Featured Articles

How Jews See Themselves, 2008

Any group that expects to survive into the long term future should be aware of current trends and how they will influence the group. Jews take such planning quite seriously. The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute has assumed the role of long term planning for the Jewish people, not only in Israel but also the Diaspora. The JPPPI is an independent think tank that reports to the Israeli government and has close ties with other Jewish organizations. Its mission is “to promote the thriving of the Jewish people via professional strategic thinking and planning on issues of primary concern to world Jewry. JPPPI’s work is based on deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people with Israel as its core state.”

The chairman of the Board of Directors of JPPPI from 2002 until early 2009 was Dennis Ross — the same Dennis Ross who has played a major role in US policy in the Middle East in the Bush I and Clinton administrations and was director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy — a hard-line pro-Israel lobbying group. Ross gave up his position with the JPPPI after he was named as the Obama administration’s top envoy to the Middle East, a position where he will be able to influence policy on Iran and other issues deemed vital to Israel. (Ross remains a “Consultant” at WINEP.)

It is noteworthy that no one complains when Ross is appointed to such an important US foreign policy position despite his close ties to Israel and the Israel Lobby; but there is major hysteria when people point out that Charles Freeman (Obama’s nominee for the head of the National Intelligence Council) has an association with a group funded by Saudi Arabia.

The JPPPI’s report Facing Tomorrow 2008 is a sort of State of the Union document for Judaism — a description of the state of Judaism and what challenges are on the horizon. In scope and intention, it reminds one of the National Policy Institute’s report “The State of White America.”

Not surprisingly, there is great concern about Iran as an “existential threat” — presumably a major area of interest for the former chairman of JPPPI’s Board of Directors in his new position in the US State Department.

The Jewish people must, as the highest priority, develop an appropriate response to the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and to global stability as a whole. While there is no ambiguity about the need to do so in Israel, it is necessary to mobilize Jewish opinion around the world as well. The American Jewish community cannot be intimidated either by a post Iraq syndrome in the United States, or by the false and pernicious allegations of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, or former President Carter.

Jews around the world are encouraged to mobilize to combat the threat to Israel represented by Iran. The assumption is that Jews have common interests as Jews no matter what country they happen to live in. One is reminded of other eras when Jews have put up a unified front against a particular country because of specific Jewish interests. For example, the organized Jewish community opposed Russia from 1881 to 1917 — a position that led to charges of disloyalty in several countries.

One might think that such a view would leave Jews in the Diaspora open to the charge of disloyalty, but the problem is easily finessed: Jews in the Diaspora are told to frame Israel’s concerns about Iran as a global threat, not simply as a threat to Israel.

The report advocates putting pressure on China, Russia, and moderate Arab states in order to develop the widest possible coalition: “For instance, currently, the US negotiates with China, bilaterally and multilaterally on both currency issues and on Iran, without linking the two issues. Perhaps they need to be linked.” The message is that Jews in the US should pressure the US government to use any leverage it has with China to develop a coalition against Iran.

The report is quite clear that the influential writings of former President Carter and professors Mearsheimer and Walt are major obstacles.  As I have noted before, these critics of Israel are important because they are associated with elite institutions, and their critique is sober, factually based, and constitutes a moral indictment of Israel. We can expect more attacks on these figures in the future.

Relatedly, the report recommends that Diaspora Jewry do its utmost to undermine the moral critique of Israel. Jews must combat portrayals of Israel as a state that is “colonialist, violates human rights, and engaged in unacceptable behavior that could be described as Apartheid and even Nazism.”  Diaspora Jews should also combat charges of dual loyalty.  Amazingly, despite the assumption of common Jewish interests no matter what country they live in, without any sense of irony the report notes that Dennis Ross — Exhibit A on the dual loyalty issue — will soon be publishing a book on these issues.

And Ross isn’t the only high level American diplomat involved in this report for an Israeli think tank: Stuart Eizenstat is the author of a major section on “Mega-Trends in the Next Five Years which will Impact on World Jewry and Israel.”

The situation is exactly the same as the involvement of prominent American neocons (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser) in the notorious “A Clean Break” report for an Israeli think tank. This report, which advocated regime change in the Middle East by many of the architects of the American invasion of Iraq, was also presented to the Israeli government.

There is deep concern about Jewish identification, marriage, and fertility. Jews have the lowest birth rate in the world (1.5–1.7). In the Diaspora, “there is a slow, steady, seemingly inexorable decline in an already diminished population.” In Israel, the Jewish population is increasing but the Arab Israelis and Palestinians are increasing faster. “Between the Mediterranean and the Jordan Sea, there may be a majority of Palestinians by mid-century. Time is not on Israel’s side.” Nevertheless it is important to “Ensure that the borders of the State of Israel guarantee a clear Jewish majority.”

The solution is to encourage fertility not only by aiding and promoting Jewish births, but by funding programs that strengthen Jewish identification:

Massive investment should be undertaken to improve knowledge and transmission of Jewish identity through expanding existing and new networks of Jewish schools, and the best forms of informal education such as Birthright, camps, youth movements, adolescent education and adult education.

All of these policies would be viewed as unvarnished racism if adopted by Europeans or the European Diaspora.

The report on geopolitical trends by Stuart Eizenstat is quite blunt, noting the decline of the West and the emergence of a multipolar world with the rise of China and India. Israel must ready itself for a world no longer dominated by the US, but Eizenstat projects that the US will be primus inter pares for at least another generation. There is also concern that because of the debacle in Iraq, the US will not be willing to provide the “unconditional support” for Israel that it has in the past.

[adrotate group=”1″]

A similar JPPPI publication is its Report 2008. This report makes many of these same points asFacing Tomorrow 2008 but also analyzes the position of Jews in the US. It is quite frank on Jewish power and the status of American Jews. Jews are important political players in the US. Despite their relatively small numbers, Jews are important in part because of “the economic resources they bring to bear on the candidates of their choices … [and] their prominence in American culture and society.” Well said.

Moreover, the Report notes that

while Jews tend to be wealthier than most Americans, they identify their long-term interests with liberal policies, and are regularly moved by the perception that the Democrats are the standard bearer of a number of traditionally Jewish ethical concerns. (This latter contention is of course  profoundly contested by Jewish Republicans, among whom are to be counted a large number of leading Jewish thinkers and intellectuals.)

The idea that Jewish support for liberal causes stems from ethical concerns is profoundly problematic from other perspectives as well. The ethical hypothesis is ludicrous given that American Jews also support a racialist, apartheid, expansionist Israel. (See here for a discussion of Jewish ethics as fundamentally about what is “good for the Jews.”) Indeed, the Report notes that because both Democrats and Republicans are committed to Israel, Jewish voting is more determined by other factors. In other words, since there is no disagreement in American politics regarding unconditional support for Israel, Jews are free to vote their other ethnic interests — in particular the disestablishment of white America.

My view is that the Jewish commitment to liberal politics and the Democratic Party stems from their fear of and animosity toward an America dominated by white Christians. As Elliott Abrams has stated, the American 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” (p. 86).

It may indeed be rational for Jews to seek a rapprochement with white America, given that non-white minorities, especially Muslims, are unlikely to share the Jewish commitment to Israel. But the main stumbling block remains a psychological one: Can activist Jews overcome their gut feelings of hostility toward the West?

Indeed, although not mentioned in the Report, the summary presented to the Israeli cabinet recommended “Enhanced ties between Jewish communities and the Hispanic and Afro-American communities in the US.” Implicitly, the idea is that just as Jews must prepare for the emergence of China and India as world powers, Jews must be prepared for the decline of white America.

Of course, it is no secret that the organized Jewish community has spearheaded the mass immigration of non-whites and that they have have forged close ties with blacks, Latinos, and other minority groups in the US. As I noted elsewhere:

In recent years Jewish organizations have made alliances with other non-white ethnic activist organizations. For example, groups such as the AJCommittee and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington have formed coalitions with organizations such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). A prominent aspect of this effort is the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, co-founded by Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of the North American Boards of Rabbis. The Foundation is closely tied to the World Jewish Congress which cosponsors the Foundation’s Washington, DC office and several of its programs. Typical of the Foundation’s efforts was a meeting in August, 2003 of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Jewish Congressional Delegation, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the meeting was co-sponsored by the World Jewish Congress. The Foundation’s many programs include organizing the Congressional Jewish/Black Caucus, the Corporate Diversity Award, given to “a major Fortune 500 company committed to building a diverse work force,” the Annual Latino/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, the Annual Black/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, and the Annual Interethnic Congressional Leadership Forum. The latter project organizes an annual meeting of the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the World Jewish Congress, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.

Quite clearly the various non-European ethnic groups are developing close ties and Jewish organizations are taking the lead in this effort.

Finally, it should be noted that there is no self-criticism in these reports — no angst about the ethics of Israel’s horrific actions in Gaza or the erection of the racialist, apartheid state of Israel. Nor is there any self-examination of the power of Jews in American politics, particularly the issue of disloyalty as it pertains to the Israel Lobby.

The portrait of Judaism is therefore part and parcel of creating a positive Jewish self-image. This one-dimensional “Jews-have-no-warts” image is a useful fiction for a group with such a large agenda in conflict with the interests of so many other peoples — from white Americans and other European-descended peoples to Iran and the Arab world.

