Featured Articles

Race as a social construct? No — and Yes!

Are the PC and non-PC crowds still arguing over the meaning of race? Of course. But a recent and quite useful review in The Occidental Quarterly (Fall, 2008) by Alexander Hamilton (“Taxonomic approaches to race”) shows that genetic differences imply that race is a valid biological category, on a par with sub-species in the rest of biology.

However, we will point out here that, actually, there is at least a modest role for social constructs.

Hamilton explains that the criterion for species differences is the absence of successful reproduction of fertile offspring between such groups. On the other hand, interbreeding can be successful between sub-species even though the individuals are somewhat different genetically. Since biologists routinely categorize other organisms as members of sub-species on the grounds of significant and meaningful genetic differences, why isn’t it reasonable to consider human races as sub-species and, hence, equally legitimate, valid, and useful biological categories? Hamilton then goes on to review the taxonomic problem scientists have had in deciding on the number of races.

As he notes, species become species only when the original population of a species divides and the resultant groups are somehow blocked from further contact and interbreeding; subsequent independent genetic changes in each group accumulate to the point that interbreeding is no longer possible. Normally this all happens because of geographical barriers. And this isolation is the reason why so many racial (genetic) characteristics cluster together.

Hamilton notes that race deniers complain that Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, whose research is considered standard in the field of human population genetics, sampled people from different geographical areas in a search for genetic differences, as if he were somehow artificially jacking up the amount of genetic difference. The race deniers suggest obtaining random samples aimed at finding genetic relatedness. However, it is that very geographical isolation and the resulting clustering that helps make race meaningful as a category.

Why? Because the clustering allows one to make predictions about what is likely to accompany a particular racial classification. If I know that you have aboriginal ancestry, I would be well advised to avoid encouraging you to drink alcohol. Alcohol is really a poison for a great many Indians because of their biological ancestry, and they may need all the help they can get in refraining from it. (There obviously are non-Indians for whom alcohol is a poison, too. It’s just that alcoholism seems less of a racial characteristic for some other races.)  

Of course this is racial profiling. But racial profiling improves prediction about what people are like, so it’s a problem mainly for people who do not want their behavior predicted.

It’s interesting that some species don’t interbreed because of quite trivial obstacles. Two species of birds may not reproduce together only because they have, say, a slightly different song For example, the red-legged partridge and the rock partridge look similar but remain separate because of their mating calls. In other words, some different species look to us as more similar to each other than do many members of the same human race, not to mention people of different races. Thus, being different species doesn’t imply different appearance.

On the other hand, if races are biologically different because of clusters of genetic differences, they can (like species) still vary in precisely how different they are from each other, especially when the isolating barriers are not totally impermeable. Biologists use the term cline when there are gradients in the distributions of the genes responsible for the racial differences. This variation in degree of genetic difference is the basis for conceptualizing trees of genetic relatedness. The following illustration is from Frank Salter’s important On Genetic Interests and is based on Cavalli-Sforza’s work:

Next note that the genetic differences that make the races different need not be visible to the human eye. For example, reproductive isolation over many generations could make one race more susceptible to diabetes than another. Who would know? It’s not something one can see in another person even though it represents a genetic difference.

This is probably why people have trouble agreeing on the number of races. Anthropologists and people generally differ according to which differences they experience as salient or dramatic and they do so for psychological and socialreasons as Pierre van den Berghe recognized.

The number of races is not set in stone but a more a matter of where one wants to draw lines. The figure below results in seven different racial groups, but one could easily combine some groups together and get a lower number.

The second author of this article has described several ways in which human psychology influences racial classification. First, using our rational faculties, we can decide how to carve up the racial landscape to best suit our political and genetic interests. For a European-American, it makes much more sense to identify with others who can trace their ancestry back to Europe before 1492, but possibly excluding Jews given the unusually long history of hostility and mistrust between Jews and other groups and  because most of their genetic background derives from the Middle East. On the other hand, it would be a poor strategy to identify only with Scottish Americans or Italian-Americans because these relatively small groups have much less political potential in multicultural America than the category of European Americans.

Secondly, psychological research on race shows that people’s perceptions of others are typically tinged by racial stereotypes. At the unconscious level, the social construction of blacks in America is tinged by our images of black criminality and poor academic performance. But at the conscious, explicit level, we tend to construct race according to what the mainstream media like the New York Times tells us we should believe. Needless to say, there are very large penalties in store for people who publicly dissent from the official view.

The score? Both sides are right. Race exists as a biological reality and, as Frank Salter reminds us, it is an important storehouse of genetic interests for all humans. But how we behave on the basis of this information is not at all determined by the genetic data. We Europeans must define ourselves in a way that makes strategic sense. And we have to make explicit assertions of racial identity and explicit assertions of our racial interests. No other strategy will succeed in staving off the dispossession of European America.

Anthony Hilton is Assoc. Prof. (retired) in the Psychology Department, Concordia University, Montreal.

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

KevinMacDonald.net

Media Watch: The audacity of black demands: Black president must be covered by black reporters

Before he’s even inaugurated, one question about the effect of electing Barack Obama is getting an answer.

The question:  Will a black president quell black demands for affirmative action?

The answer:  No.

In a recent article on the new black-oriented, Washington Post-owned website “The Root,” writer Sam Fulwood fumes that “racism” has kept blacks from the White House press corps, and quotes another writer, Jack White, as saying that “the job of interpreting this president to the world is too big and too important to be left just to white reporters and editors.”

