e-mails indicate that Wiesel may have lobbied the White House”, including at meetings, and in phone calls. This ‘moral authority,’ together with all the letters, the petition, and the ‘tax analysis’ were added to the once more resurrected claim of anti-Semitism. The authors of House Report No. 454 write (p. 159) that notes from Rich’s lawyer suggest “it is possible that he raised the spectre of anti-Semitism in his last-minute appeal to the President on January 19, 2001. … It is unfortunate the President found Rich’s arguments believable — when in fact they were completely inaccurate — a fact the President could have discovered with minimal due diligence.”

Clinton caved in; the pardon was granted. Facing an outcry due to the obvious injustice of what had taken place, the day after the pardon Clinton wrote in a New York Times op-ed that he had acted under pressure “from many present and former high-ranking Israeli officials of both major political parties and leaders of Jewish communities in America and Europe.” For this openness, Clinton was accused by outraged Jewish leaders of “whipping up anti-Semitism” and “scapegoating” Jews.

Wiesel was partly telling the truth. A miserable Jonathan Pollard told investigators (p. 191) from his cell that he felt Marc Rich’s pardon came at his expense. Pollard is reported as saying “”I should have waved a dollar bill in front of them and convinced them that I had a lot of money. This is the depths to which we have sunk as a nation, that an agent has to bribe his own government to rescue him. This is how low we have sunk.” Of course, Mr. Pollard could have saved himself a lot of trouble by enlightening himself with a subscription to The Occidental Quarterly prior to his act of high treason.

So what have we learned? Well, it’s clear that the ‘moral authority’ of these organizations is a fable. We need not condemn every Jew, to demonstrate that the many Jewish figures described here constitute an extremely wealthy and cohesive criminal network of international dimensions that has and will bring immeasurable harm. Notice that the Jews aiding Marc Rich are not marginal, isolated individuals; they are Jewish elites—at the center of Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora. Financial crimes are morally acceptable within the Jewish community, as indicated by the fact that Jews like Marc R ich, Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken are pillars in the Jewish community and major donors to Jewish charities. How many of these fools would be swayed by information that the state of Israel stepped in to help a wealthy ethnic brother because he greased their palms, and because for them the interests of American taxpayers come somewhere beneath those of a bullfrog. It really doesn’t matter how closely anything we have discussed comes to echoing a ‘canard’ because all is truth and ‘canards’ are worthless — fit only for the purpose of assisting the ADL and like organizations in the delusion that they are saintly paupers wandering the earth ever in search of peace and love.

The stance of the ADL is in fact riddled with schizophrenic contradictions which the sane and informed man finds intellectually offensive. In one recent example, during a prolonged rant in Abraham Foxman’s Jews & Money: The Story of a Stereotype, the ADL director claims that, “Jews are just another ethnic minority,”[1] and yet in the same chapter writes: “the Jewish federation movement makes up one of the ten largest charitable organizations in the United States. Bear in mind that Jews constitute just under 2 percent of the total population of the country”[2]; “Jewish foundations represent almost 18 percent of the total 39,000 private foundations identified by the Foundation Centre — another enormous disproportion in view of the tiny size of the Jewish population”[3]; “Jews have enjoyed success in the business world out of proportion to their share of the population”[4]; and that in relation to Jews in the media and Hollywood “the idea that Jews are unusually successful does have a grain of truth.”[5]

Just a grain Mr. Foxman? While we’re at it we may as well call the Sahara a sandbox, and Titanic a bath toy.

You see, according to Mr. Foxman and the ADL, Jews are at one and the same time “just another ethnic minority” and nothing at all like any other ethnic minority. The “rules of the game” are a little different for them. You might say they are equal — just a little more equal than the rest of us.

Take care in your interpretation of this puzzle wrapped inside an enigma, for your ‘interpretation’ may have harmful ‘potential,’ and this ‘potential’ is another bargaining chip on which our peaceful paupers like to trade. Conceptually, this contradiction is similar to the practice of Jewish organizations which ‘exile’ from the ‘community’ those few of their ethnic brothers and sisters who may see fit to criticize the Jewish ‘way of life’ or the actions of the Israeli government. Eliminating the ideological outsiders, of course, leaves a more or less ideologically homogenous rump. But woe to the man who implies that all Jews are alike. Enforcing homogeneity and criticizing the acknowledgment of that homogeneity go hand in hand for these dreamers. You might say that organized Jewry is diverse — just differently diverse from the rest of us. I have no patience for such dreamers, particularly when their deception and self-deception comes at the expense of my people.

At the conclusion of Mr. Foxman’s epic tome, he almost plagiarises Kevin Macdonald when he writes: “We all have that grain of tribal loyalty inside us that makes us care just that little bit more about ‘people like us’ than about ‘those others.’ Maybe it has evolutionary roots: There may have been adaptive value to behaviors that increased the survival of ‘my’ genes as opposed to those of the people in the next valley. … It’s usually expressed in such forms as our love for a culture and traditions we find familiar and beautiful, the pride we feel about accomplishments by members of our group, and the desire to see what is best about our heritage preserved and extended into future generations.”[6]

Hear, hear Mr. Foxman, but forgive me if I doubt your sincerity. You and your organizations, pockets bulging with finances of dubious origin, have never shown the slightest acceptance of our desire to preserve our heritage and our people.

I’ll close, as I began, with some words from the noble Marcus Aurelius:

If someone can prove me wrong and show me my mistake in any thought or action, I shall gladly change. I seek the truth, which never harmed anyone: to harm is to persist in one’s self-deception and ignorance. 
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Six, Verse 21.

In my humble opinion, one of the most intriguing features of the posturing of the Anti-Defamation League, and other Jewish ethnic activist organizations, is their frequent discussion of what they call ‘canards.’ There are, I am informed, many ‘canards’ ranging from allegations that ‘the Jews’ killed God and mutilated communion wafers, to allegations that Jews control the media and have inordinate influence in the areas of culture and politics.

For many years I had been vaguely aware of this list of ‘canards’, and one or two things had consistently bothered me about it. For a start, the many attempts by Jewish writers to lay emphasis on the importance and impact of superstition appeared to me to be little more than crude efforts to shift the blame for ethnic conflict onto Christianity and an allegedly ‘irrational’ populace, and away from some of the harsher realities of resource competition in the Middle Ages. While I have no doubt that the so-called ‘Blood Libel’ contributed to violent actions taken against Jews, I have never been convinced that this charge, and others like it, was in any way sufficient in itself to spark violence. Even adopting the mentality of the age, thickly populated with tales of spectres and demons, it is difficult to imagine that the animosity which arose was rooted solely in such charges.

In fact, I am completely convinced by the theory of respected historian and folklorist Gillian Bennett, who argues that “where accusations of ritual murder were made in this period…it is more probable that they were cause celebres around which anti-Jewish feeling could crystallize, rather than the cause of anti-Semitism in the first place.”[1] The posturing of Jewish ethnic activists about the ‘potency’ of this particular set of ‘canards’, both in the past and the present, can be attributed to their desire to deceive others and themselves.

Advertisement

---

The second problem that I had with this fixed set of ‘canards’ was that it was apparent to me that the question of whether Jews were supernatural ‘demons,’ and the question of Jewish over-representation in the media or at elite universities, were clearly worlds apart — the former simply ridiculous and the latter capable of being empirically examined and, at least in theory, logically and rationally discussed.

Put simply, there was a patently obvious incongruence between, on the one hand the superstitious and extinct, and on the other, the obviously live question of Jewish influence in contemporary society. But time and again I found them bundled together on the same lists of ‘anti-Semitic’ tropes, and discussed in the same breath by committed ethnic activists as if they were in any way comparable.

I believe that self-deception plays a role here, but I have also arrived at the conclusion that the old myths serve a purpose in the present by helping to dent the credibility of legitimate grievances related to Jewish influence. By say, linking a criticism of Jewish influence in the contemporary media with a centuries-old legend that Jewish males menstruate, they can dismiss the former with all the greater ease.

One can clearly see the benefit Jewish ethnic activists can derive simply by maintaining a list of such ‘canards’ long past their expiry date. This should also act as a warning to those who think they help our cause by employing long-discredited charges and equally dubious sources.

Over time, organizations such as the ADL have come to jealously guard this list, and ‘canard’ has in fact achieved the remarkable feat of acting like a magic word — capable on deployment of making even the most blatant Jewish misdemeanor disappear. Take for example American Jews, who are no more ‘loyal’ to Israel than a Chinaman — because to suggest otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of ‘dual loyalty.’ Likewise, Jews have an unblemished record when it comes to matters financial — because to say otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of the greedy or untrustworthy Jew. Palestinian children never fall victim to Israeli incendiary devices — because to say otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of the ‘Blood Libel.’

In fact, any statement or image linking Jews with blood, death, or children — no matter how much it may be rooted in fact —  is enough to bring it within the orbit of the ‘Blood Libel,’ as I demonstrated in my review of Anthony Julius’ treatment of English literature in Trials of the Diaspora. Since any criticism of Jews is liable to fall into a minimum of one category in the ADL’s all-embracing ‘canard taxonomy’, we may conclude that this is an impressive and effective work of artifice.