It is an image that is aggressively enforced by Jewish activist organizations such as the ADL. A large part of Jewish power is the ability to create and enforce a positive image of Jews that is quite independent of the reality of aggressive Jewish pursuit of group interests.

The rest of us need not see the Jewish community in quite such a one-dimensional manner.

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

The Appointment of Charles Freeman and the Coming War with Iran

When I was a child, we had in our living room a copy of Time magazine that came out just after JFK had been assassinated. It was the only article in the drawer of an end table, thus creating a kind of family shrine for the fallen president.

I sometimes wonder if the March 24, 2003 issue of The American Conservative doesn’t deserves the same kind of reverential treatment, for the cover story was Patrick J. Buchanan’s iconic jeremiad “Whose War?

In that story, he railed against a group of neoconservatives clamoring for a pre-planned attack on Iraq following 9/11. He minced no words in laying down his position: “We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars.”

Buchanan spelled out who would benefit from the second Iraq War:

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

These words should be seared into the brains of all good Americans, for they explain many of the most important events of the first decade of this new millennium. Further, with but the change of one name—Sharon to Netanyahu—they may presage the unfolding of a new war even more destructive and disastrous than the Iraq War. And who better to sound the alarm about this looming danger than Mr. Buchanan himself.

Last week Buchanan explained this in a short column called Return of the War Party.

Real men go to Tehran!” brayed the neoconservatives, after the success of their propaganda campaign to have America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War victory.

Now they are back, in pursuit of what has always been their great goal: an American war on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their collaborators cannot succeed a second time.

It’s déjà vu all over again, and the well-oiled Israeli/neocon propaganda machine is in full throttle, just as it was in the lead-up to the Iraq war.

For Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s expected new Prime Minister,  Iran’s impending nuclear capability is nothing less than Armageddon: Iran “constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence.”

Leon Panetta, the new CIA Director, is playing his role perfectly by reversing the previous National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Panetta stated in his confirmation hearings that “From all the information I’ve seen, I think there is no question that they are seeking that capability.”

Ominiously, AIPAC operative Dennis Ross of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy was given the Iranian portfolio. (WINEP is an Israeli  think tank — sorry, pro-Israeli think tank — based in Washington, DC.) There is little doubt that Ross will pursue AIPAC’s war agenda with Iran.

And the arch-neocon Elliot Abrams chimes in by writing that the entire peace process in the Middle East should be put on hold until Iran is dealt with. Of course, this means that the settlements will continue to expand and Israeli brutality toward the Palestinians will continue unabated. It’s pretty obvious that Israel has zero interest in peace with the Palestinians.

Buchanan sums it up by noting:

The campaign to conflate Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it destroys us all cannot be far off.

As if on cue, stories about this new risk are popping up all around us:

  • Obama’s War Machine Needs $800 Billion For 2009: “Barack Obama’s election promise to bring ‘change’ to Washington and reverse the juggernaut of the Bush war machine has proven to be nothing more than a cruel hoax, emphasized by his recent actions on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and his latest demand for a total of around $800 billion in war funds and subsidiary costs just to cover the rest of 2009.”
  • Edwin Black: The Iran-Israel nuclear endgame is now much closer: ”In recent days, four key developments have clicked in to edge Iran and Israel much closer to a military denouement with profound consequences for American oil that the nation is not prepared to meet.”
  • Mullen: Iran has fissile materials for bomb: “The top U.S. military official [Admiral Mike Mullen] said … that Iran has sufficient fissile material for a nuclear weapon, declaring it would be a ‘very, very bad outcome’ should Tehran move forward with a bomb.”
  • A Choice Between Peace and Peril: “Bibi Netanyahu’s assumption of power in Israel sets the stage for a huge campaign by the Israeli government, and its well-oiled lobby groups in Washington, to push us into a war with Iran.”
  • Israel lobbies for war on Iran: “Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says he advocates a war on Iran, following the country’s successful test-runs at the Bushehr power plant.”
  • Clinton accuses Iran of seeking to intimidate: “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton swiped hard at Iran on Wednesday, accusing its hardline leaders of fomenting divisions in the Arab world, promoting terrorism, posing threats to Israel and Europe, and seeking to “intimidate as far as they think their voice can reach.”

Yes, the war drums are beating. Thankfully, The Liberty Hour Radio Show is around to rebut all of this with a well-informed conversation on the possible war with Iran between James Morris and Stephen Sniegoski.

Nevertheless, despite all the war mongering, there is one rather discordant fact — the appointment of Charles Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. Freeman seems an unlikely advocate for war with Iran given some of his  comments on the situation in the Middle East, including this one made in 2006:

For the past half decade, Israel has enjoyed carte blanche from the United States to experiment with any policy it favored to stabilize its relations with the Palestinians and its other Arab neighbors, including most recently its efforts to bomb Lebanon into peaceful coexistence with it and to smother Palestinian democracy in its cradle. The suspension of the independent exercise of American judgment about what best serves our interests as well as those of Israelis and Arabs has caused the Arabs to lose confidence in the United States as a peace partner. … left to its own devices, the Israeli establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them, and enrage those who are not.

His appointment would seem to be akin to appointing John Mearsheimer or Stephen Walt to a high-level foreign policy position. Paul Craig Roberts sums up the situation with his usual candor and insight:

With Rahm Israel Emanuel, an Israeli dual citizen, in charge of the White House and Obama’s schedule, Obama will have an even less independent foreign policy in the Middle East than Bush. Somehow someone among the Obamacons managed to put forward an appointment that could challenge the Israel Lobby’s stranglehold. . . .

The neocons went berserk. Steve Rosen, formerly of AIPAC, currently indicted as an Israeli spy, Gabriel Schoenfeld, who wants the New York Times indicted for allegedly violating the Espionage Act for reporting the Bush regime’s illegal spying, Daniel Pipes, who sees Muslim terrorists under every bed, Michael Rubin of the warmonger American Enterprise Institute, and Frank Gaffney, possibly the goofiest person in America, damned Freeman’s appointment as “deeply troubling,” because Freeman has an open mind on the Middle East situation.

In other words, if you are not on Israel’s side, you are disqualified.

Well, as they say, the battle has been joined. Indeed, Walt has come out with a spirited defense of Freeman and a biting attack on his mostly-Jewish critics. Pointing to familiar smear tactics, Walt denounces “the usual suspects:”

Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Gabriel Schoenfeld (writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal), Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Marty Peretz on his New Republic blog, and former AIPAC official Steve Rosen (yes, the same guy who is now on trial for passing classified U.S. government information to Israel).

Walt’s dismissal of Jeffrey Goldberg is stunning: “[His] idea of ‘public service’ was to enlist in the Israeli army.” Hmmm, sounds like a charge of dual loyalty. Abe Foxman (or is it Foxperson?) will be furious.

Walt is surely correct in describing this as a “thunderous, coordinated assault.” But I think Israel Shamir describes these all-out, in-your-face, full-court-press assaults even better. In an article appropriately titled “Carter and the Swarm,” Shamir describes the ferocious barrage on former president Jimmy Carter when he had the temerity to make some mild criticisms of Israel:

After Carter spoke, he was immediately counterattacked by organized Jewry. This was not a sight to miss. In my native Siberia, in its short and furious summer you may see swarm of gnats attack a horse, each tiny bloodsucker eager for his piece of action. In a while, the blinded and infuriated animal rushes headlong in mad sprint and soon finds its death in the bottomless moors. The Jews developed the same style of attack. It is never a single voice arguing the case, but always a mass attack from left and right, below and above, until the attacked one is beaten and broken and crawls away in disgrace.

Shamir draws our attention to the fundamental feature of these attacks: “Each attacker is as tiny and irrelevant as a single gnat, but as a swarm they are formidable.” Kevin MacDonald tells me that the swarm of gnats attacking him at CSU–Long Beach was quite similar: Hundreds of letters to faculty email lists over a period of two academic years — far too many to respond to.

In the case of Freeman, his swarm of attacking gnats is part and parcel of Jewish influence on the media. The shrill assault is waged from the high ground of the most prestigious media outlets in the US.

Should Freeman survive as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, he will have his work cut out for him. Obviously, there are powerful and familiar voices in the press unhappy with his views. Of course, these journalists and pundits on their own amount to little. But Jewish control of the media in most Western states—and especially in America—aids the attackers. “If Jews did not run the media,” Shamir remarks, “these gnats would not be heard by anyone but their spouses.”

Stay tuned. The fate of Charles Freeman will tell us much about the likelihood of yet another U.S. (or possibly Israeli) attack on peoples of the Middle East.

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Environment, Immigration, and Population Reduction

At 308 million people, the U.S. is currently the third most populous nation on Earth, behind only China (1.3 billion) and India (1.2 billion).  By 2050, India will rise to #1, with 1.6 billion—a 37% increase.  China’s ‘one-child’ policy will limit its increase to about 8% (1.4 billion).  The growth rate in the U.S., though, tops them both:  We are projected to hit 440 million, or an astonishing 43% increase.  This is, by far, the highest growth rate of any western industrialized nation.

