Featured Articles

The Global Nation

/25 Comments/in , /by

The modern era, beginning with Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas, has been characterized by more and more interconnection and blurring between the world’s societies. This phenomenon has only grown in intensity over time with the rise of technologies such as mass transport and telecommunications, but also intellectual developments such as the rise of internationalist and anti-national ideologies. We may define globalism as the tendency, both conscious and unconscious, towards the destruction of distinct and autonomous nations and states in favor, allegedly, of a harmonious global society and polity. Globalism ignores the reality of racial differences and powerful nature of ethnic identity, two factors which are at the root of the inevitable tensions and conflicts to be found in all multiracial and multiethnic societies.

There are powerful material factors favoring the breakdown of national borders. There are efficiency gains in people being able to work and trade across borders. There is furthermore an understandable push by the billions of humans living in the miserable conditions of the Third World to enter our countries so as to enjoy a more comfortable and secure life. A nostalgic conservatism or reflexive inertia is then not enough to stop these pressures. Even Japan, still largely homogeneous, is starting to see significant numbers of phenotypically-distinct immigrants (especially Indians and Filipinos). An Indian man even recently won a local election in Tokyo. Rather, immigration must be opposed with a conscious and principled counter-force in the name of the economic and social well-being of the native— the preservation of their cultural and genetic identity and their sovereignty.

In the wake of the World War II, internationalists quite reasonably sought to limit conflict between states by embedding them in a web of international institutions (such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the European Union) and trade relations, as well as a common hegemonic liberal-democratic ideology. This, it was hoped, would create a community of interests making war between great nations unthinkable. Read more

State-Supported Extreme Individualism in Sweden

/34 Comments/in , /by

The following are excerpts from my forthcoming book (now in the final stages), Western Individualism and the Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future.

Extreme egalitarianism is especially apparent in northwest Europe. The “Jante Laws” of Scandinavia are paradigmatic: 1. Don’t think you are anything; 2. Don’t think you are as good as us. 3. Don’t think you are smarter than us. 4. Don’t fancy yourself better than us. 5. Don’t think you know more than us. 6. Don’t think you are greater than us. 7. Don’t think you are good for anything. 8. Don’t laugh at us. 9. Don’t think that anyone cares about you. 10. Don’t think you can teach us anything.[1] In short, no one must rise above the rest. Such egalitarianism is typical of h-g groups around the world,[2] and are antithetical to the aristocratic ideal of the I-Es.

Extreme egalitarianism results in high levels of conformism and social anxiety. Individuals fear social ostracism for violating egalitarian norms and standing out from the crowd—a phenomenon that has played a major role in creating a public consensus in favor of mass migration and multiculturalism. In Sweden especially there is no public debate on the costs and benefits of immigration; sceptics remain silent for fear of shunning and disapproval. Discussing the cancellation of a talk because it was sponsored by a politically incorrect newspaper, journalist Ingrid Carlqvist comments that “everyone with a different opinion in Sweden really is a Nazi! That’s the way it works in the New Sweden, the country I call Absurdistan. The country of silence.”[3]

Similarly, in his Fairness and Freedom, David Hackett Fischer describes the “Tall Poppy Syndrome” (envy and resentment of people who are “conspicuously successful, exceptionally gifted, or unusually creative”) that is characteristic of New Zealand.[4] “It sometimes became a more general attitude of outright hostility to any sort of excellence, distinction, or high achievement—especially achievement that requires mental effort, sustained industry, or applied intelligence. … The possession of extraordinary gifts is perceived as unfair by others who lack them.”[5]

The expression ‘Tall Poppy Syndrome’ originated in Australia but seems more characteristic of New Zealand. Successful people are called ‘poppies.’ This tendency is perhaps not as strong as it used to be, but, although some successful New Zealanders are accepted, “other bright and creative New Zealanders have been treated with cruelty by compatriots who appear to feel that there is something fundamentally unfair about better brains or creative gifts, and still more about a determination to use them.”[6] Doubtless because of the same egalitarian tendencies, the New Zealand system encourages laziness and lack of achievement—workers insist that others slow down and not work hard. “Done by lunchtime” is the motto of a great many New Zealand workers.