Sam Fulwood

What Mr. White means is this:  Whites don’t understand blacks, and can’t be trusted to report on them.  This has always been a strangely accepted holding of the minority-racialist community:  They demand that whites cease all ethnocentric activity and behavior, but that blacks ramp up their own — while being “treated equally” (usually better) by whites.  Under this reasoning, it’s perfectly acceptable to have both a black-only newspaper like “The Afro-American” and demand that “white” newspapers hire more black reporters.

There are too many examples of this in other areas of life to recount, but its manifestation in journalism has always amused me.  As a college journalist, I recall that it wasn’t unusual to hear calls for blacks to report on blacks, for Hispanics to report on Hispanics, and so on.  But you would never hear that whites should cover whites.  Whites, you see, should also be covered by blacks.  This pattern continued after I left college and joined the working press, first in Washington and later in Philadelphia.

And that brings to mind an alternative reason why blacks aren’t “represented” (as they say) in the White House press corps:

They aren’t very good.  Especially at print journalism, as opposed to radio or television journalism. (As a print snob, I don’t really count the ubiquitous black news anchor for the local station as a “journalist” — they read what scrolls before them on the teleprompter.)

We’ve all heard of Janet Cooke, the disgraced black reporter for the Washington Post who faked her way to a Pulitzer, and Jayson Blair, the disgraced black reporter for the New York Times who faked his way — for a while — through life at the nation’s newspaper of record.  But I’m here to tell you that Cooke and Blair aren’t bizarre outliers.  They’re just a bit more outrageous than your typical black “journalist” — and they got caught.

I recall that in the varied papers I worked for, black males were virtually non-existent, despite editors’ desperate attempts to reel them in.  They never even came ’round, so it’s a little hard for Mr. Fulwood to argue that rafts of qualified black men are being kept from the profession.  Print journalism, truth be told, is a low-paying and, probably to the black mind, pretty uncool job.  Whites, especially if they tend liberal, think it’s cool, but in the way they see working for a non-profit as cool (a la Stuff White People Like).  So right away, I don’t see black men clamoring for it.

There were a few black women, however.  But these black women were invariably at the back of the pack when it came to performance.  In the lead were white men, white women, and, of course, Jews.  Asians did alright, but generally weren’t aggressive enough to make much of a splash.

One black woman hired (through affirmative action channels) by a paper I worked for barely stayed awake on the job — literally.  She would fall asleep during working hours.  She produced an abysmally small number of stories, and, before we knew it, disappeared.  And the stories themselves were quite unremarkable.

[adrotate group=”1″]

I can even recall the one black woman who worked on my high school newspaper staff.  She was let go for… reviewing a movie she hadn’t seen.  Even for the staunchly liberal white adviser to the paper, this was too much.

I doubt much will come of Mr. Fulwood’s demand.  Another hard truth is that even the most ridiculously liberal white editor still feels sharply competitive with other media outlets, and would be loathe to have anyone less than a crackerjack covering the White House.  That’s necessarily going to mean a big drop-off in the number of eligible blacks.

That focus on quality aside, even if President Obama decreed that spots at the front of the briefing room be reserved for black reporters, it’s unlikely that the stream of crap that is American journalism would be affected much.  I agreed with the assessment of Noam Chomsky, a left-wing Jewish intellectual, when he called the American media “the servant of power.”  He is correct.  However much it fancies itself a “watchdog,” it is no such thing.  It exists to prop up and propagate the system.

And, whether covered by affirmative-action black reporters, white-hating Jews or self-hating whites, the most obvious and pressing issue of our time — the fundamental failure of the multiracial experiment — will likely be ignored.  With his demand, Mr. Fulwood shows just how far from that understanding he is.

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

Ben Stein’s Expelled: Was Darwinism a Necessary Condition for the Holocaust?

In my previous column, I noted the Stalinist tendencies of the leftists that are so entrenched in the academic world. The fact is that the academic left has never been concerned about truth when truth is incompatible with their political objectives. This is the fundamental message of my book, The Culture of Critique where I trace the involvement of Jewish intellectual activists in producing a leftist academic culture that promoted specifically Jewish goals, including lessening the political power and cultural influence of European-derived peoples and the eradication of anti-Semitism.

Chief among the bogeymen of these Jewish intellectuals is Darwinism. The war against Darwinism is a major theme of The Culture of Critique, and it persists as a constant drumbeat in our culture—from the cultural Marxists who are in charge of socializing our college students to a great many examples in popular culture.

Consider Ben Stein’s film Expelled. Stein depicts Darwinism as a stifling orthodoxy that suppresses free inquiry into how things got this way. And in particular, the triumph of Darwinism has meant that the theory of intelligent design has been banished from the realm of reasonable discourse in the academic world.

Of course, intelligent design is not a reasonable alternative at all, but a highly motivated effort to legitimize a religious world view in the sciences. But why would Ben Stein produce a movie that panders to religious conservatives? It would doubtless be pretty hard to find anyone in the Jewish intelligentsia who in the privacy of their innermost thoughts believes in God.

Indeed, it’s fair to say that the mainstream Jewish community regards Christian religious sentiment with fear and loathing. For example, Elliott Abrams, whose title in the Bush Administration (Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy) sounds like a neocon wet dream, acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known.

The deep structure of Expelled can be inferred from another comment by Elliott Abrams.Abrams thinks that a strong role for Christianity in America is good for Jews:

In this century we have seen two gigantic experiments at postreligious societies where the traditional restraints of religion and morality were entirely removed: Communism and Nazism. In both cases Jews became the special targets, but there was evil enough even without the scourge of anti-Semitism. For when the transcendental inhibition against evil is removed, when society becomes so purely secular that the restraints imposed by God on man are truly eradicated, minorities are but the earliest victims.

