Featured Articles

Derbyshire on MacDonald

/in /by

British immigrant commentator John Derbyshire is at it again, firing a tiny salvo in the direction of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald. Since discovering MacDonald’s corpus of writing on Jews, Derbyshire has had a like-dislike relationship with the author’s work.

In a column on VDARE last week, Derbyshire said he was satisfied with the account of an interview with MacDonald as told by Jon Entine, author of Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People. Entine surprisingly quotes MacDonald as saying “I’m a scientific racist” and likens MacDonald’s work to (you guessed it) The Protocols of Zion. Entine then summed up MacDonald’s work as making the argument that “Jews have an almost diabolical, biologically programmed plan of dominance.”

Diabolical? As in the devil? Can any fair reader of MacDonald’s social science prose make such a claim?  For his part, MacDonald vehemently disagreed with Entine’s version. “I never wrote anything like ‘the devious nature of Jews.’ Such a statement would be an outrageous overgeneralization. Rather, I simply stated that Jewish identification and interests among the Boasians were unstated in their public writings and that the movement was couched in the language of science and universalism.” What, then, could Derbyshire mean when he claims “Entine’s account seems fair to me”?

Derbyshire’s first major piece on MacDonald appeared in the March 10, 2003 issue of The American Conservative under the title “The Marx of the Anti-Semites.” There his take on the book was mixed, beginning with “The Culture of Critique includes many good things. . . . Kevin MacDonald is working in an important field.” Derbyshire even validates an important point of MacDonald’s work: “These Jewish-inspired pseudoscientific phenomena that The Culture of Critique is concerned with—Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and so on—were they a net negative for America? Yes, I agree with MacDonald, they were.”

But Derbyshire then concludes that “This is, after all, in the dictionary definition of the term, an anti-Semitic book.” Perhaps, however, MacDonald can be forgiven, since, as Derbyshire muses, MacDonald suffers the defects of being “prickly and unworldly.” Yet the mildly generous Derbyshire nonetheless leaves the reader with the ominous conclusion: “I am not sure I could persuade less charitable souls that my interpretation is the correct one, and that there is not malice lurking behind MacDonald’s elaborate sociological jargon.” (See MacDonald’s reply.)

To be fair, Derbyshire is the proverbial writer caught between a rock and a hard place. While he aims to write honestly — wherever the chips may fall, as he implies — he’s also exquisitely aware of the risks a non-Jew takes when writing in a forthright manner about things Jewish. Worse, as a self-described minor name in American journalism, he fears that any criticism of Jews may well spell career destruction.

Derbyshire 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.

Despite this conscious awareness of why he won’t give MacDonald’s work the praise it deserves, Derbyshire continues with his mixed feelings: “I found his first two books tough-going, jargony, and not very well written.” Later, he complains about MacDonald’s “rather unscholarly language in speaking about the ‘manipulation’ of Gentile culture by Jewish intellectuals, and so on.”

Elsewhere, however, Derbyshire felt otherwise (and to his credit, he is a smart enough writer to admit to contradicting himself at times): “Kevin has interesting things to say . . . He ought to be heard.” “The Culture of Critique is an interesting book. (It is also, by the way, better-written than most books by academics.)”

He even admits that he finds the parts about the “partly malign influence of Jews on modern American culture very persuasive.” And then it’s back to snark, referring to MacDonald’s work as “some rather abstruse socio-historical theories cooked up by a cranky small-college faculty member.” This last crack, of course, recalls Judith Shulevitz’s nasty comment in her 2000 Slate article: “A man in his 50s, MacDonald is still an associate professor of psychology at a third-rate school, California State University in Long Beach.” (She was wrong; MacDonald was and is a full professor.)

Worse, in his VDARE column last week, after agreeing with Entine’s smear of MacDonald, Derbyshire repeats his praises for Yuri Slezkine’s exposé, The Jewish Century. (See MacDonald’s review of Slezkine.) Derbyshire writes that he finally understands the importance of the assertions about the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution. As Slezkine tells us, “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.” Estimates are that up to twenty million non-Jews died during this “rise of the Jews,” prompting Slezkine to call such Jews “Stalin’s willing executioners.”

One might question the orientation of Derbyshire’s moral compass when he can reconcile the above with his claim that Jews add far more to a nation than they take away. Spain, he believes, suffered greatly for expelling its Jews, and America without its great wave of Jewish immigrants indisputably “would have been worse off.” Indeed, he believes “American conservatism is proud of its Jews, and glad to have them on board.” Needless to say, critics of Jewish neoconservatives, among others, would likely disagree. For one thing, the attachment of Jewish neoconservatives to an open borders immigration policy will in short order, if it hasn’t already, leave precious little to be conservative about.