The ADL, an organization which has long been linked to illegality, has been built around the concept of the ‘canard’ — it is the focus of its work and one of the foundations of its ideology. Much of its ‘research’ output and political leverage derives from ‘annual assessments,’ which measure levels of ‘anti-Semitism’ around the world. These ‘assessments’ are themselves based on obviously unscientific surveys which monitor the level of acceptance of a series of the ADL’s pre-designated yet poorly-defined ‘canards.’

One of the great contributions that Kevin Macdonald has made to our efforts to understand the thought-processes of Jewish ethnic activists, has been his emphasis on the importance of self-deception. In Separation and Its Discontents, Macdonald writes that “Jewish self-deception touches a variety of issues, including personal identity, the causes and extent of anti-Semitism, the characteristics of Jews (e.g. economic success), and the role of Jews in the political and cultural process in traditional and contemporary societies” (see here, p. 248).

The ADL’s surveys are a typical manifestation of Jewish self-deception: these surveys ignore the great prosperity of global Jewry; they ignore the almost total lack of physical or legislative actions directed against Jews around the globe; they ask loaded or closed questions, and conclude on no credible evidence that all Jews are disliked simply for being Jews.

Take for example, the most recent ADL survey on Attitudes Towards Jews in Ten European Countries. This survey asked respondents to describe as “probably true” or “probably false” the statements 1) Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country, 2) Jews have too much power in the business world, 3) Jews have too much power in international financial markets, 4) Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust.

How precise will the results be? What would they indicate? Is the methodology even reliable? The introduction of ambiguous terms like probably, and obviously vague value judgments like too much (how much is too much?) allow for any number of conclusions to be derived from the data. And of course, this is precisely why this methodology has been adopted.

G.A. Tobin of Brandeis University at least concedes, in an otherwise execrable article on “Jewish Perceptions of Antisemitism and Antisemitic Perceptions about Jews,” that studies such as those carried out by the ADL and the American Jewish Committee are littered with “analytical problems,” not least the fact that “asking whether statements are ‘probably true’ or ‘probably false’ is too vague.”[2] What poor critics they are of themselves.

The limitations imposed on the question simply by virtue of its structure consequently impose limits on the scope of the answers. By asking questions about “Jews” rather than “some Jews,” or better yet, “influential Jews,” respondents are also goaded into giving a categorical answer which, while closer to their opinions on the subject, is still not an accurate or suitably complex representation of their true thoughts on the matter.

The same approach is often employed in attacks on individuals and organizations committed to White interests who, in their attempts to raise the issue of Jewish influence, are smeared as attacking, de facto, every Jew on earth. As to whether this is a deliberate handicapping of the respondent, I refer readers to the erudite E.R. Emmet’s comments in his classic Learning to Philosophize (1968), in which he states that “questions that are leading or loaded are usually so by the intention of the questioner in the particular circumstances. He who asks is generally aware, to some extent at least, of the suggestive nature of what he is doing.”[3] When you are trying to paint a portrait of extremism, it helps to inhibit the opportunity for a picture of reason and moderation to emerge.

Returning to the issue of the ADL’s ‘canards,’ what do they really tell us? Evidence indicates that positive answers to these questions, far from illustrating irrational ‘hatred’ on the part of the respondent, points to a higher degree of familiarity with the facts. In relation to the question of ‘loyalty’ to Israel for example, which attracted the highest number of positive responses, it is worth bearing in mind the latest report on Jewish attitudes towards Israel compiled by the UK-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research. In this report, conducted under more stringent conditions than anything produced by the ADL, it is said that “the vast majority of respondents exhibit strong personal support for, and affinity with, Israel: 95% have visited the country, 90% see it as ‘the ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people, and 86% feel that Jews have a special responsibility for its survival.” For 82% of surveyed Jews, Israel played a ‘central’ or ‘important’ role in their Jewish identities, 72% described themselves as Zionists, 87% said that although they lived in Britain, they were part of a larger Jewish Diaspora, 76% said that Israel was relevant to their day-to-day lives in Britain.

This is an astonishing degree of consensus.

Organizations like the ADL cling very tightly to the use of the word ‘loyalty’ when discussing Israel, primarily because it is another one of those usefully emotive, baggage-laden terms that lends itself easily to the concept of a ‘canard.’ By bringing these words into the discussion they dictate its trajectory and tone, and by constantly bringing the word ‘loyalty’ to bear on the discussion of Jewish attitudes to Israel, the ADL thus forces the issue into the territory of emotional polemic. From there it is easily relegated to the fringes of ‘acceptable’ political discourse, and is thus neutralized as a political issue.

However, as crude as the tactic is, it can be overcome just as crudely. Let us dispose of the term entirely. Examining the data, can we not still see that the vast majority of Jews in England hold attitudes towards Israel which are bound to be strikingly different than those held by the average non-Jewish Englishman? As someone who believes that there will necessarily be a conflict of interests on this issue, the acknowledgment by Jewish organizations that they hold fundamentally different attitudes and outlooks from non-Jews on this subject, and the public discussion of the implications of this difference, is all I seek.

Clouding the debate with talk of ‘loyalty’ only serves to obfuscate an otherwise clear fact — let us then see things in plain truth and state that based on this set of evidence, Jews, as a group, differ radically from non-Jewish Whites in the way they see Israel and their role in a global diaspora. The notion of a ‘confluence of interests’ so cherished and propagated by a collection of activists, who are noisier than they are intelligent, is nothing but a myth.

Not that I expect a survey of Jewish attitudes to change the mind of the ADL. To present an example of how one of these people responds when presented with the facts, consider Henry Feingold’s response in his awful Jewish Power in America: Myth and Reality to documented proof of inordinate Jewish funding of both the Democrats and Republicans: “Over 60 percent of the campaign funds collected by the Democratic Party and a respectable percentage of Republican campaign funds stem from Jewish sources. But precisely what this means in terms of enhancing influence is difficult to determine.”[4] Come now Mr. Feingold — let’s not play the goysihe kop!

How many more blatant truths, easily backed by evidence, lie behind the ADL’s many ‘canards’? And how much more clearly will the situation appear when we dispense further with the language of the ADL?

In this essay, I want to probe some more of these ‘canards’ and subject the ADL’s contention that they are simple fabrications to cold scrutiny. Be warned — there are ‘canards’ aplenty ahead: among others we will cover Jews and money; Jewish influence in high places; ethnic networking on a global scale; the perverted use of Holocaust-derived moral capital; the manipulation of the President of the United States of America; and even the role of Israel as a haven for Jewish crooks. My chief source for the exploration that we are about to embark upon, is not, as Mr. Foxman might have you believe, some obscure decaying document from deepest Eastern Europe. We do not deal in fossils here. I prefer those sources which cannot be so easily dismissed, and for the present discussion I have selected a report authored by government investigators acting in the name of the United States Congress. House Report No. 454: Justice Undone, Clemency Decisions in the Clinton White House, United States Congressional Set, No. 14778, Volumes 1–2, concerns the elaborate Jewish campaign surrounding the Presidential pardon given to Marc Rich in 2001. Some of its revelations are remarkable. To ensure the maximum transparency of my methodology and the facts presented here, I draw the attention of all concerned that this document is publicly available, as well as being viewable online. Let’s begin.

For our purposes, the sordid story of commodities traders Marc Rich and Pincus Green began in 1983 when Federal Prosecutor Rudy Giuliani indicted both on charges of tax evasion and illegally trading with Iran. The pair, both Jewish, were indicted while in Switzerland and they refused to return to the United States. According to the authors of House Report No. 454, the Department of Energy issued clear warnings to oil resellers in the early 1980s that they were not to profit by more than $0.20 per barrel. However, according to investigators (p.158), “Rich and Green made profits far in excess of that limitation but created fraudulent invoices and filed false reports to hide about $100 million in illegal profits from both DOE and the IRS. In other words, Rich and Green were engaged in classic criminal financial fraud.” Most of the fake invoices were created in co-operation with West Texas Marketing, in a move described (p.157) by the authors of House Report No. 454 as “clearly intended to contravene the regulations and perpetrate tax fraud against the United States.”

Dear Reader, though we have just begun this journey, I regret to inform you that we have already, despite our best intentions, strayed into ‘canard’ territory. Apparently, there are myriad ‘stereotypes’ about Jews and money — and foremost among them is the notion that Jews tend to be dishonest in business. I have no idea how such an idea could have taken root, but fearful that this case involving Rich and Green might confirm the ‘stereotype,’ I rushed to get a copy of Abraham Foxman’s meticulously scholarly Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype. On page ninety-nine of this intellectual tour de force, the jovial Mr. Foxman assures me that “Jewish religion and tradition are exceptional on the world stage for the special emphasis they give to generosity, charity, and fair economic dealings with one’s fellow human beings.”[5]

Exceptional he says! I breathed a sigh of relief only to realize that Mr. Foxman hadn’t provided any credible argument or evidence that this was the case. In fact, his heart-warming quip didn’t chime at all with the first chapter of his book, in which Foxman can name only one Jew who he deems to have been ‘fair’ in matters financial — Aaron Feuerstein of Malden Mills fame. Unfortunately, the sainthood conferred upon this apparently altruistic icon by a fawning publicity machine has been capably deconstructed by Thomas Teal of Oregon State University, so I was back where I began.

