Featured Articles

The Party is Over

Morphine is said to be good for people subject to severe depressions, or even pessimism. Although the drug first surfaced in a laboratory at the end of the 19th century, its basis, opium, had been used earlier by many aristocratic and revolutionary nationalist thinkers. A young and secretive German romantic, Novalis, enjoyed eating and smoking opium juice, probably because he had always yearned to alleviate his nostalgia for death. Probably in order to write his poem Sehnsucht nach dem Tode (“Nostalgia of Death”). Early poets of Romanticism turned inward to their irrational feelings, shrouding themselves in the pensive loneliness which opiates endlessly offer.

Revolutionary-Conservative, Anarcho–Nationalist Aesthetics 

Once upon a distant time we met Homer’s Odysseus, who was frequently nagged by the childish behavior of his pesky sailors. Somewhere along the shores of northern Africa, Odysseus had strayed away into the mythical land of the lotus flower. As soon as his sailors began to eat the lotus plant, they sank into forgetfulness, and immediately forgot their history and their homeland. It was with great pain that Odysseus succeeded in extracting them from artificial paradises. What can be worse for White race or than to erase its past and lose its collective memory?

The escape from industrial reality and the maddening crowd was one of the main motives for drug use among some revolutionary conservative poets and thinkers, who could not face the onset of liberal mass society. The advent of early liberalism and socialism was accompanied not only by factory chimneys, but also by loneliness, decay, and decadence. The young English Tory Thomas De Quincey, in his essay Confessions of an English Opium Eater, relates his Soho escapades with a poor prostitute Anna, as well as his spiritual journeys in the aftertaste of opium. De Quincey has a feeling that one life-minute lasts a century, finally putting an end to the reckless flow of time.

The mystique of opium was also grasped by the mid-19th-century French symbolist and greatest poet of all time,  Charles Baudelaire.  He continued the aristo-nihilistic-revolutionary-conservative tradition of dope indulgence via the water pipe, i.e., the Pakistani hookah. Similar to the lonely albatross, Baudelaire observes the decaying France in which the steamroller of coming liberalism mercilessly crushes all aesthetics and all poetics.

Charles Baudelaire

The nationalist, traditionalist and right-wing answer to the decadence of liberal democracy is cultural pessimistic counter-decadence. The main difference, however, between these two is that traditionalist and rightist addicts do drugs in order to escape feelings of cultural despair. When a great right wing poet, such as Edgar Allan Poe drinks himself to death, it is not for having fun, but rather to escape the burden of time and the ambiance of liberal ugliness.

Here lies the main difference between leftist and rightwing intellectuals, scholars and artists. Leftist escapism, by definition, means instant gratification. By contrast, the whole rightwing spiritual heritage is immersed in cultural despair and magic words of “Weltschmerz.” It must be a matter of individual character, psychological strength and moral perseverance for all Euro-American White thinkers not to fall into cheap oblivion but to continue Faustian and Promethean resistance against all odds.  As Friedrich Nietzsche warned us long time ago: “A free man is a fighter”!

Unquestionably alcohol consumption has done more damage to intelligent nationalist and traditionalist poets, thinkers and politicians than all Marxist and liberal foes combined. When in the 21st century the flow of history switches from first gear into fifth gear, many among them (among us?) may rightfully pose a question: What do we do after the orgy? The French author Jean Cocteau knew the answer: “Everything we do in our life, even when we love, we perform in a rapid train running to its death. Smoking opium means getting off the train.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Don’t ‘Bogart’ Political Correctness!

Hashish and marijuana change the body language and enhance the babbling about “human rights” and “social philanthropy.” Smoking joints triggers abnormal laughter. Therefore hashish may be described as a communistic drug — custom-designed for multiracial individuals who by their lifestyle loathe solitude and indulge in vicarious humanism and unrepentant globalism. In the permissive society of today, one is allowed to do everything—provided one does not rock the boat, i.e., “bogart” political correctness.

If Stalin had been a bit more intelligent he would have solemnly opened marijuana fields in his native Transcaucasia. Instead, communist tyrants resorted to needless and senseless killing fields of the Gulag. The advantage of liberalism and its multi- racial promiscuity is that via sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll, by means of consumerism and hedonism, they function perfectly well. What communism was not able to achieve by means of the solid truncheon, liberalism is achieving by means of the firm joint.

Cocaine induces eroticism and enhances the sex act. The late French fascist dandy and novelist Pierre Drieu La Rochelle took coke, and in addition loved all possible and impossible women. The problem, however, is that the coke intaker often feels invisible bugs creeping from his ankles up to his knees, so that he imagines himself sleeping not with a beautiful woman but with scary reptiles. In his autobiographical novels Le feu follet (“Sparkling lights”) and L’homme couvert de femmes (“Man Loaded with Women”) La Rochelle’s hero is constantly covered by women and veiled by opium and heroin sit-ins. In his long intellectual monologues, La Rochelle’s hero says: “A Frenchwoman, be she a whore or not, likes to be held and taken care of; an American woman, unless she hunts for a husband, prefers a passing relationship… Drug users are mystics in a materialistic age. Given that they can no longer animate and embellish this world, they do it in a reverse manner on themselves.”

Indeed, La Rochelle’s hero ends up in suicide-with heroin and revolver. In early 1945, with the approaching victory of the Allies, and in the capacity of the intellectual leader of the defunct Euro-fascist International, Pierre Drieu La Rochelle followed his own advice: he also opted for suicide.

The English conservative and aristocrat author, Aldous Huxley is unavoidable in studying communist pathology (Brave New World Revisited) and Marxist subintellectual schizophrenia (Grey Eminence). As a novelist and essayist his lifelong wish had been to break loose from the flow of time. Mexican mescaline and the artificial drug LSD (‘acid’) enabled him new intellectual horizons for observing the end of his world and the beginning of a new, brave new one. In his book The Doors of Perception, Huxley notes that “mescaline raises all colors to a higher power and makes the percipient aware of innumerable fine shades of difference, to which, at ordinary times, he is completely blind.”  On his deathbed in California in 1963, he asked for and was given LSD. Probably to depart more picturesquely into timeless infinity.

And what to say about the German essayist and novelist Ernst Jünger, whom the young Adolf Hitler in Weimar Germany liked to read. Jünger is today the greatest literary icon among European nationalists and revolutionary conservatives.  In his book Annäherungen: Drogen and Rausch,(Rapprochements: Drug and Getting High) Jünger describes his close encounters with drugs.. “Time slows down. . . . The river of life flows more gently… The banks are disappearing.”

Ernst Jünger’s compatriot, the cultural pessimist, anticommunist and anti-liberal essayist and poet, the medical doctor Gottfried Benn, also took drugs. His observations, which found their transfigurations in his poems “Kokain are indispensable in studying the decaying liberal, democratic pre-National Socialist Weimar Germany. He records in his voluminous poetry nameless human destinies stretched out dead on the tables of the mortuary. He describes the dead meat of prostitutes out of whose bellies crawl squeaking mice. A connoisseur of French culture and genetics, Benn was sympathetic to National Socialism, which explains, why after the end of the war, like thousands of European artists, Benn sank into oblivion. Probably because he once remarked that “mighty brains are strengthened not on milk but on alkaloids.”

Modern psychiatrists, doctors, and sociologists are wrong in their diagnosis of drug addiction among large segments of Western youth. They fail to realize that to combat drug abuse one must prevent its social and political causes before attempting to cure its deadly consequences. Given that the crux of the modern liberal system is the dictatorship of well-being and the dogma of boundless economic progress, many disabused young people are led to believe that everybody must be entitled to eternal fun.  In an age of TV-mimicry, headless young masses become, so to speak, the impresarios of their own deadly narcissism.

By contrast, drug abuse among a handful of anarcho-nationalists and revolutionary conservative thinkers has historically been an isolated death wish to escape time and feelings of cultural despair.  Their drug abuse also dispels the myth that right wingers are  prim and prudish, and prone to living in the past. The fact that they were very intelligent  dispels the myth that they are stupid. Quite to the contrary: modern right-wingers, who appear today under different names such as “national-anarchists,” “ anarcho- traditionalists,”  “revolutionary conservatives,” or “archeo-futurists,” have always combined past heritage with hypermodernity, while strictly avoiding cheap and deadly physical thrills. And they have been very intelligent.

