Featured Articles

Talking with Jews (or not)

A topic that is not discussed enough is the screaming, in-your-face, hostile aggression that people must withstand when they dare to trample on Jewish sensibilities. We are not talking about the sophisticated rationalizations one sees in the op-ed pages of the mainstream media, or even the smear techniques of organizations like the ADL or the SPLC. We are talking about interpersonal aggression. There is something absolutely primal about it.

Now comes a refreshingly frank blog post by Karin Friedemann, an ethnically Jewish anti-Zionist. She notes the “violent intolerance” that defenders of Israel show towards people with different opinions.

American Jews are actually being trained since childhood to interact with non-Jews in a deceitful and arrogant manner, in coordination with each other, to emotionally destroy Gentiles and Israel critics in addition to wrecking their careers and interfering with their social relationships. This is actually deliberate, wicked, planned behavior motivated by a narcissistic self-righteous fury….

The problem is that Gentiles are taught through emotional pressure and violence via the media and the school system to be very sensitive to Jewish suffering so when a Zionist becomes outraged at them for challenging their world view, the Gentile really has to fight against his own inner self in a huge battle against his “inner Jew” making him feel inadequate and intimidated. But the Jew doesn’t care how much he or she hurts others. Jews only care about what’s good for the Jews. …

I once reduced a 50 year old man to hysterical sobbing tears because I told him gently and lovingly that Jews were not that unique. I just told him the Jews, like everyone else, have had good times and bad times. Times when they were slaughtered and other times when they slaughtered others. Just like everyone else. Guess what he did next. He emotionally abused me in an insulting way and then cut off all further communication. Jewish behavior is so predictable that it’s truly scary. …

If you mention cutting off the money or if you mention the possible compromise of living with Palestinians as equals in one state they become very angry and start using bullying tactics, unless they have some reason to fear you, in which case they shun you and complain about you to the authorities, try to get you arrested or try and destroy your career or social status through character assassination. …

Zionists all believe in the myth of “1000 years of Jewish suffering” and feel that the world owes them compensation for their ancestors’ “unique” suffering. It’s a criminally insane viewpoint. They cope with the contradictions between their belief that they are the good guys and what Jews are actually doing to their neighbors, both in the Middle East and in the US, by developing mental health issues. Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.

My take:

  • These tactics are not restricted to critics of Zionism. As one who has experienced a barrage of hostile email from my faculty colleagues, I can certainly attest to this. One quickly notices that assertions of the legitimacy of white identity and interests will also result in a barrage of hostility. This  despite the fact that support for racial Zionism is strong throughout the entire Jewish political spectrum (see below). A correspondent sent me the following recently:
  • I have encountered many liberal, politically correct Jews who react vociferously (almost violently) to the most innocuous comments about any topic related to Israel or Jews.  One Jew upon my mentioning that my wife and I had been to Russia spent several minutes virtually frothing at the mouth about Russians.  Another upon hearing me say I was sympathetic to the problems of the Palestinians demanded to know who I was and how dare I say such a thing.  Often zero tolerance for any difference in opinion.
  • The media constantly present images of Jewish suffering—most recently the endless glut of Holocaust movies. But the media ignore instances, such as the early decades of the USSR and now in Greater Israel, where Jews have inflicted horrible suffering. Right now I am reading E. Michael Jones’The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Effect on History. It is striking to read his account of Jewish violence against non-Jews in the ancient world, particularly the persecution of Christians whenever Jews had the power to do so. Long before Christians had any influence on Roman policy, Christians’ complaints about Jews were not stereotypes based on historical memory but resulted from direct experience with Jews: “Origen understood that Jewish calumny helped to cause Christian persecution, and that Jewish hatred was a fact of life for the Christians, continuing unabated after the repeated defeats of Messianic politics” (i.e., the defeats of Jewish rebels at the hands of the Romans in 70 and 135 ad) (p. 69). This is the basis of my concern on what will happen to whites when Jews become part of a hostile elite in white-minority America.
  • Non-Jews absorb these media images and as a result feel inadequate and emotionally intimidated. Eventually they identify with the aggressor, much like a browbeaten hostage or, as Friedemann suggests, an abused spouse. Or they maintain their friendships but studiously avoid talking about anything related to Israel. Non-Jews do the bidding of their “inner Jew” because they have internalized images of Jewish suffering. They therefore aid and abet Jewish brutality and aggression.
  • Non-Jews who persist in criticizing the organized Jewish community are threatened with loss of livelihood and social ostracism. As I noted in a previous article the organized Jewish community does not believe in free speech. It is important to keep in mind that when Jews were dominant in the first decades of the Soviet Union, the government controlled the media, anti-Semitism was outlawed, and there was mass murder of Christians and the destruction of Christian churches and religious institutions.

As Friedemann notes, the situation is nothing less than a sign of serious mental health issues for the mainstream Jewish community: “Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.”

I think this is what happens when people who deal with Jewish issues finally realize that there is no hope for dialogue and begin to think of what to do next. Honest people finally realize that when it comes to critical issues like Israel and multicultural America, the divisions among Jews are an illusion. (Friedemann herself has renounced her Jewish identity.) As Friedemann’s husband, Joachim Martillo, notes, “Jews, who want to be decent human beings, have no choice but to renounce being Jewish and serve the anti-Zionist struggle (right now).”

Exhibit A for this right now is the murderous Israeli invasion of Gaza. We know (see, for example, John Mearsheimer’s article in The American Conservative) that this invasion occurred after a prolonged period when Israel restricted supplies into Gaza and then attacked tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. We know that the invasion was designed to “to inflict massive pain on the Palestinians so that they come to accept the fact that they are a defeated people and that Israel will be largely responsible for controlling their future.”

The tone of Mearsheimer’s article suggests a dramatic shift in attitude where the usual inhibitions on public discourse are finally beginning to fall, even for a respected academic:

There is … little chance that people around the world who follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon forget the appalling punishment that Israel is meting out in Gaza. … [D]iscourse about this longstanding conflict has undergone a sea change in the West in recent years, and many of us who were once wholly sympathetic to Israel now see that the Israelis are the victimizers and the Palestinians are the victims.

The gloves are coming off. This is what happens when smart and honest people who work hard to get the scholarship right are nevertheless smeared as anti-Semites guilty of the vilest misdeeds. Not surprisingly, Abe Foxman — a premier defender of the racial Zionist status quo in Israel — devoted an entire book to smearing Mearsheimer and Walt. Quite simply, there is no point to talking to such people or taking seriously what they say about us.

[adrotate group=”1″]

We know that the government of Israel is firmly in the hands of the racial Zionists — followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky and his view of the racial distinctiveness and superiority of the Jewish people. Indeed, the only question in the Israeli election is which brand of racial Zionism will form the next government. One knows that racial Zionism has completely won the day in Israel when Kadima — the party of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and the Gaza invasion — is now described by Benjamin Netanyahu as the party of the left. (The LA Times dutifully calls it “centrist” but, as Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery writes, Livni “cries to high heaven against any dialogue with Hamas. She objects to a mutually agreed cease-fire. She tries to compete with Netanyahu and [Avignor] Liberman with unbridled nationalist messages.”)Indeed, Netanyahu’s only worry is that the openly racist Liberman — a disciple of the notorious Meir Kehane — will take away too many votes from Likud.

