The Special Jewish Role in Passage of the 1965 Immigration Law: A Reply to Abraham Miller

/66 Comments/in , /by

I seem to be up to my eyeballs lately defending my writing on Jewish issues. In the wake of Nathan Cofnas’s attack on The Culture of Critique  (to which I responded here and here; note Cofnas does not dispute my scholarship on immigration), the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Abraham Miller, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. Miller:

Mr. MacDonald characterizes Jewish behavior in terms of the theory of group evolutionary psychology, based on competition among groups for resources and survival. Most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions. White nationalists and supremacists embrace him, and he returns their affection. …

Mr. MacDonald claims that Jewish traits, such as high verbal intelligence and ethnocentrism, have evolved to the point that Jews, as a group, outcompete non-Jews at the expense of Christian majorities. He further argues that Jews are genetically programmed to undermine Christian civilization. Intellectual movements such as multiculturalism and liberalism serve, in his view, to heighten Jewish advantage because a Christian majority mired in a multicultural society is less likely to foster anti-Semitism.

First, it’s not the case that “most scholars of evolutionary psychology reject Mr. MacDonald’s methods and conclusions.” It would be far more accurate to claim that my work is simply ignored, as I describe in my first reply to Cofnas. Secondly, I never claim that Jews are “genetically programmed to undermine Christian civilization.” My view of group conflict is shaped by social identity theory in psychology, as described in my book Separation and Its Discontents. Social identity theory emphasizes the general human tendency to have positive attitudes toward ingroups and negative attitudes toward outgroups. Jewish attitudes toward Western civilization have been shaped in large part by their perceptions of persecution and, since the Enlightenment, their perception that they have been wrongfully excluded from positions of wealth and political power (e.g., the numerus clausus at Ivy League universities in the early twentieth century). Beginning with the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, extending to medieval and post-medieval pogroms by Christians, and culminating in the Holocaust, the Jewish perception of their history in the West is one of persecution and exclusion. Individual Jews and Jewish organizations could change their attitudes at any time. For example, Jews could begin to realize that the contemporary liberal culture of the West is a better bet for their interests than importing millions of Muslims and Africans to the West. Obviously, there is no guarantee that the liberal culture of the West will survive this onslaught when the native peoples of the West become minorities in the the lands they have dominated for centuries and, in the case of Western Europe, for thousands of years.

It is true that Jewish communal organizations are major supporters of multiculturalism. Then again, so are most mainstream churches, on both sides of the papal divide. Christian communal groups loudly extol their commitment to inclusion and diversity.

But Jewish leadership was neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the passage of the 1965 immigration law. Rather, a liberalizing wave had already swept the West in the decades after World War II, bringing an end to colonialism and informing U.S. competition with the Soviet Union. In this context, America’s 1924 immigration law, which favored Western European immigration, had become an international embarrassment.

My view is that Jewish organizations and Jewish academic activism were a necessary condition for passage of the 1965 immigration law, as discussed in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique. The data I bring to bear on this issue leaves little doubt that Jewish organizations as well as restrictionists and anti-restrictionists in Congress understood that Jewish organizations had spearheaded the movement against the national origins provisions of the 1924 law and for opening up immigration to all the peoples of the world. Jewish organizations maintained their pressure over the 40 years since the passage of the 1924 law, often combating public apathy on the issue—in particular during the 1950s. Jewish organizations, such as the American Jewish Committee, organized, funded, and performed most of the work of a variety of umbrella organizations aimed at combating restrictions on immigration (e.g., the National Liberal Immigration League; the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons; the National Commission on Immigration and Citizenship; the American Immigration Conference). The 1965 reform was thus not the result of popular pressure but rather of a 40-year program of activism. Finally, the “liberalizing wave” that resulted in the 1965 law was critically influenced by the other Jewish movements that are the focus of The Culture of Critique, as discussed below.