Such dramatic population growth, under any circumstances, causes a variety of social and economic problems.  In the U.S., as we know, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that most of our increase will be among non-White minority groups, primarily Hispanics. The numbers are striking:  The 43% increase amounts to 132 million people; of these, 130 million will be minorities.  White population will increase by only 2 million, reducing it to 46% of the total by 2050.  Thus we can expect that problems with minorities will grow in a variety of areas:  housing, schools, welfare, health care, crime, security, economic inequality, and racial and ethnic conflict.

But one neglected area of importance is truly color-blind, and that is the environment.  Resource and energy use, development, road construction, expanded cropland and pastureland, deforestation, pollution and waste disposal — none of these care which race or ethnicity is doing the consuming.  Only two things matter:  sheer numbers of people, and the level of consumption.  And on this count alone, we are facing an ecological crisis in this country.

Measuring environment impact is a challenging prospect, but consensus seems to be building around the concept of the ecological footprint as one relevant criterion.  The basic idea behind it is sound:  that human beings, as consumers and producers, require the ongoing use of some portion of the planet’s surface, from which to draw resources and on which to dump their wastes.  Some resources are renewable, others are not.  Some waste products decay quickly, others take millennia.  Many of our resources demand a quantifiable area of land:  land to farm, pave, pasture, or otherwise develop.  So too our waste products:  our trash takes up an ever-growing space, and greenhouse gas emissions from all sources may require offsets in terms of vegetation (trees or other ground cover).  And plant life generally has a vital ability to break down the various pollutants and toxins that our society churns out daily.

In an attempt to formulate a standardized measure, environmental scientists have added together the land area of all our resource use, plus the land area required for all our waste products and carbon offsets.  The result is, for each nation, a single measure of land area—the ecological footprint—that represents the amount of area required, per person, to sustain a given standard of living.  (In the following, I use the World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet Report 2008.)

At the low end, nations like Haiti and Bangladesh struggle by on roughly 1 acre per person.  The bulk of the Third World consumes between 2.5 and 8 acres, including India (2.3) and China (5.3).  Most of Western Europe ranges from 10 to 15.  At the top of the list of major nations is the U.S., at nearly 24 acres per person. (Two energy-intensive oil fiefdoms, UAE and Qatar, rate higher than the U.S, but only slightly.)

Naturally, there is some guesswork and estimation in these numbers, and certainly they are subject to debate.  But I have little doubt that they are directionally correct, and that the margin of error is within reason.  But even if they are off by 50%—that is, if they indicate twice the actual consumption level—they point to some troubling conclusions for our country.

Consider, for example, the total footprint of the U.S.  With over 300 million people consuming on average 24 acres per person, this yields a total footprint of 7.4 billion acres.  By comparison, the continental U.S. (i.e. excluding Alaska) has a total land area of just 1.9 billion acres—merely one quarter of our actual usage.  Putting it otherwise:  Our footprint is 400% of our continental area, and takes in more than 20% of the entire planet.

In fact there is a two-part explanation for our situation.  First, we are overtaxing the land itself. The above calculation of ecological footprint for the US implies that it is possible to use more than 100% of the land. This happens by, in essence, depleting the “natural capital” of the biosphere, which occurs through such actions as deforestation, loss of topsoil, and overuse of groundwater.  By most indications, humanity as a whole is overtaxing the planet by 30–40%—a condition that, if true, clearly cannot continue indefinitely.  But the second and more important factor for the U.S. is a situation whereby we are able, through globalization and international trade, to consume the land resource area of other nations—in the form of imported agricultural products, manufactured goods, chemicals, clothing, machinery, vehicles, and fossil fuels.

For both reasons of social justice and ecological sustainability, the world of the future will have to live within its means.  In a practical sense this means three things:  reducing total (global) consumption to sustainable levels, reducing the per capita consumption (given the U.N. assumption that populations will rise), and, most critically, living within the capacity of each nation’s land area.

So for the U.S., the calculation is straightforward.  With 1.9 billion acres of land, we can carry at most only (1.9 billion / 24 acres =) 80 million people sustainably.  Compare this to a present population of 308 million, which is rapidly heading up to 400+ million.  Thus, we should be contemplating a reduction of 75%, rather than staring head-on into a 40% increase.  (This, of course, assumes a fixed level of consumption; if we are willing to cut our footprint in half, we could get by with a mere 50% population cut, to something like 150 million people.)

But the situation is worse than this.  True long-term sustainability demands that a large portion of the land be set aside as true wilderness, unused and unexploited, in order to maintain overall ecosystem viability.  How much to set aside is a difficult question, especially given the wide variability and sensitivity of differing ecosystems, and the lack of consensus on the appropriate metrics.  Minimum estimates seem to run in the 20–25% range, and at the high end, some have argued for 50% or more, especially in the more biodiverse regions.1 If, worst case, we are then allowed to use only about 1 billion acres of land, current consumption levels will sustainably support only 40 million people—an 87% reduction.

These are, frankly, shocking numbers.  And as I mentioned above, even if the footprint figures are significantly wrong—if, say, we are actually consuming only at a rate of 10 or 12 acres per person—then the long-term sustainable population is only back up to 80–100 million.  Thus we cannot argue our way out of this problem simply by claiming wild overestimates by some crazed environmentalists.  Clearly more drastic action is demanded.

Given the radical unsustainability of our present situation, we need to immediately address both the level of consumption and the population issue simultaneously.  On the consumption side, we clearly need to become more efficient, less wasteful, and generally consume less.  Americans as a whole waste a tremendous amount of energy and resources, and this does little or nothing for our standard of living.  Germany, for example, has an equal or higher quality of life, and it achieves this on a footprint of just 11 acres per person—less than half of ours.  A comparable level for the U.S. is clearly attainable, especially over a period of a few decades.  But it will not happen without overcoming some ferocious infighting by vested interests.

The other half of the equation is even more difficult and contentious.  Tackling the thorny issue of population control, let alone population reduction, is only slightly less controversial than Holocaust denial.  And in fact any attempt to discuss large-scale population reduction invariably brings up bad jokes about gas chambers and crematoria.  But the situation demands a rational discussion, and there are some obvious first steps.

One: An immediate end to all immigration.  The myth of America as the ‘land of the free and home of the brave’ is, for most immigrants, nonsense.  Immigrants don’t come here because they ‘love our freedoms.’  They come primarily for one reason:  to make money, and increase their standard of living.  But every new immigrant—whether poverty-stricken Mexican or well-educated Asian—contributes directly to an already overshot ecosystem.  Neither our nation nor the planet can stand any more Americans.

Two: Deportation of all illegal immigrants, and termination of green card privilege.  Given the urgency, every illegal person here should be arrested and deported.  The green card system should be ended, and those holding current green cards should be subject to accelerated expiration without renewal.

Three: Pay people to leave.  If anyone wants to permanently relocate outside the U.S., the government should pay all moving expenses, and perhaps throw in a little financial incentive as well.  This obviously does nothing for the global population predicament, but it does help the total consumption problem; the fact remains that any given person living anywhere besides the U.S. will, on average, consume less.

Four: A full-court press on family planning and contraception options.  Free or low-cost access to condoms, birth control pills, educational programs, even abortions, should be considered.

Five: An end to all tax incentives to have more than one child.  Current tax laws allow exemptions for all children, regardless of number.  They should be revised to allow a break only for the first child, and increasing disincentives beyond the second.

If these should prove insufficient, more radical options are available:

Six: Government-paid sterilization.  Certainly some percentage of the American population would be willing to get sterilized if it was free.  More radical yet would be to provide monetary incentives for sterilization.  Imagine if the government offered $5,000 for any childless adult who was willing to get sterilized—and imagine the outcry!  But there can really be no complaint, as long as there is no coercion and the program is fully voluntary.  Yes, the lower classes are more likely to participate; this is perhaps unfortunate, but given that we accept extreme financial inequality in our country, we have to live with the consequences.  (At worst, this would offset the higher birth rates of the lower class immigrant populations.)

Seven: Birth licenses or ‘credits’. This is a kind of capitalist version of China’s policy.  Kenneth Boulding and Herman Daly, among others, have proposed a system that gives every woman a certain number of credits, such that would allow her to have one legal child.  If she wants two or more, she must buy the credits from another woman who is willing to forego hers.  A national marketplace would set the price, and childless women would clearly profit.  This is perhaps a rather heartless method, but the present system is exceedingly cruel in its own way—an uncontrolled human plague eating up the planet.

No doubt many readers will think of sterilization programs or birth credits as outrageous and impossible.  To which I offer two replies:  (1) we would obviously begin with the less radical approaches first, and only contemplate the more extreme actions if necessary; and (2) do we have any better ideas?  Continuing on in the same vein is not a rational option.  This only invites catastrophe as a means of reducing our population—which will certainly happen if we do nothing.  Human numbers will go down; we can rationally plan a soft landing, or just wait for a ruthless Mother Nature to crush us.

The above actions, addressing population and consumption simultaneously, would doubtless have a substantial impact.  The actual effect would of course depend on the speed of implementation.  The situation is pressing, but there seems to be sufficient time for these actions to work.  Reduced consumption and greater efficiencies can happen rather quickly, but no one is proposing 50% or 75% population reductions in a decade.

More realistically, I would propose something on the order of a 50-year plan to achieve the above goals.  If, over the coming five decades, we could reduce both our footprint and our population by just 2% per year, we would reach 2060 with 110 million people, consuming at a level of 8.7 acres per person—a sustainable 1 billion acre footprint in total.  Two percent annual reductions are easily achievable, and would barely register on the public consciousness.