The situation is analogous to a US election where Pat Buchanan is the candidate of the far left. (I can dream.)

Avnery analogizes the election to a joke where a sergeant tells his men: “I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you are going to change your dirty socks. The bad news is that you are going to exchange them among yourselves.”

Once again we see at work the general principle that within the Jewish community, the most extreme elements carry the day and pull the rest of the Jewish community with them. As I noted in “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism,” “over time, the more militant, expansionist Zionists (the Jabotinskyists, the Likud Party, fundamentalists, and West Bank settlers) have won the day and have continued to push for territorial expansion within Israel. This has led to conflicts with Palestinians and a widespread belief among Jews that Israel itself is threatened. The result has been a heightened group consciousness among Jews and ultimately support for Zionist extremism among the entire organized American Jewish community.”

The fanatics keep pushing the envelop, forcing other Jews to either go along with their agenda or cease being part of the Jewish community. Ominously, if elected, Netanyahu promises that a top priority will be “harnessing the U.S. administration to stop the threat” of Iran’s nuclear program.

Incidentally, E. Michael Jones (The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Effect on History, p. 42ff) has expanded this argument to the ancient world. He shows how the Jewish community was pulled in the direction of fanaticism by the Zealots  who expelled the followers of Jesus from the synagogue and adopted a disastrous path of revolution against Rome, leading ultimately to the defeats of 70 and 135 a.d.

A good example of the schizophrenia described by Friedemann comes from the fact that around 80% of American Jews voted for Obama but around thesame percentage blames Hamas for the escalation of violence and believes that the Israeli response was “appropriate.” These results of the poll on the Gaza invasion were proudly announced by Abraham Foxman of the ADL, an organization that is one of the principal forces in promoting a post-European America. The Jewish left is a pillar of multi-cultural America but strongly supports racial Zionism in Israel.

This same schizophrenia was on display at a recent presentation at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles by Chris Hedges and Mark Potok — he of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The program dealt with the usual bogey-men of the organized Jewish community: Christian fundamentalists, skinheads, David Duke, and (I am gratified to report) The Occidental Quarterly. In a comment on the alliance between Christian conservatives and Zionists, an audience member mentioned (to stifled applause) that “There are Jewish fascists.” But the moderator, Ian Masters, saved the day when he stated that “the vast majority of American Jews are secular and liberal” — a comment that brought much applause, presumably because it reassured the many Jews in the audience that they weren’t like THOSE Jews. For his part, Potok, that stalwart warrior against White America, expressed his support for what he sees as a beleaguered Israel on the verge of apocalypse at the hands of the Arabs. Schizophrenia indeed.

The politicians who are running Israel are, if anything, more racialist and nationalist than anything even remotely on the horizon in American or European politics. As Avnery notes:

In every other country, Liberman’s program would be called fascist, without quotation marks. Nowhere in the Western world is there a large party that would dare to advance such a demand [to annul the citizenship of Arabs]. The neo-fascists in Switzerland and Holland want to expel foreigners, not to annul the citizenship of the native-born. …

When Joerg Haider was taken into the Austrian cabinet, Israel recalled its ambassador from Vienna in protest. But compared to Liberman, Haider was a raving liberal, and so is Jean-Marie le Pen.  Now Netanyahu has announced that Liberman will be “an important minister” in his government, Livni has hinted that he will be in her government, too, and Barak has not excluded that possibility.

The optimistic version says that Liberman will prove to be a passing curiosity. … There is also a pessimistic version: Fascism has become a serious player in the Israeli public domain. The three main parties have now legitimized it. This phenomenon must be stopped before it is too late.

So I have a suggestion for the Foxmans, the Potoks, the neoconservatives, and the secular Jewish liberals of the world: If you want to fight racism and ethnic nationalism, start in your own backyard. And my suggestion for the rest of us is to get rid of what Friedemann calls the “inner Jew.” I know it’s hard to do. But once you tune out the screaming hostility (and assuming you don’t fear losing your job), it’s easy. Just don’t expect a pleasant or rational conversation.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

KevinMacDonald.net

The Church and anti-Semitism—again

Recently there has been a media uproar about the reinstatement of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), a traditionalist Catholic group, that broke off from the Church after the reforms of Vatican II. Jewish groups are furious that there would be any attempt to reconcile these traditionalists to the Church. This is not surprising since the issue that led to the schism was the reform of the Church initiated by the Second Vatican Council and its declaration on Judaism, anti-Semitism, and non-Christian religions.

The man behind the schism was Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre not only objected to the changes wrought by Vatican II but also opposed Muslim immigration to Europe. As noted in the National Catholic Reporter,

A troubled history with Judaism has long been part of the Catholic traditionalist movement associated with … Lefebvre — beginning with Lefebvre himself, who spoke approvingly of both the World War II-era Vichy Regime in France and the far-right National Front, and who identified the contemporary enemies of the faith as “Jews, Communists and Freemasons” in an Aug. 31, 1985, letter to Pope John Paul II.

Within the past year, a priest of the SSPX stated that the Jews were “co-responsible” for the death of Christ. One of the reinstated bishops, Richard Williamson, has questioned standard accounts of the Holocaust.

All this raises once again the issue of anti-Semitism and the Church. Visiting St. Peter’s in Rome last summer I noticed that there was a fairly large and prominent crypt of St. John Chrysostom. There is also a large statue of Chrysostom as part of the Altar of the Chair of St. Peter by Bernini, as well a statue on the colonnadeChrysostom was certainly an important Doctor of the Church. But he is also one of history’s most well-known anti-Semites:

Although such beasts [Jews] are unfit for work, they are fit for killing . . . fit for slaughter. (I.II.5)

[The Synagogue] is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews. (I.IV.2)

Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? (I.VII.1) (St. John Chrysostom,Adversus Judaeos)

Or consider St. Jerome: “If you call [the synagogue] a brothel, a den of vice, the devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever else you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”

Or St. Gregory of Nyssa: [Jews are] murderers of the Lord, assassins of the prophets, rebels against God, God haters, . . . advocates of the devil, race of vipers, slanderers, calumniators, dark-minded people, leaven of the Pharisees, sanhedrin of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners, and haters of righteousness.

I wrote a chapter on this in Separation and Its Discontents, proposing that the Catholic church in late antiquity [4th–6th century AD] was in its very essence a powerful anti-Jewish movement that arose out of resource and reproductive competition with Jews. This idea of mine hasn’t received much attention — perhaps because it leads to some basic questioning about our beliefs and our culture. Darwin really did have a dangerous idea. But since the issue is topical right now, I thought that I would use this opportunity to summarize the argument there, followed by some further comments on anti-Jewish attitudes in Catholicism.