I think Abrams and Stein are on the same page. I make this inference because in his film promoting intelligent design Stein argues that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. In making a movie that attempts to legitimize “Creation Science” in the academic world, Stein is thinking not so much about intellectual honesty or the relative adequacy of Darwinism and Creation Science in producing testable hypotheses and mountains of supporting evidence. He is asking an age-old question: “Is it good for the Jews?” If Darwinism is not good for the Jews, then so much the worse for Darwinism.

In mounting a war on Darwinism or at least attempting to control it, Stein is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion, at least for the last 100 years or so. The triumph of the Boasian school of anthropology over Darwinism in the early years of the 20th century was a watershed event in intellectual history of the West — in effect more or less obliterating what had been a thriving Darwinian intellectual milieu. This era of Darwinian domination of the social sciences included several well-known Jewish racial Zionists, such as Arthur Ruppin, who were motivated by the fear that Diaspora Judaism would lose its biological uniqueness as a result of pressures for intermarriage and assimilation.

Among the Zionists, the racialists won the day. Ruppin’s ideas on the necessity of preserving Jewish racial purity have had a prominent place in the Jabotinsky wing of Zionism, including especially the Likud party in Israel and its leaders—people like Ariel Sharon, Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir. (Here’s a photo of Sharon speaking to a Likud Party convention in 2004 under a looming photo of Jabotinsky.) Jabotinsky believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.” As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

But it was the Boasians who won the day in the academic establishment of the West. Whereas Jewish intellectuals played a bit part in the wider movement of racial Darwinism, the Boasian revolution which triumphed in academic anthropology in the West was overwhelmingly a Jewish intellectual movement.

And besides the Boasians, a great many Jewish social scientists of the period were also attracted to a thriving cult of Lamarckism — the view that evolution works via the inheritance of acquired characteristics rather than Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Indeed, Lamarckism became official ideology in the Soviet Union because of its easy compatibility with Marxist visions of utopia: Creating the socialist society would biologically alter its citizens.

Both theories combated racialist theories of Judaism that depicted it as having a biological uniqueness. (Actually, Boas’s approach is more an anti-theory because it cast doubt on general theories of human culture common among Darwinian anthropologists of the period, emphasizing instead the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human cultures, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation.) For example, based on skull measurements and IQ testing, racial scientists, including some racial Zionists, concluded that Jews had evolved to have higher IQ, but this was often linked with a tendency toward psychopathology—the “nervous Jew.”

The Boasians and the Lamarckians countered with the view that Jewish traits had resulted from historical conditions. As historian Mitchell B. Hart notes, “the positions taken by Jewish researchers [i.e., the Zionist racialists, the Lamarckians, and the Boasians] were driven in large measure by ideological commitments and political goals.” Three different groups of Jewish social scientists, three different ideological agendas stemming from their different views on how social science can best serve Jewish interests.

Boas’s famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was a very effective propaganda weapon in this cause of the anti-racialists. Indeed, it was intended as propaganda. Based on their reanalysis of Boas’s data, physical anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz do not accuse Boas of scientific fraud, but they do find (pdf) that his data do not show any significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration. They also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire to end racialist views in anthropology:

While Boas never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a personal agenda in the displacement of the eugenics movement in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point.

This view certainly dovetails with my research. Boas can now be officially grouped with his student and protégé Margaret Mead as using social science to further a leftist, anti-Darwinian political agenda.

Concerns about scientific fraud have also dogged Larmarckism. Lamarckism was a pillar of the intellectual left in the West during the 1920s but declined rapidly after its major scientific proponent, Paul Kammerer, committed suicide shortly after an article appearing in the prestigious British journal Nature accused him of scientific fraud. Kammerer, who was half Jewish on his mother’s side, was a staunch socialist. He wrote that Lamarckian inheritance offered hope for humanity through education, and he became a hero among committed Socialists and Communists. Despite Kammerer’s disgrace, Lamarckism lived on in theSoviet Union under Trofim Lysenko, with disastrous results on agricultural policy.

Interestingly, Boas, who was also a political radical, continued to accept Lamarckism up until his death in 1942 — long after it had been discredited by accusations of scientific fraud. The moral seems to be that people who use science to advance their political agendas are unlikely to reject politically attractive theories for trivial reasons like lack of evidence and a history of cooked data. Isn’t that how science is supposed to operate? Not surprisingly, that other pseudoscientific charlatan, Sigmund Freud, also continued believing in Lamarckism long after it had been scientifically discredited.

Ben Stein’s brief for intelligent design is therefore in the long line of movements, beginning with Boas and Lamarck, that have attempted to undercut Darwin as a pillar of Western science. Each of them is mistaken (to be generous) and each was highly motivated. Among Jewish participants, the motives can be quite straightforwardly related to their Jewish identity.

But we still must ask what to make of Ben Stein’s claim that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. John Derbyshire characterizes the charge as a “blood libel on our civilization” which indeed it is.  Nevertheless, such a claim should not be taken lightly. For example, it is common among historians to hold views similar to Michael Hart’s statement that “it is impossible to understand the Holocaust without comprehending the degree to which racial science and a medicalized racial ideology occupied central positions in Nazi thought and policy.”

By the same token, I suppose, one could argue that the Palestinian catastrophe is the result of the triumph of the racial Zionists and their Likudnik descendents in Israel. Or one could argue that Darwinism does not necessarily lead to the specific views attributed to the National Socialists.