There is plenty of flexibility in the numbers, of course.  If we were only able to muster, say, 1% reductions per year on average, the process would still work—but it would take 100 years to achieve sustainability.  Tradeoffs between population and consumption are also possible.  If we could, for example, drive population down by 3% per year, then consumption need only fall by 0.5% annually; or vice versa.

And finally, critical to any population reduction scheme is equitable and proportionate implementation.  It would not do, for example, to have one class or ethnicity voluntarily adopting low-growth (or negative growth) policies while others ignored them with impunity.  There would thus need to be some minimal policy of monitoring and, particularly for systems of tax penalties or birth credits, equitable enforcement.

Every year that we wait, things get immeasurably worse: growing population, increasing per capita consumption, and a global ecosystem nearing exhaustion.  With a sustainable population in America, we could feed ourselves, supply all of our own energy (think of it—no more wars for oil!), and maintain vast areas of wild nature.  This is truly achievable.  It is only a matter of will.  But the discussion must start now.


1.    See:  Metzgar and Bader (1992), “Large mammal predators in the Northern Rockies,” Northwest Environmental Journal, 8(1).  Hoctor et al (2000), “Identifying a linked reserve system,” Conservation Biology, 14(4).  Noss et al (1999), “A conservation plan for the Klamath-Siskiyou ecoregion,” Natural Areas Journal, 19(4).  Carroll et al (2003), “Use of population viability analysis,” Ecological Applications, 13. RETURN TO ARTICLE.

Dr. Thomas Dalton (email him) is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2009).

Richard Perle’s Outrageous Lies

I’ve just finished listening to an enlightening 2-hour radio interview with hosts Mark Glenn and James Morris and guest Kevin MacDonald, and including an interesting call-in appearance from Stephen Sniegoski. The general topic was Jewish power, but one point in particular stood out: Recently, a premier architect and promoter of the neocon war against Iraq, “Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle, has been escalating his campaign to deny the neocon role in American politics. Let me explain.

Back in 1996, a group of Americans writing for an Israeli think tank published a paper for Israeli Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” In addition to calling for Saddam Hussein’s replacement, it also advised an overthrow or destabilization of the governments of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Iran, thus leading to something akin to a “Greater US-Israel Co-Prosperity Sphere.”

One year later came the formation of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neocon think tank based in Washington. William Kristol and Robert Kagan co-founded it as a non-profit educational organization, but many have accused it of playing a primary role in the Bush Administration’s decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003. Later, the Pentagon hosted a unit called the Office of Special Plans (OSP), where Paul Wolfowitz joined Douglas Feith in propagating what many have claimed were false allegations about Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

In the American media there were legions of neocon writers who repeated the party line about the need for a preemptive war against Hussein. Anyone following the efforts and words of the neocons likely recognized a sense of schizophrenia about describing who, exactly, these neocons were. Last year I wrote about this phenomenon of naming neocons (see also here), noting how such comfortable homes to neoconservatism as The Public Interest, The National Interest, and Commentary (published by The American Jewish Committee) began to ignore any connection between Jews and neoconservatism. For example, the Winter 2004 issue of The Public Interest had an essay titled “Conservatives and Neoconservatives.” Yet author Adam Wolfson offered not even an oblique reference to Jews. Never mind that journal co-founder Irving Kristol is considered by many to be the father of neoconservatism, or that the other three editors over the forty-year life of the magazine have also been Jews.

Over at its more foreign-policy oriented sister publication, The National Interest, Francis Fukuyama, in “The Neoconservative Moment” (Summer 2004) also failed to mention this connection. And in the October 2005 issue of Commentary, Joshua Muravchik did likewise in his article “Iraq and the Conservatives.” (Notice that Muravchik doesn’t even call them neoconservatives.)

The schizophrenic aspect of naming or not naming neocons as Jews was obvious at the New York Times beginning at the end of 2008. In mid-December, America’s “paper of record” featured a review of a book about neocon hawk Richard Perle written by Alan Weisman, “a world-traveled journalist and the son of Ukrainian Jews.” In the review were found familiar neocon names such as Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, and David Frum. The reader, however, heard not a word about their Jewish identity.  

One month later, however, the very same Times Book Review addressed Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons—yet another book on neocons written by a Jewish author. But this time the reviewer, Timothy Noah, could not have been more blunt about the Jewish nature of the movement: “There’s no point denying it: neocons tend to be Jewish.” Heilbrunn confirmed this in an interview, when he bequeathed to us this verbal gift: “It is anything but an anti-Semitic canard to label neoconservatism a largely Jewish phenomenon.” In an article in The American Conservative, Philip Weiss delivered the same verdict: “Heilbrunn achieves one important chore: a forthright social narrative of the neocons as a Jewish movement.”

All of this brings us full circle back to 2004, when Kevin MacDonald wrote that “neoconservatism is indeed a Jewish intellectual and political movement.” “The current situation in the United States is really an awesome display of Jewish power and influence.”  MacDonald goes over the entire history of the movement back to the 1960s and shows that the principal players were Jews with a strong Jewish identity and a strong sense of pursuing Jewish interests — first and foremost the interests of Israel, but also advocating the use of US foreign policy to combat anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. He shows that neocons hold traditional Jewish liberal attitudes on every other issue, including immigration policy, but that they managed to elbow out traditional conservatives in the Republican Party to the point that paleocons like Pat Buchanan have been relegated to the sidelines.

Of course anyone following the antics of the neocons always knew about a certain Jewish character to the movement. After all, didn’t Pat Buchanan famously write in his seminal cover story in The American Conservative in early 2003 that a “neoconservative clique” was responsible for a pre-planned attack on Iraq following 9/11? Continuing, he thundered, “We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars.”

And who might benefit from the Iraq War? Buchanan spelled it out:

Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam? Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.

One might argue that the Jewish nature of the neocon movement and its efforts on behalf of the State of Israel are two of the most heavily documented and discussed topics of the last decade. Here is just a short list of the most well-known considerations of Jewish power in this respect:

Perhaps the crowning achievement in this category is Stephen Sniegoski’s The Transparent Cabal, a comprehensive solo effort that definitively documents the neocon-Zionist hand in America’s disastrous decision to invade and occupy Iraq, as well as in American Middle East policy more generally. His lucid comments on the radio show mentioned above make this topic even easier to understand.

Finally, I arrive at the point of this column: Despite the massive proof of neocon involvement in America’s decision to go to war with Iraq and despite the overwhelming evidence that neoconservatism qualifies as a Jewish movement, central neocon figure Richard Perle has, with a straight face, stated that neocons do not exist. And it follows that if they don’t exist, they certainly are not a Jewish cabal.

In a story last week in the Washington Post, journalist Dana Milbank expressed skepticism about Perle’s odd claims. “Listening to neoconservative mastermind Richard Perle at the Nixon Center yesterday,” he wrote, “there was a sense of falling down the rabbit hole. In real life, Perle was the ideological architect of the Iraq war and of the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack. But at yesterday’s forum of foreign policy intellectuals, he created a fantastic world in which:

1. Perle is not a neoconservative.

2. Neoconservatives do not exist.

3. Even if neoconservatives did exist, they certainly couldn’t be blamed for the disasters of the past eight years.”

Against any form of reality that most of us would recognize, Perle averred that “There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy.” This nonsense was spoken at a gathering hosted by The National Interest.

As evidence of the coordinated nature of this disinformation campaign, one can point to the essay Perle recently penned for The National Interest. Titled Ambushed on the Potomac, the essay has Perle spouting such howlers as, “I know of no statement, public or private, by any neoconservative in or near government, advocating the invasion of Iraq primarily for the purpose of promoting democracy or advancing some grand neoconservative vision.” And this: “And as for Israeli interests, well, the Israelis, who believed that Iran posed the greater threat, were strongly and often vociferously against the United States going into Iraq.”

He also alleges that his fellow Jew Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right exhibits “an obsession with neoconservative influence” but fails “utterly to describe or document that influence.” Further, he adds, “This neoconservative conspiracy is nonsense, of course, and no serious observer of the Bush administration would argue such a thing, not least because there is not, and cannot be, any evidence to substantiate it.”

The National Interest is entirely complicit in this campaign. Witness, for example, the six large pictures interspersed throughout the article: Bush, Cheney, Powell, Tenet, Rice, Rumsfeld — none of them a Jew. Perle (with the help of The National Interest) wants to frame them for “the hijacking of foreign policy.” And he concludes that “what is unusual is the extent to which President Bush was undermined by his own administration.”

What might be missed here is a two-year-old piece in Vanity Fair which reveals even more chutzpah on who is to blame for Iraq. In conversations just prior to the 2006 elections, a host of neocon operatives were interviewed and sought to distance themselves from the Iraq fiasco by blaming others—but only non-Jews.

Kenneth Adelman, for instance, though professing deep respect for personal friend Donald Rumsfeld, still blamed him for many of the problems in carrying out the plans of the neocons. “I’m crushed by his performance.” Adelman also blamed three other top non-Jews: Paul Bremer, George Tenet and General Tommy Franks. “Those three are each directly responsible for the disaster of Iraq.”