  • The 4th and 5th centuries were a time of increased anti-Jewish attitudes at all levels of Roman society. Preachers and bishops like Chrysostom portrayed the Jews very negatively and attempted to erect walls between Jews and non-Jews.
  • Jews had become economically prosperous during this period even though the society as a whole was losing population and declining economically. Accusations of Jewish greed, wealth, love of luxury and of the pleasures of the table became common. Jews were prominent in certain sectors of the economy, including the slave trade, banking, national and international trade, and the law. Jews had also developed monopolies in specific industries, including silk, clothing, glassware, and the trade in luxury items. Jews were seen as wealthy, powerful, and aggressive.
  • Church actions against the Jews and the anti-Jewish rhetoric of the Church Fathers struck a deep resonance with popular attitudes. A historian noted that “if the Christian populace so many times threw itself into the attack on synagogue after synagogue, it was not because it passively accepted orders given from above. … If the anti-Jewish polemic was so successful, it was because it awakened latent hatreds and appealed to feelings that were already there.”
  • Emperor Constantine, who established the Church as the religion of the Empire, had bishops in his entourage who held strongly anti-Jewish attitudes. Constantine himself stated that the Jews are “a people who, having imbrued their hands in a most heinous outrage [i.e., killing Christ], have thus polluted their souls and are deservedly blind.”
  • Several of the Church Fathers, including Chrysostom, came from areas where there was a long history of conflict between Jews and non-Jews. Chrysostom describes Jews as numerous and wealthy and seems to have seen Judaism more as an economic force than as a religious organization. He often compared Jews to predatory beasts and accused them of virtually every evil, including economic crimes such as profiteering. St. Jerome also refers to Jews as encircling Christians and seeking to tear them apart. Jerome complained about the Jews’ love for money in several passages. And he complained that the Jews were multiplying “like vermin” — a comment that clearly suggests a concern with Jewish reproductive success.
  • Outspoken anti-Jewish attitudes were typical of many who rose in the Church hierarchy and among many prominent Christian writers of the 4th and 5th century (e.g., Eusebius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa). In the Eastern Church during this period, the monks were “militant anti-Semites” who had considerable influence among the Church hierarchy. The suggestion is that anti-Semitism was of prime importance in attaining positions of power and influence in the Church during this period. Individuals exhibited their anti-Semitism openly, as a badge of honor, and were made saints of the Church after their death.
  • A significant percentage of all Christian writings during the period are essentially anti-Jewish. These writings are attempts define an ingroup fundamentally opposed to Jews. Christians saw the Old Testament and the New Testament as fundamentally opposed: “The adversos Judeaostradition represents the overall method of Christian exegesis of the Old Testament. . . . It was virtually impossible for the Christian preacher or exegete to teach scripturally at all without alluding to the anti-Judaic theses.”
  • This rhetoric was meant to apply not only to the Jews of the Old Testament but also to their descendants in the contemporary world. According to Chrysostom, Jewish responsibility for killing Christ and their many other vices had been passed to the descendants of the ancient Jews as inherited traits.
  • Anti-Jewish references occurred in Christian liturgy and rites, especially those surrounding Holy Week emphasizing the role of the Jews in the crucifixion of Christ. Prayers intended for use by the masses of Christians contained reproaches against the Jews. Christian holidays and periods of fasting were set up to be directly opposite to Jewish ones and to act as anti-Jewish commemorations. For example, the Christian Holy Week originally coincided with the Jewish Passover, but the Christian liturgy emphasized Christian mourning for the Jewish act of deicide at a time of Jewish rejoicing. Friday became a fast day commemorating the crucifixion, whereas for Jews, Friday was a joyous time prior to the Sabbath. Anti-Jewish attitudes were deeply ingrained in the important documents of the religion and closely connected to expressions of Christian faith.
  • The culmination of this perceived Jewish evil is, of course, the rejection and killing of Christ. According to Eusebius — an important Christian theoretician, by rejecting Christ as the Messiah, the Jews rejected God and forfeited their status as the Chosen People. Their punishment for this rejection can already be seen by their defeats at the hands of the Romans, their loss of secular power, and the loss of their priesthood.
  • The result was a very potent anti-Jewish ideology. Christian anti-Semitism was not only intellectually respectable, it also developed an emotionally compelling anti-Jewish liturgy. With the political success of the Church, society as a whole became organized around a monolithic, hegemonic, and collectivist social institution defined by its opposition to Judaism.
  • Christian writers, such as Eusebius, described Judaism as an ethnic entity, but they saw Christianity as a universalist religion that would eventually include all of mankind. Eusebius repeatedly contrasts the universalist message of Christianity versus the religion of the “Jewish race.” The new covenant is “not for the Jewish race only” but “summons all men equally to share together the same good things.” Eusebius thought of Jews as biological descendants of Abraham who have rejected the universal message of Christianity, which remains open to them if only they would see the light.
  • This Christian ideology was accompanied by an increase in anti-Jewish actions sanctioned and even encouraged by the Church. Monks “stirred up mobs of Christians to pillage synagogues, cemeteries, and other property, seize or burn Jewish religious buildings, and start riots in the Jewish quarter.” Christians were able to destroy synagogues with virtual impunity and with the tacit or open approval of the Church. The Church pressured the government to forgive anti-Jewish acts.
  • A number of anti-Jewish laws were enacted, including laws against Jews owning Christian slaves, laws discouraging social contact and intermarriage with Jews, and laws regulating economic relationships between Jews and non-Jews. Jews were barred from the legal profession and government service, and they were prohibited from making accusations against Christians or even testifying against them in civil or criminal legal proceedings.
  • The government was often reluctant to pursue these anti-Jewish restrictions and did so only as a result of ecclesiastical and popular pressure. The Church was active and influential in changing imperial legislation regarding the Jews, and the wording of the laws often betrays extreme hostility to the Jews. The Church developed the ideology that it was superior to the emperors — clearly a necessary condition if the Church was to be an instrument of anti-Semitism rather than having only a spiritual function.
  • As with the official Muslim position, Jews were allowed to exist within Christian societies, but, as a condemned people, their life was to be miserable. With this type of ideology it is easy to see that Christian religious ideology would be inconsistent with Jewish wealth, political power, and reproductive success.
  • I suggest that the reason for Christian universalism was that the Empire had become a polyglot, ethnically diverse “chaos of peoples” (quoting race theorist Houston Stewart Chamberlain). The world became divided into Jews and non-Jews. The Jews remained an ethnic group, while the non-Jews developed a religious identification as Christians.
  • The result was that ethnicity had no official place in Christian religious ideology. This in turn had a number of important consequences in later centuries. On the one hand, there is no question that Catholicism was able to serve as a viable institution of ethnic defense in other historical eras, notably the Middle Ages when, as James C. Russell notes, the Church was influenced by German culture. On the other hand, the strands of Christian universalism can lead to compromising the ethnic interests of Christians. Indeed, since Vatican II, Catholicism has become part of the culture of Western suicide. In the US, it is in the forefront of the open borders movement. It is therefore not at all surprising that Jewish organizations would be dismayed by any retreat from Vatican II.