And one could certainly note that genocides occurred long before World War II and they have continued to occur without any specific Darwinian ideology. Indeed, as noted above, Elliott Abrams places Communism in the same category as Nazism when it comes to the ill effects of removing a religious world view. In April, 2008, the Ukrainian Prime MinisterYulia Tymoshenko petitioned the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to recognize the 1932–1933 Ukrainian famine as an act of genocide—a genocide carried out by an avowedly Marxist government at a time when Jews formed an elite within the Soviet Union. (See also Charles Dodgson’s lucid comments in TOO on Jewish involvement in the Ukrainian genocide as a blind spot in Jewish memory. Abrams is an example of a Jewish writer who deplores the discrimination against Jews that occurred after World War II in the USSR, but is silent on the pre-World War II period when Jews formeda hostile elite in the Soviet Union and served as Stalin’s willing executioners.) Indeed, it has been estimated that Communist governments murdered over 90,000,000 people in the 20th century, including 25,000,000 in theUSSR. These murders were certainly not carried out under a Darwinian ideology.

And genocides have been carried out under religious ideologies as well. Christiane Amanpour’s God’s Warriors series certainly shows that religious ideology can motivate the most extreme of fanaticisms, from Jihad to much of the West Bank settler movement (including both its Christian and Jewish supporters). (The Christian and Muslim segments are still on You Tube. But the Jewish segment has been removed, presumably by the same Jewish fanatics featured in the segment. But you can still see two rebuttals put out by the pro-Zionists: Part I and Part II.  My description and commentary on the Jewish segment ishere.)

Ben Stein is wrong. There is no reason at all to suppose that adopting a religious world view immunizes against genocide. Perhaps he and Elliott Abrams are simply expressing their belief that present forms of Christianity would not lead to a Holocaust even if they achieved a great deal more power over public policy. This was the view of neocon guru Leo Strauss who is quite possibly the inspiration for both Abrams and Stein. They could be right about that, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

But let’s not be naïve. Darwin did indeed have a dangerous idea. In the same way that the evolutionary theory of sex has illuminated the deep structure of the human mating game, evolutionary theory points to the deep structure of genocide as a particularly violent form of ethnic competition. But ethnic competition is ethnic competition whether its carried out in an orgy of violence, or by forcible removal of people from land on the West Bank by Jewish settlers or by forcible removal of Native Americans during the 19th century by white settlers, or by peaceful displacement of whites via current levels of immigration into Western societies.

From a Darwinian perspective, the end result is no different. The genetic structure of the population has changed. Darwin, of course, understood this. Notice, for example, the subtitle of his masterpiece: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

We all have an implicit understanding of human sexual politics. What Darwin did (with the help of Robert Trivers) is to produce an explicit theory which explains sexual politics. But sexual politics and genocide existed long before Darwin came along. And it is at least questionable whether the occurrence of future genocide would be more or less likely if most people had an explicitly Darwinian theory. Humans seem to be able to commit mass murder under multiple ideological umbrellas.

And it could be argued that adopting an explicitly Darwinian perspective would actually lead to less genocide. For example, by understanding that ethnonational aspirations are a normal consequence of our evolutionary psychology, we could at least build societies that, unlike theSoviet Union, are not likely to commit genocide on their own people. Nor would we be saddled with a multicultural cauldron of competing and distrustful ethnic groups. And, as noted in a previous article, societies based on ethnonationalism would have other benefits as well: Greater openness to redistributive policies; greater trust and political participation; and a greater likelihood of adopting democratic political systems based on the rule of law.

So three cheers for Darwin and for science. Long may they live. And please, no more Ben Steins trying to send us back to the Dark Ages.

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

KevinMacDonald.net

The Ukrainian Holocaust and Jewish Pride

November 22, 2007 was the 75th anniversary of the mass murder of up to 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin’s political police, the dreaded NKVD. This bureaucracy was the apogee of political correctness, murdering tens of thousands of farmers and small-town people because the region resisted collectivisation. The practice of mass political murder was initiated by Lenin immediately after Trotsky brought him to power. Stalin inherited and extended the practice and its apparatus.

Until after the Second World War the senior ranks of the NKVD were disproportionately Jewish. These were secular Jews who as good communists rejected divisions of ethnicity and race as products of bourgeois society. Nevertheless they retained their identity as Jews; they knew who their ancestors were.

Jews do not feel remorse for the Ukraine famine. They do not apologise for it. They do not point to it as a failing of the Jewish character or culture. That is an enormous inconsistency. For one thing Jews feel pride in the positive achievements of other Jews, whether religious or secular. But how can pride be ethnic and unconditional while shame is conditional and compartmentalised? Is it not inconsistent for someone to feel pride in the achievements of his ethnic group but to feel no shame for its failings?

Alexander Solzhenitsyn made a similar point in his last book, Two Hundred Years Together. Group pride goes hand in hand with group shame. He wrote: “[The] Jewish population should be as offended at their own role in the purges as they are at the Soviet power that also persecuted them.”  Regarding white shame, our own Michael J. Polignano has argued cogently that those who condemn whites for the behaviour of other whites are implicitly admitting the case for white pride in the achievements of the West (Occidental Quarterly, Spring 2008, pp. 3-6).  

I suppose inconsistency is one of the prerogatives of being human. However, in this case the inconsistency is larger than a failing of human nature because other ethnic groups and nations are not permitted to forget their sins, at least when they sinned against Jews. The Germans are taught by their media and schools to feel shame for the actions of a pagan secret service that murdered millions of Jews and Gypsies during the Second  World War. Responsibility is levelled at Germans in general, not only pagans or those who supported Hitler’s extermination policy. The shame is ethnic and unconditional. Only German pride must be conditional and compartmentalised.

The same sort of general ethnic shame is taught to whites of many nations. It seems that we have all done something terrible at one time or another, whether it is colonialism, exploitation, discrimination, segregation, etc. And it is understood that “we” means fellow ethnics. The crime varies but the shame remains the same.