Miller mentions the role of Rep. Michael A. Feighan, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and a strong opponent of changing the 1924 law until he capitulated shortly before the 1965 law was passed. Miller implies that Feighan wanted an immigration policy that he knew would ultimately make the U.S. into a multi-racial, White minority society. As chairman of the subcommittee, Feighan did have a role in crafting the family-based immigration mechanism that has resulted in chain migration. However, it’s obvious that Feighan would not have advocated such a measure if he realized how such a policy would turn out after the national origins provisions were gutted and the numbers of non-European immigrants were dramatically increased by later legislation —  especially given his long record of opposing any changes in the 1924 law (see NPR: “In 1965 A Conservative Tried to Keep America White. His Plan Backfired“). Rep. Feighan could not foresee a future in which large numbers became the reality; this is quite likely due to the fact that the 1965 law was advertised by its proponents as not changing the ethnic balance of the U.S. by dramatically increasing the numbers of non-European immigrants. Moreover, as noted in Chapter 7, family-based immigration rather than skills-based immigration had always been promoted by Jewish activists in the immigration battles, at least since the 1920s.

Finally, since my chapter appeared, other scholars of the 1965 law have noted the critical role of Jewish organizations.

This is how Vanderbilt historian Hugh Davis Graham summarized it in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56-57):

Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

University of California-Santa Barbara historian Otis L. Graham, Jr., writing in 2005:

But American immigration policy in the postwar years attracted a small but growing body of opponents. The political core of a coalition pressing for a new, more “liberalized” policy regime was composed of ethnic lobbyists (“professional immigrant-handlers,” Rep. Francis Walter called them) claiming to speak for nationalities migrating prior to the National Origins Act of 1924, the most effective being Jews from central and eastern Europe who were deeply concerned with the rise of fascism and anti-semitism on the continent and eternally interested in haven. Unable by themselves to interest many politicians or the media in the settled issue of America’s immigration law, these groups hoped for new circumstances in which restrictions could be discredited and the old regime of open doors restored. The arrival of the Civil Rights Movement thrust (racial) “discrimination” into the center of national self-examination. The enemy everywhere at the bottom of virtually every national blemish seemed to be Discrimination, the historic, now intolerable subordinating classification of groups on the basis of inherited characteristics. The nation’s national origins-grounded immigration laws could not escape an assault by these reformist passions, and critics of the national origins system found the liberal wing of the Democratic Party receptive to their demand that immigration reform should be a part of the civil rights agenda.

Who would lead, and formulate what alternatives? Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy cautiously stepped out on the issue in the 1950s, sensing that a liberalization stance would gather vital ethnic voting blocs for his long-planned run for the presidency. His work on a refugee bill caught the attention of officials of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who convinced Kennedy to become an author of a pamphlet on immigration, with the help of an ADL supplied historian, Arthur Mann, and Kennedy’s staff. The result was A Nation of Immigrants, a 1958 bouquet of praise for the contributions of immigrants and a call for an end to the racist, morally embarrassing national origins system. The little book was initially ignored, but its arguments would dominate the emerging debate.3 The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance.4 John F. Kennedy was no crusader on immigration (or anything else), but he was an activist young President by 1961, comfortable with immigration reform as part of his agenda, elected on a party platform that pledged elimination of the national origins system.

The entire article is well worth reading. Notice in particular that he describes the motive for Jewish activism in the same way I did in my 1998 chapter: “The ADL, part of a Jewish coalition whose agenda included opening wider the American gates so that increasing U.S. ethnic heterogeneity would reduce the chances of a populist mass movement embracing anti-semitism, had made a golden alliance.” Despite the high-flown rhetoric stemming from Jewish organizations, it was really all about ethnic defense by promoting a policy that would inevitably reduce the demographic, political, and cultural power of European-Americans.