Such egalitarian social practices are common in h-g groups around the world[7] and support the general view that this important strand of European culture, especially apparent after it came to power beginning in the seventeenth century (see Chapter 6), reflects the culture of northern h-gs.[8] Reflecting this pattern, Scandinavian society in general has a history of relatively small income and social class differences, including the absence of serfdom during the Middle Ages. A recent anthropological study of h-gs found that economic inequality approximated that of modern Denmark.[9] Chapter 4 discusses the individualism of Scandinavian family patterns, including relatively egalitarian relationships between spouses—extreme even within the Western European context.

Read more

Study Shows Babies Naturally Distinguish Races and Easily Link Them to Languages

/18 Comments/in /by

Little Timmy can already identify foreigners.

There is an interesting new study from the University of British Columbia on infant babies’ ability to distinguish, and link, different races and languages. According to UBC (my emphasis):

Eleven-month-old infants can learn to associate the language they hear with ethnicity, recent research from the University of British Columbia suggests.

The study, conducted in Vancouver and published in April in Developmental Psychobiology, found that 11-month-old infants looked more at the faces of people of Asian descent versus those of Caucasian descent when hearing Cantonese versus English—but not when hearing Spanish. . . .

We wanted to determine whether the association between Cantonese language and Asian faces we observed was due to a specific pairing infants learn from their environment, or whether infants may just have a bias to pair together any unfamiliar language with any unfamiliar ethnicity. We conducted a second study where we played English-learning, Caucasian infants sentences of English and Spanish and showed them the same pictures of Caucasian and Asian faces. Here, we found that infants looked similarly to faces of both ethnicities with both languages. Taken together, this would suggest that infants are indeed picking up on specific language-ethnicity pairings, likely based upon those faces and languages they encounter. . . .

The link between speaker characteristics and language is something no one has to teach babies. They learn it all on their own.

One of the study’s authors rightly remarks: “Babies are really discerning.” She goes on to add the results “should comfort parents in letting them know that babies who grow up in a multicultural, multilingual society such as Vancouver learn about that diversity and use it to help—rather than hinder—their language acquisition.”

Certainly, there is no doubt a diverse multilingual environment is good for children’s language acquisition. However, I was more struck by another one of the study’s possible implications: that human beings are hard-wired, virtually from birth, to distinguish between races (visible physical differences reflecting different genetic populations) and languages. Read more

Starlets of David: Two Vicious Anti-Semitic Stereotypes in the Jewish Chronicle

/18 Comments/in , /by

As I’ve described in the articles “Free Speech Must Die!” and “Trashing the Torah,” Jews across the West are promoting a ludicrously vague definition of anti-Semitism devised by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition is designed to end free speech about Jewish power and runs like this:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The alleged priorities of Jews

The definition has been adopted “in full” by the British Conservative party, the Florida House of government, and many other Western institutions and organizations. It’s accompanied by a long list of “contemporary examples of antisemitism,” one of which runs like this:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

And yes, anti-Semites certainly do accuse “Jewish citizens” of disloyalty to the gentile nations in which they currently live. For example, in “A Shameless Shabbos Shiksa,” I said that Stuart Polak, a former director of Conservative Friends of Israel, was concerned only about Israel and Jewish interests, not about Britain. But it isn’t only hate-sites like the Occidental Observer that promote this horrible stereotype of Jewish disloyalty. You can also find the stereotype promoted in Britain’s oldest and most successful Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle.