There is a good deal of truth to many of these accusations. The German state did commit the Holocaust. The British, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Dutch and French states did displace native peoples in the Americas, Africa and Australasia. Blacks were discriminated against in the United States. Colonialism and ethnic expansion have their dark sides.

There is also some moral truth to the accusations, even if they are over generalised. But it is a conditional morality such that group identity combined with even vestigial pride makes it hypocritical to feel pride but not shame for group behaviour. A history of Germany that did not mention World War Two or the Holocaust would be rightly dismissed as propaganda. Can anyone imagine a history of the United States that did not admit the evils of slavery or Jim Crow?

But we don’t need to imagine a history of the Jews that fails to mention the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution or in communist regimes throughout Eastern Europe in the post-WWII period or the attempted Bolshevik revolutions in Germany after the First World War or in Soviet espionage. Simply consult any of the seemingly endless parade of tribal histories, many produced by departments of Jewish studies at taxpayer-funded universities.

The inconsistency goes even further. Jewish organisations are as one in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Yet they never talk about Jewish crimes.

It is difficult to say what the effect of this asymmetrical shame and shaming has had on the West’s ability to defend its interests in the culture wars; except that the effect has surely been negative. A level playing field will not be achieved until Jewish history texts, Holocaust museums, and Jewish Studies departments make the same effort at self-knowledge and self-shaming that Jews have urged on non-Jewish nations.

Charles Dodgson is the pen name of a social analyst living in England.

Media Watch – Implicit whiteness, with pyrotechnics: Or, the night white people took over Washington, DC

The other night I saw AC/DC at the Verizon Center in Washington, D.C.  For those out of the know, AC/DC is an aging Australian hard rock band (founded 1973) famous for thundering, simple-themed songs that revolve around alcohol, women, and rock.  Its guitarist, a pale, slight Scotsman named Angus Young, is known for performing while wearing a British schoolboy uniform (jacket, tie and shorts) which he sheds (except for the shorts) mid-concert and duck-walks the length of the stage with sweat and hair flying.

Of the thousands of human beings packed into the arena, I did not see a single non-white face.  They may have been there, but in numbers that can only be described as statistically insignificant.  They were working-class class whites, for the most part, spanning a range of ages, with the occasional obvious yuppie-with-a-black-T-shirt-for-the-occasion thrown in.

The swarms of whites did not go unnoticed by the smaller crowds of blacks orbiting the Verizon Center that night.  They seemed slightly alarmed by the rugged whites, many of whom sported Celtic cross tattoos, Germanic cross T-shirts, and other signs of what psychologist Kevin MacDonald calls “implicit whiteness.”  Some taunts were thrown in our direction by a group of black girls, and one black man was prompted, for reasons I could not discern, to bellow “suck my d***.  Suck my big black d***” for all to hear.

The only blacks who interacted with whites were ticket scalpers, whose activities were ignored by the all-black police force on the scene.

Inside, the concert was an electrifying spectacle of deafening anthemic rock that drove the crowd nuts.  Smoke, lights, a giant inflatable “Rosie” (you had to be there) and, for the finale song of “For Those About to Rock, We Salute You,” six full-sized battlefield canons were wheeled onto the stage and blasted at the appropriate moment.  Women wore flashing devil horns, which went nicely with songs like “Hell’s Bells” and “Highway to Hell.”

I had a blast.  But the pro-white observer in me could not help but play field anthropologist at the same time.  Here I was, in the thick of thousands of whites, all communing, if you will, around what was essentially a pagan convergence.  The same folks who heaped hatred on Sarah Palin could not have been much more comfortable with this panorama:  a sea of white males all thrusting their fists in the air and yelling “oi!”, and the occasional buxom white woman — probably a non-feminist — gyrating with glee.

I am sure that conservative Christian whites would not have approved of much of it.  But if we as whites are looking for what works, we should not overlook the “Viking” whites as an element of healthy, vigorous white life.  They like the beer, the fighting and the sex.  Properly directed, this is what a race on the survival track does.

In considering it further, I decided that the real function of AC/DC’s music is to whip up whites for war and male fertility.  Again, these aren’t bad things for a race declining in numbers and influence across the Western world.  And it all operates free from the scrutiny of the SPLC and other “hate hunters”, because it’s just too attenuated from anything explicitly pro-white (this explains why the criticism of “Lord of the Rings” as “racist” wasn’t taken seriously by anyone — though it was certainly accurate).

I have heard that at shows by another hard rock band, Pantera (with which I’m totally unfamiliar, except to know that they are not a skinhead or “white power” band), the implicit slips into explicit with occasional yelps of “white power”!  Good.  The more of this, the better.

[adrotate group=”1″]

There is a wonderful mystery to the dark forests of our European ancestors — the sprites, the gnomes, the elves, the swords, the axes, the knights, the maidens, the witches and warlocks, the war-party bonfires.  It’s a bottomless lake for the white imagination, and I am sure that an experience like an AC/DC show taps into it.

Whatever is going on, whites show up, in large numbers, ready to rock.  That’s about all we need, if you think about it.

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

A Perfect Storm? Obama and the Zionist Power Configuration

Understandably, many Americans had hoped that the incoming Obama administration would institute the promised changes away from the Bush policies of war and economic turmoil that have become so wearily familiar. That such hopes were misplaced is already clear.

Knowledgeable observers of course never held out any real expectation that America’s disastrous course over the last eight years would be reversed by a McCain, an Obama, or for that matter a Hillary Clinton victory. As the primaries turned into the election, it was always abundantly clear that the same powers were operating as usual behind the throne.