Fundamentally, the Catholic traditionalists seem to desire a return to an older form of Catholicism capable of defending the West as a cultural entity and perhaps implicitly as an ethnic entity. Indeed, it is interesting to read the article on Judaism in The Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 — during the papacy of Pius X.  The article shows that Catholic attitudes on Jews had not changed much in the 16 centuries since Eusebius. Jews in the time of Jesus are described as a “race” that rejected the call of Jesus for repentance, showing no sorrow for sin, unfit for salvation and rejecting the true kingdom of God in favor of earthly power: “Jesus justly treated as vain the hopes of His Jewish contemporaries that they should become masters of the world in the event of a conflict with Rome.”

[The Kingdom of God] is the Christian Church, which was able silently to leaven the Roman Empire, which has outlived the ruin of the Jewish Temple and itsworship, and which, in the course of centuries, has extended to the confines of the world the knowledge and the worship of the God of Abraham, while Judaismhas remained the barren fig-tree which Jesus condemned during His mortal life. …

[After the resurrection of Jesus,] the Church … took the independent attitude which it has maintained ever since. Conscious of their Divine mission, its leaders boldly charged the Jewish rulers with the death ofJesus, and freely “taught and preached Christ Jesus”, disregarding the threats and injunctions of men whom they considered as in mad revolt against God and His Christ (Acts 4).

The article portrays Church laws against Jews, such as laws against Jews having Christian slaves and forcing Jews to live in ghettos, as necessary to protect the Christian faith. And it accurately portrays the Church in later centuries as at times protecting Jews against popular anti-Jewish actions. However, it asserts that the causes of popular anti-Semitism included real conflicts between Jews and non-Jews and are not only due to Christian religious ideology. In particular, the causes of anti-Semitism are described as follows:

  • The deep and wide racial difference between Jews and Christians which was, moreover, emphasized by the ritual and dietary laws of Talmudic Judaism;
  • the mutual religious antipathy which prompted the Jewish masses to look upon theChristians as idolaters, and the Christians to regard the Jews as the murderersof the Divine Saviour of mankind, and to believe readily the accusation of the use of Christian blood in the celebration of the; Jewish Passover, thedesecration of the Holy Eucharist, etc.;
  • the trade rivalry which caused Christians to accuse the Jews of sharp practice, and to resent their clipping of the coinage, their usury, etc.;
  • the patriotic susceptibilities of the particular nations in the midst of which the Jews have usually formed a foreign element, and to the respective interests of which their devotionhas not always been beyond suspicion.

These ideas on the causes of popular anti-Semitism are pretty much the same as the ones I emphasize in my overview of historical anti-Semitism.

The Catholic Church has played the role of ethnic and cultural defense in the past. It is certainly not surprising that Jewish organizations are alarmed by any suggestion that it might be returning to its historic self-conception. Indeed, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a quasi-Jewish organization that is the epicenter of leftist intolerance of any remnant of the traditional culture of the West, has also targeted traditional Catholics using its familiar methods of disinformation and intimidation (see The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Hate Mongers).

Let’s hope the traditionalists don’t give in to what will be a furious onslaught to prevent any glimmer of the resurgence of traditional Catholicism.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

KevinMacDonald.net

The Global Anti-Semitism Report: The organized Jewish community opposes free speech

It is something of an axiom of Jewish life that “Is it good for the Jews?” remains the litmus test of Jewish communal activity — in other words, interest over principles. A good example is free speech. There can be little doubt that the organized Jewish community sees free speech as a problem because it may be used to criticize the behavior of Jewish organizations and especially Israel.

In Canada the response of the organized Jewish community to recent demonstrations against Israel was to attempt to invoke Canada’s restrictions on free speech in order to silence their critics. The Canadian Jewish Congress complained that protests against Israel’s incursion into Gaza contained images that were “uncivil, un-Canadian, that demonize Jews and Israelis.” They are asking the police to investigate the matter for referral to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which is in charge of enforcing laws that infringe on free speech. Although the organized Jewish community in Canada has strongly supported the thought crime legislation (see below), Bernie Farber, the head of the CJC, stated “we are firm supporters and believers in the need to be able to demonstrate passionately in free and democratic societies.”

Because of the First Amendment, we are still a ways from the situation in Canada here in the US. Nevertheless, the ADL has been in the forefront of promoting hate-crime legislation in America, and there can be little doubt that they see the First Amendment as a barrier to their interests in suppressing thoughts and speech critical of Israel and other Jewish interests.

An example of the efforts of the organized Jewish community in the direction of thought control is the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. This law created an office of “Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism” within the State Department, headed by Gregg J. Rickman. The act not only requires the State Department to document acts of anti-Semitism, but also to “combat acts of anti-Semitism globally.”

The act does not say what the U.S. must do to combat anti-Semitism around the world. I assume combating anti-Semitism wouldn’t require any more in the way of lives and money than, say, the war in Iraq — another project spearheaded by Jewish activism on behalf of Israel. But that may be wishful thinking as the same activists are avidly promoting a war with Iran which would likely be even more disastrous.

In any case, the office issued its most recent Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism Report (GASR) in March of last year. The document is an excellent example of Jewish activism that would be unremarkable except that it is now officially ensconced at the highest reaches of the U.S. government. As we shall see, it goes beyond criticizing anti-Jewish actions to anti-Jewish attitudes, such as statements about Jewish influence.

The report performs the by now familiar casuistry on Israel as a cause of anti-Semitism. The reader is led to believe that the allegations of Israeli atrocities are overblown propaganda — when the real question is just how Palestinians manage to survive at all in the occupied territories. The recent horrifying incursion into Gaza is only the most recent example. Not only did Israel carry out a starvation-inducing blockade during a ceasefire and an assault that finally provoked Palestinian retaliation, there seems little doubt that Israel committed — (site hacked as of 3/4/16) dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=28743 — war crimes — particularly the use of white phosphorus bombs in densely populated civilian areas.

The report complains that Israel’s bad behavior is singled out while nobody cares when other governments behave inhumanely. The problem here is that because Israel’s bad behavior is an important ingredient in enflaming the entire region, it should interest everyone. And because of the role of the Israel Lobby in shaping American policy, Israel’s bad behavior is even more properly the concern of all Americans. American taxpayers are not being asked to massively subsidize other badly behaved governments, nor are they asked to fight and die in wars designed to advance the interests of those governments.

The report graciously states that “responsible criticism” of Israel’s policies is acceptable. (Thanks!) But there’s a catch: “Those criticizing Israel have a responsibility to consider the effect their actions may have in prompting hatred of Jews.”

This, of course, has the effect of proscribing criticism of Israel for fear of being called an anti-Semite. Presumably responsible criticism of Israel does not include books like John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt’s The Israel Lobby, despite its academic tone and masterful marshalling of evidence. Jewish activists have routinely accused the authors of resurrecting the Protocols and other vicious acts of anti-Semitism.

As the report notes, Israel is without doubt the source of most anti-Jewish words and deeds in the contemporary world. But the report also points to traditional Jewish stereotypes as a continuing concern: Jews as more loyal to Israel and Jewish interests than the interests of their country of residence; and Jews as having inordinate influence and control over media, the economy or government. For example, according to ADL surveys, substantial percentages of Europeans believe that Jews have too much power in business and in international financial markets. (The percentages range from around 20% in Germany to 60% in Hungary.)