Graham also notes that the passage of the 1965 law was greatly facilitated by the sea change in intellectual attitudes on race which stemmed ultimately from the academic activism of Boas and his followers as well as the other movements of the left discussed in previous chapters of The Culture of Critique. This is why in the beginning of my chapter I discuss the ideology of racial equality as being critical. From Chapter 7:

The ideology of racial equality was an important weapon on behalf of opening immigration up to all human groups. For example, in a 1951 statement to Congress, the AJCongress stated, “The findings of science must force even the most prejudiced among us to accept, as unqualifiedly as we do the law of gravity, that intelligence, morality and character, bear no relationship whatever to geography or place of birth.”[i] The statement went on to cite some of Boas’s popular writings on the subject as well as the writings of Boas’s protégé Ashley Montagu, perhaps the most visible opponent of the concept of race during this period.[ii] Montagu, whose original name was Israel Ehrenberg, theorized in the period immediately following World War II that humans are innately cooperative, but not innately aggressive, and there is a universal brotherhood among humans (see Shipman 1994, 159ff). In 1952 another Boas protégé, Margaret Mead, testified before the President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953, 92) that “all human beings from all groups of people have the same potentialities. . . . Our best anthropological evidence today suggests that the people of every group have about the same distribution of potentialities.” Another witness stated that the executive board of the American Anthropological Association had unanimously endorsed the proposition that “[a]ll scientific evidence indicates that all peoples are inherently capable of acquiring or adapting to our civilization” (PCIN 1953, 93) (see Ch. 2 for a discussion of the success of the political efforts of the Boasians to dominate the American Anthropological Association). By 1965 Senator Jacob Javits (Cong. Rec., 111, 1965, 24469) could confidently announce to the Senate during the debate on the immigration bill that “both the dictates of our consciences as well as the precepts of sociologists tell us that immigration, as it exists in the national origins quota system, is wrong and without any basis in reason or fact for we know better than to say that one man is better than another because of the color of his skin.” The intellectual revolution and its translation into public policy had been completed.

My emphasis on the special, critical role of Jews and Jewish organizations in the passage of the 1965 law stands.

[i]. Statement of the American Jewish Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Congress, 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816. March 6–April 9, 1951, 391.

[ii]. Statement of the American Jewish Congress, Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816. March 6–April 9, 1951, 402–403.

Second Reply to Nathan Cofnas

/35 Comments/in /by

I have posted a second reply to Nathan Cofnas, this one on his comments to my first reply. It is long and tedious but I thought I would post the Introduction and an excerpt from the exchange on immigration.

Introduction

Nathan Cofnas has responded to my reply to his review of The Culture of Critique. Prior to getting into the details of his rejoinder, there are several general points that should be kept in mind.

  1. CofC stands or falls depending on whether I have adequately described certain specific intellectual and political movements as Jewish. In doing so, I focused on movements that were or are influential and provide evidence of their influence. In describing these movements, I focus on the main figures, discuss their Jewish identities and their concern with specific Jewish issues, such as combatting anti-Semitism. I discuss the dynamics of these movements—the authoritarian atmosphere, the guru phenomenon, ethnic networking, and non-Jews who participate in the movement. I am not attempting to discuss all well-known Jewish intellectuals if they are not part of these movements. Thus, I never claim that Marx was part of a specifically Jewish intellectual/political movement, since he died long before the rise of the Jewish left in the twentieth century which is the focus of CofC. Noam Chomsky is a well-known Jewish intellectual, but he doesn’t fit into any of the movements I discuss, and I have never investigated the nature of his Jewish identity (or lack of it) or how he sees Jewish interests. The same could be said for someone like Paul Gottfried who is linked to paleoconservatism. Paleoconservatism is not a Jewish intellectual movement, and indeed neoconservatism, which I argue is a Jewish movement, played a decisive role in the eclipse of paleoconservatism (see “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement”). Or one could point to a Jewish supporter of the populist positions of President Trump, but the existence of such a person does not make populism a Jewish movement or erase the effective opposition of the New York Intellectuals to American populism in prior decades as discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 of CofC.
  2. Individual influential Jews or a separate influential Jewish intellectual movement may be critical of a specific Jewish intellectual movement that I discuss. The split beginning in the 1930s between the Stalinist left, which is the topic of Chapter 3, and the Trotskyist left which is a topic of Chapter 6 and “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,” comes to mind. It is possible that opposition to the Israel Lobby may also be reasonably analyzed as a Jewish movement. I have not attempted this, although I have noted in several places that criticism of Israel is increasing among Jews and non-Jews. But in order to establish that critics of Israel constitute a Jewish movement, one would have to pursue the program presented in CofC: discuss whether participants have a Jewish identity and whether they see their activities as furthering Jewish interests as well as explore the dynamics of these movements—whether there is any evidence for an authoritarian atmosphere, the guru phenomenon, ethnic networking, and the status of non-Jews who participate in the movement.