However, when the same joint finds its way into the liberalo-leftist dirty hand, it does more than just burn the stained forefinger: its multiracial promiscuity destroys the entire white society.

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a former Croatian diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007). His new book of essays, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, will soon be released. Email him.

All Things Not Considered: Why NPR Won’t Tell Listeners Why It Fires Its Black Employees

National Public Radio has always struck me as a highly-polished jewel in the crown of hard-left, Jewish-dominated media. On my drive home from work, I listen to Robert Siegel, a quintessential liberal Jewish male, and Michele Norris, a quintessential liberal Black female, co-hosts of All Things Considered, the nightly news reflections program.

All Things Considered is a laughable title, given that the only things NPR will consider are jazz, the Holocaust, and the plight of the yellow-breasted Amazonian snail darter.  The voices ooze with calm contempt for the White suckers whose tax dollars pay their salaries — a uniquely twisted form of White dispossession.

I once called it Not So Fresh Air.

So I had a chuckle when I heard about the recent firing of Greg Peppers, a long-time Black news producer for NPR, and the reaction it caused.  Reportedly, Peppers had to be escorted from the building.

A Black media blogger, Richard Prince, reported the firing, and the reaction of the National Association of Black Journalists.

Neither Prince nor the NABJ, of course, is actually interested in whether the firing was justified.  Any time a Black person is fired, by their standards, it’s because of “racism.”

I personally have no idea.  If you do, send me an email.

NPR’s response is predictably apologetic about not having enough non-Whites, NPR President Vivian Schiller stating, “I couldn’t agree more that NPR must increase the diversity of its staff — particularly in management and editorial.”

Surprisingly, the response pointedly notes that listenership for NPR’s flagship programs is made up of a much lower percentage of Blacks and Latinos (5% and 4% respectively) than their percentage of the population — even though these groups constitute 18% and 25% of the entire radio audience.

It’s not clear why they point this out, but the most obvious interpretation is that they are suggesting that NPR management ought to reflect the ethnic composition of its listenership, not the population at large.

This would be rather obviously illiberal for such a far left outfit. Imagine what that might do for, say, sports management where one could argue that the management of the National Basketball Association should reflect the audience, not the percentage of Black players. Networks that appeal primarily to Whites would be able to have White management. Companies that sold products mainly to White people wouldn’t have to worry about diversity quotas.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Sounds like leftist Whites (and Jews) in the media are starting to get worried about all that diversity they are pushing on the rest of us.

I have only speculation about Peppers’ firing.  In my journalism experience, Blacks were erratic and profoundly incompetent.  The notorious Jayson Blair was less of an aberration from Blacks than Stephen Glass was from Jews. (In general, Jews — hostility to Whites aside — are amazingly hard-working journalists).  The Black journalists I came across made mistakes, didn’t put in much effort, and generally put out lousy work-product. Inappropriate behavior wasn’t uncommon.

One of their arguments was that only Blacks could properly cover Blacks, an argument that, if consistency reigned, would mean that only Whites can properly cover Whites.

As recounted in books like Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, loading the paper with Blacks often meant that criminal Black politicians, like Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry, got cover-ups instead of coverage.

Yet Blacks demanded to be anywhere and everywhere, and could rely on the bullying of racial interest groups like the NABJ to get their way.  Blacks would be promoted over much harder-working — and much more talented — Whites on a regular basis.

All of which created a particularly sticky problem for American journalism, dedicated to multiculturalism and liberalism as it is.  It desperately wants to hammer Whites and elevate Blacks, but it ran into the problem of actually executing this plan internally because of Black incompetence.

NPR, I’m sure, would love to have dozens of smart and talented Black reporters and producers. But they don’t, for the simple reason that the talent pool isn’t there.  And NPR is not about to squander its reputation as a left-wing media powerhouse in order to indulge the demands of Blacks.  Viewed more broadly, NPR is a deadlier weapon against Whites when controlled by smart liberal Jews than incompetent, erratic Blacks.

I have this fantasy (which I do not intend to act upon) of breaking in to the NPR studios in the middle of a story about Afghanistan troop levels, grabbing the microphone, and reading some key passages from The Israel Lobby.

It’ll never happen.

But it’s comforting to know that the racial reality NPR hides from listeners can be found right there in its own building — the raucous and uncomfortable clash between Blacks and Whites (or Jews) clamoring down the stairway, soundproofed out of the studio where Michele Norris’ warm voice smothers us with notions of multiracial harmony.  It’s enough to make me want to make my pledge.

Christopher Donovan (email him) is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Channeling Steve Sailer

When I first started writing my Steve Sailer column two weeks ago, I initially titled it “Channeling Steve Sailer.” Now I wish I had left it at that because his Sunday VDARE piece that appeared just after my essay really did seem like we were operating on the same wavelength. His essay was indeed perfectly timed as far as I was concerned.

Sailer’s piece, called Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberal? Not Good Enough, is a reflection on leading neocon Podhoretz’s book of the above name. And throughout, though Sailer advances into the no-go zone known as anti-Semitism, he is certainly right about what he wrote. For instance, he commits a foul (according to the imposed rules of discourse today) when he writes that Podhoretz’s book “is a combination of history of the last 2,000 years of Jewish victimization, voting analysis of 20th Century Presidential elections, and latest rendition of Podhoretz’s autobiography, all from a single, relentless perspective: Is it good for the Jews?”

Whew, that’s pushing it. I thought that was a bit too cavalier a reference to the suffering Jews have endured throughout their existence — all of it, of course, having nothing to do with any concrete Jewish behavior. Worse, however, is his thoroughly nontheological estimation of Podhoretz’s motivation: “Is it good for the Jews?”

Most of us know that even Jews sometimes point to this ethnic calculus for determining actions, but non-Jews are not normally given such a prerogative. Sailer, though, may well qualify for limited rights to make such quips if having one biological parent counts. As Sailer informs us, he was adopted and is now Catholic. And so far he hasn’t been arrested on hate crime charges.

What I really like, however, is a subtle amendment Sailer made to a claim by conservative Jewish writer Michael Medved. In September, Commentary magazine featured a symposium based on Podhoretz’s book called Why Are Jews Liberals? In it is found the source material for a quote Sailer took where Medved admitted that Jews hate Christianity:

For most American Jews, the core of their Jewish identity isn’t solidarity with Israel; it’s rejection of Christianity. … Jewish voters don’t embrace candidates based on their support for the state of Israel as much as they passionately oppose candidates based on their identification with Christianity … This political pattern reflects the fact that opposition to Christianity—not love for Judaism, Jews, or Israel—remains the sole unifying element in an increasingly fractious and secularized community. …

Sailer made the telling change to Jewish “hostility toward Christians — anti-Chritianism, you might say.” Now it’s the people rather than the religion. That, of course, is far closer to the truth, for it is likely Jews would exhibit the same hatred of Whites no matter what religious veil we might adopt. We are not witnessing a fundamentally theological competition; rather, what we have is old-fashioned ethnic animosity and struggle.

And here’s where Sailer hits the nail firmly on the head:

What America can’t continue to afford is the pervasive unrealism imposed by the current code of silence about Jewish power and interests. Thus Jewish demonization of immigration reform patriots . . . is the single most important reason that America’s immigration disaster is still above criticism, long after it has become obvious that it is a disaster, and despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Americans are strongly opposed to it.

Absolutely. To remedy any of the problems American Whites face now — many of which involve Jewish activism over the last century (need I even refer to Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique on this point?) — we indeed have to forthrightly discuss Jewish power. But good luck trying, especially if you aren’t a Jew.

This “discouragement” of open discussion of Jewish power can be found across the gamut of mainstream life, from the well-funded offices of the ADL to editorial rooms in all the major news organs, to the offices of mainstream publishers, to the academics who staff our middling to great universities. The taboo is enforced: Do not discuss Jewish power.

Consider, for instance, how this ban exists around discussion of Jews in Hollywood, where the rule of thumb is simple, well-known, and vigorously enforced: A Jew may make note of it or explore it at length, but a non-Jew must remain silent on the issue. As Joe Sobran so succinctly put it in his Sobran’s Newsletter, (“The Buchanan Frenzy,” March 1996):

The full story of [Pat Buchanan’s 1996 presidential] campaign is impossible to tell as long as it’s taboo to discuss Jewish interests as freely as we discuss those of the Christian Right. . . . Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when it’s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you don’t respect their victimhood, they’ll destroy you. It’s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.