Derbyshire’s own opinion of MacDonald is that “he is a plain reactionary, at least so far as the Jews in America are concerned. . . . I think MacDonald is in love with 1950—with the old Gentile supremacy.” But for members of MacDonald’s group of European Americans—the overwhelming majority then—1950 was on average probably far better for them than today’s America.

And what’s wrong with a group trying to retain supremacy? As historian Jerry Z. Miller’s recent Foreign Affairs essay reminds us, ethnonationalism is the rule around the world (most notably, for purposes of this essay, in Israel). Viewed in cross-cultural perspective, the immigration policies throughout the West that will inevitably lead to the displacement of white populations are provincial indeed.

Oddly, it is Derbyshire who seems to be caught back in 1950, when Jews were, in his view, responsible for “the wonderful vitality of American popular culture.” But should we today classify South Park’s scatological holiday special “Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo” or the equally vulgar performances of Sarah Silverman as part of this “wonderful vitality”? More than a few observers have concluded—to borrow a phrase—that American popular culture has gone to hell in a handbasket. And it’s been progressively more Jewish the whole way, as argued in the preface the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique that you reviewed.

Again, when you write that “it’s a scandal that Kevin’s books are not more widely reviewed and read” and that shutting them out from the public forum is “absurd and unfair,” I applaud you. In the end, however, your Jewish sparring partner Joey Kurtzman comes across as the greater booster of MacDonald’s work. Recall that Kurtzman wrote:

MacDonald has presented us with a fascinating and genuinely novel examination of the history and internal workings of the Jewish world. His trilogy is a hell of a read. To any Jewcy readers tired of pious, ‘hooray-for-us!’ Jewish historiography, or just interested in seeing traditional Jewish history through a kaleidoscope, I happily recommend it.

Let me propose a deal: we readers will try to be more sympathetic if you will try to more forcefully challenge the (largely Jewish) forces which now compose what Buckley once called “the prevailing structure of taboos.” You know it won’t be easy; after all, one of your exchanges was titled, with reference to Jewish power, “Be Nice, or We’ll Crush You: Criticizing Jews is professional suicide.” But your own vow to write honestly demands that you try harder.

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

Stuff White People Like: The beginnings of racial self-consciousness?

/in /by

Christian Lander’s stuffwhitepeoplelike blogspot is getting huge traffic and some media attention. Of course, it’s not all white people they’re talking about, mainly yuppie/progressive/educated/non-race-conscious whites with disposable income.

Some of  what these white people like is pathetic, like having blacks as cultural heroes:

[Mos Def] is everything that white people dream about: authentic (”he’s from Brooklyn!”), funny (”he was on Chapelle show!”), artistic (have you heard “Black on Both Sides?”), an actor (”he’s in the new Gondry film!”) and not white (”I don’t see race”).”

(Note: For those readers who haven’t heard of him, Lander writes that despite being white, Michel Gondry is another cultural icon that white people like, most likely because he did cool things like direct David Chappelle’s Block Partyand lots of music videos for bands like Daft Punk. His latest is Be Kind Rewindwhose title alone should make it a white person classic. Lander says “it might be the biggest event in white person film since The Royal Tenenbaums.”)

Another of Lander’s examples shows the powerful sense of guilt that seems to haunt all whites, even for trivial stuff like not recycling:

If you are in a situation where a white person produces an empty bottle, watch their actions. They will first say ‘where’s the recycling?’ If you say “we don’t recycle,” prepare for some awkwardness. They will make a move to throw the bottle away, they will hesitate, and then ultimately throw the bottle away. But after they return look in their eyes. All they can see is the bottle lasting forever in a landfill, trapping small animals. It will eat at them for days, at this point you should say ‘I’m just kidding, the recycling is under the sink. Can you fish out that bottle?’ And they will do it 100% of the time!

So the bad news (not exactly news) is that whites are not at all racially conscious and even look up to non-whites as cultural icons. And they are excruciatingly scrupulous about doing the right thing, even when it comes to recycling a plastic bottle.

But the good news is that whites may at least be beginning to see these traits as white. As Gregory Rodriguez (who doubtless eagerly awaits the minority status of whites) notes in a Feb. 25 L.A. Times op-ed:

As unusual as Lander’s site is, it is also part of a sociological trend among whites who live in increasingly non-Anglo cities and regions: their transformation into a minority group. Whites used to think of themselves as standard-issue American — they had the luxury of not having to grapple with the significance of their own racial background; they were “us” and everyone else was “ethnic.” Not anymore.