[adrotate group=”1″]

Similarly, ADL surveys indicate that beliefs that Jews are disloyal are common among Europeans, ranging from 39% in France to 60% in Spain. The report notes that “those who believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country tend to believe that Jew ish lobbying groups and individual Jews in influential positions in national governments seek to bend policy toward Israel’s interests.”

In other words, these anti-Semites are living under the illusion that organizations like AIPAC actually have some influence. And they may even believe that highly placed Jews like Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams and Richard Perle may have steered U.S. policy in a way that benefited Israel to the detriment of the United States.

As I noted in my review of Mearsheimer and Walt,

Pro-Israel activists such as Perle typically phrase their policy recommendations as aimed at benefiting the United States. Perle does this despite evidence that he has a strong Jewish identity and despite the fact that he has typical Jewish concerns, such as anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and the welfare of Israel. Perle poses as an American patriot despite credible charges of spying for Israel, writing reports for Israeli think tanks and op-eds for the Jerusalem Post, and maintaining close personal relation-ships with Israeli leaders.

Needless to say, the GASR is not a good place to find nuanced or fair treatments of these issues.

The GASR also has a section deploring ethnic nationalist movements of non-Jews, mainly in Eastern Europe, complaining that these movements are commonly anti-Jewish. Typically the anti-Jewish sentiments of such movements stem from the perception that Jews are an elite with considerable power and that this elite opposes the ethno-nationalism of non-Jews—a view that certainly has some basis in reality. (Jewish opposition to ethno-nationalism is restricted to non-Jews in areas where Jews form a Diaspora; it does not, of course, apply to Israel.)

For example, the GASR singles out Roman Catholic institutions as “encouraging anti-Semitism and ethnic and religious chauvinism.” Chief among the offenders isa conservative Catholic radio station in Poland, Radio Maryja, cited for claiming that “Jews were pushing the Polish government to pay exorbitant private property restitution claims [for Holocaust reparations], and that Poland’s President was ‘in the pocket of the Jewish lobby.’”

This seems odd, since it would hardly be surprising if indeed Jews and Jewish organizations were pressuring the Polish government on this issue. Indeed, Norman Finkelstein points out:

In negotiations with Eastern Europe, Jewish organizations and Israel have demanded the full restitution of or monetary compensation for the pre-war communal and private assets of the Jewish community. Consider Poland. The pre-war Jewish population of Poland stood at 3.5 million; the current population is several thousand. Yet, the World Jewish Restitution Organization demands title over the 6,000 pre-war communal Jewish properties, including those currently being used as hospitals and schools. It is also laying claim to hundreds of thousands of parcels of Polish land valued in the many tens of billions of dollars. Once again the entire US political and legal establishment has been mobilized to achieve these ends. Indeed, New York City Council members unanimously supported a resolution calling on Poland ‘to pass comprehensive legislation providing for the complete restitution of Holocaust assets’, while 57 members of Congress (led by Congressman Anthony Weiner of New York) dispatched a letter to the Polish parliament demanding ‘comprehensive legislation that would return 100% of all property and assets seized during the Holocaust’.

No sign of Jewish involvement there. Clearly, Radio Marija is way out of line.

Incidentally, Finkelstein has paid dearly for offending the Israel Lobby: blacklisted from employment in the academic world, deported and barred from Israel, and living in a rent-stabilized apartment near his boyhood home in Brooklyn. The Lobby clearly believes in free speech so long as it’s in done in one’s closet and assuming the neighbors can’t hear it. (More on this below.)

Also related to Poland, the GASR notes that Maciej Giertych, European Parlia­ment Deputy, wrote a booklet “suggesting that Jews were unethical and a ‘tragic community’ because they did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.” The report also deplored the ADL’s finding that 39% of Polish respondents agreed that “Jews are responsible for the death of Christ.”

This is truly amazing. Here we have an official U.S. government report condemning a Polish politician and a large percentage of the Polish people for expressing religious ideas that date from the origins of the Church in antiquity. It’s very reminiscent of the situation in Canada where the Christian Heritage Party has been charged with promoting hatred because they published material opposing homosexuality for religious reasons stemming from their reading of the Bible.

Incidentally, the GASR complains that Giertych also claimed that “Jews ‘create their own ghettos’ because they like to separate themselves from others.” Residential segregation, of course, was standard Jewish behavior in the Diaspora beginning in the ancient world, and it certainly occurred in Polandwell into modern times. Indeed, it continues in many areas of the Diaspora today. But, as with thought crimes generally, truth is no defense.

The GASR coyly states that “While the report describes many measures that foreign governments have adopted to combat anti-Semitism, it does not endorse any such measures that prohibit conduct that would be protected under the U.S. Constitution.”

Nevertheless, the act requires the compilation of material that would presumably be protected by the US Constitution, in particular “instances of propaganda in government and nongovernment media that attempt to justify or promote racial hatred … against Jewish people.” When one considers that a great many of the attitudes mentioned in the GASR are either substantially factual or reflect common religious beliefs, they would certainly seem to fall within the protections of the First Amendment.

And it’s pretty clear where its heart lies. Indeed, as Ezra Levant has recently described, Jewish organizations and activists have been a major source of support for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, intervening in dozens of cases in favor of plaintiffs.  Levant describes the Simon Weisenthal Center as “one of the most vicious interveners in Canadian Human Rights Commission censorship trials.” And Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress stated recently that “our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused.” Levant comments: “That sounds like Ian Fine, senior counsel for the CHRC, who declared that ‘there can’t be enough laws against hate.’ So while the rest of the country is realizing that our government censorship has gone too far, Farber says it goes nowhere far enough; it’s underused. He wants more censorship, more government intervention into thoughts and ideas — and the emotion called ‘hate’.”

Clearly the office of Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism is nothing if not a Jewish activist organization. And it doubtless would love to institute the same kinds of thought control in the U.S. that have made Canada into a police state. Indeed, it would be entirely within the letter of the law that created this monster if the United States were to declare war on Poland as a means of combating anti-Semitism. At least it won’t be necessary to invade Canada.

See also: State Dept. opposition

The actual bill

Arab response

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

The problem with intellectually insecure Whites

America will soon have a White minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues — at least in the long run. After all, it’s difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering.

And it’s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu — another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation — which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan  (“For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better) has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.

It’s not surprising that the New York Times — the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media — ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it interesting.

Now we have an article “The End of White America” written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: “Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?” … Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”

Buchanan’s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as “rationalized hatred” presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore “precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan’s profile — wealthy, Ivy League–educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure — might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.”

Let’s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, “at once pretentious and intellectually insecure,”  would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995’s White Man’s Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like “the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.”

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals. And it means that whites — especially white males — are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama’s America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002–2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile homicide perpetrators increased 43%. Hence,  the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority.

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, “The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.”

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, “I think white people feel like they’re under siege right now — like it’s not okay to be white right now, especially if you’re a white male. … People are stressed out about it. ‘We used to be in control! We’re losing control’” Another says, “There’s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment.”

It’s hard to see why these feelings won’t increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, “I get it: as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth.” A professor comments that for his students “to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them to talk about who they are is, ‘I don’t have a culture.’ They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture … They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized.”