William Cash, a young British journalist, ran head on into this barrier when in 1994 he wrote about the then-new Spielberg-Katzenberg-Geffen “Dream Team” that “in one respect at least this particular combination of talent, or ‘talent combo’ in the local argot, will start out on the right foot. Like the old mogul founders of the early studios—and unlike most other failed build-your-own studio merchants—they are Jewish.” Though he was defended by his Jewish editor, Dominic Lawson, young Cash still bore the brunt of a furious rebuke from American shores.

Marlon Brando made a similar mistake while appearing on “Larry King Live” by bluntly asserting that Jews run Hollywood and exploit stereotypes of minorities. “Hollywood is run by Jews, it is owned by Jews,” he began, and then went on to blame Jews for exploiting stereotypes of minorities, “but we never saw the kike because they know perfectly well that’s where you draw the wagons around.”

The topic of Jewish power in Hollywood is one of my favorites, and I write about it often.  Last Christmas I wrote in TOO that “the Jewish dominance of Hollywood is so obvious and undeniable that Los Angeles Times’ columnist Joel Stein recently made it official. What else can you say when all eight major film studios are run by Jews.” I’ve written on this theme extensively in The Occidental Quarterly (here—an editorial mix-up gave me the wrong name,  The Jews of Prime Time, and the ongoing series “Understanding Hollywood” 1, 2 [Spring 2009], and 3 [Summer 2009]).

Or you could read Jewtopia: The Chosen Book for the Chosen People, where the authors mock Gentile concern about the concentration of Jewish power in Hollywood. For instance, Chapter 8 is titled “Conspiracy Theories: Do Jews Control the World?” They then note that of the ten major Hollywood studios discussed, nine were created by Jews (Walt Disney being a Gentile) and all ten are run by Jews. “Conclusion: Yes, we do control the movie studios. All Jews please report to the World Conspiracy Headquarters immediately (don’t forget to bring your pass code).” They then do the same for TV networks, finding a leadership figure of seventy-five percent. Discussing print media, they find seven of ten major publications are run by Jews. “Conclusion: Jews have lots of opinions that they love to write about and charge you money to read!  Cool.”)

Playwright  David Mamet gets it just right, however, writing, “For those who have not been paying attention, this group [Ashkenazi Jews] constitutes, and has constituted since its earliest days, the bulk of America’s movie directors and studio heads.”

To his credit, Sailer has been consistent in focusing on Jewish power, as well as proffering reasons that Jews don’t want non-Jews to notice it. At the end September, for example, he wrote about the decline of the WASP (Last Of The Nice WASP Progressives) and rise of the Jew in America, and outlined the likely reason for Jewish insistence on not noticing differences among various groups of people.

Then in last week’s column, he addressed Jewish power again — and how that power is used to enforce certain manners of discourse:

Although political correctness is usually marketed on the grounds that we must protect Non-Asian Minorities from learning facts about themselves, the media figures actually doing most of the enforcing of political correctness tend to be members of a high average IQ group that seems to believe that the peasant majority will come for them with pitchforks if anybody smart ever clues them in on the facts about IQ. For example, only one of the Atlantic 50 ranking of most influential pundits is NAM, while half are Jewish. Jewish organizations have striven tirelessly to make Americans more poorly informed and more naive.

Indeed they have. After all, better to cloak the realities of power than discuss them openly.

In case writers need to be reminded, polymath John Derbyshire explains the ground rules when it comes to writing about Jews. First, he admits that any criticism of Jews may well spell career destruction. A while back, he made an excellent case for this risk in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com, asserting:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

No wonder one of his exchanges about Jewish power was titled ”Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You: Criticizing Jews is professional suicide.

In any case, let me again say that I am grateful to have access to a writer like Sailer, and I am pleased that his editor at VDARE, Peter Brimelow, as well as the Takimag crowd, allow Steve to write such needed prose. As usual, I’m looking forward to what next Sunday’s VDARE column will bring.

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

Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part II: The Critique of Mass Culture

One of Wheatland’s strengths is his rich documentation of the strong connections between the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School. Both groups were predominantly Jewish (the first generation Frankfurt School exclusively so), and both were associated with the anti-Stalinist left. However, they had somewhat different theoretical perspectives and overlapping associations. It is common among intellectual historians (e.g., Eric P. Kaufmann) to view the New York Intellectuals as the most important group advocating cosmopolitan racial ideology in the post-World War II era.

Prominent New York Intellectuals include the art critic Clement Greenberg, writer and critic Robert Warshow, philosopher Sidney Hook, Partisan Review editors William Phillips and Philip Rahv, and several forerunners of the neoconservative movement, especially Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. Wheatland shows that the some of the second-generation New York Intellectuals (e.g., Daniel Bell, Irving Howe, and Nathan Glazer) were well acquainted with the work of the Frankfurt School. Howe and Glazer had minor roles in the notorious Studies in Prejudice series discussed in Part I of this review.

The Critique of Mass Culture

These linkages and cross-fertilization were especially apparent in the analysis of culture. The Frankfurt School viewed contemporary Western societies of the 1930s and ’40s as “soft authoritarianism” — a phrase also used by Tom Sunic in describing contemporary Western societies. From their point of view, the basic problem was to explain the lack of revolutionary fervor in Western societies. Quite clearly, orthodox Marxism was wrong: The predicted revolution hadn’t happened.

This lack of fervor was particularly problematic because there was a considerable degree of personal freedom in Western societies: Theoretically at least, people had the freedom to be revolutionary, but instead they passively accepted the evils of capitalism.

These intellectuals developed the theory that control had shifted from obvious forms of external control (like gulags in the USSR) to control via the media — “secondary emanations of authority … namely newspapers, advertising, radio, etc.” (p. 79). Because the media was an expression of “late capitalism,” it prevented people from seeing the world as good leftists should, and as a result they were unable to “break the cycle of injustice and domination” (p. 79).

Early on Erich Fromm gathered survey data showing that working class Germans were not interested in revolution but were passive and prone to escapism. (Incidentally, Fromm seems to have been the originator of the most important ideas of the Frankfurt School. As noted in Part I of this review, he also came up with the disastrous idea of explaining ethnocentrism among Whites as due to family pathology.) The passivity and escapism of the working class were viewed as due to the failure of the culture, and particularly the media, to properly foment revolutionary consciousness. For example, during the 1930s, Herbert Marcuse wrote attacking “all bourgeois culture for its escapism, repression, and concealment of capitalism’s harsh realities” (p. 160). As discussed extensively by Elizabeth Whitcombe in TOO, the Frankfurt School criticized culture because it upheld a reactionary status quo.

Eventually, there was a general understanding among both the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals that mass culture — whether in the USSR (both of these groups were anti-Stalinist), National Socialist Germany, or bourgeois United States — promoted conformism and escape from harsh political realities; it “offered false pleasure, reaffirmed the status quo, and promoted a pervasive conformity that stripped the masses of their individuality and subjectivity” (p. 175). Obviously this fits well with the Frankfurt School ideas on the family: Again, there is a plea for individualists free from family and ethnic ties and in favor of non-conformity with the status quo.

These intellectuals promoted modernism in art at least partly because of its compatibility with expressive individualism, but also because they believed that it effectively opposed the culture of capitalism. Modernism was also seen as capable of alienating people from modern Western societies. As Elizabeth Whitcombe points out, “Adorno’s desire for a socialist revolution led him to favor Modernist music that left the listener feeling unsatisfied and dislocated — music that consciously avoided harmony and predictability.”

To be modern is to be alienated from the society of capitalism. The alienation of the New York Intellectuals is legendary. Norman Podhoretz was famously asked by a New Yorker editor in the 1950s “whether there was a special typewriter key at Partisan Review with the word ‘alienation’ on a single key.”

In short, they were trying to make all of America as alienated as they were.

Both the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School had nothing but disdain for traditional art. In Adorno’s words, they sought “the end of the order that bore the sonata” — the end of European high culture. And if the audience failed to appreciate modernism, it was their fault. For example, Adorno wrote that the failure of the audience to appreciate Schoenberg “pointed to widespread alienation and irrationalism that were pervasive in society” (p. 29). Only the revolution would make people psychologically whole again and in tune with a genuine aesthetic sense.