Demographic shifts have put a new kind of pressure on that category of people who were once just considered the norm,” says Mike Hill, author of “After Whiteness: Unmaking an American Majority.” “White identity is becoming particularized and minoritized. No longer the normative category, it’s becoming one of many identities.

This pressure naturally leads to a greater sense of self-consciousness as the new minority begins to negotiate their relationships with members of other minorities (everyone else).

Exactly right. It’s a very small and even grotesque beginning, given the traits that Lander points to. But perhaps at long last white people will start thinking of themselves as a group — a group with some very peculiar and maladaptive traits. Does any other group worship cultural icons from another race?  Is any other race so incredibly prone to guilt that they have an anxiety attack for failing to recycle a bottle. People like this doubtless feel a sense of moral uplift when they vote for Barack Obama.

Being so spectacularly guilt-ridden and self-hating is perhaps viable in a society that is overwhelmingly and permanently white. But such attitudes are suicidal in a society rapidly becoming non-white.

Part of the white delusion is to suppose that deep down, everyone is just like them and could be made to be just like them with a little tinkering:

It is a poorly guarded secret that, deep down, white people believe if given money and education that all poor people would be EXACTLY like them. In fact, the only reason that poor people make the choices they do is because they have not been given the means to make the right choices and care about the right things.

A great way to make white people feel good is to tell them about situations where poor people changed how they were doing things because they were given the ‘whiter’ option.

In fact of course, there is no reason at all to suppose that the non-white future will be at all like these pathetic self-haters. There is no reason whatever to suppose that the soon-to-be non-white majority will be so fastidiously moral and anxiety ridden. Unlike whites, these groups are aggressively asserting their interests, and there is little reason to think they will stop when they become the majority.

Indeed, quite a few of the prospective non-white majority have the same negative opinion of whites that these progressive whites have of themselves. Mos Def is their cultural icon, but he is also a “socially conscious” rapper, who is nothing if not deeply ethnocentric and none too fond of white people.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But these white people are still living in a dream world where they lunch onexpensive sandwiches and agonize about getting the exactly right high-performance bicycle.

It’s going to be a rude awakening.

Lander points out:

Too many white people don’t like to be reminded that they’re white. They like to think that white people are those evil corporate right-wingers or the uneducated masses who vote the wrong way. But ‘enlightened whites’ are white people too and have just as much of a group mentality as they think the red staters have.

They do indeed have a group mentality, but one that is leading them to oblivion. Making the group mentality explicit and then deconstructing it for its child-like ignorance of real-world realities is certainly a start.

American Renaissance Conference: The Eleventh Chair

/in /by

Eds: The following item raises the interesting question of which other peoples, in particular Jews, ought to be regarded as allies, or even friends, in our quest for saving Euro-American people from on-going displacement and eventual destruction. It’s an incident that occurred at a recent public meeting organized by Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance magazine. How many individuals of an ethny need to behave in a way that hampers our cause before we simply write them all off as seriously unhelpful if not downright untrustworthy? Can we afford to waste time sifting the helpful from the harmful? Or do we try to avoid wasting much time on the sifting while accepting their help when offered, but not allowing them into any position in which undetected deleterious types could do us any harm?

This piece also illustrates cultural incompatibility, which, by itself, can pose severe problems for forming useful alliances.

Pulling the eleventh chair up to a table set for ten

All of the narrow rectangular meeting tables were immediately removed when the meeting broke Saturday afternoon. They were then replaced with large banquet rounds set with ten chairs: a place setting for each chair on the table for the evening’s banquet. I’d arrived early. I have to use a cane now, I walk slowly and feebly, and I hate being jostled in a crowd so I was already sitting comfortably in my seat when the crowd poured in through the ballroom entrances.

The rounds filled quickly. More than a few tardy dinner guests had to scramble to get a seat. The tables were close together. I had my back to the New York/New Jersey table. In a very few minutes, only a few stragglers were still milling about amid the matrix of banquet staff who had started to service their tables.

Suddenly, someone hit my chair with another chair. I was particularly nonplussed by the consequences of the impact. I had been in the process of leaning forward to pour myself a glass of water when I found myself up on the chair’s two front legs with my face practically in my salad.

I regained my balance and instinctively turned to see that it was a young man who had hit me and he was anxiously trying to jam an eleventh chair under the table next to mine. He had opportunistically exploited two empty chairs that had been briefly occupied but whose occupants had risen to talk to an acquaintance a few yards away.