Strangely, Foxman found it remarkably easy to think of Jewish businessmen who have been ‘unfair’ in matters financial — listing Bernard Madoff, Michael Milken, and Ivan Boeksy in a New York minute.[6]  Of course, Mr. Foxman is being more than a little frugal here (sorry, another ‘canard’ — it’s like trying to walk across a floor covered in mousetraps).

Now, I think it’s important to state that many non-Jews have also been involved in financial fraud. However, I would posit that interesting common features of specifically Jewish instances of financial fraud are that they are normally based on the ponzi scheme model, and the amount of money concerned is usually much larger. Don’t take my word for it, just look at the cases of Samuel ‘Mouli’ Cohen, Scott Rothstein, Steve Cohen and Michael Steinberg, Maurice ‘Hank’ Greenberg, Eric Stein, Eliyahu Weinstein, Sam Israel, Samuel D. Waksal, Martin Frankel, Simon Feldman, Jeffrey Greenstein, Solomon Dwek, Cary Feldman, Sholam Weiss, Chaim Mayer Lebovits, David and Donna Levy, Frederick D. Berg, Lou Pearlman, Andrew Rosenfeld, and Timothy Roth.

Of course, these higher profile cases don’t include the thousands of frankly ridiculous smaller-scale frauds based on the classic insurance scam model. Take for instance the case of Raymond Roth, who faked his own drowning. Or how about Jews in medicine committing fraud? Have a look at the insurance scam of pharmacist Donald Levine; or David Silverstein, the wealthy Washington chiropractor who decided that making fraudulent welfare claims could pad his lifestyle a little more. Georgia chiropractor Andrew Sokol made over $6.5 million before he got caught. New Jersey chiropractor Scott Greenberg made more than half a million dollars in insurance scams before he got caught. Another New Jersey chiropractor, Daniel Dahan, almost made it to $4 million. Remind me to avoid getting a back injury in New Jersey…

Going back in time doesn’t help matters. There we find incidents like the Indian Silver Scandal perpetrated by the firm of Samuel and Montagu, as well as the Marconi share price fixing scandal (see also Edmund Connelly’s “The Culture of Deceit“).  I’m left with the impression that the only thing likely to get ‘lighter’ around these representatives of the  ‘light unto the nations’ is my wallet. Of course, I’m attributing the behavior of all these individuals solely to a failure to get that memo about the “special emphasis” that, according to Mr. Foxman, Judaism places on “fair economic dealings with one’s fellow human beings.”

Go to Part Two.

For an alternative view, which blames Gov. Ronald Reagan’s actions in 1969 for UC’s current problems (!!!), see “Reagan and the fall of UC” by Seth Rosenfeld (LATimes, 5/10/2013.) Rosenfeld ignores the budget crisis since 2008 and the massive diversity bureaucracy and lowered standards for faculty and students targeted by MacDonald. Obviously intended to promote his book (which condemns the FBI’s  role in resisting 1960s student radicalism), Rosenfeld paints a fantasy world where one might be led to believe that UC is being destroyed by a shadowy conspiracy put into motion by Reagan and somehow continuing to the present despite the fact that California is Exhibit A for the dominance of the multicultural left throughout state government. As MacDonald shows, this dominance of the multicultural left is obvious at UC (and, one might add, pretty much every other American university).

There is so much to like in MacDonald’s article, beginning with her comments on Peter Schrag, an op-ed writer for the Sacramento Bee, who claimed that the university needs more money so that it can pass on the tradition of a whole lot of dead White folks. MacDonald responds:

Stingy state taxpayers aren’t endangering the transmission of great literature, philosophy, and art; the university itself is. No UC administrator would dare to invoke Schrag’s list of mostly white, mostly male thinkers [including Madison and Jefferson,  Melville, Dickinson and Hawthorne; Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer; Dante and Cervantes; Charlotte Brontë and Jane Austen; Goethe and Molière; Mozart, Rembrandt and Michelangelo; Plato and Aristotle, Homer and Sophocles and Euripides,  Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky] as an essential element of a UC education; no UC campus has sought to ensure that its undergraduates get any exposure to even one of Schrag’s seminal thinkers (with the possible exception of Toni Morrison), much less to America’s founding ideas or history.

Rather than requiring a focus on Western civilization, the only undergrad requirement at Berkeley is  a course involving “theoretical or analytical issues relevant to understanding race, culture, and ethnicity in American society” administered by “Berkeley’s ever-expanding Division of Equity and Inclusion.”

Advertisement

---

MacDonald’s  basic point:

There are two Universities of California: UC One, a serious university system centered on the sciences (though with representatives throughout the disciplines) and still characterized by rigorous meritocratic standards; and UC Two, a profoundly unserious institution dedicated to the all-consuming crusade against phantom racism and sexism that goes by the name of “diversity.”

UC Two is the bastion of the multicultural, anti-White left. It’s a place where

•  deans reject job searches if the short list of candidates only includes White males;
•  ”diversity bureaucrats with Masters degrees and no teaching or research responsibilities can earn over $200,000 per year to be ever vigilant for rare instances of diversity-related unpleasantness;
• “borderline but qualified” candidates exhibiting  non-White cultural vibrancy are favored over White males—qualified meaning that you somehow got a Ph.D. and are breathing;
• failing to find even a borderline candidate who is appropriately diverse, the university will create special “excellence” positions (a beautifully Orwellian term, as MacDonald notes) for people who just happen to not be White males;
•  ”in 2011, Berkeley’s $200,000-a-year vice chancellor for equity and inclusion presided over an already princely staff of 17; by 2012, his realm had ballooned to 24″;
• there is a huge and costly infrastructure to support the many diverse students admitted through various dodges around California’s law prohibiting discrimination on  the basis of race (i.e.,  race-based affirmative action) and who are unable to deal with even the watered down academic course load in UC Two; e.g.: “UCLA’s $300 million Division of Undergraduate Affairs, with nary a professor in sight, is a typical support-services accretion, stuffed with ‘retention’ specialists and initiatives for ‘advancing student engagement in diversity.’”
•  ”campuses are filled … with docile [docile? more like aggressive, hostilely anti-White, morally crusading] administrators whose only purpose is swaddling students in services and fending off imaginary threats to those students’ fragile identities”;
•  courses like “’Lives of Struggle: Minorities in a Majority Culture,’ from the African-American studies department, which examines ‘the many forms that the struggle of minorities can assume’”;
• “every three years, representatives from departmental hiring committees at UCLA must attend a seminar on ‘unconscious bias’ in order to be deemed fit for making hiring decisions”;
• despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent, there has never been “a scintilla of proof that faculty or administrator bias is holding professors or students back”;
• “UC San Diego hired its first vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion. This new diversocrat would pull in a starting salary of $250,000, plus a relocation allowance of $60,000, a temporary housing allowance of $13,500, and the reimbursement of all moving expenses.

Regarding this last gem, MacDonald notes that the university hired this indispensable, bargain basement addition to its massive diversity bureaucracy using the services of “a pricey but appropriately ‘diverse’ female-owned executive search firm.” This is something that we at TOO have noted before: Diversity entrepreneurs, much in evidence at the recent White Privilege Conference, can make big bucks by advising on job searches in the public and private sectors or hiring themselves out to firms needing to show they have their hearts in the right place, thereby fending off lawsuits from the many classes of aggrieved diversity victims.

Three cheers for UC One. But UC Two is a paradigm of our corrupt new elite, intent on hiring and promoting as many people like themselves as possible and with no concern for academic excellence. White males (apart from openly declared homosexuals) need not apply. (I  rather doubt that Mark Yudoff, who keeps Kosher, loves Israel, and is president of the UC system, identifies as a White male; and check out his outrageous salary and pension deal.) And White females are sure to be far less desirable than non-White women.

The university as a microcosm of the dispossession of White America.

A letter from the unions to Bruce Karsh, the president of the company that is the largest present shareholder, stated that the Koch brothers were “”anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-public education and anti-immigrant.” As noted in the above article, there is no evidence that the Koch brothers are anti-immigrant, and aren’t all these issues open to more than one point of view?

Darrell Steinberg, President Pro Tem of the California State Senate said,   “I believe newspapers are a public trust. The Los Angeles Times has a long and respected tradition of community leadership and impartiality. The Koch brothers have a long and demonstrated history of a rigid political ideology.”

For anyone familiar with the LATimes, calling it impartial is ridiculous. It would be more accurate to label it far left, most notably for being completely on board with open borders, amnesty, and citizenship for anyone who wants to come to America.

The argument of the unions is just as far-fetched. Since they are public employee unions, none of their members would ever work for the LATimes. But public employee pension deals are well-known to be the major cause of California’s dire fiscal situation and these unions are very generous with political donations to all levels of California politics, so it’s nice to have liberals in charge of the media. The unions have threatened to remove pension funds from the financial management company that now owns the Times.

And of course there’s an activist movement called Courage Campaign headed by Rick Jacobs that takes out ads urging subscribers to cancel subscriptions.

But the good news is that there would likely be legal issues if a public company took a lower bid, since it would not be in the shareholders’ interests.