This project would thus go well beyond the “default hypothesis” of Jewish IQ as explaining Jewish involvement in intellectual movements. Such situations may be analogized to arguments between different factions in the Knesset—both dominated by Jews but with different perceptions of Jewish interests.

  1. I am therefore not attempting to develop a general theory of Jewish viewpoint diversity. I am studying certain specific intellectual and political movements that I attempt to establish as influential. I am not trying to develop a theory of why each Jew or most Jews believe what they do—a much more ambitious project. Thus, for example, I have no interest in describing or explaining the diversity of Jewish attitudes on affirmative action—an interesting question, but not relevant to the thesis of CofC which is that certain specific Jewish movements have the features I describe and that they have been influential. Nevertheless, as discussed below, at particular times and places, there is often substantial consensus within the Jewish community on particular issues, e.g., immigration and refugee policy and church-state relations.
  2. My writing in CofC is restricted to the movements discussed therein—movements that I have argued have been influential in the twentieth century and whose influence often extends into the present. In addition to these movements, it may well be the case that I have left out individual influential Jews, such as Steven Pinker, whose Jewish identity and sense of pursuing Jewish interests would bear investigation and may result in a broader perspective on Jewish influence. Pinker’s recent book, Enlightenment Now,[1] is reminiscent of the hostility toward American populism that characterized the New York Intellectuals whose Jewish identities and sense of Jewish interests were discussed in CofC. However, whatever the results of such an investigation, they would be subsumed into the general topic of Jewish viewpoint diversity.

[1] See Ricardo Duchesne, “Steve Pinker’s Anti-Enlightenment Attack on White Identitarians,” Occidental Quarterly 18, no. 2 (Summer 2018): 49–68; in press. Read more

Brussels: the Empire of Fake News

/39 Comments/in /by

 

Below is the translation of my lecture delivered at a literature conference in Lille, France, on March 9, 2018. The event was sponsored by the publishing house Le Retour aux  Source and Edition  Bios. Other speakers included authors, journalists, and publishers Robert Steuckers,  Alessandro Sansoni and Pierre- Antoine  Plaquevent. Next day, just a block away, Le Front National held its congress at which Steve Bannon spoke. Speeches from our event will be posted shortly.    

*   *   *

It is necessary in our speeches to first decipher the language of the subject under examination as well as social conditions where this language is spoken. I will focus in my speech on language manipulation by the Brussels Empire, or as I prefer to call it, the Brussels System, and how this system keeps subjecting us to semantic manipulations. There have been already many critical works published on Brussels as a European capital and on its huge administration. It would be therefore useless to harp for the umpteenth time on the cases of incompetence and corruption, or on the absence of common foreign policy of the Brussels bureaucracy. The un-political (“inpolitique”) is the main feature of this Europeanist structure whose pompous name “the European Union” is being marketed as the best of all worlds. In terms of its foreign policy it suffices to recall the failure of the European Union, after being launched in Maastricht in 1992, to halt the war in former Yugoslavia. More recently, there has been a complete absence of a common Brussels policy regarding the regulation of extra-European migrations that are changing the face of Europe now.