I don’t remember anyone ever telling the young man that the entire table was already occupied but I do know that no one checked the intruder’s advance. The ten chairs were more loosely arranged to make room for the eleventh and the “bull in the China shop” sat down and began eating his salad.

I’d partially turned around to face my table but not completely. I am an elderly woman now, increasingly wary of angry young men at my back where I can’t see them and I kept as careful an eye as I could and my ears wide open to observe as best I could what was going on at that table behind me.

I was then able to overhear the fascinating exchange that soon took place as the two men who had been talking with an acquaintance returned to the table to claim their seats. There were now eleven guests on eleven chairs at the table.

The table itself had only been set for ten.

“Waiter, Waiter!”

“Yes sir?” the approaching waiter replied.

“I didn’t get a salad. I don’t have a salad.”

The problem registered on the waiter who was glancing around the table counting the place settings.

“Sir,” the waiter replied, after finishing his count. “There is no more salad.”

The disappointed guest replied in New Yawkese.

“Whaddya’ mean there is no more salad?”

The waiter understood that there was a single dinner allocated for each of those place settings. He left the table, consulted with the chief waiter and then delivered the salad but explained that there was simply no room on the table for an eleventh place setting and someone had to move.

[adrotate group=”1″]

All eyes now turned to the intruder who had begun talking loudly from the very first moment he drew his chair up to the table. His behavior demanded that everyone at the table acknowledge him. I could not hear everything he said, but got the general tone when one of the young people corroborated my darkest observations by asking him directly: “When will the sarcasm end?”

The intruder continued to aggress, focusing his attention on one then another occupant of the table as I could tell from the movements of his head back and forth and the volume and staccato of his voice. The two young friends who had left the table for a few minutes to talk deferred to the intruder and withdrew to look for seats at another table, but they returned disappointed a few minutes later. There were no more seats and the wait staff at all the other tables had robotically refused to set an eleventh place setting at any table whose predetermined maximum comfortable limit was ten.

There was going to be a confrontation.

And there I was, just where I didn’t need to be; adjacent to a heated argument. It got so bad Jared Taylor was called to investigate the commotion. He leaned over the table, eloquent as always, and said a few words but soon withdrew without quelling the conflict which simply devolved into a telling low-intensity verbal joust driven by the aggressive manner of the intruder. This in turn provoked a defensive reaction by the rest of the table.

The intruder and the eleventh chair remained.

He stood his irrational ground and ruined the banquet for everyone at the table forcing them all (and me from my discrete distance of course) to suffer his outrageous behavior. Those at his table who were not engaged in the thread went mechanically through the meal resentful (I am certain) of the additional anxiety that they were forced to bear throughout the entire meal.

Some of the conversation I was unable to follow, but I heard two arguments that bear repeating that identified the intruder and why he conflicted with his hosts.

The intruder, who initially said he was an “agent of ZOG” (I understood the ‘Z’ to stand for Zionism), identified himself as Jewish. The protagonists in the thread, I was later able to conclude, were not Jewish. They were European American Christians. They differed on a few fundamental issues:

The intruder refused to acknowledge that he had indeed created a problem at all when he drew the eleventh chair up to a table that had been set for ten. All attempts to make him do so were repulsed. He would simply repeat the same things over and over. Regardless of the logic that was offered him, he continued to aggress. This was not a rational issue for him. He was fatefully engaged.

On the other hand, his protagonists were simply inconvenienced. They were not as forcefully engaged in the thread and seemed genuinely resentful of the intrusion rather than purposefully combative.

At one point the Jew loudly commented, “You can’t be self-hating. Everyone is selfish at the core. Nobody does an altruistic thing.” and one of the other men at the table asked him why he would raise such an argument.  His point was that the phrase “self hatred” as commonly used necessarily assumed an individual’s betrayal of his group. If “self hatred” did not exist, then group consciousness and perhaps even loyal groups did not exist; this obviously contradicted the Jew’s remarks.

The Jew was clever in defending his position of radical individualism, but one of the non-Jews in the thread responded:  “You are suggesting a total individualism that leaves no room for group consciousness. The people at this gathering cherish their group identity. Why foist that nonsense on us when you know we know better?”

The matter dropped like a rock.

The next argument I heard was over the phrase “Holocaust denial.” The Jew said there was a table full of “Holocaust Deniers” over there and one of the men asked him in response, “They call themselves Holocaust Revisionists. Why do you modify the phrase to polarize their position? That’s not how they see it.”

The Jew said, “What difference does it make whether it was four million or six million? It was murder!”