More loyal to Israel

How is that possible? Very easily, it appears. The Jewish Chronicle has recently reported that the all-Jewish soccer team Maccabi London Lions F.C. sent some of its junior players to an all-Jewish soccer tournament in Holland called Jom Ha Voetbal, or “Day of Football” (Jom Ha means “Day (of) the” in Hebrew and Voetbal means “Football” in Dutch). In celebration of their success at the tournament, a junior Maccabi team and its two adult supervisors posed on the playing field with a Maccabi F.C. flag like this:

Starlets of David: Maccabi London F.C. pose with an Israeli flag

As you can see, eleven Jewish citizens of Britain chose to celebrate by posing proudly not with a British or English flag, but with an Israeli flag bearing the Star of David. Are these Jewish citizens “more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nation”? Well, what other conclusion can you draw? And when the Jewish Chronicle ran that photo in July 2019, it did so under the approving headline “Maccabi London starlets sparkle on European stage.” In other words, the Jewish Chronicle is very happy to promote a “contemporary example of antisemitism.” The Jewish Chronicle takes primary loyalty to Israel as a given among British Jews, while simultaneously condemning all gentiles who point out this primary loyalty. Read more

Reparations for Slavery? It’s Not a One-Way Street.

/39 Comments/in /by

Talk is in the air again about paying reparations to Blacks for slavery. I am all for it, but only if we can have a grand final reckoning. The two-way nature of this issue seems to escape most of those who advocate paying Blacks for their sufferings. If Blacks suffered in this country, and have theoretical credits to their account, they also have benefited in important ways, and I at least would have them acknowledge certain debts. Since the Civil War and the end of slavery, the White portion of this nation has poured out immense treasure upon the hapless Blacks. In addition, Blacks have steadily imposed various costs upon society. If all the accounts are perused and balanced, I am confident that Whites will be on the positive side of the ledger.

I would like to offer a few thoughts on the problem that I find interesting or overlooked. This will not be a full treatment of reparations and costs, or the pros and cons of paying them. I know there are very good arguments against paying reparations.

I will begin by saying that I think that the Blacks did suffer a very great injustice in being transported to a far-flung continent and kept in chattel slavery. I used to recount the ways that slavery wasn’t really all that bad, but that’s sort of beside the point, isn’t it? They were slaves. This is not to point the finger at the slave-owners, either, for the institution of slavery was as old as mankind, nearly universal, and socially and legally accepted until the nineteenth century when White people (and only White people) ended it. When the time came to decide their post-slavery fate, however, the government—Republicans, really—unfortunately made matters far worse by emancipating them in the worst possible manner. They were not sent back to their ancestral home, but rather thrown onto their own devices in this highly competitive (alien, one could say) Western society and economy. If they had to remain here, they should have been placed in some sort of special political status until they rose to a level from which they could participate in our system on roughly equal terms. (Of course, whether they could effect that rise, with what we know about race and IQ, is highly doubtful.) Throwing them into equality and independence did them and us no favors; they too often became wards of various sectors of society, or lapsed into poverty. Even worse, they also became prey to the revolutionary designs of the Jews.[1]

Thus, Whites shucked off all responsibility and launched the slaves into abrupt, stark independence — unjustly in my opinion. Therefore, I tentatively acknowledge a debt.

How much? Read more

Crypto-Jews, German Guilt, and the Wittenberg Jew-Pig

/33 Comments/in , , /by

“Here on our church in Wittenberg a sow is sculpted in stone. Young pigs and Jews lie suckling under her. Behind the sow a rabbi is bent over the sow, lifting up her right leg, holding her tail high and looking intensely under her tail and into her Talmud, as though he were reading something acute or extraordinary, which is certainly where they get their Shemhamphoras [hidden name of God in Kabbalah].
Martin Luther, 1543 

During my early years researching the Jewish Question I was particularly struck by the strident and flamboyant nature of medieval and early modern anti-Jewish folklore and related art. I recall being fascinated at the strangeness and creativity of tales like the 16th-century Jewish woman said to have given birth to twin piglets,[1] the common 15th-century belief that Jewish males menstruate,[2] and speculation that Jews buried their dead with small rocks to throw at Christ in the afterlife. As with much of Jewish history and the historiography of anti-Semitism, the subject of anti-Jewish folklore has been dominated by Jewish scholars. My first introduction to the topic was thus The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore (1991) by the Jewish UC-Berkeley folklorist Alan Dundes (1934–2005), widely regarded as the field’s pre-eminent, and perhaps only, expert. In the book, as one might well expect, Dundes strips anti-Jewish folklore of context and presents instead a collection of “evil” and “dangerous” fantasies lacking any logical or rational basis.