The view that modernism would ultimately usher in the revolution eventually faded when it became obvious that it would never be popular with the great mass of people. The view that, say, Schoenberg, could ever have become popular with the great mass of people can only be described as amazingly naïve. We just aren’t wired that way.

(Incidentally, it’s intriguing that Tim Page, a major promoter of  avant garde music [e.g., Philip Glass], has acknowledged that he has Asperger Syndrome, an autistic disorder associated with lack of social awareness or interest in people, combined with obsessive, repetitive, and [most importantly] idiosyncratic non-social interests. He is wired differently. Unfortunately for the modernists, very few people are wired like Tim Page. The fascinating question is how someone with a psychiatric disorder that puts him outside normal human interests and desires manages to get into a position to influence the cultural tastes of the wider public.)

But of course realistic ideas about natural human penchants and limitations have never been a strong suit of the intellectual left, dedicated as they are to the proposition that people can be shaped into virtually anything.

White Advocates and Cultural Alienation

In reading the views of the Frankfurt School on the importance of cultural control, it struck me that those of us attempting to preserve the traditional peoples and culture of the West are in a similar situation to the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Their complaints about the American culture of the 1930s through the 1950s  are mirror images of the complaints that we have now.

Whereas the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School felt alienated from the culture of the West, now we are the ones with feelings of alienation from the culture that has been so strongly influenced by these Jewish intellectual movements.

We are dismayed at the failure of the media to properly address White interests or even to allow expressions of White identity to be seen or heard in the mainstream media.

We are well aware that when there is a failure of media self-censorship (e.g., when media critic William Cash described the Jewish media elite as “culturally nihilist” in the Spectator in 1994), there are powerful campaigns to  punish the guilty parties and to get them to recant.

Just as the Frankfurt School theorized, the West has come under the control of soft authoritarianism. But now the  shoe is on the other foot: Power resides in the soft totalitarianism of the multi-cultural, multi-racial, anti-White left.

These Jewish intellectual movements decried the passivity, escapism, and conformity of American culture. Those of us who are White advocates are horrified that the vast majority of White people passively accept media messages filled with distorted images of Whites and their history. We are appalled that so many Whites are far more interested in escapist entertainment, ranging from sporting events to sci-fi thrillers, than they care about the future of their people. And we are dismayed by the conformity of the great mass of Whites who are terrified of being called a racist or in any way violating the current taboos of political correctness. We deplore the pathetic conformists striving to uphold the rules of a society deeply hostile to their own long term interests.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Rather than see a culture controlled by the “late capitalist” media,” White advocates see the culture of the West as controlled by a hostile media that advocates multiculturalism, the displacement of Whites, and the culture of Western suicide. And many of us believe that a very large influence on this culture stems not only from the influence of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals, but also from Jewish ownership and production of the media.

There is thus a  common ground between these Jewish intellectual movements and those of us attempting to preserve the traditional people and culture of the West. We all agree in the importance of media control. As I concluded in an article describing the psychology of cultural control, paraphrasing a Bill Clinton campaign slogan: “It’s the culture, stupid.”

Control of the media is critical. If there were strong media messages advocating White identity and the legitimacy of White interests, things would turn around rather dramatically and rather quickly. This is because the psychological power behind a movement of ethnic defense is far greater than the motivation that can be mustered for a multi-racial, multi-ethnic communist revolution.

Such media messages would be able to tap into the natural wellspring of ethnic feeling. There is a deep psychological attachment to one’s people and culture — even among us individualistic White folks — that can easily motivate a mass movement of ethnic defense.

Often these feelings are implicit and unconscious rather than explicit and conscious. They manifest themselves in moving to neighborhoods where their children can attend school with other Whites. Or they manifest themselves in activities where they are able to enjoy the company and camaraderie of  others like themselves.

But these feelings are nevertheless real. And they are potentially very powerful. The revolution needed to reverse the cultural tides of the last decades would therefore be far easier to pull off than the communist revolution so ardently desired by the Frankfurt School.

If there is one central message from the post-World War II world, ethnicity and race matter. As Jerry Z. Muller has shown, there has been a strong trend toward ethnically based nations over the last 150 years, not only in the territorial adjustments in Europe following World War II, but around the world.

European Americans Defend Their Culture

It’s interesting that these leftist critics of the media completely ignored the actual mechanisms of cultural control that were in place during the period when they were writing. The controls on culture had little if anything to do with the culture of “late capitalism.” Instead, the traditional Anglo-American culture managed to retain its primacy during this period because of political activism on the part of Anglos in defense of their culture, often quite self-consciously directed against Jewish influence in the media.

Jewish influence on the media, especially Hollywood movies, weighed heavilyon the minds of people like Henry Ford early in the 20th century. Public outrage at the content of Hollywood movies led to more or less successful controls on the moral and political content of movies until around the mid-1960s. The following passage from Chapter 2 of Separation and Its Discontents discusses this American Kulturkampf (references omitted but are available here):

During the McCarthy era, there was concern that the entertainment industry would influence American culture by, in the words of an overt anti-Semite, Congressman John R. Rankin of Mississippi, “insidiously trying to spread subversive propaganda, poison the minds of your children, distort the history of our country and discredit Christianity.”

The great majority of those stigmatized by the Un-American Activities Committee of the House of Representatives (HUAC) were Jews, many of them in the entertainment industry. A belief that “Jewish Hollywood” was promoting subversive ideas, including leftist political beliefs, was a common component of anti-Semitism in the post-World War II period, and indeed the push for the HUAC investigation was led by such well-known anti-Semites as Gerald L. K. Smith and Congressman Rankin. For example, Smith stated that “there is a general belief that Russian Jews control too much of Hollywood propaganda and they are trying to popularize Russian Communism in America through that instrumentality. Personally I believe that is the case.”

The substantive basis of the opinion of Rankin and others was that beginning in the 1930s Hollywood screenwriters were predominantly Jewish and politically liberal or radical — a general association that has been typical of Jewish intellectual history in the 20th century. The American Communist Party (CPUSA), which was under Soviet control during the period, sent V. J. Jerome and Stanley Lawrence, both Jews, to Hollywood to organize the writers and take advantage of their political sentiments. Jerome argued that “agitprop propaganda was actually better drama because Marxists better understood the forces that shaped human beings, and could therefore write better characters.”  Writers responded by self-consciously viewing themselves as contributing to “the Cause”  by their script writing. “But as much as the Hollywood Communist party was a writers’ party, it was also . . . a Jewish party. (Indeed, to be the former meant to be the latter as well).”

Nevertheless, during this period the radical writers were able to have little influence on the ultimate product, although there is good evidence that they did their best to influence movie content in the direction of their political views. Their failure was at least partly because of pressures brought to bear on Hollywood by conservative, predominantly [non-Jewish] political forces, resulting in a great deal of self-censorship by the movie industry. The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, headed by Will H. Hays, was created in 1922 in response to movements in over thirty state legislatures to enact strict censorship laws, and the Production Code Administration, headed by Joseph I. Breen, was launched in response to a campaign by the Catholic Legion of Decency. The result was that producers were forced to develop projects “along the lines of a standard Hollywood genre while steering clear of both the Hays and Breen offices and the radical writer who may have been assigned to the project.”

In addition, the HUAC investigations of the late 1940s and early 1950s and the active campaigning of religious (Legion of Decency, Knights of Columbus), patriotic (Daughters of the American Revolution [DAR]), and educational (Parents and Teachers Association) groups influenced movie content well into the 1950s, including a great many anticommunist films made as a rather direct response to the HUAC investigations. The result was, in the words of one studio executive, that “I now read scripts through the eyes of the DAR, whereas formerly I read them through the eyes of my boss.” Particular mention should be made of the American Legion, described as “the prime mover” in attempting to eradicate “Communist influence” in the movie industry during the 1950s. The list of sixty-six movie personalities said to be associated with communism published in the American Legion Magazinecaused panic in Hollywood and a prolonged series of investigations, firings, and blacklistings.

The point here is that there were strong controls emanating from political conservatives and from religious and cultural traditionalists that kept a lid on Jewish influence on culture through the 1950s — doubtless much to the chagrin of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals who prided themselves in their alienation from that culture.

This all ended when the culture of the left finally triumphed in the 1960s. At that point, when the multi-cultural, anti-White left had seized the high ground in the cultural wars, they had far less reason to engage in the types of cultural criticism so apparent in the writings of the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals. Hollywood and the rest of the American media were unleashed, and it must have became apparent to many on the left that passivity, escapism and (leftist) conformity weren’t so bad after all.