The non-Jew responded, “They’re historians. They’re supposed to get the details right. It’s what they do. I disagree that it is a yes or no question, as black and white as you suggest.” But he’d started his response without realizing the Jew had already dropped the matter completely, thereby avoiding having to deal with this response. They then drifted off into another thread I was unable to hear and I returned to my meal.

When dinner was over, the after dinner speaker was introduced, and most of the table occupants turned their chairs toward the speaker and away from the intruder. The conversation was over. Just before the speaker finished, the Jewish intruder got up from his eleventh chair and left without saying a word. When I sensed him withdrawing his chair from under the table behind me I braced myself for the inevitable impact. I don’t know that anyone cared to see where he had gone. The anxiety level surely dropped and there was perhaps even a sigh of relief.

I turned to finish my cheesecake.

The “Jewish question” surfaced in one guise or another in almost all of the speeches that were given at this year’s American Renaissance Conference. It is a source of increasing tension; and here was the entire problem, telescoped and enacted in front of me, in the clash over a place setting.

There are certain social rules one assumes everyone knows.

You do not pull the eleventh chair up to a table set for ten.

Eye on Hollywood: The Interpreter

/in /by

Nicole Kidman is a stunning woman.  Standing at just under six feet tall and sporting strawberry blonde hair and blue eyes, she cuts an impressive figure.  Needless to say, she is white.  In her 2005 film The Interpreter, however, her heart clearly lies back in black Africa, where she once had an African lover involved in national politics.

Multilingual, fastidious, idealistic and dedicated to her work as a interpreter at the United Nations, Kidman’s character Silvia yearns to restore the hope that a once promising leader has destroyed in his nation of Matobo.  (The fictional leader President Edmond Zuwanie and the country bear a strong resemblance to real life leader Robert Mugabe and the disaster that is Zimbabwe, though in the film Zuwanie is played by an actor who is nearly white.)

This racial emphasis is important because Silvia wishes to kill Zuwanie for his transgressions against “her people” (and not just her family members that have been murdered).  Forcing Zuwanie to read from a book he had written years before, Silvia gazes at the accompanying picture of a small African boy and tenderly utters “That little boy was my country.”  To drive home this message, she closes the film by telling her almost-lover (Sean Penn), “I’m going home.”  “I never had time to tell you how much I miss Africa.”

Perhaps this is merely an interesting twist to a Hollywood romance.  On the other hand, it can be seen as a celluloid depiction of what Hollywood stars are doing with their real lives.  To wit, many not only agitate on behalf of oppressed non-whites (think Richard Gere and the Tibetans), some have actually adopted non-white children or had their own with non-white spouses.

For her part, Kidman and her then-husband Tom Cruise adopted two children, one, Connor Anthony Cruise, an African-American born on Jan. 17, 1995. This would have made Connor ten years old when The Interpreter was released, so perhaps Kidman’s sentiments in the film were drawn from this family link.

Director Steven Spielberg, of course, is the “godfather” of the movement, with two adopted African American children, Theo and Mikaela.  If Spielberg is the godfather of the movement, then Madonna should be its godmother.  In 2006 she adopted a young boy from Malawi in southeastern Africa.

Some stars, on the other hand, have their own children.  Nicolas Cage, for instance, met his Korean American wife Alice Kim when she was his waitress.  Cage was 40 at the time and Alice 20, and they now have a son, Kal-El.

For sheer theatrics, however, Angelina Jolie takes the cake.  While married to Billy Bob Thorton, she adopted “Maddox” from Cambodia. (Naturally, Maddox was named Hollywood’s best looking kid by  Life and Style magazine.) Then she adopted a six-month-old girl from Ethiopia, now named Zahara Marley Jolie-Pitt (Brad Pitt is Jolie’s current significant other).  Finally, she adopted a three-year-old boy from Vietnam, Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt.  When Jolie and Pitt had their own baby, Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, in Namibia in 2006, Pitt confirmed that their newly-born daughter would have a Namibian passport.

Jolie is no slouch when it comes to crossing borders: gossip columns are abuzz with talk of her rumored lesbian relationship with Japanese American model Jenny Shimizu.  (In turn, Shimizu has been heard to make claims that she was involved with Madonna at the same time she was with Jolie.) Perhaps we could call a film made from this relationship Guess Who’s Coming to Brokeback Mountain.

There is no question that in recent years Hollywood has widened its horizons when it comes to depicting its heroes, nearly all of whom were white in the past.  Whether there is any causal connection (in either direction) to the real-life racial crossings made by some of Hollywood’s biggest stars remains to be seen.  One point seems clear: Many in Hollywood have begun to believe Hollywood’s own propaganda.