As far as the expression “fake news” is concerned, it should be noted that this is a recent American expression whose meaning needs to be examined in Europe. Here is an example of “fake news” in today’s politics of Europe. The choice of the term “refugees” by the Brussels ruling class and by the mainstream media in Europe when depicting non-European mass migrations carries a sentimental value which is supposed to trigger, right at the outset, altruistic feelings among European citizens, while at the same time forcing them to perform expiatory mea culpas, and ultimately adopt the rites of political suicide. The first observation we could make is that a good or a bad choice of political language will affect good or bad political decision making. If the European Union had agreed a few years ago on the choice of the term “migrants,” instead of the self-pitying term “refugees”, the governments of Europe would perhaps have subsequently adopted a more realistic policy towards non-European migrants. In any case most non-European migrants are not refugees but people or vagabonds from desolate and distant countries responding to the call of false or fake imagery projected by the hyperreal Europe, which, in turn, is perceived by them as a location for a life on an equal footing with Europeans. In its ecumenical and pseudo-Good Samaritan endeavor, overflowing with self-hatred, and through the recital of  words of the so-called welcoming culture, the European political class, with its center in Brussels, is allotting itself with good conscience without however being able or willing to meet migrants’ hyperreal demands or match their phantasies.

The expression “fake news” refers to the classical game of simulacra and simulations interacting with each other. It is commendable to reread Jean Baudrillard in order to grasp the full meaning of “fake news” which now happens to be the main pillar of the language of the political class in Brussels and Washington. Let us quote Baudrillard:

We live in the illusion that it is the real that is missing most. On the contrary; the reality has reached its apex. By means of technical performance we have reached a degree of reality and objectification to the point that we can now talk about the surplus of reality, thus becoming more anxiety-prone and more bewildered. (The Perfect Crime, 1996).

Read more

“Hispanics are natural conservatives” — The Dangerous Myth

/70 Comments/in , /by

The left has their evil platitudes — “diversity is our greatest strength” and “we are a nation of immigrants,” among others. Those in the so-called conservative movement have their own goofy and fictitious one-liners as well — “Israel is our greatest ally” and “Hispanics are natural conservatives.” All of these are nothing but globalist propaganda narratives aimed at convincing us to give away our homelands to hostile foreigners. With the exploding Hispanic population in the United States, it is important to lay this lie to rest.

One of the central tenants of civic nationalism, which I wrote about here, is that Hispanic demographic replacement should be of no concern, as they are really “just like us.” The left of course, knows this could not be further from the truth, in fact, they are betting on it. Incredibly telling exposés such as Adam Winkler’s The NRA will fall. It’s inevitable, reveals their strategy. Winkler writes, “Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA.” Winkler cites the overwhelming support for gun control by blacks, Asians, and Hispanics, along with their growing shares of the U.S. population and notes that these shifts are “a boon for gun control.”[1]

The “conservative” camp, has been very slow to catch on. Israel Ortega of The Heritage Foundation writes, “There’s no reason that Hispanics shouldn’t give this movement [conservatism] a closer look. For starters, conservatism is consistent with many of the values of the Hispanic American community. Specifically, conservatism emphasizes the concepts of hard work, entrepreneurship and prosperity.”[2]

Politico discusses how “crucial” Hispanic outreach is to the GOP,[3] the RNC has launched a Hispanic outreach campaign,[4] and the GOP website has an entire section dedicated to Hispanics.[5]