Indeed, as Elizabeth Whitcombe suggests, there seems to have been some realization among the Frankfurt School intellectuals in the late 1940s and 1950s that popular culture could be utilized to “manipulate the masses in the directions that they wanted — toward liberal cosmopolitanism, breaking down racial barriers, and promoting Black cultural icons.”

Is Capitalism the Problem?

What would have surprised these intellectuals is that the culture of the left could co-exist with capitalism. As Marxists at heart, at least for most of their existence, they felt that it was necessary to destroy capitalism in order to usher in a revolution in culture that would affect the great mass of people.

But it turns out that capitalism was not the problem they faced any more than it is the problem White advocates face now. It is certainly true that capitalism requires control by a racially conscious political and intellectual elite. In the absence of such controls, capitalists may, for example, advocate mass immigration because of the purely economic benefits for individual capitalists.

Political control over capitalism was certainly apparent during the period from 1924–1965 when America reaffirmed that it was a nation of Europeans. Capitalism remained on a strong leash — a leash motivated by a deep desire for ethnic defense on the part of the great majority of European Americans.

Even when the immigration law was finally changed in 1965, business interests were notable for their absence. Far more important was Jewish activismmotivated ultimately by perceptions of ethnic self-interest.

All of the great changes in culture over the last 100 years occurred within the capitalist system. Capitalism co-existed with immigration restriction from 1924–1965, and it co-exists with the open borders reality of recent decades.

Ethnic interests and cultural traditionalism were far more important than capitalism in defending the ethnic and cultural integrity of pre-1965 America. And the ethnic interests of the nascent Jewish elite were far more important than capitalism in undermining the traditional people and culture of America in the post-1965 era.

As Eric P. Kaufmann shows, the best explanation for the enormous shift in culture is that the left was able to seize the elite institutions of society — the media, the universities, and the political culture. In my view, this would not have happened without the intellectual and political activism of Jewish intellectual and political activists who not only identified as Jews, but also saw their work as advancing specifically Jewish interests. Certainly the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals are prime examples of Jewish movements that played important roles in this revolution.

The result of the countercultural revolution is that those who detest the cosmopolitan culture erected by these movements are now on the sidelines, feeling alienated, and decrying the passivity, escapism, and conformity of the contemporary culture of Western suicide.

End of Part 2 of 3. Click here to go to Part 2. Click here to go to Part 3.

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

More on Racial Cuckoldry and Racial Mimicry

I have received some feedback on my racial cuckoldry article and, to be honest, some of the comments are disheartening.  Some readers apparently completely missed the major point of the essay, and there seem to be many misunderstandings.  I will make a few brief comments here.  I would strongly suggest though that interested readers go to American Renaissance and order Frank Salter’s book On Genetics Interests.  Salter deals with some of these issues, including the “only phenotype is important” argument, in his chapter replying to objections to genetic interests, and this book is absolutely fundamental.

I will start by outlining the chain of argumentation used in the original racial cuckoldry essay. I attempted to construct a simple, logical, and accessible-to-the-layman thesis.  I began by discussing the general phenomenon of cuckoldry for evolved organisms, relating the human experience of cuckolded men with what occurs with brood parasitism involving, for example, birds.

I assume that the reader agrees that raising another man’s child due to deception is a serious blow to the cuckold’s interests, since he is investing in another man’s genetic continuity and not his own. But it’s the same at the level of the population: Racial cuckoldry occurs when the “racial cuckold” mistakenly perceives a genetically alien person/group as a member of the cuckolds’ own ethny, and thus maladaptively invests in that genetically alien person/group.

I then considered in what manner such a mistake can be made.  I used several examples — including on the population level (e.g., Kalash) and on the individual level (e.g., Gosselaar) — to demonstrate that racial cuckoldry often occurs because of racial mimicry.  The cuckold thinks that the genetic alien “looks like” and/or “acts like” “one of us” and thus accepts that this alien is “one of us” when objectively, this alien is not “one of us” at all.

I concluded that if one wishes to avoid the maladaptive action of racial cuckoldry, one must take into consideration kinship as evaluated through genetic assays, instead of relying on personal opinions of what someone “looks like.”

I also pointedly compared cuckoldry to adoption.  In both cases, investment is made in the genetic alien, but with cuckoldry, this investment takes place involuntarily due to deception and/or ignorance, and in the case of adoption the investment is voluntary, the decision is made fully informed of the genetic consequences.

The ultimate “take home point” of the original essay is that whatever decision one makes on “who is in my ingroup,” that decision must be an informed one, made with all the facts known.  If you want to “adopt” the Kalash or Gosselaar as European, then at least do so knowing exactly what they are.  I also pointed out that it is not necessary to “test” every individual – ethnic group data can serve as a proxy when individuals’ ethnic ancestries are known.

Thus, starting from the biological reality that adaptive behavior for evolved organisms is defined as that behavior which results in genetic continuity and/or expansion, all else in the original essay follows, assuming that the reader wants to act adaptively.  Of course, people may not care (e.g., quite a few Christians don’t care). But it is reasonable to believe that readers of The Occidental Observer care about adaptive behavior, even if they may not specifically use that “scientific” term to describe their interests in familial and racial continuity.  The typical racial nationalist stresses kinship ties to the race and ethnic group.

Let’s look at some (paraphrased) comments and complaints (in italics) and replies to these.

The concept of “Racial Cuckoldry” presumes the existence of a pure race…

I have read over my original essay and I can’t quite see any references to a “pure race.”  All that is required is genetic differences, not “purity.”

You confuse racial interests with genetic interests. Racial interests are the interests we have for people with a White phenotype, groups that have evolved a White phenotype in particular environments. You are too reductionist with all of these genetic arguments. Only physical appearance matters.

Some people apparently missed the entire point of the essay and talk about only White phenotypes as being of importance, and that if different groups under similar conditions evolved similar White phenotypes, then that’s all that matters.

Salter made clear in On Genetic Interests that some people will continue stubbornly clinging to phenotype and that “who cares?” will always be an essentially unanswerable riposte against the invocation of genetic interests. This is likely what is happening here: If some people simply don’t care about kinship or relatedness at all, what can one do? If people value phenotype over kinship, then that is their value system and one cannot objectively argue against values. However, one can logically point out that this choice, this value system, is not biologically adaptive.  It is the same as favoring the children of a completely unrelated stranger over your own children simply because the stranger’s children happen to look more like you than your own (assume for the sake of simplicity that all are of the same ethny).  Now, if that is your choice based on your value system, I can’t argue with you. But don’t pretend that it is adaptive and a biologically wise choice.  It is in fact highly maladaptive.

Another argument is as follows.  For a variety of reasons, disease-related as well as, allegedly, surgical, Michael Jackson started “looking Whiter” as he aged. However, his African-American genes remained the same.  If, as some claim, racial interests are different from genetic interests, I ask — did Whites’ racial interests in Michael Jackson increase as he started to “look Whiter?”  If racial phenotype independent of genetics is what racial interests are really about, then by the time of his death Mr. Jackson was much “more White” than he was as a youth, and, thus, of greater racial interest to Euro-Americans.

To answer that absurdity, some may claim that what they really mean are heritable phenotypes.  That’s okay, but by heritable you mean genetic.  Thus, these racial interests in phenotype are based upon genes — genes for physical appearance.  But why should these genes get sole precedent over all others?  What about genes encoding intelligence, behavior, etc?  What about so-called “non-functional” genes that provide important information on kinship, on family, on common ancestral origins?  Who is to say that some genes are important to racial interests and others are not? 

The fact is that there are many, many more functional genes than just those controlling physical appearance. And, even though (true) non-functional genes may be of lesser importance, gene markers that provide important information on kinship are not completely without value.  Thus, I argue that all genetic information that distinguishes people or groups from each other is important. Some are more important than others, but all must be considered.  Once you cite the heritable genetic nature of phenotype to get around the obvious absurdity of “a ‘Whiter’ Michael Jackson is now worthy of White racial interests,” one cannot arbitrarily draw a line and say that only a small set of genes are important.  They all are, to one degree or another. Thus, racial interests are indeed genetic interests; there is no real difference between the two.

Groups people say are related are not really that related because, for example, Slavs and Basques are characterized by different NRY haplotypes.