Paul Craig Roberts puts it aptly in a recent column, “Conned Again”: “Obama’s selection of Rahm Israel Emanuel as White House chief of staff is a signal that change ended with Obama’s election. The only thing different about the new administration will be the faces.”

As Roberts notes, many besides Emanuel are Jewish. Obama advisers include Richard Holbrooke, Madeline Albright, and Dennis Ross, a strong critic of Mearsheimer and Walt.

Scholar James Petras offers similar comments:

What makes these arguments untenable is the fact that Obama’s public pronouncements, his top policy advisers, and the likely policymakers in his government have openly defined a most bellicose foreign…. On the major issues of war, peace, the economic crisis and the savaging of the US wage and salaried class, Obama promises to extend and deepen the policies which the majority of Americans reject and repudiate.

See this for yourself. Obama clearly promises to do the neoconservatives’ bidding for Israel, as Israeli peace advocate Uri Avnery noted. Obama’s appearance before AIPAC, he wrote, was an appearance that “broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.” A good live image of this can be found in Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show clip that TOO has featured on its site for some months now.

Petras is a man worth reading. In two previous books, The Power of Israel in the United States (2006) and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants (2007), he lucidly outlined the power structure that controls Washington. (See my review of both books for The Occidental Quarterly here).

Now this productive retired professor has come out with a new book, Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of U.S. Power. As in his two previous books, he makes clear that changing the occupant of the White House won’t change US policy in the Middle East.

Petras’s key concept is the “Zionist Power Configuration,” or ZPC. It is a term we would do well to remember, for this power is more than just another lobby as claimed by Mearsheimer and Walt and President  Carter. Rather, the ZPC is

much more sinister, both as a transmission belt for the policies and interests of a colonial power hell-bent on domination in the Middle East, and as the most serious authoritarian threat to the democratic freedoms of Americans. No single individual who dares criticize Israeli policy can escape the long hand of the pro-Israel authoritarians. . . . Booksellers are picketed, editors are intimidated, university presses and distributors are threatened, university presidents are blackmailed, local and national candidates are browbeaten and smeared, meetings are cancelled and venues are pressured, faculty are fired or denied promotion, corporations are blacklisted, union pensions funds are raided, and theater performances and concerts are cancelled. And the list of repressive actions taken by these authoritarian Zionist organizations at the national and local levels runs on, arousing fear among some, anger among many more and a slowly burning resentment and growing awareness among the silent majority.

Obama is not going to challenge this power.

Bush took the nation to war against Iraq because, as Petras argues, “The Zionist elite in the Bush regime invented the pretext and the propaganda for war and most important, successfully designed and operationalized the US invasion of Iraq.” Now Petras can point out that Obama’s top advisers “have long and notorious links to the top echelons of the principal Zionist propaganda mills.” Members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations wrote the speech Obama gave in front of AIPAC and “formulate his Middle East policy.”

None of this is a secret. On the contrary, it is there for anyone with curiosity to see. Thus, “there was no ‘conspiracy’ or ‘cabal’ — the Zionist campaign was brazenly public, aggressive and reiterative,” in Petras’s words. Or, as reflected in the title of Stephen Sniegoski’s fine book on the neoconservatives, it is a “Transparent Cabal.”

So jettison those flimsy hopes that positive change will come with January snow showers. Instead, accept that Petras is right when he says that, based on Obama’s top policy advisers, contributors, speech writers and likely candidates for cabinet posts, “there is virtually no hope of ‘influencing from within’ or ‘applying popular pressure’ to change Obama’s slavish submission” to the ZPC.

After all, did the popular mandate to end the Iraq War by electing a Democratic House succeed? Not at all. As I wrote in my TOQ review of Petras’s books,

Due in large part to Jewish Lobby control over the Democratic Party, an unmistakable message was given to the country: “the strategy Bush actually committed to was that which was in line with Israel’s ‘strategic interest’ of extending its power and domination in the Middle East.” When new Democratic Congressional leader Nancy Pelosi hinted at holding back funding for Bush’s war, the Lobby sent a clear message against it, and Pelosi “swallowed the frog in silence.”

In reality, Pelosi had no need to feel particularly humiliated since, in Petras’s view, such kowtowing to the Lobby was expected. As a mere congresswoman, she had far less prestige than a president, two of whom Petras describes in his characteristic way: “Bush has the dubious distinction of being the President-most-servile-to-a-foreign-power in US history (exceeding his predecessor, ex-President Clinton, Zionist Emeritus)”(Petras is no kinder to Clinton’s wife Hillary, numbering her among one of the “Zionist-colonized Senators.”)

Again, we are fortunate to have explication of power relations as crystal clear as Petras gives us. That he is writing from the far Left shows that awareness of Jewish power spans the political spectrum:

The lesson is clear: the rise of Judeo-fascism represents a clear and present danger to our democratic freedoms in the United States. They do not come with black shirts and stiff-arm salutes. The public face is a clean-shaven, neck-tied attorney, real estate philanthropist or Ivy League professor. But there is rising anger and hostility in America against the ZPC, against its arrogant authoritarian communal attacks on our democratic values, to say nothing of our national interests. Sooner or later there will be a major backlash—and it will reflect badly on those who, through vocation or conviction, engage in the firings, censoring and intimidation campaigns against the American majority. The American people will not remember their cries of ‘anti-Semitism’; they will recall their role in sending thousands of American soldiers to their death in the Middle East in the interests of Israel, and how that war has diminished the United States’ image in the world, to say nothing of its economic well-being and democratic freedoms at home.