Kidman, Madonna and Jolie, though, can certainly afford to live such exotic, non-traditional lives. But the working and middle class white girls who respond to this propaganda by imitating such behavior are rarely rewarded with red carpets and paparazzi.  Yet Hollywood, for its part, seems in no mood to show the downside of this kind of diversity.

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

Marrying someone from another race: So What?

/in /by

Racial intermarriage, or “miscegenation”, raises an important question which, even only recently, seemed to have the following answer:

First, too close inbreeding can be disastrous health-wise for offspring, due to the possible inheritance and pairing of identical, unhealthy, recessive alleles (genes) at the same spot on a chromosome, one from each parent. But it has been unclear how much out-breeding was necessary and/or desirable. Marrying at least beyond lst or 2nd cousins seemed essential for avoiding the above “inbreeding depression”, but was there such a thing as too much out-breeding? The answer was yes for the case of breeding between species, e.g., horses + donkeys producing sterile mules. But what about breeding outside one’s ethny or race? The only problems there seemed to be the likelihood of intercultural incompatibilities, the removal of family wealth and land to beyond the extended family and ethny, and, in the extreme, the destruction of human diversity through homogenization. On the other hand, people such as presidential candidate Barack Obama, actress Halle Berry, or Canada’s Governor General Michaëlle Jean have seemed illustrative of certain benefits of race mixing, and of hypergamy (marrying up) — and possibly smarter children for a disadvantaged race.

This month the journal Science (yes, the great one) published what, from the multi-cultural/racial viewpoint, can only be described as a bombshell.

It is a paper on 160,811 Icelandic marriages over several centuries, by Agnar Helgason et al, showing that in biological terms, marrying either closer to or out beyond the optimum 3rd or 4th cousin reduces the number children per family and the number of grandchildren.  Both number of children and the life span of the children are reduced when couples are 2nd cousins or closer. The authors do not rule out 100% the possibility of some unknown “socioeconomic” factor in all this, but social class was definitely not it. Since they found a statistically significant difference between marriages at the levels of 6th and 7th cousins, biological factors (of which such spouses would not likely be conscious) seem most probable.

So what?

The only practical implication drawn by these Icelandic authors is that because of urbanization (and presumably multi-cultural diversity, as well, outside Iceland) there is a relative increase in distantly related couples today, and this should slow population growth.

[adrotate group=”1″]

We might add another: If any parent or grandparent out there wishes to see the continued survival of his/her family or ethny, especially during the present period of below replacement level fertility for Euro-ethnies, they ought to encourage their children to marry not too far afield in terms of kinship. Marrying a 3rd or 4th cousin would be ideal, and for heavens sake avoid other races — or even ethnies unless, like many European ethnies, they are not very distant kinship-wise.

Perhaps of equal importance, this paper has legitimized the preference for ethnic and racial similarity in marital choice, which still is sometimes openly expressed in newspaper ads by people looking to meet potential mates, and which can be achieved indirectly by the increasing residential segregation in the US.

The paper helps to de-legitimize the effort of Hollywood and its celebrities in promoting inter-racial breeding.

Here, arguably for the first time, is a scientifically supported biological basis for the supposedly “racist” objection to one’s daughter marrying “one.”

Anthony Hilton is Associate Professor of Psychology (Ret.) at Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

ProPublica, or ProJudaica?

/1 Comment/in /by

The journalism world is abuzz over an ambitious plan to reinvigorate investigative journalism through a group called “ProPublica,” described as a would-be staff of 24 in-depth reporters based in New York whose work will appear on-line, but possibly also in big dailies, as well. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post provides the most recent update on the journalist resumes now flooding in. (See Digging for Support in Kurtz’s Media Notes, Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2008.)

Months ago, Slate’s Jack Shafer cast a sharply critical eye on the ProPublica enterprise, asking whether the major funders, Herb and Marion Sandler, will create a firewall between their own deeply Democratic leanings and the journalism.

The Sandlers, Bay Area billionaires who made their fortune in finance, have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats.  That’s enough to make a conservative or a skeptic wary about their intentions in setting up “ProPublica.”

But as Businessweek reports, the Sandlers aren’t just big fans of Democrats — they’re big fans of Jewish causes, and have given handsomely to those projects, as well.  And naturally, both are Jewish.

[adrotate group=”1″]

So don’t look for “ProPublica” to dive too deeply into every issue bearing on America’s future.  Not only can it be expected to take a generally liberal slant in its “investigations,” it can be expected to steer clear of any fair examination of Jewish influence over domestic or foreign policy.