First of all, you cannot determine population identity by single locus markers, like NRY or mtDNA.  Their time of utility for population genetics has passed; we are now in the age of using hundreds of thousands of autosomal markers to ascertain race and ethnic group identities.  Second of all, there is no such thing as an ethnic group composed of members with only one type of NRY or mtDNA haplotype.  There is variation within groups as well.  This means that even in mono-ethnic extended families, you can have different NRY or mtDNA.  Mono-ethnic male cousins of different paternal lineages can have different NRY. Are they not closely related?  The same applies to mDNA and maternal lineages.

Now, there are of course real differences between European types that can be identified by autosomal analyses.  I never said Europeans were identical.  The point is, though, that they are much more closely related to each other than to the Kalash, or to hybrids like Gosselaar.

A general comment that does have some validity is that I am missing the forest for the trees.  In other word: with a global racial meltdown for Whites, why bother nitpicking over a White-looking fellow like Mr. Gosselaar?  Is it necessary to focus on ever finer genetic distinctions?

In one sense, I am sympathetic to this argument.  Gosselaar and reasonable numbers of people like him are likely assimilable.  And, true enough, it is easy to get distracted from the worldwide racial crisis by obsessing over small genetic differences between closely related peoples.

On the other hand, Gosselaar’s non-European ancestry is not trivial.  Even if you assume that his mother herself is admixed and not pure Indonesian (possible, given Gosselaar’s appearance), the fact that he may be 1/4 Indonesian rather than 1/2 Indonesian doesn’t make him European.  25% Southeast Asian ancestry is a lot.  And I have no definite evidence his mother is admixed; it is just a possibility.

But, Gosselaar was just an example of the broader issue.  An entire ethnic group — the Kalash — is being mistakenly classified as similar to Europeans based on several pictures of Kalash children.  So, the assimilability of Mr. Gosselaar aside, this is an issue that needs to be addressed.  At the very least, as I have stated, let us have the information.  If we know what Gosselaar and the Kalash are, and if we still want to accept them as “White” — well, at least make that acceptance an informed decision.  Thus, my essay is not so much telling people where to draw the line, but rather, suggesting that they get all their facts in order before drawing that line — and that they must rely on genetic facts and not just on their personal opinions of what they think someone “looks like.”

Some of this is arbitrary — there are blonde, blue-eyed Jews, Black Jews, etc.

I was referring for the most part to Ashkenazim, the ones that may look most similar to Europeans.  That they may be “blonde and blue eyed” — like some Kalash — is the entire point of the article.

Some groups have increased their power by accepting mixed race “cuckoos.” Blacks accept as “Black” obviously mixed mulattoes, and this increases Black numbers and power. Hispanics come in all types: White, Black, Amerindian, and mixes thereof, but a pan-Hispanic identity increases their power. Maybe it is OK to have “racial cuckoldry?”

Obviously some people skipped over my distinction between cuckoldry, in which ignorance/deception is involved, and adoption, in which the genetic alien is accepted with the knowledge of the differences that exist.  I put forth the option that one could “adopt” Gosselaar or the Kalash (or, by analogy, even Jews) as “European.”  If that will increase our power and cause a net gain of genetic interest (by helping us save ourselves), that would be a good strategy.  All I am saying is — let us know the facts about genes and kinship before making a decision.  If the decision is “let’s accept Jews, Kalash, and Gosselaar,” that’s fine. Let’s see the argument for that and balance it against the genetic evidence and kinship.

Certainly, it makes sense for any group to look for allies and mutual benefits. What I am concerned about is cuckoldry, where one race is giving resources to people from another race.

These critics don’t want to consider kinship at all.  They only want to consider interests like physical appearance and political power.  How is that different from the argument that (alien) immigration will make us all richer?

Let’s assume that the immigration would make us richer and more powerful.  Is it still good? Only if we can be assured that in the long run we won’t lose wealth and power to the alien immigrants. In other words, we must be assured that immigration does not result in cuckolding the receiving race.

As a thought experiment, one could imagine a managed form of immigration in which immigrants worked as contract laborers and could be trusted never to seek political power; nor would they seek economic benefits such as affirmative action that are costly to the natives, or disrupt the cohesiveness of the host society. They would leave as soon  as their contract expired. Under such a situation, immigration may indeed be beneficial for the receiving society.

Unfortunately, immigration into Western societies is not at all like this. Current immigration is maladaptive for Whites because within a few decades they will be a political minority at which point their wealth (and even their physical safety) may well be imperiled. And immigration destroys the social fabric by creating ethnic enclaves. And in the end, the present form of immigration lowers the genetic fitness of the natives relative to the total gene pool of the society. That is, distinctive European genetic combinations become relatively less common.

By the way, Blacks accepting mulattoes as “Black” is not racial cuckoldry.  Blacks distinguish between dark “pure” Negroes and the “coffee and cream” mixes. In other words, skin tone has important practical implications among Blacks.  But in any case, they know that those with light skin are mixed and they have decided to accept them.

It is not racial cuckoldry if people create categories that benefit their own group. Whites could creatively admit others (say, Jews) into the category of White if it benefited them in some way. But if so, the important thing would be to be aware of underlying genetic differences in order to prevent cuckoldry by, say, coming to believe that all Whites have the same interests in Israel as Jews do.

In any case, the point is that the people who claim that the Kalash are the same as Europeans are not saying “we are different, but let’s form an alliance anyway.”  Instead, they are mistakenly thinking that the groups are the same when they are not — they are saying “the Kalash are just like Europeans, let’s accept them as such.”  The decision of acceptance is being based on mistaken opinions of Kalash racial characteristics. That is the point.

People will not agree to be tested.

In my article, I said that it is unlikely that everyone will use genetic testing. And I say that we should use ethnic data as a proxy for individualized data in most cases.

Then there is another fellow on another website who has made the following comments (my response in plain text below).

Ted seems to be saying that everyone has to provide a DNA analysis indicating that they are pure Aryan before they can join the club.

In the original essay, I openly state that for most people, simply knowing what their ethnic ancestry is can be reasonably sufficient if population genetics data exists for the person’s ancestral ethnic groups.  I do not say “everyone must be tested.”  I do say that would be optimal, but it is not currently practical.

I do not “seem” to be saying anything about “pure Aryans” either.  “Racial purity” has become a strawman argument, often used today by the “anti-racist” left to delegitimize the science of racial genetics.  It is also now apparently being used by some on the “right” to attack genetic testing.  “Purity” is not required. All that’s important is that genetic differences exist, and that some groups/people are more or less closely related compared to others. So no one needs to “indicate” that they are a “pure Aryan.” However, I don’t think it is too much to ask that people who are considered “racially just the same as Europeans” not be Central/South Asians like the Kalash or have an Indonesian mother like Gosselaar.

What a load of nonsense. Mark-Paul Gosselaar is a White man because he looks White.

This kind of thinking is exactly what I am arguing against in my essay.  Gosselaar is likely to be genetically 25–50% Southeast Asian.  But because he “looks White” in a photograph he mysteriously is not transformed into a “White man.”  Let’s change this a bit.  Imagine this commentator sees a boy that is the son of an unrelated stranger.  The boy looks like the commentator, so he says,  “That boy is my son because he looks like my son, he looks like me.”  But … he’s not your son. He is someone else’s son.  If your wife cheats and bears another man’s son and tricks you into thinking it is yours — followed by her saying “that’s it, no more children for me” — is the possibility that the little “cuckoo” may “look like you” going to change the fact that your genetic line has ended and you are raising another man’s child?  Doesn’t it matter what people actually are?

Let’s look at this another way.  Highly admixed families often exhibit a high degree of phenotypic variability.  Contrary to popular misconceptions, people do not inherit an equal, proportional amount of genes from each of their ancestors. So, for example, due to independent assortment and recombination that occurs in meiosis, a person may inherit significantly less than or greater than 25% of particular types of genes from each of their grandparents — and the same applies to all other ancestors and proportional genetic inheritance going back in time.  Assume Gosselaar’s mother is herself somewhat admixed, with some European heritage. Thus, Mark-Paul Gosselaar may have inherited predominantly European phenotypic genes from his Eurasian mother to complement those from his father.  His overall genetic ancestry, however, will still be significantly Southeast Asian, but he will “look White.”  In theory, he can have a full sibling who inherits more of the Asian genes from the mother and therefore will look obviously non-White and Eurasian.  Can a “White man” have a non-White full sibling?  Isn’t it obvious that ancestry trumps physical appearance?