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years Whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop—a product of the African American urban culture.

The only significant group of White people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites — and only this group — there is  “a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with ‘the real America.’”

This is what I term implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, “cannot speak its name.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my opinion, it is the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.

It’s worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,

A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely accepted among people of very different levels of education and among people of different social classes.

Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and theWashington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald’s Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: ““Like, I’m aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. … And there’s a bunch of white people who are desperate — desperate — to say, ‘You know what? My skin’s white, but I’m not one of the white people who’s destroying the world.’”

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like — what it’s like to be a self-hating White. We must get to the point where college-educated Whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of Whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, Whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a White person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as White people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it’s the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it’s the same situation with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won’t continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance fostered by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimousin condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The “God damn America” sermon by President Obama’s pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure — as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were “Stalin’s willing executioners.”

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinian people in one of the largest prison systems the world has ever seen. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the “transformation” of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, “cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity.” And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted that:

the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of  “unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness”…. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. …

After the Revolution, … there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. … The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, “in all the institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard” (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, “the Russian Federation…was still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity-free society” (p. 276). While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It’s happened before.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

KevinMacDonald.net

Racial and ethnic self-segregation

Two recent articles (see here and here) in the Chicago Tribune show that self-segregation is still the norm in 21st-century America. When whites move to Chicago, they naturally gravitate to the North Side, while blacks head to the South Side. Many of these whites doubtless voted for Obama, but “they aren’t nearly as interested in living in neighborhoods rich in color.”

Indeed, one of the articles cites a study indicating that whites prefer neighborhoods in which no more than 17% of the population is black and another in which whites rate neighborhoods higher if it is a white neighborhood independent of the physical condition of the neighborhood. As usual, whites are acting on these preferences with white flight. Whites make up a declining percentage of the population of Chicago (now 28%) as they retreat to suburban areas where they can live in neighborhoods with people like themselves.

This behavior conflicts with the official multicultural utopian attitudes that are so apparent in the articles. But it does conform to psychological research that people naturally prefer to associate with people who are similar to themselves. In fact, there are deep psychological roots to ethnocentrism that make us attracted to and more trusting of genetically similar others. Douglas Massey, a Princeton University expert on segregation, is quoted to the effect that “although white attitudes have changed and they don’t believe in segregation in principle very much anymore, . . .in intimate settings their comfort level isn’t very high.” Sociologists such as Robert Putnam have also shown that ethnic homogeneity is associated with greater trust of others and greater political participation.

The diversity industry is well aware that most whites don’t want to live among non-whites. Here’s a poster from one such group, aricherlife.org. The caption reads in part “Your workplace thrives on diversity, so why shouldn’t your neighborhood? Diversity expands horizons, promotes understanding, prepares our kids. It promises us all a richer life.”

The logic is that ambitious white parents will want to move to diverse neighborhoods to improve their children’s career chances in the even more diverse. globalized world of the future. So far, it doesn’t seem to be happening.

Of course, whites can’t be explicit about these preferences. Colin Lampark, the white engineer who moved to Lincoln Park, claims he didn’t move to the South Side because “just doesn’t know anyone on the South Side.” This would seem to be an example of what I call “implicit whiteness“:

White flight is one of the most salient phenomena of the late 20th century. And where are these white people fleeing to? To the suburbs where there are lots of other white people and where their children go to schools with other white children. 

As sociologist Kevin Kruse notes in his book White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism, race is never part of the explicit rhetoric of white flight. Instead, white flight tends to be expressed as opposition to the federal government, the welfare state, taxation, and perceived moral dangers like abortion and homosexuality. But at the implicit level, the desire for white communities and the aversion to contributing to public goods for nonwhites are the overriding motivations.

Each of these identities allows white people to associate with other whites without any explicit acknowledgement that race plays a role.

However, as one of the articles notes, blacks can be explicit about their preferences:

Research shows that blacks largely remain segregated from whites across income levels, though to a lesser extent than 30 years ago.

Many higher-income African-Americans who could afford to live anywhere in the city choose to live among blacks, even at the expense of wealth accumulation in their homes.

“It provides a certain comfort for middle-class African-Americans who may work in a corporate environment where they are minorities to live in a neighborhood where they aren’t a minority,” said Richard Pierce, chairman of the Africana studies department at the University of Notre Dame.

[Rosalyn] Bates, of Bronzeville [a black neighborhood], might fit into that category. A clinical therapist, she and her attorney sister canvassed much of the city before selecting a neighborhood.

“There is a comfort level being among people of your own race,” she said. “I don’t think that there was any intention of segregation behind that.”

The articles reflect the attitude that there is a moral imperative for whites to live in integrated neighborhoods, but it is entirely benign when blacks do it. It is similar to the immigration issue writ small: Massive non-white immigration is a moral imperative for Western societies, but other societies have no such obligation. Societies from Israel to Korea to Zimbabwe are free to preserve their people and culture. And they are intent on doing so.

But such attitudes among whites are cause for censure and endless handwringing by elites in the media and academic world. Whites are retreating to white enclaves where they can find a measure of psychological ease and comfort — except when they talk to the media.

Media Watch: Mainstreamest of the MSM admits: Yes, minority loans stoked the economic crisis

For weeks, writers like Steve Sailer and Ann Coulter have been pointing out that the economic crisis was likely caused, in large part, by the massive drive to give mortgage loans to blacks and Hispanics.

The reaction was easy to predict: Loony right-wingers and racists want to “scapegoat” minorities for economic problems that are really the fault of greedy whites.

But those critics are going to find it harder to dismiss the latest outlet for that observation:  The New York Times.  In a lengthy and wide-ranging Sunday piece, the paper puts the minority-loan angle up high, with a front-page photo and the caption, “In June 2002, President Bush spoke in Atlanta to unveil a plan to increase minority homeownership.”

An inside photo shows a proud Bush touring a new development in heavily-black Atlanta, presumably staged to show what a Great White Father he is.  One sentence in the story began, “He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors.”

I can overlook the NYT for wanting to append “greedy whites” to that sentence, given how surprised I am that it was written at all.  In my modest role as a pro-white media critic, I sometimes wonder, “How much racial reality needs to be breaking down our doors before the media will acknowledge it?”  Well, you might say this economic crisis has broken down the door — and the media leader, the NYT, felt compelled to at least mention it.

The problem with the story is that the minority-loan angle is mentioned early, but dropped.  The rest of the story takes the traditional MSM tack of blaming the evil and incompetent whites in government, from Bush on down.

Still, it’s a good sign.  When the mortgage meltdown began, the media’s coverage was expectedly misdirected:  The narrative was one of greedy white bankers, brokers and other finance characters who were aided and abetted by incompetent white Republicans who were derelict in their regulatory duties. But the only “regulation” or “oversight” I can think of that would have prevented mortgage defaults is one that said, “Don’t make that loan.  It’s too risky.”  Of course, that would have gone squarely against Bush’s goal of more loans for minorities.