There can be no hiding the ominous insinuations in the above. A Jewish reader may well come away from it sensing an anti-Semitic pogrom in the distance. Petras adds to this fear by contrasting the tiny numbers of the ZPC with the vast numbers of the majority:

Ultimately, the Zionist Power Configuration, despite its wealth and current dominance over US Middle East policy, knows that it represents less than 1% of the population: Its membership is an elite without a mass base. They have power only as long as the other 99% of the population is inactive, manipulated or intimidated to serve Israel’s interests.

The Perfect Storm?

It is far too early, however, for the American majority to suspect it may have a chance to painlessly throw off the ZPC yoke. Surely any elite that has manipulated the United States to the extent it has must also have taken into account resistance, both real and potential.

Consider then something I wrote in a previous column: “A separate point to note here is the brazenness with which American Jews in power put other Jews in top slots.” With such a small base, it is only logical that the ZPC must maximize leverage by controlling top positions, most especially those with the power and authority to exercise force, particularly lethal force.

The position of Secretary of Homeland Security is such an obvious position. Further, it can operate almost without restrictions by declaring something to be “a terrorist threat.” That position is currently occupied by Michael Chertoff, a Jew. Ditto for our current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, another powerful American who “just happens to be” a committed Jew.

Have a look at the military structure as well. As an online biography states, “Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum serves as Chief, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia. He is the senior uniformed National Guard officer responsible for formulating, developing and coordinating all policies, programs and plans affecting more than a half a million Army and Air National Guard personnel.” And he is Jewish.

Another site relates that “When he assumed the duties of assistant commandant of the Marine Corps in September 2005, [Robert] Magnus, 59, became second-in-command of 180,000 Marines and one of only five four-star generals in the Corps.” Also Jewish.

Finally, a recent military shakeup resulted in a Jewish pilot being tapped for U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff. One begins to feel that this is all just a little too convenient, particularly when considering that the U.S. military is not known as a popular destination for American Jews.

Petras also caught this irony, stating that “less than 2/10 of one percent (0.2 percent) of the US soldiers in Iraq were Jewish and probably very few of those were on the front lines. More young American Jews volunteer to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.” This very much recalls Pat Buchanan’s claim that should America prosecute the first war on Iraq in favor of Israeli interests, the fighting would be done by kids “with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown,” a comment which made the ADL very unhappy.

With such top positions of command and control occupied by American Jews, many of them highly committed to the fate of Israel, are we witnessing the coming together of forces that could create a “perfect storm” of retribution against majority Americans who might question or threaten this power structure?

Accounts from Petras and others suggest that we might be.

Jews as allies

At a meeting recently the question was raised as to the appropriate relationship that European-Americans ought to maintain with Jews. On certain issues, it was said, we really are natural allies with them, and therefore we should work together to advance common goals. And it was argued we should avoid antagonizing Jews since (a) such provocation won’t gain us anything and (b) would handicap us all in achieving those common goals. It has also been pointed out that Jews are “whites”, as opposed to blacks. And are not Jews, or at least Ashkenazi Jews, European as well?

Okay, we have to go back to basics here. How are we to categorize ourselves? And them?

Ethnic categorization (e.g., calling ourselves European-Americans) is complicated by the fact that ethnic group membership is not an absolute but rather consists a whole series of concentric circles, ordered according to closeness of biological kinship. At the center is one’s immediate family; in the next circle, one’s extended family, and so on up through one’s more or less easily categorizable “ethnic group” or “ethny”, such as Irish. Next might be Scots-Irish. And beyond that is a “circle” labeled “European”. Well, you see where this is going.

Until mid-20th century, the United States was largely WASP dominated. (The same could be said of Canada, with due recognition of French dominance of Quebec and other subgroups’ dominance locally). But, especially since 1965, our largely Northern European and WASP majority has undergone a rather rapid dispossession and will shortly be a minority both demographic and politically. Oddly enough, the great majority of European-Americans are largely unaware of the forces that brought about that dispossession.

Well, do we include Jews among those European-Americans? One reason not to identify them as European-Americans is that Jews and Jewish culture were not targeted by the intellectual and political upheavals that led to the dispossession of European-Americans. Indeed, as Kevin MacDonald has shown in his book The Culture of Critique, the Cultural Marxists who first planned, then infiltrated our many institutions (universities, the media, political parties, think-tanks, etc.) were disproportionately Jews. More importantly, they identified as Jews and conceived of their activities as achieving specifically Jewish agendas. And their first and foremost agenda has been the dispossession of European America. This is a major argument for our self-categorization, in the present context, as European-Americans — a “circle” that would not include Jews. 

Of course, not all Jews have been part of this destructive effort. Many Jews no doubt just go about their daily lives without being fully conscious of all that has gone on. But the fact is that the entire organized Jewish community and the entire Jewish political spectrum from the radical left to neoconservative right actively sought massive immigration of non-Europeans, and they were a necessary condition for the ultimate success of these efforts. This implies that the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of Jews approved of destroying the dominance of the one-time majority.

There have been some Jews who have opposed non-European immigration.  Steven Steinlight is a good example. Steinlight’s motives are entirely Jewish, showing that at least some Jews see Jewish self-interest in opposing mass immigration:

Privately [American Jewish leaders] express grave concern that unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western Europe. There’s particular fear about the impact on Jewish security, as well as American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim population. At the conclusion of meetings with national leaders, several told me, “You’re 1000 percent right, but I can’t go out and say it yet.”

Steinlight even argues that massive immigration in general is bad for Jews “Massive immigration will obliterate Jewish power by shrinking our percentage of the population — to a fraction of 1% in 20 years.”