Michael Ledeen, top scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, a leading neocon think tank,  felt that Condoleezza Rice, in her capacity as national-security adviser, had sought compromise rather than correct decisions. Eliot Cohen saw “a very different quality of leadership” as responsible for missed chances in 2003 and 2004. Michael Rubin, also from the A.E.I., faulted the Commander-in-Chief this way: “Where I most blame George Bush is that, through his rhetoric, people trusted him, people believed him. Reformists came out of the woodwork and exposed themselves.”

Perle offered that “this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the Bush administration. . . . At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.” Incredibly, Perle claimed, “Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened . . .”

The most outlandish opinion, however, came from Ledeen, who argued that the best way to understand the dysfunction of the Bush administration was to ask, “Who are the most powerful people in the White House?” His answer: “They are women who are in love with the president: Laura [Bush], Condi, Harriet Miers, and Karen Hughes.” Quite frankly, I’m speechless.

James Petras, who has penned three recent books on the “Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC),” also noted the blame-the-goyim approach. “Whatever inside dope [journalist Seymour] Hersh cited that had not been public was based on anonymous sources which could never be double checked or verified, whose analysis incidentally coincided with Hersh’s peculiar penchant for blaming the Gentiles (WASPs) and exonerating the brethren.”

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). Last year he come out with a new book, Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of U.S. Power that continued his exposition. (For a short summary of such ideas about the ZPC, see here.)

Petras minces no words in this new book:

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 American 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.

Time will tell whether the American people will react as Petras suggests. But more to the point, will the American people swallow the current lies of Perle and his fellow neocons? There are two reasons they might. First, Jews have a long history of deception of non-Jews. MacDonald was being polite when he titled a chapter on the history of Jewish deception “Rationalization and Apologia.” Less charitable people might call it something else. In any case, we might suspect that Perle is simply engaging in a tried and true tactic of his tribe.

The second reason Perle et al. might succeed in deceiving the masses is that the bulk of American media is in the hands of Jews, most of whom, as Petras and others have shown, are highly sympathetic to the Zionist cause. Israel Shamir provides a reason why the transgressions of Perle and his fellow neocons may well go unpunished: “The rich Jews buy media so it will cover up their (and their brethren’s) misdeeds.”

And for people who are not deceived by all this, there is little doubt that organizations like the ADL will step in to label as anti-Semites anyone who publicly states that neoconservatism is a Jewish cabal. Indeed,  the ADL has already done so. As usual, such charges will keep public discussion of these issues to a minimum, and respectable politicians will be loathe to discuss the topic.

How the American people react to these brazen attempts by the Jewish neocons to whitewash their role in steering America on such a disastrous course will show their maturity and determination to get to the truth of the matter, or it will show their lack thereof. The proper response, of course, is to forcefully reject these outrageous lies.

What’s wrong with white men? In search of an explanation

In my previous column, I attempted to analyze two important sex differences in political behavior: Women’s tendency to be attracted to wealthy, powerful men, and women’s relatively greater attraction to close relationships, empathy, and nurturance. These differences make women less likely to be attracted to white racialist movements given the current political context.

But these differences are not the main cause of our malaise. A correspondent writing to me about my last column said that I should ask why white men are such wimps that they are basically lying down and allowing themselves to be displaced.

It’s a good question. How could a race of people that conquered the world suddenly lose confidence and voluntarily cede power? What explains the culture of Western suicide?

White men have to look in the mirror when thinking about our ongoing dispossession. After all, even though there is a preponderance of men in societies of people who explicitly advocate the interests of European-Americans, these men represent a miniscule percentage of the European-American male population. One such society, the Charles Martel Society, is named for Charles Martel, a man who stood up for his people by leading an army against invading Muslims. This is what one should expect from men. But such men — and people willing to follow such a man into battle to preserve their people and culture — are vanishingly rare among contemporary Europeans, whether in Europe or the European Diaspora.

Consider again the evolutionary theory of sex. In my last column, I sketched out how it explains the general contours of female behavior. Here I draw out the implications for male behavior. Females are the sex with a high investment in reproduction — pregnancy, lactation, and child care. Since the act of reproduction costs little for men, a general rule of nature is that males must compete with other males for access to females. This results in the prediction that males will be more aggressive than females and that the main targets of their aggression will be other males.

Male aggression over access to females is common in nature. Males fight each other, and the winner gets to mate with the females. For example, a coalition of male lions taking over a pride drives off or kills the resident males and thencommits infanticide on the offspring of the males they displaced. They then mate with the females. In nature, males who were not aggressive and didn’t try to control territory did not leave offspring. The cowardly lion is a literary invention, nothing more.

Male aggression against other males is a common theme of human history. In the US, around 90% of violent crime is committed by males and the vast majority is against other males; the same pattern can be seen around the world. Warfare has always been a male enterprise, and it is easy to see why. Consider Genghis Khan. As the victorious Mongol armies spread throughout Asia, he and his descendants established harems of women and sired large numbers of children. Recent genetic research shows that he now has around 16 million male descendents scattered throughout Asia. Like the invading lion coalition, there was a huge payoff for the winners of war throughout human history.

This basic evolutionary logic also implies that males should attempt to control the political process. Throughout history (at least until very recently), powerful men have left more descendants.

Just as Charles Martel and his army defeated the invading Muslims, and just as armies of men fought to the death against Genghis Khan to protect their women and hold onto their territory, we should expect that white men would fight to prevent the mass immigration that will soon make them a relatively powerless minority. We should expect them to mobilize fiercely against affirmative action policies that discriminate against them. We should expect them to be hostile to the culture that promotes non-whites into prestigious positions that make them attractive to white women. We should expect a Charles Martel-like figure to easily rally their allegiance to reclaim their heritage.

But we don’t see that. White men are wimps.

I suppose we could simply throw out the evolutionary theory of sex. But the power of this theory for explaining the general outlines of human history is indisputable.

The key, I think, is to realize that, unlike animals, humans evolved a completely novel set of control processes that enable humans to control their natural impulses. These control processes allow for a very large influence of human culture on our behavior. The problem with white men is our culture.

Nevertheless, there seem to be some specific traits of whites that make them more prone to accepting a culture of suicide. In the following, I briefly discuss the outlines of an explanation and include links to longer versions of these ideas.

First, there is a strong strand of individualism in Western culture. Compared to other cultures, we are less prone to identifying with our people. Individual white men looking at the contemporary situation think more in terms of their own prospects rather than the prospects of white people in general.

I have talked to quite a few white men who, after telling them my concerns, simply say that they and their families will be able to afford to flee the negative effects of mass immigration. They will take their family and move to someplace like New Zealand — never mind that in the long run finding a predominantly white country that wants to stay that way will be more and more difficult. Or they will retreat to a gated community — ignoring the long term effects of transferring political power to coalitions of non-white groups with insatiable demands for public services and eventually the need for confiscatory taxes to support them.

Incidentally, as a Californian, the writing is clearly on the wall for people like me. (Vdare.com’s Joe Guzzardi had the sense to leave.) There is a massive budget shortfall due in no small part to the need for public services for the ever expanding poor, many of them illegal. (One fifth of Los Angeles County — over 2.2 million people — is now on public assistance and the number is expected to grow in the current economic environment.) The Democrats are now only a few votes short of the 2/3 majority in the legislature needed to raise taxes without any Republican support at all. They recently raised taxes substantially with only a few Republican defectors (including Gov. Schwarzenegger). At the national level, the Obama Administration will do nothing to stem the tide of legal immigration, and it seems to be gearing up to give citizenship to illegal immigrants.

California is the wave of the future for the US as a whole, and there is little doubt that the future of California as a Third World society is already here.

It’s going to be harder and harder to hide from all of this, but that won’t stop the individualists from thinking that they can at least save themselves and their families.

Another problem with white men is a corollary of Western individualism: The best among us are far too prone to accepting moral principles even when they are massively incompatible with normal human self-interest. This is the Western commitment to moral universalism — the tendency to erect abstract moral principles that apply to all people and let the chips fall where they may. Familiar examples are democracy, the Constitution, individual rights, limited government, and free trade. Now even immigration is being proposed as a human right.

I am not saying there is anything necessarily wrong with these ideals. It’s just that they should always be examined according to whether they are in our interest as a people, or we run the danger of literally dying for our principles.

Jews do not have this problem. As has often been stated to the point of being a cliché (even among Jews), the only moral principle Jews recognize is whether it’s good for the Jews. The Judeocentric bias of the entire written Jewish law from the Old Testament through the Talmud is apparent to even the most casual reader.

In other words, the only measure of an action is whether it benefits the group, not whether it conforms to a moral principle. When the Jewish left was under pressure during the McCarthy era, the organized Jewish community strongly opposedrestrictions on free speech and academic freedom. (This was a period when organizations, such as the Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order which had been listed as subversive by the US government, were affiliated with mainstream Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress.) Now that the left is in charge, Jewish organizations are spearheading attempts to restrict free speech.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Jews are also remarkably immune to moral critiques from non-Jews. For example, critiques of Israel based on moral principles are a commonplace these days. Perhaps most noteworthy are the moral indictments of Israel by President Jimmy Carter and by prominent academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Both critiques point to the brutal treatment of Palestinians and the emergence of an apartheid, racialist society in Israel that is anathema to the principles of democracy, human rights and racial egalitarianism so often held up as Western values and promoted by Jews when it suits their interests. (Despite Richard Perle’s ourtrageous lies, mouthing support for democracy was a staple ofneoconservative rhetoric in support of wars in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.) But such criticisms of Israel and its Jewish supporters in the West are completely without effect on the activist core of Jews that determine public policy toward Israel.