The bottom line is that the liberal bias of the media is far from an accident. Notice that there is no campaign against Rupert Murdoch, who is seen as a conservative and has also been mentioned as a possible buyer. Murdoch’s views on immigration and Israel apparently make him entirely acceptable to liberals. And rest assured that the bid from Eli Broad and Ron Burkle will not run into any problems at all from the activists.

Does most “movement” “activism” do any good?  All the blog posting and endless commenting, online debating and flamewars, ethnic fetishism, Gnostic traditionalism, esoteric nitpicking, Hitlerian hobbyism, etc. — does it actually achieve anything?  Do the majority of “activists” actually positively and productively contribute to the cause?  Or, is it more accurate to say that activist productivity is derived from the work of a minority, that the focused work of this minority produces what little progress the “movement” has, while the vast bulk of activity is irrelevant, or even counter-productive?

We have limited resources and are up against globalist elites and organized ethnics with enormous resources at their disposal.  In this mismatched battle, only high efficiency, smart tactics, thoughtful strategy, and a focused effort on productive activity can have any hope whatsoever of achieving our objectives.  It is clear, therefore, that the Pareto Principle applies to racial nationalism. A careful consideration of how to better and more efficiently apply our efforts will be all to the good.  Can we more effectively utilize our time, money, effort, and other resources to actualize our goals in the most productive manner possible?

Advertisement

---

The first objective would be to realize that a large amount of racial nationalist “activity” is a complete waste of time and resources; second, to identify which activities yield the maximum payoff per unit effort; and third, to develop the discipline to concentrate on that which is effective and eschew efforts that at best would yield only marginal gains.  Thus, we need to identify and pursue the “20%” of effort that yields “80%” of the results, while avoiding the “80%” of the effort that would at best yield the “20%” marginal gains.

I did not have any single “epiphany” regarding this idea, but I was led in this direction to a large extent in my thinking about the relevance of population genetics, biological race, and genetic interests to racial nationalism.  Many readers know that the work of Frank Salter on genetic interests has had a profound influence on my own worldview, and that I have been promoting and extending (e.g., “genetic structure) Salter’s concept for some time.  In Salter’s work, genetic interests are based upon genetic kinship; that is, relative gene sharing. Over the last few years, after rereading Salter’s On Genetic Interests (OGI), and after a period of thinking on this subject, a fundamental point became obvious.  If genetic interests are, as Salter argues, ultimate interests (I believe they are), and if genetic interests are based upon genetic kinship (which they are), then the only metric of biological race that is of true relevance to ultimate interests is genetic kinship.

General population genetics studies, admixture, ancestral proportions, NRY and mitochondrial DNA haplotypes, racial history — all of that may be interesting from scientific, historical, and anthropological perspectives. But from the fundamental perspective of ultimate interests, from the perspective of practical biopolitics, all or most of that is at best marginal and at worst irrelevant.  A properly measured evaluation of genetic kinship, which must include genetic structure, will by its nature take into account the various mechanisms and types of (autosomal) genetic variation. An accurate accounting of genetic kinship will yield a quantitative metric that constitutes the basic essence of genetic interests and can be used to evaluate the relative merits of different ethnoracial possibilities.  Consistent with the Pareto Principle, measures of genetic kinship require a minority of effort compared to more broad analyses on biological race, but yield the majority of the biopolitical relevance. All else — all the studies, debates, and nitpicking analyses — constitute a diminishing marginal utility; these other metrics constitute the majority of the effort but yield little, if any, additional biopolitical value.  Therefore, it can be argued that the vast majority of “movement” discussion concerning genotypes and phenotypes, racial history and so forth is, from the practical perspective, a monumental waste of time.  That effort would be better spent devising and implementing better metrics for genetic kinship and then interpreting those measurements for biopolitical analysis.

I imagine some readers will point out that I myself have been guilty of the very thing I critique here: genetic nitpicking, over-analysis of population genetics, debates about racial history, arguing for or against various forms of commercial gene testing, ad nauseum.  That’s true.  Mea culpa. In fact, it is my realization of the time so wasted that brought home to me the importance of the Pareto Principle for maximizing efficiency.

Now, of course, there is a place for “racial science” and population genetics — a narrow place, to achieve focused goals. Occasionally, racial delusions promoted by (most frequently) the Left, but also (sometimes, regrettably) the Right, require critical analysis.  That is particularly needed when the delusions negatively impact the pursuit of genetic interests.  No doubt, a minority of the effort on “racial science” has some positive effect (for example, debunking race denial).  But, for the most part, it has been, is, and always will be, a colossal waste of time and resources.  Biopolitics based on genetic kinship is more important, and this “biopolitics argument” is not just pulled out of thin air, but logically derives from Salter’s work.  Of course, someone who does not highly value that work, does not know about it, or completely disagrees with its premises, will not care to derive fundamental principles from it.  However, I know that many activists do indeed know about, agree with, and value Salter’s genetic interests concept.  I certainly do; therefore, henceforth, with respect to biological race and ultimate interests, I will predominantly concentrate on genetic kinship, as opposed to marginal issues of limited or no value to core biopolitical concerns.

The “human biodiversity” (HBD) craze is also relevant to this discussion.  There is nothing wrong with an interest in that topic, and some interesting HBD-related work has been done.  But HBD does not really contribute to a measure of ultimate interests.  Salter writes in OGI that any group has an interest in its own continuity independent on where it ranks — or where others think it ranks — on a suite of phenotypic traits.  And that is correct, since genetic kinship, and not a phenotypic rank, determines genetic interests.  It is also a falsehood to assert that pursuit of White nationalism requires HBD, since some HBDers are hostile to White nationalism; the “Gene Expression” blog and Steve “citizenism” Sailer are two leading examples.  On the other hand, an emphasis on genetic interests and genetic kinship leads one directly to racial nationalism, since genetic kinship is correlated to population group (e.g., race) membership.  In contrast, other traits (e.g., high IQ leading to “cognitive elitism”) can cut across racial lines and hence undermine racial solidarity and the pursuit of ultimate interests. Cui bono?  Certainly Jews and East Asians benefit, while kinship-based racialism suffers.  Therefore, applying the Pareto Principle and concentrating on genetic kinship leads to racial nationalism, while dwelling on the marginal aspects of racial discourse (e.g., HBD) leads to maladaptive misdirection.  Following the Pareto Principle, this can be summarized more economically: less Sailer, more Salter.

The same basic principle also applies to cultural issues and, above all, applies to actual racial nationalist activism.  Thinking back to my past participation on group blogs, I spent the least amount of time writing blog posts, and a majority of the time reading comments, answering comments, and engaging in useless and irrelevant debates and “flamewars.”  Based upon feedback, it was quite obvious that the minority of my effort (writing blog posts) was yielding the maximum impact in spreading ideas, while the majority of my effort (dealing with commentators) had no lasting impact whatsoever.  In fact, much online activism similarly constitutes wasted time — it is essentially a form of intellectual onanism that has zero influence on the society at large, zero influence on decision-making elites, zero or negative influence in recruiting useful individuals, and zero or negative influence in achieving long range goals.  I believe that an honest assessment of most movement activities will yield the same sorry picture: the majority of time, effort, and money are wasted, and only specific focused activity actually yields a productive outcome.

Smart and successful politicians instinctively follow the Pareto Principle.  Electoral politics — winning politics — usually revolve around a small number of “hot button” issues that galvanize the base, target key voting blocs, and are simple and straightforward enough to be catchy slogans (“it’s the economy, stupid”).  True enough that most winning politicians are outright liars and frauds, but the point is that they are successful.  They concentrate on the essentials and disregard the margins. On the other hand, “policy wonks” with their detailed white papers rarely make good politicians.  Regardless of whether or not they have good policies, the “wonks” are outcompeted by crafty politicians who invest time and resources where they payoff is greatest.  This principle also applies to so-called “metapolitics.” It may well be fascinating to discuss “traditionalism” and the “kali yuga” but the reality is that, given our limited resources, a metapolitical/cultural approach that aims at achieving real and practical objectives had better concentrate on the work of Kevin MacDonald and Alex Kurtagic, as opposed to dissecting the pontifications of a Julius Evola or a Savitri Devi.  Too much of what passes for “traditionalist thought” in racial activism is marginal discourse of no interest to anyone other than fellow specialized traditionalists, and of no utility in achieving racial nationalist goals.

Value to our cause is therefore related to the extent to which primary issues are focused on.  For example, the power of the work of Kevin MacDonald and Frank Salter is derived from the Pareto Principle.  There are many causes of White decline; however, surely, the influence of Jews, and their pursuit of a Diaspora group evolutionary strategy, ranks high among the predominant mechanisms behind the collapse of White America and White interests worldwide.  Hence, MacDonald’s analyses of the Jewish question gets to the core of the problem, bypassing marginal issues like “the Federal Reserve,” the Khazar question, etc.  Likewise, as explained above, Salter’s genetic interests concept pierces through the morass of population genetics studies and counter studies, of debates and discussions, and focuses upon genetic kinship as the key metric of biopolitical relevance. Work that clarifies and simplifies has power, work that complicates and obscures does not.