Aside from the work of Dundes, direct scholarly engagement with the subject of medieval anti-Jewish folklore has been relatively rare, with most Jewish scholars preferring to probe medieval artistic linkages between Jews and the Devil (see, for example, the work of Robert Bonfil, Marvin Perry, and Frederick Schweitzer) rather than some of the more outlandish or colorful “memes” that then circulated. Almost all of these scholarly accounts utilize medieval anti-Jewish folklore as a means of denigrating and indicting medieval Christianity as irrational and prejudiced, and ultimately as the fons et origo of an equally irrational and prejudiced modern anti-Semitism. An explanatory account of medieval and early modern anti-Jewish folklore informed by historical context remains to be written, despite admirable and broadminded texts like The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig (1997) by Claudine Fabre-Vassas. This is a project I am giving serious consideration to undertaking. As luck would have it, it’s also becoming somewhat relevant again.

Of all the artistic manifestations of anti-Jewish folklore, few are more acute, vehement, and scatological than the imagery of the Judensau, or ‘Jew-Pig.’ In brief, the image, depicted in woodcuts or in stone (often on churches) between the 13th and 15th centuries, is an allegorical reference to Jews drawing sustenance from the Talmud, with Jews shown suckling from a sow and/or examining or eating its feces. The association of Jews with pigs in medieval Christian folklore was longstanding, owing something to the known aversion of the Jews to pork, and produced an array of stories and imagery that flagrantly ignored the ancient dietary commands in Leviticus. In one legend, for example, the aversion to pork dated from the time of Christ, when a sneering Jew challenged Christ to guess the contents of a barrel that the Jew knew to contain a slaughtered pig. Unknown to the Jew, the pig had been removed and his own children were hiding in the barrel. When Jesus answered that the man’s children were in the barrel, he was mocked and told there was a pig inside. “Let them be pigs then,” replied Jesus, and the children were transformed into piglets. From that day onward, so goes the tale, Jews avoided eating pork because for them that would be cannibalism. One suspects that seriousness was never a primary concern in the development of such folk tales — they served as entertaining and memorial “memes” to impart the message that Jews were different and were to be avoided. Read more

The Danger of a Universal Basic Income

/60 Comments/in , /by

As is now well known, not a few people in the Dissident Right are sympathetic to Andrew Yang’s insurgent bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Though at present a minor candidate, Mr. Yang may well receive a bump after the upcoming debates, and regardless, as 2016 has shown, damn near anything is possible in American politics.

The sympathy is largely derived from his support of a Universal Basic Income (UBI), specifically, $1,000 a month for every citizen. While various economists and politicians have batted around this idea for some time, Mr. Yang backs it as a safety net for all those Americans facing long-term unemployment due to deindustrialization, automation, and the general “precariatization” of our economy. There is an obvious logic to this plan, and its seduction is understandable. With an economy that goes through dramatic changes every few years, perhaps the simplest and most charitable thing we can do for those left behind is give them a bit of money to make ends meet.

While this money would not make anybody rich, the working poor might suddenly be able to make rent and car payments with ease. Many think this UBI would increase fertility as well and (though not purposefully) increase the number of stay-at-home moms, a goal many traditionalists value quite highly. All of that is well and good. I have never viewed government support of the poor as some kind of burdensome overreach. Furthermore, a simple UBI would do much to cut back on the federal government’s unwieldy and inefficient bureaucracy.

But there is one big problem with this plan. In a word: drugs.

I have nothing but sympathy for the citizenry living paycheck to paycheck in our nation’s vast Rust Belt. But that doesn’t change that in the here-and-now, giving them a considerable amount of cash with no strings attached might not be the best thing for them. Some recipients would certainly use the money responsibly to dramatically improve their lot in life: pay off student loans, stop taking taking payday loans, etc. But quite a few others would indulge in America’s latest hobby with a reckless abandon that gives me goosebumps.

The number of overdose deaths is simply staggering.

Read more