Jews have been quite aware that Europeans are very susceptible to moral critiques. Consider Israel Zangwill, a Jewish writer and activist from a century ago. Here he comments on how Jews can break down the resistance of Americans to immigration:

America has ample room for all the six millions of the Pale [i.e., the Pale of Settlement, home to most of Russia’s Jews]; any one of her fifty states could absorb them. And next to being in a country of their own, there could be no better fate for them than to be together in a land of civil and religious liberty, of whose Constitution Christianity forms no part and where their collective votes would practically guarantee them against future persecution.

In other words, American constitutional democracy is good for Jews because its founding documents do not explicitly state that the United States is a Christian nation; nor, for that matter, do they explicitly state that it is a country created by and for people of European descent.

Zangwill’s comments mark the beginning of the idea that America is a “proposition nation” with no ethnic or religious implications. America is a set of principles, not an expression of a particular religion or ethnic group.

The idea that America is a proposition nation was expanded by Horace Kallen, another Jewish intellectual activist and ardent Zionist. It has become a bedrock ideology across the entire Jewish political spectrum from the far left to the neoconservative right. Whereas Zionists like Zangwill and Kallen viewed Israel as the expression of the Jewish people, they conceptualized the United States as simply a set of principles with no ethnic or religious content.

During the debates over the Immigration Law of 1924, restrictionists were well aware that Jewish intellectuals were attempting to use Western ideals as a way of undermining the ethnic character of the US. The House Majority Report noted that Zangwill gave a speech where he opposed restrictions on immigration: “You must make a fight against this bill; tell them they are destroying American ideals. Most fortifications are of cardboard, and if you press against them, they give way.”

In other words, Americans have ideals and we Jews can use their ideals to our advantage in subverting the ethnic character of the US.

But why are we Europeans so predisposed to moral universalism? I have suggested that this tendency toward individualism and moral universalism stems from our here.) In any case, the tendency to adopt principle over interest long predated the rise of the hostile Jewish-dominated intellectual and political elites of the 20th century. I have been much struck by the Puritan intellectual elite who were so influential in the United States prior to the rise of the hostile Jewish-dominated elite of the 20thcentury. These people personified the idealism that seems to be a trait of so many white people.

What is striking is the moral fervor of the Puritans. The Yankee Puritans were susceptible to appeals to a “higher law,” and they tended to believe that the main purpose of government is to pursue moral perfection. They tended to paint political alternatives as starkly contrasting moral imperatives, with one side portrayed as evil incarnate—inspired by the devil.

Puritans pursued utopian causes framed as moral issues and went to war with people who disagreed with them. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee condemnation of slavery on moral grounds that inspired the massive killing of closely related Anglo-Americans in order to free slaves brought over from Africa. The Civil War was the greatest sacrifice of lives and property ever made by Americans.

It is not surprising that the descendants of the Puritans became supporters of the Culture of Critique with the rise of the hostile Jewish intellectual and political elites in the 20th century. All of these Jewish-dominated movements were moral indictments of America. Just as the Puritan intellectuals of the 19th century were attracted to all manner of utopian movements, the movements advanced by the Jewish intellectual elite were advanced as utopian visions of the future:

  • All people have the same biological potential for accomplishment. and no culture is better than any other. As a result, we can easily mold people into ideal citizens (Boasian anthropology).
  • We can create a classless society in which there will be no conflicts of interest and people will altruistically work for the common good (Marxism).
  • We can create a society in which people will be in tune with their sexuality and free of neuroses, anti-Semitism, and “racism” (psychoanalysis).
  • We can create a multicultural paradise in which different racial and ethnic groups will live in harmony and cooperation (the Frankfurt School of Social Research).
  • We can easily transform other societies into democracies and should wage war to remake other societies in our image (neoconservatism).

It goes without saying that each of these utopias is profoundly problematic from an evolutionary perspective. But each of them has been advocated by droves of white people in recent decades.

Like all societies, America and other Western societies have their share of moral lapses. Unlike other ethnic groups, we seem intent on committing suicide in order to atone for these lapses. So that we can live up to our principles.

more mundane reason why white men do not stand up and assert their interests is that it is very costly to do so. Because of the triumph of the hostile intellectual and political elite in the West, those dissenting from the official orthodoxies are severely punished. They are socially ostracized and they may well lose their jobs if they speak out. (As a tenured professor, I have no excuse for not doing so.)

On the other hand, becoming a part of the hostile elite results in great rewards and is often a good career move for individualistic white men. This doubtless goes a long way toward explaining the non-Jews who have eagerly joined a variety of movements dominated by Jews. For example, non-Jewish neoconsare rewarded with well-paying careers at prestigious think tanks and universities; they are able to secure book deals with major publishers and become prominent in the mainstream media. Life is good.

I have noted that throughout Jewish history, especially since the Enlightenment, Jews have used non-Jews to act as the publically visible face of movements that are dominated by strongly identified Jews who are pursuing Jewish interests. Of course this behavior is made easier for whites because they are more individualistic to start with. Having a great career is its own reward. And the whites who get involved in these Jewish movements may well see themselves as acting on the basis of their principles. Happiness for a white person is the confluence of self-interest and deeply held principle.

And because the hostile elite dominates the mainstream media and academic institutions, whites are socialized to adopt views that are suicidal to their own people. Basic psychology implies that people are much more likely to emulate people and ideas that are associated with high status. The ideology of white suicide achieves much of its effectiveness because it comes from Harvard and the New York Times.

However, the marginalization of John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago), Steven Walt (Harvard), and former President Carter shows that even messages associated with institutions of high status have an enormous uphill climb to influence public policy when they conflict with the agendas of the hostile elite.

Clearly, there are some very powerful forces at work in producing the culture of Western suicide — some internal to Europeans as a people, and some external. However, there are also some rays of hope. Psychological research shows that whites continue to have an unconscious sense of white identity — what I termimplicit whiteness. Despite the constant bombardment of anti-white propaganda in the media, whites prefer to live and work with each other. Some subcultures, such as classical music, country music and rock bands like AC/DCare implicitly white even though they dare not speak their name as white subcultures.

This is even true of some leftist white subcultures such as Garrison Keillor’s Prairie Home Companion with its gentle jabs at overly serious (and overly principled) Scandinavians (the ones who attend the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility). It can be seen in PHC’s virtually all-white audience and its nostalgia for small-town America. The synopsis for next week’s PHC, titled Small Town Twofer, exudes the flavor of classic (white) Americana:

Coming up this week on A Prairie Home Companion, a wintery mix of two Minnesota-grown shows. From the beautiful dance floor of the Lakeside Ballroom in Glenwood (from 2006), we’ll hear Bill Hinckley and Judy Larson sing “The Barnyard Dance,” Adam “Original Biscuit” Granger sings “The Sheik of Araby,” and Guy Noir goes in search of a red shoe that holds the key to one man’s happiness. From the University of Minnesotain the historic railroad town of Morris, a show from the well scrubbed P.E. Center (a.k.a. the gym), Tim Sparks and Pat Donohue team up in a pickin’ frenzy to play “Freight Train”, Prudence Johnson and Garrison sing Utah Philips, and Dusty and Lefty stumble into a BioMass Gasification Plant. Plus, in The News from Lake Wobegon, the story of Jellyglass Mortenson and His Six Hot Pickles.

This implicit sense of whiteness is not enough to begin the revolution, and Keillor will certainly be no help in that direction. (I’d love to see how he would score on the Implicit Association Test, a test that taps unconscious pro-white biases and unconscious negative attitudes toward blacks. Research shows that the largest gaps between unconscious attitudes toward African Americans and conscious, explicit attitudes are found among white liberals like Keillor.) He is among the many in the media in the midst of a slobbering love affair with President Obama. On being told recently that Obama was not a good singer, Keillor noted something to the effect that he was glad that there was something Obama didn’t excel at because he was beginning to think that Obama was superhuman.

For a revolution we need to legitimize an explicit sense of white identity and interests. All the science, the morality, and the common sense are on our side. Basically, we have to stop being wimps. And stop being so damned principled.

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


“My race is just nothing”: Some thoughts on the political psychology of women

It seems that the signs of white dispossession are everywhere these days. Edmund Connelly describes how non-Jewish whites are being pushed out of elite institutions like Harvard. An article titled “The end of white America” catalogues the lack of cultural confidence of whites these days. It quotes a student who says “To be white is to be culturally broke.”

Writing in vdare.com, David A. Yeagley quotes one of his female students saying “Look … I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing.” Yeagley notes the Cheyenne saying, “A nation is never defeated until the hearts of its women are on the ground.” And he places this in the context of the recent election in which 46% of white women voted for Obama compared to 41% of white men.

These percentages are somewhat inflated because they include Jews and immigrants, such as South Asians, who are classified as white but do not identify with the European-American majority. Nevertheless, they do point to a significant gender gap. While it is certainly true that voting for McCain-Palin is not a sign of white consciousness — even implicitly, it is also the case that voting for Obama is a good sign of a lack of racial consciousness for European Americans.