Of course, this is not a call to disregard careful analysis and jump right into quick, shallow, and superficial conclusions.  However, while analysis is good, there can be too much of a good thing.  Analysis is important, getting the analysis correct is important; I agree it cannot be rushed.  But, let us be honest — if a blog or group cannot reach any consensus whatsoever on even the most elementary of issues after years and years of debate and discussion, that is a problem.  Clearly, that suggests a lack of focus, too much time spent on marginal issues — endless debate that is an end to itself rather than a means to an end. Applying the Pareto Principle would mean prioritizing the most important issues first; it would mean investing in those contributors who have the most productive impact rather than catering to trolls and morons; it would mean concentrating on basic issues and not on side-shows.

The Pareto Principle also suggests listening closely to Kurtagic’s emphasis on irrationality as a motivating factor.  If “fascist aesthetics” can motivate more than hundreds of pages of dry intellectual analysis, then start off with the aesthetics.  Attract the people and then inform them of the facts once they have fallen into the nationalist orbit.  A prime reason why the work of Francis Parker Yockey has power, despite the many errors of fact and logic than can be found within that work, is because of its aura of almost supernatural idealism.  Marx motivated the revolt against civilization with The Communist Manifesto much more so than with Das Kapital; Yockey can more effectively motivate the revolt for Western Civilization and for the White Race with Imperium and the Proclamation of London compared to piles of erudite HBD studies.

This praise of “irrational Yockeyism” in no way takes away from the importance of the more academic work of MacDonald and Salter, for two reasons.  First, once converts are attracted to our side, they will need the intellectual firepower to understand and to extend their worldview; second, for some fraction of the people we want to convert, particularly the more intellectual professional types, the work of MacDonald and Salter is itself an attractive and motivating force, particularly compared to, e.g., a statistical analysis of race differences in crime rates or IQ.  After all, some HBDers have labeled ethnic genetic interests as “irrational.”  I disagree, but the point is illustrated: what may be “dry intellectualism” to the masses may be a powerful motivating force for the intellectual.  Or, perhaps, those intellectuals were attracted to the work of MacDonald and Salter because they (as Kurtagic suggests) were already primed to do so by more “irrational” motivations (like reading Yockey)?  In any case, different target audiences can be reached by varied motivational devices.  Choosing the correct device for the correct audience maximizes efficiency and is consistent with the fundamental premise of the Pareto Principle.

Do we need to work harder?  Maybe, but we certainly have to work smarter.  Do we need to work longer?  Maybe, but we do need to work better, and more efficiently.  Do we need to invest more money and resources in activism?  Certainly not into the usual bottomless pits, the black holes that are “all drain and no gain.”

After all, we can use the Pareto Principle to diagnose some of the reasons why the pro-White Right fails time and time again, while the anti-White Left goes from strength to strength: the Left practices the Pareto Principle while the White Right does not.  The Left invests its (massive) resources in practical undertakings of world historical importance: completely controlling the political, social, and economic discourse and activity in the West; flooding the West with untold millions of aliens; increasing legal immigration quotas while pushing for illegal alien amnesties; infiltrating academia and the professions; enforcing social pricing against dissidents; and never compromising or surrendering on core principles.  The White Right wastes scarce resources indulging in conservative compromises; obsessing over Third Reich history; agonizing over Fst values of 0.014 vs. 0.015 or over sub-fractional levels of admixture; pontificating over Guenon or Mishima; debating the racial phenotypes of Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans; elucidating the “value” of Heidegger’s work on “being” for racial nationalism; engaging in Asiaphilic HBD fetishism; waving around Confederate flags or wearing swastika armbands — need I go on?  The Left controls the present to shape the future, the White Right squabbles amongst itself over the dusty remains of the past.  It is an unequal contest, with the outcome a foregone conclusion.

By engaging in serious politics and portraying themselves as prime movers on the stage of World History, the Left are seen as (as Kurtagic suggests) “Masters of the Universe,” while the Right, gibbering about Evola’s ideas on Hindu spiritualism, or relative Fst vales, or Heidegger, or Pericles’ cephalic index, look like a bunch of nutty cranks.  Who are people going to listen to?  Following the Pareto Principle would not only make us more efficient, but would have the side-effect of making us look more serious, effective, and more able to attract converts.

If we in America need to look at a model that can help inform more efficient choices in activist options, the Golden Dawn in Greece would be a good start.  There are of course differences between their situation and ours.  Nevertheless, if given a choice on how to spend our limited resources, we should choose politics over metapolitics (see next paragraph for clarification), power over intellectual agonizing, and analog real-world activity over digital pontificating (admitting that this essay itself is digital pontificating).  The racial crisis takes place in the real world of flesh-and-blood people, not in the digital world of electronic bits mimicking personal interaction.  There certainly is a place for metapolitics (as defined here) and digital activism.  But those are means to ends, not ends themselves.  The real meaning of activism is the pursuit of “politics” in its broadest sense — and I say that as an individual who personally detests “politics” and prefers science/technics.  Unfortunately, we are in a position where we are given little choice.  The Pareto Principle points us towards those activities in which the least unit of work would yield the greatest unit of positive outcome.  Ultimately, to deal with real-world problems, one needs eventually to actualize their idealism into some sort of “political” work.  That’s the 20% that yields the 80%.

Keep in mind of course that what some call “metapolitics” — creating politicized cultural artifacts, community building, cadre-building, constructing alternative political infrastructures, etc. — is part of what I call “politics.”  There is a serious misconception that “politics” refers only to contesting elections.  That is false: as Yockey states, politics is any activity related to the pursuit of power, and power can be achieved in ways other than electoral success.  To my view, all of Golden Dawn’s activities are “political” — not only running candidates in elections.  So, to properly understand the point of this essay, and to understand its prescriptions, it is important to realize the manner in which I define “politics” vs. “metapolitics.”  Politics is any activity in pursuit of power; metapolitics is theoretical analysis about politics (so defined).  Both are needed.  Politics without metapolitics violates the Pareto Principle because such politics runs the risk of becoming unmoored from ideological principles, so that “victory” becomes meaningless.  Meaningless victories are obviously a complete waste of time and effort.  On the other hand, metapolitics without politics is also a complete waste of time, for without attempting to achieve concrete objectives, endless theorizing is perfectly useless.  Therefore, despite the fact that I value “politics” over “metapolitics” I also mostly agree with Greg Johnson’s essay on “premature populism.”   I see the recommendations of Kurtagic and Johnson as falling mainly in the area of politics.  To my mind, creation of a pro-nationalist culture and cadre-building are politics; in contrast, agonizing over the meaning of Evola or Heidegger to “traditionalism” and “being” is metapolitics.  I’m very interested in the former and not so much interested in the latter.  Application of the Pareto Principle favors the former as well.

A movement that is itself on the margins of society cannot waste resources dealing with marginal issues and marginal individuals.  Only by focusing resources on the key points of the key issues, utilizing serious individuals with long-term objectives, can real progress be made.  I would strongly urge racial nationalist activists to seriously consider the ramifications of the Pareto Principle as they move forward.

well-off natives can afford to move to safe, pleasant white enclaves, where they may send their children to school among white native speakers of Norwegian. Less affluent citizens are not so fortunate, however, and are forced to endure the humiliation and degradation of the Multicultural behavioral sink in which their political masters have consigned them to live.

The costs for the less fortunate are dramatic. The article is important because it shows how aggressive the Muslim immigrants are, especially against the native boys. This is a Darwinian dominance struggle between males.

At TOO we often emphasize the individualism of Western societies and the collectivism of pretty much the  rest of the  world. This dichotomy is much on display here: Muslims have large social networks based on kinship and they are aggressive in groups, whereas they are cowardly when alone. The result is a very clear dominance hierarchy, with the natives at the bottom and groups of Muslims at the top. One of the informants, Andreas, says

“There is a hierarchy, where ethnic Norwegian boys are on the bottom rung on the ladder. They will be targeted unless they accede to their rules, if they don’t they become Norwegian immigrants. If a Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has is a single parent.”

An astute commenter on the article writes: “That atomisation and isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive conservative political dogma, is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.”

The  article makes clear that not only are the Norwegians forced to encounter  hostile gangs of Muslims without social support from friends and relatives, they get no support from the schools (which accommodate Muslim culture and excuse Muslim aggression as resulting from war in their native countries) or the media (which refuses to publish accounts of the reality of life on the streets). (It should also be noted that the justice system fails native Norwegians by giving out lenient punishment and failing to invest resources against the epidemic of Muslim men raping Norwegian women).

Advertisement

---

So the Norwegians are completely isolated. The Muslims exist in large kinship networks that aid each other in times of need. The genius of Western societies is that individualism allows the construction of civil societies where kinship ties are much less important. This is  why Syria and  Iraq cannot construct civil societies but are riven by kinship groups that are in constant conflict.

Western societies have uniquely been high-trust societies, a point made, e.g., by Francis Fukuyama and a basic corollary of the psychology of Western individualism (see here, p. 27ff). The problem is that we think that everyone is “just like us”—willing and able to set up individualist societies with democratic and republican institutions. As Ian Morris writes in his Why the West Rules—For Now, people are pretty much the same the world over (see Brenton Sanderson’s review). We want to believe this so badly that it was easy to pull off the big lie. It’s the foundational lie of multi-culturalism. (see “The Iraq Nightmare”)

But collectivism is very effective in competition against individualists within a society. This is doubtless the main reason for the success of Judaism as a collectivist culture in relatively  atomized Western societies: Ethnic networking by Jews is very effective in the intellectual world (the theme of The Culture of Critique) and all the other  centers  of power throughout the West.