Bundled mortgages and derivatives aside, an individual mortgage is not a complex transaction.  A bank extends a loan for the purchase of a house, and the purchaser agrees to pay back the loan, with interest, at certain amounts and on certain intervals.  However complex the apportionment of interest (I did not realize, until the purchase of my own house, that the interest in usually heavily front-loaded), the lender will make it simple for you:  Pay this amount by the first of the month, or we’ll take back the house and kick you out.

It does not take a PhD-holding economist to figure this out.  So, when mortgages are defaulting, there’s usually a devastatingly simple reason:  The homeowner isn’t paying the mortgage.  Who are these people?  Why aren’t they paying the mortgage?  Yet for all the media’s manpower, nobody asked that question.  Nobody said, well, let’s look at all the defaulters, and go out and talk to a few.

This is partly because of one media rule that applies to the controversies they cover, even beyond the context of political correctness on race:  Problems are never the result of everyday people.  Problems are always the fault of a big bad business, or government, or something institutional.  For instance, when the topic of bankruptcy is covered, the media will focus most of its attention on “predatory lenders” who dangle credit cards in front of college kids, evil banks and their pushy lobbyists, etc.  They’ll never hone in on Wanda Sanchez, who, while unemployed, went on a weekly shopping spree at Saks, and now has to file for Chapter 7.

The media thinks of itself as protecting “the little guy” against bigger and more powerful forces, which doesn’t strike me as a too-terrible approach. (I long ago dropped my mainstream conservative reflexive defense of “big business”, and I sure as hell haven’t ever felt an instinct to defend government.) But the problem with this approach is that it overlooks a fundamental truth:  Some people (of all races) are problematic.  They tend not to be reliable.  They’ll sneak a little extra where they can, and they’ll free-load when nobody’s looking.

With minorities, of course, this reality is magnified:  Blacks do, in fact, tend to be less intelligent and less conscientious, which in turn makes them even less reliable when it comes to paying off loans.  I am confident that same holds true for Hispanics, though I am not as familiar with data on the Hispanic IQ.

The lower creditworthiness of blacks in general is significant.  Early on, before racial consciousness, I was motivated to concern over what was presented to me as the problem of “racism in lending,” i.e., bank refusals to lend blacks money.  I had started to dismiss other forms of “racism” as the explanation for black failure, but this one seemed legitimate to me, if all that were needed for black success was a loan.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But the statistics didn’t bear out the concern. As Peter Brimelow has shown: They were going by the credit ratings, and, as you can imagine, it did so happen that blacks had absolutely terrible credit.  I’ve seen plenty of anecdotal examples of this as an attorney.  But never mind:  Today, financial institutions face a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t quandary:  If they loan to blacks, they’re accused of “predatory lending,” and if they don’t, they’re accused of “redlining.”

And when it comes to Hispanics, many of whom are not here legally to begin with, the responsibility of paying off a mortgage is surely even more compromised.

Needless to say, none of these realities were contemplated by the forces that decided to gamble with America’s economy in the name of racial equality.  And while I don’t expect the NYT‘s mention of this angle to shift the debate entirely, it’s a welcome crack in the ice.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

The problem with explicit processing: Christian evangelicals

One of my intellectual bedrocks these days is the psychological distinction between explicit and implicit processing. Implicit processing is how the animal part of our brain operates. It’s basically a set of psychological reflexes that take care of the routine business of living — like seeing colors and shapes when we look around the room and recognizing the faces of people we know.

From an evolutionary perspective, the systems of implicit processing have been meticulously designed by natural selection to promote survival and reproduction. They make us enjoy sex and they make us want children and enjoy nurturing them— most of the time. They make us want to associate with people like ourselves. They also make us more likely to contribute to public goods like education and health care if the likely beneficiaries are people like ourselves.

But then along comes explicit processing to make it all really complicated. Explicit processing includes our verbal, cultural world—how we think about ourselves and our place in the world. Patrick Hardin sums it up beautifully in his cartoon: For eons our animal ancestors were governed by three simple rules: “Eat, survive, reproduce.” But at the very pinnacle of evolution, we ask “What’s it all about?”

And we are not very good at answering that question. Humans are prone to a mind-boggling array of ideologies that answer the question “What’s it all about?” But pretty much all of the ones circulating in the mainstream culture of the West are guaranteed to be incompatible with the long term survival and reproduction of the people holding them.

In illustrating this point, I could choose from a very wide range of ideologies held by large groups of white people—from benighted leftist college professors toyoung urban professionals who read the New York Times, admire rap artists, and agonize about recycling. But right now I would like to make some comments on Christian evangelicals.

Actually, I probably shouldn’t be picking on them at all. When compared to most other whites, Christian evangelicals are definitely on the psychologically healthy end of the continuum. They believe in strong families, they have children, and they are very concerned about their children’s welfare. Many of them send their children to Christian schools, opting out of the great multicultural public education propaganda machine at great personal expense.

They are the embodiment of implicit whiteness—that is, they tend to live in white ethnic enclaves and they worship in predominantly white churches. But the whiteness of it all is never mentioned publicly and doesn’t even seem to be part of their conscious awareness. Living in Southern California, I have had occasion to attend several services at Saddleback Church—the pulpit for Rick Warren, one of America’s most well known Christian religious figures. Located in a very ethnically diverse area, it’s a sea of white people.

I was reminded of all this recently while listening to two of Terry Gross’s interviews with evangelicals on NPR — one an interview with Richard Cizik, the chief lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals, and the other with Frank Schaeffer, an evangelical who now rejects the anti-abortion movement that has been a major political cause among evangelicals.

The interviews were both focused on the political activism of the evangelicals—an important topic considering the status of the evangelicals as a critical component of the Republican base. So what were the driving political issues that were singled out as motivating the evangelicals: abortion and homosexuality.

To a considerable degree, both of these issues reflect the fundamental psychological health of the evangelicals. The issues that motivate them relate to constructing cultural supports for a family-friendly culture that promotes fertility and heterosexual marriage. (The phrase “heterosexual marriage” seems odd, but is necessary now that the concept is no longer redundant.)  Below-replacement fertility is a problem for whites around the world, and there can be little doubt that freely available abortion contributes to the problem. The good news is that Christian conservatives have considerably higher fertility than other white groups.

As a biologically oriented psychologist, I am not surprised that research indicates the importance of biological influences on homosexuality. (It is remarkable that biological roots of homosexuality are one of the very few areas where it is politically correct to argue for biological influences. In general the cultural left loves the idea that people are infinitely malleable, but it proudly stands with science if non-malleability suits their political interests.)

The fact that homosexuals have become pillars of the cultural left is deplorable —and quite unnecessary. Homosexuals have ethnic interests just like everyone else, and they can promote those interests even if they don’t themselves have children. It seems to me that one way for homosexuals to promote their ethnic interests is to acknowledge heterosexual marriage as a specially protected cultural norm — its special status guaranteed because of its critical importance in creating and nurturing children.

But I digress. Both of these issues require a more lengthy treatment. The main point here is that even if evangelicals managed to enact their views on these issues into law, it would not be enough to stave off the steady erosion of their political and cultural influence. If present trends continue, evangelicals — like the rest of white America — will become increasingly irrelevant.