The good news, of course, is that a majority of white women did not vote for Obama. And, as Steve Sailer has shown for the 2004 election, if one separated out women who are married and have children, the results would show an even greater tendency to vote against Obama.

Nevertheless, there is a real problem. Those of us with some acquaintance with European-Americans who do have an explicit ethnic identity and a sense of their ethnic interests are quite aware that there is a very large sex ratio imbalance at gatherings of like-minded people. The attendees are almost all male — an exception being the redoubtable Virginia Abernethy. And there are stories of men who have stopped attending meetings or who provide support only in the most furtive manner, mainly because their wives are afraid that the attitudes of their husbands could become public and ruin their social life. Making such things public is just the sort of thing that organizations like the SPLC and the ADL love to do.

Judith Warner of the New York Times describes the result of an informal “email inquiry” on women’s reactions to Obama. Some imagined having sex with Obama and replacing Michelle Obama as First Lady. Others imagined themselves at social engagements with Obama. All wanted deeply to have some of the Obama aura rub off on them. Warner’s email contacts doubtless reflect her liberal readership, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they are quite general, especially among white women who voted for Obama.

What does an evolutionary psychologist say about all this? Parenthetically, I realize that the great majority of Americans do not believe in evolution. Nevertheless, evolutionary theory is a very powerful and scientifically credible way of looking at human behavior. It is no accident that one of the main strands of Jewish intellectual activism over the last century has been to oppose evolutionary theory as an explanatory tool in the social sciences. Darwin did indeed have a dangerous idea — dangerous to Jews because it provides arational grounding for the ethnic identity and interests of European-derived peoples.

Evolution is also dangerous to Jews because it provides a compelling account of Judaism as an ethnic phenomenon. It is also capable of explaining the main instances of historical anti-Semitism as involving ethnic conflict and competition between Jews and non-Jews rather than simply as Jewish victimization. And it sheds light on Jewish intellectual and political activity in Western societies since the Enlightenment. It also points up the glaring hypocrisy in contemporary Jewish life between the triumph of racial Zionism in Israel and Jewish activism in Western societies in opposition to the ethnic identities and interests of European-derived peoples.

In view of all this, it is not at all surprising that Jewish intellectual activists would regard evolutionary thinking as a dangerous idea indeed.

The evolutionary theory of sex is one of the bedrocks of evolutionary psychology — probably accounting for half of all the research in the field. The basic idea is simple: Females invest a relatively large amount of time and energy in reproduction. In the world we evolved in, the only way for women to reproduce was to endure a 38-week pregnancy and then nurse the child for an even longer period. Even after nursing, child care was mainly a female responsibility.

Because women are committed to this very large investment, they become very valuable in the mating game. And because they are valuable, they become discriminating maters: Just as a worker who puts in more time and energy is in a better bargaining position than one who puts in little time and energy, women become the choosers in the mating game.

[adrotate group=”1″]

And what do women want? Women are expected to want men who have high social status. From an evolutionary perspective, such men are attractive because they may be willing to provide valuable resources that would help in supporting the mother and raising the children. (When men do contribute resources, they also become choosy, but that’s another story.) And even if a wealthy man does not provide resources, he is likely to have good genes — genes that predispose hischildren to be successful.

In any case, women do indeed prefer wealthy, high-status men. For example, a recent study found that wealthy men give women more orgasms: “The pleasure women get from making love is directly linked to the size of their partner’s bank balance.” Other research shows that women are likely to choose higher status men than their husbands when they have affairs, resulting in the possibility of a lower status male helping to raise the children of a higher-status male.

What about the idea that evolutionary theory implies that people should be attracted to people who are genetically like themselves? Evolutionary theory predicts that women will be attracted to men who are genetically similar to themselves compared to men who are from a different race or ethnic group. For one thing, this makes them more closely related to their own children.

The problem is that this attraction to genetically similar mates is only part of the story. It must compete with the tendency to be attracted to wealthy, powerful men. And quite clearly, the phenomenon where large numbers of white women fantasize about having a relationship with Obama reflects his power and social status, not attraction to a genetically similar person.

The media is a major part of the hostile elite, so it is not surprising that it has played a leading role in the idolization of Obama — the slobbering love affair between the mainstream media and Obama. It’s the same role that Edmund Connelly has called attention to in his writing on the images of blacks created by Hollywood in recent decades. Black action heroes are now household names, and more than one commentator has pointed out that there were several black presidents in the movies and on television long before Obama was elected.

These images from the media tap into women’s psychological attraction to high-status males. It was probably fairly common for white women to fantasize about having sex with Will Smith or Denzel Washington or even the “wise and saintly” Morgan Freeman long before the world had ever heard of Barack Obama.

Another sex difference that contributes to women’s political behavior is that women are generally more nurturant, affectionate, empathic, and caring than men. This is another aspect of female psychology that can easily be derived from evolutionary thinking — the vital importance of nurturing children and developing close family relationships in our evolutionary past. Thus it is not surprising that many of Judith Warner’s women not only fantasize about having sex with Obama, they see themselves married to him and becoming First Lady. They develop a close and caring relationship with him, or they see him as a good friend. I suppose this is also the reason why women are more likely than men to support social programs that promise to aid children and poor people.

This relatively greater empathy and nurturance was certainly adaptive in a world of family groups and close relatives. But in the modern world, it can easily lead to maladaptive altruism and ignoring real dangers. For example, white women enamored of images of sexy, high-status black males are not informed by the mainstream media of the very large racial imbalance in crime, particularly black men raping white women.

Another problem with women being relatively high in nurturance and empathy is that these traits are linked to greater compliance and greater inclination to seek the approval and affection of others. Again, these are very adaptive traits in the world of small groups and close relatives. But in a world dominated by elites that are hostile to the interests of whites, these traits can lead to mindless acceptance of anti-white cultural norms. Challenging social norms — even ones that are obviously against one’s interests — carries a very high psychological cost to people who seek the approval and affection of others.

This implies that once the intellectual and political movements described in The Culture of Critique had seized the intellectual and moral high ground, they became difficult indeed to dislodge. Challenging these norms brings accusations of moral turpitude ringing down from the most prestigious political, media and academic institutions of the society. People who seek the approval and affection of others are definitely not inclined to go there. This in turn may well be a large part of the explanation for why there are so few women at gatherings of European-Americans concerned about the future of their people and culture.

This paints a fairly bleak picture. But there are some rays of hope. It is likely that at some point the gap between rhetoric and reality in American life will be so large that no one will believe what they are hearing from the hostile elites that dominate public discourse — much like the Soviet Union in the decades before its fall. When that happens, the cultural icons promoted by the media will lose their credibility and allure as well.

And because of the internet, the opportunity to hear divergent opinions and become aware of information that is suppressed by the mainstream media has never been greater. All around us we can see the collapse and increasing irrelevance of the old media. The internet has already created communities where prestige and social approval can be obtained completely outside the norms created by our hostile elites. And at least some of these communities are dedicated to transforming America by asserting the legitimacy of white identities and interests.

The dispossession of whites is already substantial, but it promises to be a whole lot more obvious as time goes on. As whites become a minority, it is difficult to imagine that they won’t develop more of a group consciousness and challenge the prevailing anti-white norms. And that includes even the more nurturant and empathic among us.

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


Harvard Hates Whites—Does America, Too?

“The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.”

Kevin MacDonald

English author Samuel Johnson famously quipped that “People need to be reminded more often than they need to be instructed.”  Today I’ll follow that advice, reminding people—especially whites —of the deleterious effect decades of affirmative action has had on them. As with recent columns, this one will further the argument that the America system is not broken; it is being very deliberately manipulated to dispossess whites of the country they built.

An obvious place to start is with Harvard University, which sits at the pinnacle of American higher education. The vast underrepresentation of non-Jewish whites in student body and among faculty is representative of what has happened throughout much of America and presages what America will increasingly look like in the future.

A decade ago, when the likelihood that an African American would be sitting in the Oval Office was still more of a joke than a serious consideration, Harvard’s revealing racial breakdown made the news in an unpredictable way. Ron Unz, the California businessman who successfully led that state’s initiative to abolish bilingual education, wrote a candid editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

Unz noted that whites Gentiles were getting heavily squeezed by mandatory enrollment goals for blacks and Hispanics on one end and high performing Jews and Asians on the other. Of course we are familiar with the way affirmative action has worked for four decades to advance blacks and Hispanics to positions not warranted by their efforts or achievements. But Unz opened up the Pandora’s Box of talking about Jewish overrepresentation.

Unz, himself Jewish, noted that at his alma mater, “Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population.” Not only was he so blunt about this, he took the step — rare in the mainstream media — of drawing the logical conclusion: “Thus, it appears that Jews and Asians constitute approximately half of Harvard’s student body, leaving the other half for the remaining 95% of America.”

To no one’s surprise, that bulldog of the right, Patrick Buchanan, pounced on this juicy bone and gave it a good shaking. A week after Unz’s article appeared, Buchanan had penned a response titled The Dispossession of Christian Americans and concluded, “Talk about underrepresentation! Now we know who really gets the shaft at Harvard — white Christians.”

After taking flak for saying something no different than what a Jew had said, the Irish Catholic Buchanan continued to address the blatant assault on whites. Buchanan again reasonably demanded:

As these schools feed off tax dollars, they should be required to publish exact statistics on the religious and ethnic composition of all faculties and student bodies and the percentage of student slots chosen by methods other than merit — and identify those methods.