In this, “ProPublica” is no different from just about every form of media in America, from the “MSM” (mainstream media) to supposedly conservative newspaper like The Washington Times or opinion journals like National Review and The Weekly Standard.  It’s yet another laughable pretense of unrestrained journalistic fearlessness.  A journalist hoping to truly bite all hands can’t be fed by any of them.

Most conservatives, and many American whites, are convinced that the media is hopelessly liberal.  It might enhance their understanding to look a little deeper at the ethnic motivations behind that trend.

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

Eye on Hollywood: The System is Not Broken

/in /by

I’m afraid this column will not be overly original today. Rather, I will point to the same phenomenon so many others throughout the blogosphere have been discussing: the ongoing dispossession of white men in this world of ours.

Visually, this is obvious at every turn, beginning with the coronation of America’s first black president. Just in case this is not visually arresting enough, the new United States Attorney General is also African America, replacing the Jewish Michael Mukasey, who in turn replaced the Hispanic Alberto Gonzales. For good measure, even the Republican Party elected its first black National Committee Chairman, former Lt. Governor of Maryland Michael Steele. (Vdare’s Patrick Cleburne says all you need to know about Steele.)

Eric Holder                                  Michael Steele

How do we explain the fast-growing black presence in government, popular culture, and so on? While the fruits of the Civil Rights era account for some of this move toward center stage, the fact remains that in a socio-economic sense, blacks have yet to accumulate the resources needed to rise in American society. What then is behind their rise?

Likely, most readers of The Occidental Observer are familiar with the litany of names associated with rigorous accounts of lower black IQ and higher crime rates compared to whites. Jared Taylor and his crew do excellent work on this at American Renaissance. Scholars such as Richard Lynn (bio is here), Philippe Rushton (see his bio here), Michael Levin, and Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray have meticulously documented race differences in a variety of critical areas. The facts of highly elevated rates of black crime are documented in The Color of Crime.

My guess is that TOO readers are on page when it comes to race realism, so you will not be surprised by the consistent failure of blacks anywhere in the world to excel in intellectual tasks, let alone to build anything resembling a thriving black civilization. So again, how do we explain their recent success in America?

If you agree with my assertion that black intelligence does not account for their recent rise, you might assert that it’s political. With Obama’s victory, we can find political moves to improve the overall situation of blacks. Take, for example, this demand for a non-white Obama press office.

I belong to the school which argues that it is the century-long effort Jewish groups have made to promote blacks at the expense of whites that accounts for our current situation. This argument is hardly a new one, having been expounded at length by scholars such as Hasia Diner and David Levering Lewis. Both support the thesis that German Jews (the first large group of Jewish immigrants to America) fought anti-Semitism by supporting the black struggle against racism. In other words, they fought anti-Semitism “by proxy” in Diner’s words and “by remote control” in Lewis’s words.

In my view, this account is simplistic. While it does refute claims of totally altruistic motives for Jewish agitation on behalf of blacks, it fails to appreciate the larger goals of Jewish Americans. They were not merely interested in defeating anti-Semitism so that they could participate comfortably in American life. They were waging a massive war on Majority Americans, the results of which we see all around us today.

Let’s focus on how Jews have employed blacks as foot soldiers in one front of this war. Further, let’s focus on only on one segment of that front, leaving aside for now Jewish efforts on behalf of blacks in education, the law, etc. Let’s look at Hollywood, an empire Jews created and still dominate. By the end of the 1960s, the white Protestant elite and the large Catholic ethnic groups in America had lost the culture wars. Joe McCarthy and the other conservative forces that had kept Hollywood in check had disappeared, with the result that Jewish Hollywood was unleashed to embark on its campaign to displace white America.

Nowhere was this more obvious than with respect to the evolution of the black image in film.

An account of black images in film since the 1960s would be a book-length project, but the outlines are clear. Once we got to the 1990s, our book would have plump chapters on the rise of various African American stars joining the only previous black man of note in Hollywood, Sidney Poitier. The black stars are now household names:  Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson, and so on. Young people today no doubt take black Hollywood stardom for granted, but the fact is it is a recent phenomenon.

To fit the confines of this short column, let me point to a timely and representative Eddie Murphy film, one that resonates with the rise to power of Barack Obama and nicely illuminates the battle lines of the Jewish war—by black proxy—on white America.

In the year Bill Clinton was first elected, 1992, Eddie Murphy appeared in a film called The Distinguished Gentleman. Murphy played a con man fortunate enough to share a name with the just-deceased U.S. Congressman, Jeff Johnson. Taking advantage of the value of name recognition, Thomas Jefferson Johnson (Murphy) shortens his name and runs for Congress. (Presciently, his entire campaign consists of a promise for “change” — a pledge we would hear repeatedly from a real African American politician in 2008.) Interested only in the easy perks of the job, Johnson is woefully ignorant of the election process and the workings of Washington. Fortunately, he is aided in the campaign by a Jewish retiree from New York and wins the election. (The two even banter in Yiddish at one point.)