Highly disciplined, cooperative groups are able to outcompete individualist strategies. Indeed, an important thread in the following chapters is that Jewish intellectuals have formed highly cohesive groups whose influence to a great extent derives from the solidarity and cohesiveness of the group. Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive groups outcompete individualist strategies. (CofC, Chapter 1, p.5)

The result is that as the collectivists become dominant, many of the individualists accept their subordination and begin to look up to the collectivists, just as so many Whites throughout the West admire Jews as a dominant group. As noted in The Culture of Critique:

Once Jews had attained intellectual predominance, it is not surprising that gentiles would be attracted to Jewish intellectuals as members of a socially dominant and prestigious group and as dispensers of valued resources. Such a perspective fits well with an evolutionary perspective on group dynamics: Gentiles negotiating the intellectual status hierarchy would be attracted to the characteristics of the most dominant members of the hierarchy, especially if they viewed the hierarchy as permeable. Writer William Barrett, a gentile editor of Partisan Review, describes his “awe and admiration” of the New York Intellectuals (a group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals discussed in Chapter 6) early in his career. “They were beings invested in my eyes with a strange and mysterious glamour” (in Cooney 1986, 227). (previous link, p. 3)

A similar phenomenon can be seen with Andreas when he encounters Muslim groups:

He lowers his gaze, he wants to be like them, talk like them, he alters his language, limits his vocabulary, makes deliberate spelling mistakes — ‘an school’, kebab-Norwegian, buys a soft gun, wants to be like the older, tougher, cool Pakistani guys that have cars and money and no job, why not become a Muslim, become a brother?

He wants to be like them, but he doesn’t become like them, something inside him is resisting.

Fragments: the bad grades in the Norwegian classes, the bad friends, Islam, he notices how they view women, as an object, how they react when he tries to discuss Islam with them, how they talk about respect, but don’t show any respect, how they refer to Norwegians as f***ing Norwegians, whitey, potato; something inside him resists.

He withdraws. They notice that he withdraws. Then it starts.

Others respond to the dominance of the Muslims with fear.

“They are afraid. They don’t dare to speak out. You should have a look at the number of principals that have come and gone at Vestliveien school in recent years, and ask them why they left. They don’t have control, but they do everything to accommodate the Muslim students. In home economics classes everybody has to prepare halal meat. Immigrants do not have to attend ‘NyNorsk’ classes [literally New-Norwegian, which is a different dialect and a different way to write Norwegian — there are two forms of written Norwegian]. I have to attend these classes. The Muslim girls do not have to attend the physical activity classes; because of course they cannot undress in front of other girls. We have to adapt to their culture. They don’t have to adapt to ours.”

Others  stand up to this onslaught, but the result  is the same:

[Marius] doesn’t lower his head. He refuses to take any crap. He answers back. He’s loudmouthed. He is who he is. It does not matter. But that’s not why they target him. It is an autumn evening in seventh grade. He is playing tennis. When he leaves the court to collect some tennis balls they appear. They are seven or eight Somalis. The beat the crap out of him, he has to get new teeth put in.

Marius doesn’t slow down. He calls a Roma girl a gypsy, something that isn’t appreciated. When her brothers and cousins come for him, he hides in the principal’s office.

And girls naturally look up to socially dominant males:

“There is one thing that annoys the hell out of me. They can start chasing Norwegian girls, but we cannot go after theirs. It’s something you learn early on. You just don’t go after a Pakistani girl, but Norwegian girls are available to immigrant boys. Norwegian girls prefer them. I don’t know why. I guess it must be that brown skin. That they are tough, that they have money despite not having jobs. They don’t see that they fight in packs, that they are cowards. I asked my best female friend if we could get romantically involved, and she told me that I have the right personality, but the problem was that I’m Norwegian. She wants to become involved with a foreigner.”

The domination of native Norwegian women by the  Muslim men is the ultimate evolutionary disaster for Norwegian men. (And, as noted in Andreus’s comment above, Muslims view women as objects, whereas in the West the position of women has always been much higher—a result of monogamy putting a damper on sexual competition among males.)

This sexual dominance is played out in little ways. When journalists accompany Andreas to the  subway station, they encounter two Muslims who stare at them. “We lower our gaze first.” Another example:  A  group of Muslims yells, “‘Hey Marius have you got yourself a girlfriend,’ and it’s not the words that are threatening, but the way they are being uttered, do you understand, how they look at me and my girlfriend who starts to cry, do you understand?”

Girls don’t want  to be with boys who are made fun of by other males.

Immigration and multiculturalism are a disaster for the West.

In modern liberal historiography, the efforts of eugenicists towards immigration restriction in the United States, which eventually led to the Immigration Act of 1924, are perceived as having been illiberal, and therefore morally in contradiction with the liberal founding principles of the North American republic. But were they really?

The Immigration Act of 1924 was chiefly authored by Albert Johnson, a Republican Congressman, who was friends with Madison Grant, and who was by then, and thanks to the auspices of Grant, deeply involved in the eugenics movement. The campaign for the legislation rested to a not insignificant degree on data collected by eugenicists (see here, here, and here), though the debate was not necessarily all about eugenics.

The Act of 1924 was, however, not the first instance of legislation aimed at excluding undesirables. Grant had also successfully campaigned for what became the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which introduced a quota formula; and for the Immigration Act of 1917, which barred illiterate immigrants over the age of 16, immigrants from South and South-East Asia and the Pacific Islands, as well as criminals, beggars, polygamists, and the mentally and physically defective.

Neither was the above legislation the only instances of immigration restriction in general. The Immigration Act of 1903 had excluded anarchists; the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 excluded the Chinese; the Immigration Act of 1882 made it possible to deny entry to ‘convicts (except those convicted of political offenses), lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges’; and the Naturalization Act of 1790, the first piece of legislation to set rules for the newly created United States, made citizenship available only to ‘free white persons’ of ‘good moral character’, following two years’ residence and once year’s state residence. (The Naturalization Act of 1795 raised the length of residence requirement to five years, and the Naturalization Act of 1798 raised it to fourteen).

Advertisement

---

From this perspective, the Immigration Act of 1924 represented the culmination of a historical tendency. It was not a new concept, since all immigration legislation is inherently restrictive: all it did was extend the number of categories to be excluded.

Also, save in the case of the most extreme egalitarian or libertarian liberals, who would do away with any kind of restriction, be it on the basis that it treats individuals unequally or on the basis that it restricts their freedom, liberalism is not incompatible with immigration restriction, since its egalitarian and libertarian tendencies are tempered by others, which are just as integral to the ideology. To elucidate the matter we must dissect liberalism. Two points before we proceed: firstly, for the purposes of this discussion I am adopting the general and proper definition of liberalism, which includes classical and modern, not the one commonly adopted by conservatives in their lamentations, which are chiefly about modern liberals and the Left; and secondly, I have provided a breakdown of the ideas associated with liberalism before, here and elsewhere, so if you already familiar with it, you may want to skip the next paragraph.

The liberal project centres on the individual. The idea behind liberalism is to ‘liberate’ the individual from anything external or transcendent to him. This obviously allows for voluntary affiliations, such as political parties or football clubs, but not for the determination of the individual by race or the supernatural. A consequence of this ‘liberation’ is a wholly material and secular world, where man is left to make his way through the use of his reason. Thus materialism and secularism obtains rationalism. Another consequence is egalitarianism, since, without notions of divinity or divine lineage, all men are equally human, and the differences between them are superficial or a matter of degree. This obtains universalism. This also calls for a system of government with the widest possible franchise: democracy. In a material and secular world, the way to a better life is through material improvement. This privileges areas where reason can be applied to this end: science, hard and soft, and within science, economics. Thus scientism and economism. And, evidently, since the better life is a question of material improvement by scientific and economic means, liberals think in terms of progress, from minus to plus, from less to more.

Liberalism is, of course, not monolithic: it has classical and modern forms. Classical liberalism—the political philosophy of the Founders—emphasised liberty, while the modern liberalism has emphasised equality. The modern libertarian movement is, thus, a form of classically leaning liberalism, whereas modern liberalism is the result of the absorption by liberalism of elements of Marxism, which began as a radically egalitarian critique of liberalism. (More on this later.)

In relation to immigration policy, several trends emerge historically. Initial legislation was underpinned by rationalist considerations, i.e., the perceived need for organising the new nation according to a set of agreed rules. During this early period, much of the landscape was ‘wild’, and, beyond the original colonies, territories were open, unexplored, and ‘unorganised’. The liberal man, which at this time meant men of a certain class and social status, had yet to impose his will on—i.e., rationalise—the landscape. Most of the European settlers and European-descendent inhabitants during this period were religious, conservative, and traditional.

During its first century, citizenship-related legislation in the United States focused on naturalisation, and it is not until 1875, with the passage of the Page Act, that the first immigration restriction of undesirables came into effect. This, like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, targeted the Chinese, who had been arriving in large numbers since the Gold Rush of 1848 in California, had generated a prostitution industry, and had come to be seen as depressing wages for the indigenous White workers. The Immigration Act of 1882 followed suit, introducing categories of undesirables for immigrants of all ethnic groups.