Next, they should indicate, by ethnic group and religion, who lost out when slots went to preferred minorities, whether ethnic or the children of faculty members or alumni. We know who the beneficiaries are of this discrimination. Let’s see its victims.

Needless to say, nothing remotely close to this pipedream transpired. After all, what powerful organization agitates on behalf of beleaguered whites? The Republican Party? I don’t think so.

To his credit, Buchanan was slow to release this bone. Three years later, he again hammered the issue of massive white underrepresentation at Harvard. Given his well-known tendency to discuss problems Jews cause, the final line in his column is not hard to unpack: “Unfortunately, ours has become a country where those who preach loudest about injustice and persecution turn out to be its most unexcelled practitioners, once they get into the driver’s seat.”

Just to clarify things, let me say that if one is confused about whether it is the roughly one-third proportion of Jewish students and faculty at Harvard or the nearly one-quarter of students who are Asian that represent who is in the driver’s seat, name for me even one powerful Asian American or Asian American organization in America  that preaches loudly about injustice and persecution. I’ll bet you could quickly make a list of powerful Jewish organizations and Jewish activists who do indeed preach loudest about injustice and persecution (while also supporting the slaughters committed by their racial Zionist brethren in Israel). Further, I’ll bet a good number of these Jews have attended Ivy League schools.

Again, let’s make clear why this effort to exclude white Americans is so important. Civil rights activist David Duke recently summarized the issue well:

Most people know that most universities have programs of admittance that give less-qualified minorities preference over better-qualified Whites. Almost all of the Fortune 500 largest corporations have affirmative action and diversity programs that discriminate against White people, both male and female, in hiring. They also have programs of discrimination that favor non-Whites in promotions and advancement. This is true in the academic area as well. You can look at almost any academic department of any American university and you will see in place a strong racial bias for “minorities” in preference over Whites in hiring and advancement. Whether you are talking about a university History, English or Math department in almost any university, these policies are in place and powerful. These racial discriminatory policies are real, and they can be easily proven to exist.

Of course “our” government is not interested in quantifying the relative decline non-Jewish whites are experiencing, but a few have done this independently. One researcher has used government statistics to graphically demonstrate how whites are penalized at all levels of intelligence when earnings are compared to others in the same IQ cohort. As he concluded, “A bright mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste, and it is the bright White gentile minds that are being denied educational opportunities at significant costs to our country.”

Unz understood this, too, demonstrating how education levels play out over one’s career. What he found at Harvard about white Christian underrepresentation  “is present to a greater or lesser degree at most of our other elite educational institutions: Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley and so on. And partly because these universities act as a natural springboard to elite careers in law, medicine, finance and technology, many of these commanding heights of American society seem to exhibit a similar skew in demographic composition.”

Let’s take an arena that has touched me personally. After earning a graduate degree at an Ivy League university, I hoped to work for the federal government in Washington. Having attained a proficiency in a language that The Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of State considered Category III (Languages which are exceptionally difficult for native English speakers), I was disappointed when I failed to get even a nibble.

In the ensuing dozen and a half years, however, I have noticed that it was the very kind of discrimination I have been talking about above that was more than likely responsible for my dismal results in Washington. To be sure, while job searching and interning, I was told by a few white mentors that entry level jobs for white males were just not going to happen during those early Clinton years. Evidence suggests they were right.

For instance, at the CIA, Clinton’s mandate to make federal agencies more diverse resulted in Director John Deutch—who has been described in Jewish community weeklies as “the first practicing Jew to head the CIA”—bringing aboard Nora Slatkin, also Jewish, to implement affirmative action. The Jewish monthly Commentary featured an article critical of these enforced changes: “To reduce these statistical discrepancies, Slatkin declared ‘a goal that one out of every three officers hired in fiscal years 1995–97 be of Hispanic or Asian-Pacific origin.’ She moved no less aggressively to alter the ethnic and sexual complexion of the CIA’s higher levels. In just six months, she was able to report, ‘42 percent of officers selected for senior assignments ha[d] been women or minorities.’”

It gets worse. Thomas E. Woods Jr. writes in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History that during the Clinton years, the Pentagon let it be known that “special permission will be required for the promotion of all white men without disabilities.” The Food and Drug Administration radically relaxed standards on writing so that “underrepresented groups or individuals with disabilities” would not be discouraged from applying. I wonder which groups that might refer to.

The most bizarre claim Woods makes (he’s working from a book by James Bovard) is that the U.S. Forest Service, woefully short of female firefighters, posted a job announcement which read, “Only unqualified applicants may apply.” For me, that has the same Orwellian ring I associate with those ubiquitous proclamations in announcements for academic positions: “Women and minorities are highly encouraged to apply.” Whom, now, might they be targeting?

Some ten years after Unz’s editorial, the affirmative action juggernaut rolls on, with white Christians further excluded or demoted or denied earned advancement. With all types of immigration driving the Hispanic population to perhaps the 14% mark and Jews using previous positions of prominence to further improve their position, the crisis for non-Jewish whites grows. Further, since Unz wrote, important judicial decisions have gone against whites in both Texas and Michigan.

Buchanan continues to rally for the rights of whites. And he comes fairly close to naming who it is that hates us and wants us displaced. Excoriating  New York Times‘ editorial writers, he writes that “to oppose the Times‘ agenda on social or moral issues is ascribed to mental illness or moral sickness.” This, of course, is precisely Kevin MacDonald’s argument in The Culture of Critique, particularly with respect to the Frankfurt School.

Continuing, Buchanan notes that the Times comes off “as loathing Middle America.” Referencing a Christian parable, he asks “In its own mind, the Times is battling heroically the forces of hatred. Can it not, by rereading its own words, see the hatred in its own heart?”

Ah, hatred. “From what poisoned well comes this hatred of the America we love?” Buchanan inquires. The answer, I am convinced, is from the Jews, for hatred is a Jewish virtue. Once again to the credit of Commentary magazine, they published an essay that clearly spelled out this uncomfortable truth. Author David Gelernter, the Yale University computer scientist nearly killed by an explosive sent by the Unabomber, wrote of America that “the old elite used to get on fairly well with the country it was set over. Members of the old social upper-crust elite were richer and better educated than the public at large, but approached life on basically the same terms.” The new elite is not only different from the masses, “it loathes the nation it rules.”

It loathes the nation it rules. Consider that. And, as we at TOO have noted, Jews form a vastly disproportionate role in this new elite. The loathing of this new elite for the rest of America may be considered a Jewish value — the hatred of the people and culture of non-Jews that is so central to Jews throughout their history.

As one acquaintance lamented not long ago, “Just think of what white males (and the white females depending on them for survival) have experienced in the last twenty years. If that hasn’t woken them up, what will?” I can’t answer that, but wake up they must.

For those who have awoken from their slumber, I suggest turning to Kevin MacDonald’s essay “Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?” There he wrote that “The elaborate Jewish effort on behalf of their ethnic brethren in Israel is legendary and can only be described as awesome in its effectiveness.” Obviously, we need to do the same here at home.

Further, he wrote, “The best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an ethnostate—a nation that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests of its citizens.”  Professor Virginia Abernethy, quoted in MacDonald’s essay, understood the new rules: “The goals of the multicultural game are ethnic separatism, ethnic privilege, and ethnic power. I began to realize not too long ago that I have to play the multicultural game, at least defensively, or I and my family and kin will lose out. It is what every ethnic group except, in the main, European-Americans, does these days.”

I can think of no better role model in this fight than Patrick Buchanan himself, who strenuously denounced the reverse discrimination in places like Harvard. Buchanan wants to take the fight to Harvard—and every other enemy of whites: “If Harvard balks, denounce it as bigoted and demand a cut-off of federal funds. If proportional representation is the name of the game, Christian and European-Americans should get into the game, and demand their fair share of every pie: 75 percent, and no less.”

As Michael O’Meara noted in the Occidental Quarterly:

For though US elites have not the slightest interest in the welfare and security of the white majority, the majority was willing to be bought off as longs as the elites provided the material benefits to ensure its allegiance. Today, we are entering an era when that ability to deliver the goods may be rapidly diminishing.

For this reason, I believe catastrophe alone will cause white Americans to abandon their allegiance to the existing system and to see the elites controlling it as their real enemies. Such a transfer of loyalties away from the state is thus likely to entail less a racial awakening than an understanding how to live in a hostile reality, once the virtual realities that are at the heart of the American System have collapsed. Nevertheless, at that point when whites abandon the status quo, the possibility of an emerging white national movement will quicken.

Our role as nationalists ought thus to be subversive and revolutionary, not conservative. For there is nothing worth conserving in the existing anti-white system. Instead, we need to forge a spirit that opposes it at its root, that defines America as a nativist variant of European civilization, and that prepares a new Declaration of Independence.

We’ve all see how tenacious Jews can be in their various efforts to advance Jewish group interests. We need to be equally as aggressive, confrontational, and even belligerent if necessary. Affirmative action is blatant discrimination against whites and it can be defeated. Rather than let it continue to grow, we need to attack it and repeal it. Then we can rise or fall on our own merits. After all, that’s supposed to be the American way.

Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.