Read more

Review: Travels in Cultural Nihilism: Some Essays

/65 Comments/in , /by


Travels in Cultural Nihilism: Some Essays
 Stephen Pax Leonard
Arktos, 2017

“Many people advised me to write it under a pseudonym, for sailing too close to the wind is a dangerous business these days…It will perhaps mark my ‘swan song,’ academically speaking at least.” Thus begins Travels in Cultural Nihilism, a volume of twelve essays by the Oxford ethnographer Stephen Pax Leonard and one of the most eloquent and refreshing books I’ve had the recent pleasure to read. Perhaps overshadowed by the publication of Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe, which touches the same overarching theme – the collapse of the West, Leonard’s book is significantly wider in scale, richer in detail, deeper in analysis, and more impassioned in its deliberations. While several essays concern the morbidity of post-modern Swedish culture (where the author has spent some time living as a fascinated and concerned observer),  Leonard also offers robust and at times poignant meditations on Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the nature of the European Union project, same-sex marriage, feminism, Islam, the nature of pathological liberalism, and the insidious spread of Cultural Marxism. The author interacts effortlessly with the thought of Heidegger, Evola, Spengler, Scruton, Nietzsche, and Schmitt, while taking aim at Foucault,  Gramsci, and a large cast of contemporary malevolent political actors. Leonard, a Fellow at Exeter College, Oxford, is a trained linguist. He has previously published books on Scandinavia and the Arctic regions, including a fascinating Guardian article on his time among the Arctic Inugguit. Possessed of these credentials, Leonard may be considered to have a lot to lose by breaking silence on the matters he discusses in Travels in Cultural Nihilism. As he himself anticipates, the book could represent his ‘swan song.’ He notes that he has already “lost (and made) friends over the views held here.” It is rare and difficult for someone in the belly of the beast to speak out like this, a fact which renders Travels in Cultural Nihilism a work of significant courage as well as one of admirable erudition.

Even in the introduction to his book, Leonard enters the world of forbidden thought not with tentative musings, but with gusto and strength of conviction. Words aren’t minced. Excuses aren’t provided. Apologies are nowhere to be seen. Multiculturalism, declares Leonard, “has been a disaster everywhere.” In Sweden, it has been “forced” on a “kind people that are liberal-managed with the aid of a mendacious, Government-subsidised media.” Its failures there “have been covered up time and again.” The wider implications for the rest of West represent nothing less than “cultural pathology and the regression of humanity.” This cultural pathology is demonstrated best in Germany, where the same “thick crowds of tearful Germans embracing ‘refugees’ on railway platforms were months later dealing with mass rapes, suicide bombers, machete wielding immigrants, lorries being driven into Christmas markets, and an axe-wielding asylum seeker whose actions were inspired by the brutal atrocities in southern France (Nice) a week earlier.” Of particular interest to Leonard, in all of his essays, is the nature of government involvement in enforcing the multicultural narrative, an involvement laid bare in its utter cynicism by the actions of French police in destroying CCTV footage of the Bastille Day massacre in Nice. Aside from government actions, Leonard sets his mind upon the mentality of the masses, and ponders Spengler’s discovery that nihilism is a feature of collapsing societies. The author remarks that European society/culture is now essentially divided between “those who want to preserve historical modalities of belonging, and those who wish to extirpate them; those who want continuity and identity, and those who aspire to Rousseauesque tabula rasa.” Read more

Eurasian Grey Wolf Supremacism

/31 Comments/in /by

A hybrid between a wolf and a German Shepherd

A recent study has revealed that there has been recurrent mating between dogs and wolves throughout Eurasia:

The international study showed that around 60 per cent of Eurasian grey wolf genomes carried small blocks of the DNA of domestic dogs, suggesting that wolves cross-bred with dogs in past generations.

The results suggest that wolf-dog hybridisation has been geographically widespread in Europe and Asia and has been occurring for centuries.

Researchers examined DNA data from grey wolves — the ancestors of the domestic dog — to determine how much their gene pool was diluted with the DNA of domestic canines, and how widespread the process of hybridisation is.

In other words, the researchers tried to find out how “impure” the Eurasian Grey Wolf has become due to introgression of domestic canine genes.

The researchers discovered that many grey wolves are in fact genetically-impure and that even coming up with a definition for a “pure” grey wolf is problematic as a result. They emphasize however that the presence of some dog genes does not make wolf populations any less genetically-distinguishable and that conservation efforts to maintain wolf populations’ integrity and genetic purity remain meaningful:

We found that while hybridisation has not compromised the genetic distinctiveness of wolf populations, a large number of wild wolves in Eurasia carry a small proportion of gene variants derived from dogs, leading to the ambiguity of how we define genetically “pure wolves”.