The bulk of restrictive legislation, however, was passed during the Progressive Era, which flourished between the 1890s and the 1920s. A chief concern during this period was addressing the perceived corruption, waste, injustices, and inefficiency of previous decades. In the United States, the eugenics movement is the product of this era.

The progressives focussed on purification and efficiency in all areas of life. This included:

• exposing corruption (e.g., the muckrakers); emphasis on science, technology, and expertise, and their application towards improving the environment, economic and social affairs, and conditions of life;
• greater democracy (e.g., women’s suffrage, direct election of senators);
• setting up municipal reference bureaus to study the budgets and administrative structures of local governments;
• strengthening the family through local and public assistance programmes;
• efforts to improve food and drug safety; advocacy of the censorship of motion pictures on moral and health grounds;
• the building of parks, in hopes of providing a wholesome environment designed to foster good morals and citizenship;
• Prohibition;
• the passing of compulsory schooling laws and emphasis on physical and health education;
• the professionalisation of medicine and medical training;
• the setting of national standards for law schools and university accreditation;
• the professionalisation of the social sciences, with an emphasis on science;
• the promotion of programmes for the Americanisation of immigrants;
• immigration restriction; and, of course, eugenics—the improvement in human quality.

Methodologically, the general theme was active intervention.

While there were divergent and competing tendencies among the progressives, the eugenics movement was far from peripheral. Elihu Root, Theodore Roosevelt, John Harvey Kellogg (Henry Ford’s physician),[1] for example, all key figures associated with the era, were friends of Madison Grant, who led the movement; while those affiliated with it, such as Henry Fairfield Osborn, Ellsworth Huntington, Charles Davenport, and David Starr Jordan, held academic positions in universities. Others, like Seth K. Humphrey, Paul Popenoe, or Lothrop Stoddard, were authors with mainstream publishers. Of the eugenicists already mentioned, not to mention Harry H. Laughlin, Roswell Johnson, Robert DeC. Ward, A. E. Wiggam, and Frederick Adams Woods, and others, all responded to Grant’s call to serve in the advisory council of the Eugenics Committee of the United States of America. Jonathan Spiro says in relation to them:

These were authors of major textbooks, editors of important journals, and quite often presidents of their professional organisations. Many of them served important roles in the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council, and six were past or future presidents of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[2]

From the description given earlier, it is easily seen that the Progressive Era was consistent with the fundamental tenets of liberalism, only it represented a tendency within liberalism that emphasised progress.

From the description given earlier, it is easily seen that the Progressive Era was consistent with the fundamental tenets of liberalism, only it represented a tendency within liberalism that emphasised progress above all else.

The aims of the American eugenics movement are also consistent with liberal ideology, despite the fact that eugencists were openly critical of radical egalitarianism and were disdainful of its proponents. One could, however, be forgiven for thinking otherwise, due to the vigour with which eugenics was embraced by National Socialist Germany, and the subsequent efforts by radical egalitarians (be it of the modern liberal or Marxian variety) to discredit eugenics as somehow inherently fascistic. Yet, there were important differences in the way the Americans and their admirers in Germany approached their respective eugenics projects.

The eugenics movement in the United States focuses mainly on the social and economic inefficiency of maintaining (and / or permitting the growth) of a cognitive, psychological, and physiological underclass.

• Madison Grant, for whom the Nordic race was the highest expression of humanity, was concerned with the dilution of the Nordic stock through racial admixture.
• Lothrop Stoddard, whose doctoral thesis dealt with the French Revolution in the former colony of Saint-Domingue, was concerned with the danger of revolutions and upheavals springing from a cognitive underclass unable to cope with ‘the burden of civilisation’; he argued that this underclass was attracted to radical egalitarian movements, which were usually led by gifted sociopaths, because they offered freedom from that burden.
• Charles Davenport, director of Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory, was concerned with the elimination of heritable defects,[3] as well as with social and cultural degradation arising from White-Black racial admixture.[4]
• Harry H. Laughlin, director of the Eugenic Records Office, was also concerned with the elimination of heritable defects, physical or psychological.
• Paul Popenoe was concerned with social hygiene and marriage counselling.
• E. S. Gosney was concerned with the elimination of heritable mental illnesses and retardation.
• Henry H. Goddard was concerned with the elimination of mental retardation.

And so on. The overall thrust of the movement was in the area of negative eugenics, which aims to eradicate undesirable traits. And as far as immigration campaigning was concerned, the aim was, on the one hand, to prevent overall genetic degradation of the American citizenry through the infusion of immigrants seen as possessing undesirable heritable traits, and, on the other, to maintain the racial homogeneity of the founding Nordic stock. In as much as different heritable traits are caused by genetic variation, the elimination of an entire class of heritable traits, either through fertility control or immigration restriction, results in a reduction of genetic diversity. Therefore, the American approach tended towards greater homogeneity, and through this, towards greater equality, albeit at a higher baseline and within a population. The aim was not greater differentiation, but purification and greater efficiency through the elimination of undesirable divergences from an optimal norm. Its proponents may have disdained egalitarianism, they were still quasi-egalitarian, in as much as they considered below-baseline inequalities undesirable and sought to eliminate them.

By contrast, National Socialist Germany practiced negative and positive eugenics. The negative eugenics programme followed Harry H. Laughlin’s American model, and was instituted through the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. Lothrop Stoddard detailed some aspects of the positive eugenics programme, as it was envisioned (parts of it never came into effect due to the outbreak of war):

The Hitler Schools are designed to train what Nazis term “a new aristocracy” from whose ranks shall be drawn the future leaders of the Third Reich. In their choosing, the wealth or social position of parents is supposed to play no part. The candidates are selected from twelve-year-old boys, physically perfect and of sound Germanic stock, who have shown special aptitude in school and in the Hitler Youth. It goes without saying that the one indispensable aptitude is a record of unflagging zeal for Nazi ideas.

Those selected youngsters are a favored group. According to the plan, they are to pass six years in fine educational institutions where they receive every advantage, entirely at Government expense. Thereafter they are scheduled to pass into the regular Labor Service and do their military duty. After those tasks come three years of civilian life, earning their living or starting a profession in the ordinary way.

Then, at the age of twenty-five, they are to reassemble.  By a second process of selection, the most eligible thousand (from the Party viewpoint) are picked for the Nazi Order of Knighthood—the post-graduate School of Leadership.  In stately castles reminiscent of the medieval fortresses of the Teutonic Knights, they will pass four years of intensive training, wherein physical and ideological attainments are brought to the highest pitch of perfection. This elite thousand will then graduate, to take up their lifework of guiding and governing the Third Reich.

As is well known, the SS had a rigorous selection criteria that required proof of ancestry and considered racial phenotype, physical condition, and general bearing. Members were also encouraged to have large families. The overall thrust and aim of the combined policies was not just to purify and optimise, but also to breed an ever-higher Aryan type. In other words, policies aimed to differentiate as much as possible, favouring always they higher types with each passing generation. Systematic elitism of this nature goes beyond mere intolerance of mediocrity—it is, as Stoddard notes, wholly aristocratic.

Stoddard’s account makes evident that in Germany there was a much more intensive effort at centralised government regulation, affecting the entire citizenry. In contrast, the eugenic programmes in the United States were limited to prisons and insane asylums; they were not centralised but operative at the state level. This was more compatible with American (and liberal) ideas of individualism than the German effort, which was collectivist in orientation.

Some may argue that the American eugenic movement ran against the absolute core premise of the liberal project—the ‘liberation’ of the individual—on the basis that it subordinated the individual to heredity by treating the latter as an overriding determinant. However, the aim of eugenics is not submission to heredity, but, rather, the understanding of biological fact and the improvement of individual quality of life through the scientific control of hereditary processes. Increased knowledge and control over nature by mankind in pursuit of its rational self-interest are integral to the project of liberation.

Just as importantly, American eugenicists saw institutions as biologically derived. By campaigning for immigration restriction, excluding specifically immigrants from more collectivist cultures, the American eugenicists sought to preserve Anglo-Saxon individualist institutions.

Similarly, the exclusion of immigrants thought likely to become burdens to the public purse has the effect, for the individual citizen, of optimising economic freedom.

Perhaps an important difference between the American and German approaches to race is the presence in Germany of occult and mystical conceptions of Aryanism. These predate National Socialism, of course, and post-war literature about alleged Nazi occultism is replete with exaggerated claims,. But a neo-pagan, ariosophical, occult tendency or subtext did exist in Himmler and the SS. Even if direct ariosophical influence is difficult to find, the mere fact that National Socialism developed against a background of romantic and mystical Völkisch ideas, which were in themselves an explicit rejection of liberalism, is significant. This stands in sharp contrast with the puritanical, practical, and strictly scientific orientation of the Americans. While the German eugenics project could be said to have been anti-human, in as much as it sacralised race and sought to transcend the human in pursuit of a higher species; the American project was humanist, in as much as it sought to purify and perfect the human.

We are, then, left with the question: if the Immigration Act of 1924 was consistent with the worldview of American liberalism, why was it so vehemently opposed by individuals we would describe as liberal?