And even if the mother is full Indonesian, many Indonesians do “not look as Mongoloid” as do many other East Asians, particularly Northeast Asians. They may have ancestry from other sources, including, possibly, Pacific Islander, Australoid, or even South Asian.  Particular combinations of uneven inheritance of genes encoding physical appearance can result in a Eurasian who looks like Gosselaar — despite being heavily Asiatic and obviously not “White.”

Whether Kalash are White or not is irrelevant. They don’t live in White countries so who cares?

Commentators at American Renaissance sure care.  And, obviously, the point about the Kalash is that they are illustrating the Racial Cuckoldry problem.  The Kalash may not live in White countries, but other non-European Caucasians do live in White countries. Should we accept them all as “White Europeans” just because you think they “look White?”

Ashkenazi Jews are White to me but that does not make them one of us. Many Albanians are White but I don’t consider them one of us.

Why?  Why aren’t they the same as Gosselaar?  They “look White” but they are not “White?”

Final Thoughts

Most scientists believe that life on Earth came about as replicating macromolecules.  These were almost certainly not DNA at first — perhaps RNA and possibly proteins. Some even postulate that non-organic material was the first replicating macromolecule.  What we are talking about here is information — self-replicating information in material form, making more copies of itself.

Relatively quickly, given the many advantages of DNA as material for storing and replicating this information, DNA took over as the predominant form of replicating macromolecule leading to life as we know it.  Selective pressures then favored those replicating macromolecules that could not only reproduce themselves most efficiently (e.g., faster) but also those that could fill new niches and exploit these niches for further replication.  Thus, the informational material began coding for production of proteins that created a phenotype, whose purpose was the more effective replication of the informational material in particular ecological niches. This, self-replicating information became genetic information, and life as we know it today.  The “striving of life” — if we may use that unscientific term — is toward the reproduction of the genetic material encoded in the DNA.

Many species, like the Mayfly, have extremely short adult lives, some as short as only 30 minutes!  These insects simply emerge from the pupae, fly around, mate, lay eggs, and die.  If the “striving of life” was to express phenotypes, it is certainly strange to evolve a phenotype whose only purpose is to produce an adult that mates and then dies within 30 minutes.  The mayfly seems to me to be an organism (similar to microorganisms) whose essential purpose is reproduction. Reproduction of what?  More 30 minute-lived adults?  Or, reproduction of the unique and distinctive genetic information characteristics of mayflies, that produces a particular phenotype to fill a niche allowing for this information’s replication.

I know the answer that evolutionary biologists would give, the only answer that makes sense and which is consistent with modern neo-Darwinian thought: The mayfly is a vehicle for the reproduction of its genes, nothing more and nothing less.

Humans, ultimately, are no different.  Europeans — and the finer subracial and ethnic distinctions among Europeans — need to worry about the continuity of their own unique and distinctive genetic information, and let Central/South Asians and Eurasian hybrids, regardless of phenotype, worry about themselves.

Ted Sallis (email him) writes on scientific issues.

Steve Sailer, an Indispensable Pundit

Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part I: Authoritarianism and the Family

Thomas Wheatland’s book, The Frankfurt School in Exile, provides a useful historical account of the travels, connections, and ideas of an important Jewish intellectual movement. The Institute for Social Research began as an orthodox Marxist organization during the Weimar period. During this period, they were dedicated to studying the class struggle and were often in close contact with members of the German Communist Party. Like several other members of the Institute, Max Horkheimer, who became head of the Institute, came from a wealthy background, but like so many Jewish radicals, had a “moral and emotional” opposition to bourgeois society (p. 15).

Wheatland agrees with other scholars that a persistent motivation of the Frankfurt School was to understand why a working class revolution failed to occur in Germany. Two main theoretical thrusts emerged from this realization: a critique that located ethnic prejudice, backward religious attitudes and lack of revolutionary fervor in the family, and a critique of mass culture seen as promoting passivity and escapism rather than revolutionary consciousness. Part I of this review deals with the first of these issues. Part II will discuss the theory of mass culture and interactions between the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals.

The Frankfurt School Finds Authoritarianism in the Family

Since Marxist revolution was so obviously desirable to the Frankfurt Intellectuals, they developed a theory in which the failure of revolution could be attributed to psychopathology in the family. As reviewed here, the epitome of psychological health was the “genuine liberal” — a radical individualist who is completely detached from all ingroups, including race and family. White people who rejected their family as role models were analyzed as psychologically healthy, while those who had positive views of their parents were analyzed as psychologically inadequate.

Such a view is obviously subversive of traditional values, since competent parents transmit their religious and cultural values to their children, and at the time of the study, many of these competent White parents had a sense of White racial identity which they were transmitting to their children. The Frankfurt School was essentially claiming that White families who successfully transmitted their ethnocentric attitudes to their children were pathological — a view for which there isn’t a shred of evidence. (Needless to say, the successful transmission of Jewish identity to Jewish children was not considered a pathology.)

A major part of the intellectual ammunition for this assault on the people and culture of the West derived originally from Erich Fromm whose association with the Frankfurt School dates from 1930. Fromm pioneered the idea of combining Marx with Freud and was responsible for the early development of the authoritarian personality concept. Fromm’s ideas are an excellent illustration of the ludicrous but deadly theories that resulted from this marriage of these two influential Jewish philosophers. For example, in Studien über Authorität und Familie (1936), Fromm wrote,

With regard to authoritarianism, masochism manifested itself in the surrender to authority, and sadism was evident in the acceptance of social hierarchy. In the developmental and sexual sense, the authoritarian character had suffered a regression from genital sexuality to infantile sexuality. Accompanying this regression of libidinal energy, Fromm also expected a shift from heterosexual to homosexual behavior among authoritarian personalities. (quoted in Wheatland, p. 68)

As a psychologist, I really can’t imagine a more ridiculous theory — unless perhaps one counts Freud’s politically useful Oedipal complex. None of these ideas ever had even a glimmer of empirical support. Freud’s theorizing — one hesitates to call it a theory — combines outrageousness with infinite plasticity. In the hands of Freudian revisionist like Fromm, it could be used as a weapon against those who resist a communist revolution. Eventually, Fromm’s ideas would be the basis for The Authoritarian Personality and its assault on White racial identity and traditional Western family values.

Wheatland, however, is utterly credulous in discussing these preposterous ideas: “Fromm had carefully examined the empirical findings. Exercising caution to make use of his data, Fromm utilized every response to each question to provide confirmation for his character models” (p. 69).

Ah yes, Erich Fromm — ever the dedicated, impartial empirical scientist. Since such findings have never been confirmed by the research of actual psychologists — indeed, they would be laughed at as the height of ridiculousness, one would think that Wheatland would at least suggest that perhaps Fromm was reading hisa priori theories into the interview results — a common enough practice among psychoanalysts.

Indeed, a strikingly similar passage to Fromm’s monstrosity can be found inDialectic of Enlightenment (1944), by the two leading lights of the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno:

The forbidden action [of killing one’s father out of Oedipal jealousy] which is converted into aggression is generally homosexual in nature. Through fear of castration, obedience to the father is taken to the extreme of an anticipation of castration in conscious emotional approximation to the nature of a small girl, and actual hatred to the father is suppressed” (p. 192).

You can’t make this stuff up. Nevertheless, despite such passages and a generally fanciful theory of anti-Semitism (see Chap. 5 of The Culture of Critique), Wheatland refers to Dialectic of Enlightenment as the Institute’s “theoretical masterpiece” (p. 242).

Wheatland is typical of so many American intellectuals who become caught up in the well-honed mystique of the Frankfurt School, completely losing their critical sense. Even a casual reading of Dialectic of Enlightenment indicates the importance of Jewish ethnic interests in developing a theory of anti-Semitism in which the behavior of Jews is completely irrelevant. As Jacob Katz notes, the Frankfurt School has “not been notable for the accuracy of its evaluation of the Jewish situation either before the advent of Nazism or afterward” (p. 40).