Our research highlighted that some individual wolves which had been identified as “pure wolves” according to their physical characteristics were actually shown to be of mixed ancestry. On the other hand, two Italian wolves with an unusual, black coat colour did not show any genetic signatures of hybridisation, except for carrying a dog-derived variant of a gene linked to dark colouration. This suggests that the definition of genetically “pure” wolves can be ambiguous and identifying admixed individuals can be difficult, implying that management strategies based on removal of suspected hybrids from wolf populations may be inefficient.

Instead, our study has highlighted a need to reduce the factors which can cause hybridisation, such as abundance of free-ranging dogs, small wolf population sizes, and unregulated hunting.

Dogs and wolves are thought to have split into separate evolutionary paths between 14,000 and 6,400 years ago, another example of rapid biological evolution over a relatively small number of generations, albeit under human impetus.

One wonders what the authors think about efforts to preserve the integrity of human subspecies, a precious inheritance which has emerged through tens of thousands of years of regional evolution.

Certainly, in the case of wolves and dogs, the composition of the gene pool is never considered a matter of indifference. If the wolf gene pool were overwhelmed through interbreeding with dogs, the species would go extinct.

The presence of wolf genes in canine pets is also something which cannot be ignored, even if dogs and wolves share over 99.8% of their DNA. That 0.2% genetic difference makes for an enormous phenotypic difference. The authorities generally advise against or outright ban the ownership of wolf-dog hybrids as pets. Wolf-dogs tend to be more shy and aggressive, although the temperament of a particular individual is more difficult to predict than for either wolves or pure-bred dogs. Because of their genetic diversity, wolf-dogs have more temperamental diversity and there is no telling what particular set of wolf/dog genes a particular wolf-dog has inherited from its parents. One dog writer noted:

Legal or not, wolfdogs pose significant behavioral challenges for owners . . . Like Pit Bulls and pornography, wolfdogs can be tough to identify, regardless of laws passed to limit them. . . . Of course, not all wolfdogs behave the same way, and there’s probably more variety in behavior among wolfdogs than any other kind of dog.

Species and subspecies tend to be fuzzy around the edges, but that does not make them any less real. Small genetic differences, even of a few percentiles of a percentile, can lead to enormous phenotypic differences (which, as E. O. Wilson has pointed out in Sociobiology, can in turn be magnified into even great social and cultural differences). All this is as true for humans as for canines or any other animal.

Rape-Gangs Unlimited: Third-World People Mean Third-World Pathologies

/88 Comments/in , , /by

The horseshoe crab is a living fossil. So is the Daily Mirror. It was traditionally the newspaper of the respectable White working-class in Britain. They voted Labour and believed in hard work and education, but they were hostile to Third-World immigration. They were socially conservative too, rejecting the prurience and soft-core pornography peddled by the staunch philo-Semite Rupert Murdoch in newspapers like the Sun and News of the World. Of course, the Mirror was owned by the Jewish mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell (né Ján Hyman Binyamin Hoch). And it supplied the amoral thug Alastair Campbell as chief propagandist for the very philo-Semitic and Murdoch-friendly Tony Blair.

Abandoned by Labour

But the Mirror has retained enough of its old values to do something today that the modern Labour party would never do: stand up for the White working-class against predatory brown-skinned Muslims. In early March 2018, its Sunday edition ran a “special investigation” into the vibrant activities of Pakistani men in the small and obscure Midlands town of Telford:

Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child grooming scandal exposed: Hundreds of young girls raped, beaten, sold for sex and some even KILLED

SPECIAL SUNDAY MIRROR INVESTIGATION: Authorities failed to act over 40 years – despite repeated warnings to social workers – with up to 1,000 girls, some as young as 11, abused in Telford

Up to 1,000 children could have suffered in Britain’s worst known abuse scandal – where sex gangs targeted girls as young as 11. The rape hell of vulnerable young girls in one town – Telford – went on for a shocking 40 years, the Sunday Mirror can reveal. As many as 1,000 children could have suffered at the merciless hands of perverts and torturers in Telford since the 1980s. Girls as young as 11 have been lured from their families to be drugged, beaten and raped in an epidemic that, say victims, is still ongoing. THREE people were murdered and two others died in tragedies linked to the scandal.

Read more