The problem is that immigration and its disastrous consequences for white America are simply not on their radar screen, at least at the explicit level. Presumably, a large part of the groundswell against illegal immigration in recent years came from Christian conservatives. But in this case, the only principle conservatives focused on was that illegal immigration was, after all, illegal. And that’s not enough. If illegal immigration was stopped tomorrow, it would only delay the inevitable eclipse of white America.

[adrotate group=”1″]

In the case of abortion and homosexuality, evangelicals base their views firmly on the Bible. But when it comes to immigration, the Bible isn’t much help. There is a strong strain of universalism in Christianity. Indeed, when I was doing research on the origins of the Church as an anti-Jewish movement in the ancient world (see Chapter 3 of Separation and Its Discontents), it was striking to notice that the Church fathers perceived Judaism as based on biological descent and ethnic identity. They thought that Christianity was morally superior to Judaism because it was a community of religious believers with no ethnic connotations.

In short, Judaism has always had a fairly tight congruence between their evolutionary interests and their explicit ideology. Indeed, in a previous TOO column I noted the triumph of racial Zionism in Israel. On the other hand, Christian sects are communities with a variety of explicit ideologies that are at best only tangentially related to their ethnic interests. Indeed, it might be argued that Christianity often works well as an ideology for a more or less homogeneous white society. But, at least without some big changes from the current varieties, it is abysmally inadequate as an ideology of ethnic defense. This is especially so in a culture dominated by an intellectual and cultural elite that is hostile to all forms of Christianity and ridicules everything they believe in.

This contrast between Judaism and Christianity persists today: Ethnic particularism and biological descent continue to be robust trends within Judaism. On the other hand, a great many Christian denominations, including some evangelical groups, are strong supporters of multi-racial immigration and quite a few Christian groups avidly seek converts from all races and ethnicities. My impression is that most white Christians live in an implicit white world. Their gut instincts are to preserve an America that has at least a vague resemblance to the world in which they grew up. But the displacement of white America is simply not something they talk about among themselves. Leaders like Rick Warren rarely mention immigration as an issue, and when they do, they uphold conventional views that would certainly not ruffle any feathers at the New York Times.

Evangelicals are engaged in culture wars that are a sideshow to the main event. Of course, the same can be said about the other conservative cultural warriors — people like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.

And the same can also be said about other hot-button cultural issues, such as the legitimacy of Christianity in the public square. The mainstream media, aided and abetted by the organized Jewish community, have indeed been waging a war on public manifestations of Christianity. But the idea that Christianity could retain any public presence at all when whites become a minority seems preposterous. Unless evangelicals and other Christians vigorously oppose legal and illegal immigration, the idea that America is a Christian country is bound to go the way of horse-drawn buggies (and the American automobile industry?).

I suppose Christians could dream that these immigrants would be sufficiently Christian to ensure a Christian America. But Christian religiosity is not a criterion for immigration to America and its adoption as a criterion would certainly be a major violation of the cultural Marxist zeitgeist that dominates these issues now. Abe Foxman would probably have a stroke if the issue was debated in Congress. And at a gut level, I don’t think that most evangelicals really want a white-minority, multicultural America.

As an evolutionist, it is natural to urge explicit assertions of white identity and interests as an ideology for survival.  But such an ideology resides in another galaxy — light years removed from the world of the evangelicals. Left to their own devices, it seems impossible that the evangelicals would be any more than implicit supporters of white America. And that is not enough. As noted previously in TOO:

It might be possible for the Republicans to adopt a Sarah Palinesque identity of Christianity and traditional small town values. But even if they do, they would still have to oppose legal and illegal immigration in order to remain a majority. The left has shown repeatedly that they will label as racist any criticism of immigration—even those based on economic or ecological arguments. And they would surely do so if a party composed almost exclusively of European-Americans advocated an end to immigration. It won’t matter what surface ideology they adopt.

So the prospect of developing a powerful evangelical religious ideology in opposition to immigration seems hopeless. (Bill Barnwell made a heroic efforton Vdare, but he doesn’t seem to have inspired a mass movement; he was careful to note that arguments on the basis of race or ethnicity are foreign to Christianity).

Not only is there a very long history of universalism embedded in the origins of Christianity, there is also intense policing of all issues related to immigration by the cultural left. The last thing that establishment religious figures like Rick Warren want is to challenge the consensus on race. But that is exactly what they would be accused of if they became activists against immigration in the way that evangelicals have been politically active on issues like abortion and homosexuality.

The likely result is that things will have to get a whole lot worse for white America in order for evangelicals to adopt an explicit white identity and act on the basis of their interests with the same emotional intensity that has often characterized their efforts on abortion and homosexuality.

And if it does happen, it’s really hard to see how they could remain evangelicals, at least in the sense that their religion is their primary source of identity and motivates their pro-white political behavior as it often motivates them on the issues of abortion and homosexuality.

Until the victimization of whites as whites by crime, affirmative action, and general dispossession becomes too obvious for even the most steadfast ostriches among us to ignore, things are unlikely to change. It will be much harder to right the ship when whites are a minority than it would be now when whites are a majority. But righting the ship just doesn’t seem likely to happen with the help of the evangelicals in the near future.

Conceptually, it’s not any different than some of the obviously maladaptive ideologies that have dotted human history. My favorite is the Shakers, a religious group that is opposed to sexual relations; not surprisingly it has dwindled to only a handful of believers.

Blame it on the explicit processor. Even the simplest organism understands (implicitly) what life is all about. But those simple truths were not programmed into the big brain of the smartest creature of them all. The same type of mechanism that allows us to imagine hypothetical things like high-tech devices and then to actually build the devices makes it possible for us to create religious ideologies and then to live our lives as if they are true — even when the ideologies will lead to the long term demise of the people who believe them.

See Comment from a reader below.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.
KevinMacDonald.net

:

I find the intensity of the debate to be a manifestation of white status games, not actual science, since nearly all of the useful implications of evolution (such as your work) are relatively short-term intra-species adaptations; evangelicals call this microevolution.

From my involvement in the local Republican party deep in the Bible belt, I see very few people who identify primarily as a Christian.  Christianity in practice is mostly a private struggle against sin (or maladaptive behavior) and church is mostly about providing a community of people who at least outwardly agree to commit themselves to this struggle.  There are a few individuals I come across who are motivated solely by pro-life (they’re generally the loudest and most energetic), but not many.  Most are “patriots” at the grassroots, who tend to see all of these issues, including immigration, as part of a big plot to destroy the country.

Unfortunately, most are all too eager to say they are “fine” with legal immigration and aren’t racists.

We have to be careful though in taking that too far.  Most people are not rational or logical, and so because they say A and A implies B doesn’t mean they would agree they agree with B, even if it’s a logical conclusion.  For example, most patriots would not agree that they welcome whites becoming a minority in the US (if asked quietly in private), but neither would they admit that their support for current legal immigration policies makes this inevitable; upon closer inspection, their support for legal immigration is very conditional (no Muslims, no criminals, must be fluent in English, American history).

This is why politics is always a struggle between elites manipulating masses who lack the coherence to govern anything.  The elite advocating for alien interests is dominant, while the elite advocating for white interests is growing but tiny.