Kevin MacDonald has noted that the strongest opponents of the Act were Jewish activists and the organized Jewish community. He has also noted that Jewish intellectual movements during the the 20th century, which included the radical Left, critical theory, and Boasian anthropology (the latter two of which were either reliant or compatible with the ideas of the Left), as well as support for them in academia and mainstream media, were instrumental in deposing the founding Anglo-Saxon establishment, and replacing it over time with another, comprising individuals we would, again, describe as liberals. Yet, the old Anglo-Saxon establishment, though often described as ‘conservative’, was fundamentally liberal—for the most part, ‘conservative’ means simply liberal in the classical mould.

The key to this question lies in the existence of different tendencies within liberalism, as well as in the effect on liberalism of Marxian criticism.

Marxism’s critique of classical liberalism was that by fostering a capitalist system, it perpetuated hierarchies and thereby failed to deliver on its promise of equality. Marxism was able to attain political power in the East through the use of force, but in the West this proved difficult, and some Marxists realised that conditions required a socio-cultural approach. At the same time, Marxism underwent criticism—though not rejection—from within, and, through the synthesising by a new generation of intellectuals of the theories of Freud and Boas, the Marxian class-based historiography was transliterated into variants based on psycho-sexuality and Western ‘racism’. Against the background of National Socialism, their mission was now not to liberate the proletariat (which had supported National Socialism), but to ‘liberate’ the White man from his inbuilt fascism and racism, and the coloured ‘subaltern’ from White supremacy. The Frankfurt School and later the New Left were emblematic of this tendency, and they approached their task both culturally, through radical criticism of the Enlightenment, and pseudoscientifically, through the pathologisation of racial identification among Whites and the discrediting of biological conceptions of race. These radical egalitarian movement applied constant pressure on the old establishment from the 1930s onwards. But while in the end they succeeded in deposing the old liberals, they failed to dislodge liberalism. Marxism’s pronounced collectivism was repellent to, and incompatible with, individualist Anglo-Saxon sensibilities. Moreover, campaigners on the Left and certainly the aforementioned Jewish intellectual movements found it useful to frame their arguments in the language of the Enlightenment. The result was a synthesis, whereby classical liberalism gave way to a new liberalism that was radically egalitarian. This enabled liberalism to hold on to its foundational individualism, and simply shift the emphasis onto egalitarianism, which was one of its core ideas anyway.

This was possible because both Marxism and liberalism—progressive or otherwise—are both committed to an ethics of equality, and this, therefore, made it difficult for the old (conservative) liberals to present arguments against Marxist calls for greater equality. Hence, the pattern of retreats, surrenders, and compromises by conservatives in the face of relentless attacks from the Left and pressure groups reliant on the ideas of the Left.

As the radically egalitarian form of Left-liberalism gained ascendancy, it became increasingly difficult to maintain a rationalist-progressive immigration law that privileged other considerations above equality. The radically inegalitarian policy of the National Socialists, combined with intensive pressure from Jewish activists in academia, media, and government, provided further incentives to move decisively in the opposite direction. Hence, the redefinition of Americanism as a primarily egalitarian credo—an altruism of maximal catholicity. Hence, the repeal of the Act of 1924 by Lindon Johnson—two years earlier, his predecessor, John F. Kennedy, had already found the quota system ‘nearly intolerable’.[5]

Now comes an article by Samuel Goldman in The American Conservative “Mild Nepotism and the Illusion of Meritocracy,” the point of which is that the path of Nathaniel Rich to fame and fortune in the literary world has been greatly aided by having a “famous name and the connections that often go along with it.” Rich is the son of former New York Times columnist Frank Rich who has come to the attention of TOO several times, including for a piece of Jewish triumphalism in which, like the New York Times editorial page, he eagerly looks forward to an America with a White minority.

Goldman cites Margaret Sullivan’s comment in the Times:

It’s beginning to feel like Nathaniel Rich Month at The Times. The author’s new novel was reviewed in the Arts section on April 10, then again in the Sunday Book Review on April 14. Mr. Rich also wrote an essay for the Sunday Book Review, with many references to that novel, “Odds Against Tomorrow.” In addition, the Editors’ Choice section of the Sunday Book Review listed Mr. Rich’s novel second on its list.

Advertisement

---

I [Margaret Sullivan]  asked Mr. Heller about that kind of attention and why it happens. Again, he said, it comes from different section editors and writers making their own plans without consultation with one another.

“In the best of all worlds, it would be healthiest to spread the attention around,” Mr. Heller said. “There are so many deserving writers out there, and it sends a wrong signal.”

In general, though, the current system is the most practical and “seems to work,” he said.

Goldman’s take is that this new nepotism is very understandable and entirely benign, and he can’t help getting in a dig at the supposedly corrupt WASP elite that people like  Rich replaced:

This isn’t the explicit favoritism of the old-fashioned Establishment, which often reward  pedigree rather than competence. Instead, it’s a very contemporary form of advantage that coexists with the meritocratic principles of the new elite. Under this regime, rewards are available for “achievers” of any background. But it just so happens that the children of people who are already successful know how to achieve the most–and whom to inform of their accomplishments.

Is Goldman seriously suggesting that the writers who became famous before the rise of our new, super-talented elite  were simply rewarded for their pedigree? People like Faulkner, Fitzgerald and Hemingway? Shakespeare and Dickens?

Is he suggesting that Nathaniel Rich’s book, Odds against Tomorrow—which deals with an ecological disaster resulting from climate change—is in their company? Rich is doubtless on firm ground by dealing with such a safe, politically correct topic—one sure to appeal to the new  elite.  Whatever else one might say, his book is certainly not going  to offend the powers that be—not with a topic much beloved of liberals and a brilliant hero named Mitchell  Zukor, a child of immigrants from Hungary whose name certainly indicates that he is not one of those bad old WASPs who got their positions simply because of  their  pedigree.

Like his  father, Nathaniel Rich doubtless looks forward to the dispossession of White America. Come to think of it, that’s a great topic for his next book: the  soon-to-be paradise of a White minority America where only the  truly talented rise to the top. Daddy would be very proud.

And how do we know that Rich is talented apart from glowing reviews, several by his co-ethnics in literary organs edited by his co-ethnics? There is no gold standard here, any more than for the world historical reputations of Spinoza, Freud, Boas or the Frankfurt School.

But Goldman is quite right that this process extends far beyond the literary world:

Mild nepotism would not be a big deal if it were confined to publishing. But it’s also a fact of life in finance, academia, and the upper reaches of the legal world. These fields are open, in principle, to all. In practice, however, they are dominated by those who have been outfitted since childhood with the skills and contacts they’ll need to do well in the right schools, find the right jobs, and, when the time comes, to welcome others very much like themselves inside the magic circle.

Right.  And, as we know, getting into the right schools is very much a matter of ethnic connections (Nathaniel Rich graduated from Yale; Goldman got his Ph.D. at Harvard) and that non-Jewish Whites are being discriminated by a factor of 15 when corrected for academic ability (see previous link). I’d like to see Rich’s SAT’s and I wonder  how many non-Jewish Whites had better scores than he did but were refused admittance to Yale. Given that 15 to 1 ratio, I suspect there were quite a few. Just looking at IQ, there are 4.5 times as many non-Jewish Whites as Jews with an IQ over 140, but you’d never know it by looking at elite academic institutions.

Goldman is a post-doc in the Religion and the Tikvah Project on Jewish Thought  at Princeton. His Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard was on three Jewish intellectuals, Leo Strauss, Heinrich Jacobi and  Spinoza and won the Robert Noxon Toppan prize for best dissertation in political science.

Sounds like a Goldman is headed for high places as well.

Call me cynical, but I suspect there is more than a whiff of ethnic networking going on in Mr. Rich’s meteoric career. Those who have welcomed him into the magic circle are indeed “very much like” him. Besides Heller, the gatekeeper at the New York Times, his book was also given a glowing review by Cathleen Schine in The New York Review of Books, which is edited by Robert B. Silvers. (Rich has also published several essays in the NYRB.) Another very positive review was by Alan Cheuse on All Things Considered.  The editor of the New York Times Book Review is Pamela Paul whose background seems completely opaque but she is quite attuned to Jewish issues.

And why should we believe Goldman when he writes that ”it just so happens that the children of people who are already successful know how to achieve the most—and whom to inform of their accomplishments.” It’s a good sign that Goldman is part of the corrupt elite that he feels no need for an argument or for finding data to support his thesis. I guess we should just take his word for what’s going on. No need to seriously consider ethnic networking. It’s all very innocent and inevitable, and it’s certainly nothing that we should actually do anything about. (It’s a bit odd that The American Conservative would publish Ron Unz’s seminal article on the corrupt admissions process at Ivy League universities which strongly implicates Jewish ethnic networking but completely ignore the possibility of ethnic networking in the case of Nathaniel Rich.)

In the end, Goldman’s comment is little more than a rationalization for how the new predominantly  Jewish elite protects and regenerates itself. Policing the media is a hugely important aspect of the power of the new elite. The gatekeepers at elite publications ensure that people like Nathaniel Rich get to the top. The road to the top for non-Jewish Whites, denied admission to elite universities and lacking ethnic connections with the new elite, is much harder and precluded entirely for any White with even a wee  bit of ethnic identity or a sense that Whites, like  everyone else, have ethnic interests.

The new elite is hostile and corrupt.