Wheatland presents evidence that the Institute separated themselves from Fromm because of his revisionist views on psychoanalysis. Nevertheless, the separation was more tactical than real. Both Fromm and his former Frankfurt colleagues developed a similar intellectual rationale for radical individualism among Whites — mainly because they viewed it as effective in combating anti-Semitism. Prototypical individualists such as libertarians are much less prone to enmeshing themselves in cohesive groups — especially mass movements of ethnic defense They have no allegiance to their race, their culture, or even their family. The following is a famous passage from Fromm’s Escape from Freedom(1941):

There is only one possible, productive solution for the relationship of individualized man with the world: his active solidarity with all men and his spontaneous activity, love and work, which unite him again with the world, not by primary ties [e.g., family, religion, ethnic group, and race] but as a free and independent individual…. However, if the economic, social and political conditions… do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality in the sense just mentioned, while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden. It then becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his freedom. (Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom)

In other words, psychologically healthy people have no psychological ties to anything except their “active  solidarity” with all of humanity. This lack of ethnic commitment is what defines freedom.

Fromm never saw any contradictions between this philosophy and his own strong Jewish identification. Fromm derived from an Orthodox Jewish religious background and was actively involved in promoting Jewish religion and culture in his 20s. Like many secular Jews on the left, Fromm’s view of Judaism was that it was a set of ethical, humanistic beliefs — indeed, it is common to assert that his view of Judaism had a strong influence on his humanistic psychology.

Obviously, such a view of Judaism ignores the strong Jewish emphasis on identifying with an ethnically-based ingroup (and all that that entails in terms of between-group conflict) rather than with humanity as a whole. It also ignores the notorious moral particularism (Is it good for the Jews?) that is so characteristic of Judaism. In any case, “although he later distanced himself from Judaism, it is reportedthat Fromm never tired of singing Hasidic songs or studying scripture.” One suspects that whatever Fromm’s public pronouncements, his identification with Judaism was quite a bit stronger than his identification with humanity.

While Fromm remained a psychoanalytic revisionist, the Frankfurt School retained an orthodox views of psychoanalysis. This had a major payoff for the Frankfurt School because it was able to ally itself with the Ernst Simmel’s Psychoanalytic Institute. Simmel, a powerful and well-connected psychoanalyst had direct ties to Freud — the gold standard of psychoanalytic royalty. (Those with direct ties to the master enjoyed a privileged position within psychoanalysis— a sure sign [among many others] that we are dealing with a cult rather than a scientific movement.) He then promoted the Frankfurt School’s work and called for research on anti-Semitism within the American Psychiatric Association (p. 325) at a time when psychoanalysis used its political muscle to dominate the APA. Simmel also sought funding for the Frankfurt School from wealthy, presumably Jewish, benefactors of psychoanalysis.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The entire episode is a wonderful example of Jewish ethnic networking that had the effect of subverting scientific psychiatry. Psychoanalysis is clearly a Jewish intellectual movement, as indicated not only by the ethnic background of the leading lights of the field, but also by the support it received from the wider Jewish community — the subject of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique.Fortunately, the rise of scientific psychiatry has resulted in the more or less complete eradication of psychoanalysis within mainstream psychiatry. Ultimately this was due mainly to the rise of biological psychiatry as well as the usefulness of cognitive and learning perspectives derived from mainstream psychology. During its heyday, however, psychoanalysts like Simmel used their position of power within the APA to promote psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism — an effort that had the effect of retarding scientific research in psychiatry.

In the event, the Institute received funding for its Studies in Prejudice project (including The Authoritarian Personality) from the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Wheatland also shows that the ADL was enthusiastic about the project. The Institute’s successful funding proposal argued that modern anti-Semitism

aims not only at exterminating the Jews, but also at annihilating liberty and democracy. It has become the spearhead of the totalitarian order. … The attacks on the Jews are not primarily aimed at the Jews but at large sections of modern society, especially the free middle classes, which appear as an obstacle to the establishment of totalitarianism. (p. 236)

In other words, the war on anti-Semitism was really a war against those who would destroy democracy, freedom, and the middle classes — clearly an attempt to appeal to mainstream America.

Particularly interesting is that prior to the publication of the Studies in Prejudiceseries, Commentary developed a public relations campaign to promote the books. (Commentary is an important intellectual magazine published by the AJC.) “From the very first issue [in 1945], the magazine began to publish a series of [uniformly uncritical] articles that brought the work of the Horkheimer Circle to the attention of American readers” (p. 253).

After the Frankfurt School received funding from the AJC, Horkheimer’s office and Commentary were housed in the same building. Nathan Glazer, a prominent New York Intellectual, got his job at Commentary because he was already working for Horkheimer. There was an obvious congruence between the views of the AJC and the Frankfurt School:

Rather than simply fulfilling Jewish aims that had been dramatically highlighted by the Holocaust, The Studies in Prejudice series was envisioned to be a broader contribution to American society and culture — efforts consistent with the AJC’s desire to promote pluralism and Jewish cultural interests within the United States. Unlike Partisan Review which self-consciously promoted an ideal of cosmopolitan universalism that was framed by the influences of Marxism and modernism, Commentary … was envisioned to be a distinctly Jewish magazine (p. 154).

Indeed, despite a carefully crafted public image of Commentary as completely independent of the AJC, in fact its “autonomy may have been more of an illusion than a reality” (p. 155). Wheatland cites evidence that Elliot Cohen (the editor of Commentary from 1945–1959) was occasionally reprimanded by the AJC executive board and at other times was pressured to promote projects advocated by the AJC. Significantly, Cohen encouraged members of the Frankfurt School to write for Commentary, and the AJC had become the main financial support for the Frankfurt School. Wheatland shows that Commentaryplayed a major role in promoting the Frankfurt School’s Studies in Prejudiceseries, including the disastrously influential The Authoritarian Personality. The Institute also appealed to the wider Jewish community, publicizing their work “through public lectures at Jewish colleges and local temples” (p. 251) as well as other public venues.

An example of Frankfurt School writing in Commentary is Leo Lowenthal’s 1947 article on Heinrich Heine, a 19th-century Jewish poet who converted to Christianity early in his career but later renounced his conversion. “Heine’s religion” is interesting because, as Wheatland notes, it reflects not only Heine’s attitudes but also the attitudes of the New York Intellectuals and the other members of the Frankfurt School. Heine “sacrificed his Jewish traditions in order to embrace the same ideal of cosmopolitanism — embodied by the Enlightenment and the French Revolution — that the Frankfurt School and the prewar writers for Partisan Review adopted … For both groups [i.e., the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals] Marxism embodied the yearning for a repaired and redeemed humanity — a world in which racial prejudice and socioeconomic injustice were overcome” (p. 157).

Eventually, however, Heine and Lowenthal (and the other Frankfurters and New York Intellectuals) abandoned the Enlightenment and reverted to Jewish patriotism. Heine wrote that “my preference for Greece has declined. I see now that the Greeks were merely handsome youths, while the Jews were, and still are, grown men, mighty, indomitable men, despite eighteen centuries of persecution and misery. I have learned to rate them at their true value.” Lowenthal concurred: Judaism “was a tradition that need not be transcended in the name of loftier ideals” (p. 158).

In other words, Jews could advocate cosmopolitan universalism for Whites while at the same time retaining their own Jewish identity. This is perhaps the fundamental intellectual stance of Diaspora Jewish intellectuals since the Enlightenment (and strikingly absent in Israel). Wheatland doesn’t comment on the obvious contradiction here. White Christians are to give up their ethnic and religious attachments as outmoded and “anti-democratic” while Jews fashion an ethnic identity that wears the mask of cosmopolitan universalism.

To his credit, Wheatland presents at least some of the criticisms of the Studies in Prejudice series and, in particular, The Authoritarian Personality. As he notes, a consistent thread of the criticisms was the belief that the authors let their biases color their hypotheses and interpretations. My views on this body of work are a bit more scathing: “It is not difficult to suppose that the entire program of research of The Authoritarian Personality involved deception from beginning to end.”

After WWII, the Institute “returned to Germany with great fanfare, it received the generous support of HICOG [the US High Commissioner in occupied Germany] and the Rockefeller Foundation, … and its staff was viewed as a living bridge to the past” (p. 261). It’s fascinating that Adorno then embarked on a series of articles completely repudiating the entire concept of empirical research — perhaps agreeing with me that The Authoritarian Personality and the rest of theStudies in Prejudice series were not really empirical research at all.

Adorno would presumably not agree with me that these works were nothing more than thinly disguised, ethnically motivated ideology. But that’s what it was — aided and abetted by the organized Jewish community.

Go to Part 2 of this review.

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