Steinlight is definitely a Jew who is on page with the interests of European-Americans to stop non-European immigration. The problem is that he has not been successful in changing the immigration policies of the organized Jewish community.

Another thing that might help getting some Jews onboard with European-American interests is to emphasize ethnic commonalities. Certainly Ashkenazi Jews, while often having distinctive (to the initiated) physical traits (“family traits”), do often look pretty “European.” The DNA evidence accumulated so far suggests that, in fact, they do carry some European genes. A currently popular scenario is that male Jewish traders, carrying their own Y-chromosome DNA and percolating up into Europe during medieval times, did take at least some non-Jewish women (perhaps European) as wives but thereafter reverted back to a closed, highly endogamous community (i.e., they married pretty much exclusively among themselves). The Y-chromosome data indicates that about one mating in 200 resulted from Jewish women with non-Jewish men—a rate that would be compatible with a 35–40% non-Jewish representation in the Ashkenazi gene pool.

The key phrase is “endogamous community.” The Jewish community until recently remained endogamous while occupying unusual economic niches (e.g., “tax farmers”) which set them apart from and in conflict with indigenous populations. It also promoted eugenic selection for high intelligence. All of this has been well documented by Kevin MacDonald and confirmed in many important facets by Yuri Slezkine. The result has been a long history of inter-ethnic conflict in Europe, with the LukacsGramsci inspired culture of critique only the latest and most successful episode (i.e., successful for Jewish Cultural Marxists).

About half of American Jews are now marrying out. Conceivably, his trend could lead to a gradual loss of Jewish distinctiveness as they blend into the European-American population, although there are a lot of reasons to think that this won’t happen. But it does mean that a lot of Jews now have non-Jewish relatives, and they have children and grandchildren with varying degrees of Jewish ethnicity and varying degrees of Jewish identification. Such people may constitute a pool of potential allies because their ethnic interests and identities overlap with ours.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But the reality is that there remain severe conflicts of interest between European-Americans and pretty much all of the organized Jewish community. This is illustrated by Jewish neocon control over American foreign policy during the Bush Administration, Jewish influence on immigration policy, and Jewish influence over the Democratic Party— the party that was described in a recent editorial on this website as “the party of  the minorities, government workers, sexual non-conformists, and diverse beneficiaries of the leftist entitlement culture.”

This suggests a reasonable policy to take. When a few individual Jews act for our ethny’s benefit or for the benefit of all humanity (but not at our expense), there is no reason not to appreciate their existence, to cooperate with them and to be friendly with them. Jews have no problem in being friendly with non-Jews, such as Christian Zionists, whenever doing so is “good for the Jews.” We can do the same: whatever is good for European-Americans.

But since blood is thicker than water, there is always the possibility of “righteous” Jews reverting to in-group favoritism, especially in a crunch. And there is always the threat of “moles.” So for that reason Jews can hardly be considered “family” to whom we open up our hearts and pocketbooks completely. Nor should we divulge to them our identities when loss of confidentiality could threaten our livelihoods. “Arms length” is a useful concept.

Moreover, Jews who align themselves with organizations or publications that explicitly promote the interests of European-Americans should be willing to acknowledge the role of the organized Jewish community in the dispossession of European America. They should also acknowledge that the policies of the organized Jewish community at the present time are definitely opposed to the interests of European Americans.

Thus, Jews who want to be considered our allies should direct most of their activism to changing the direction of the organized Jewish community. Just as Joe Lieberman was the emissary of the McCain campaign to the traditionally Democratic Jewish community, there is every reason to think that Jews would be far more effective in producing change in the organized Jewish community than non-Jews. Such efforts, especially if they were successful, would be the surest sign of their sincerity and good will.

On the other hand, the absence of a commitment to change the Jewish community or refusing to acknowledge the historical role of the organized Jewish community in producing our present malaise invites the skepticism that the Jews involved in pro-European-American movements are simply trying to make these movements safe for Jews in the event that such movements gain traction. It’s a fall-back plan and an escape hatch if things start to get sticky.

Moreover, when pro-European-American groups feel it judicious to be silent about the role of the organized Jewish community in our current malaise, this must be seen as an expression of Jewish power. Much of our task on behalf of European-American civilization and our people is the promotion of historical understanding. Many Jews will inevitably find an honest discussion of the history of European abdication threatening because of the prominent role of Jews revealed by any objective account of that history. However, silence on the role of Jews in our current malaise forces these groups to live in a sort of a-historical present—avoiding a realistic discussion of the past and preventing any attempt to understand this past in an objective manner.

This forces these pro-European movements into a major departure from all other ethnic activist movements we are aware of, including Judaism: Ethnic identity and commitment are deeply interwoven with an understanding of history. Indeed, Jews’ understanding of their own history as victims of Europeans is an important wellspring of Jewish identity and Jewish activism against European-Americans. As Paul Johnson said in describing the philosophy of Walter Benjamin, a Jewish cultural Marxist: “Politics [is] not merely a fierce physical struggle to control the present, and so the future, but an intellectual battle to control the record of the past.”

Even worse, it prevents these organizations from making explicit attempts to oppose the very real power that the organized Jewish community and other strongly identified Jews continue to exert in a wide range of areas in opposition to the interests of European-Americans. Again, the best role for Jews in these movements is to be vocal critics of the Jewish community and its role in the dispossession of European-Americans. But the unfortunate reality is that, just like mainstream politicians forced to never mention the power of the Israel Lobby, these pro-European-American groups end up ignoring the 800-lb gorilla in their midst — a wonderful comment on Jewish power in America.

In guarded optimism, we might look to the future and hope that some influential Jews will be able to look at this history without their ethnic blinders and come to see their own best interests lie with a renewed European America.