On the whole, this film is structured as a “culture of critique” view of Majority American society, which means mainstream gentile society is subjected to withering criticism at all times. All whites in high-status positions are shown to be deeply flawed or hypocritical. This stance calls to mind the thesis of Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique in which he identified a “very deep antipathy to the entire gentile-dominated social order.” Jews on the left —like much of the Hollywood elite— were described as viewing this social order as “an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society.” The Distinguished Gentleman creates this image on screen.

For instance, the film opens with a reception for the original Congressman Johnson, surrounded by throngs of white supporters. Soon, however, the good Congressman is shown in flagrante delicto with his white secretary, an act which brings on his death by heart attack. (His long-suffering wife later propositions the new Congressman Johnson, trotting out the tired canard that Southern white women cannot resist black men.) Clearly, black political power means power over white women.

As the only black man in attendance at the reception, Murphy’s character Johnson is mistaken for a waiter, a sign of the pervasive racism of whites. In fact, Murphy is a con man, one who employs a fellow African American and a Hispanic to extort money from a philandering white company president. Once in Washington, Johnson quickly realizes that all the white congressman and lobbyists surrounding him are con men like himself—only the stakes are far higher. So Johnson sets out to enrich himself by playing the game.

The images of the white male legislators and lobbyists are predictable—they are corrupt, immoral, racist fools. Opposite these white frauds is a cast of aggrieved multicultural peoples—blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, Asians—the whole rainbow coalition.

At every turn, the image of the white is negative. Fat cat gun lovers are shown stupidly hunting ducks with semi-automatic rifles. A white taxi driver ogling street walkers rear-ends Johnson’s car and then shamelessly leaves the scene of the accident.

The moral center of the film, unsurprisingly, is a black man, a theme that was still original in 1992 but by now is de rigueur (and should be passé). The black man is a preacher intent on doing what is right. His idealism has rubbed off on his niece, an intelligent, incorruptible African American lawyer activist who becomes romantically involved with Johnson. (One of her fellow activists is Ira Schecter, a humble and unassuming Jewish do-gooder.)

Exposure to her and her preacher uncle forces Johnson to find conscience. While grappling with this new conscience, he backslides when the stakes get high, but then he risks losing his girlfriend. Finally, he decides on one last scam in the service of doing justice. In a Congressional hearing room, he exposes the white male chairman and greedy white lobbyists, humiliating them in the process.

Then, in the final scene, comes a dialogue I had missed when I saw the film a decade ago. About to be drummed out of Congress for the antics he employed, Johnson and his girlfriend are seen walking away from the Capitol. Lamenting his loss of power, the girlfriend asks what he’s going to do now that he cannot run again for Congress. Pondering his options, Johnson hits on an idea: “I’m gonna run for President!” Remember, this was 1992.

How do we tie this film in with Jewish activism?

First, as I have tried to show elsewhere, Hollywood is a thoroughly Jewish milieu, controlled today more than ever by Jews. No other group—most particularly blacks—has a fraction of the power Jews have to create celluloid imagery. Thus, we need to know what attitudes Jews have toward non-Jews to explain the images they create. As MacDonald again says in the preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique, the heavily Jewish media elite sees to it that Western culture “is presented as sick and evil compared to other cultures.”

Hollywood insider Ben Stein confirmed that argument, writing, “People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be.” He too pointed to the heavy representation of his fellow Jews in Hollywood and other media.

While that speaks to the general case of media distaste for mainstream American culture, the specific case of the black rise to stardom amidst the fall of corrupt majority culture is the story at hand. And here I argue that the recent spate of movies with blacks at the moral center is but part of the larger campaign Jews have waged against whites by using blacks.

MacDonald addressed this in his chapter “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” which appeared in Race and the American Prospect, writing, “The emotional intensity of Jewish involvement in the black-Jewish alliance is mirrored in Jewish involvement in altering U.S. immigration policy; both of these movements had strong overtones of hatred against the entire white, Christian culture of the U.S., which was viewed as anti-Jewish and profoundly immoral.”

This hatred of whites and their culture is routine in Hollywood fare. The Distinguished Gentleman was not the first time Murphy was tasked with playing the role of an underclass black man who exposes the alleged pervasive immorality of majority culture. In 1983, he did a similar job of humiliating elite white males and replacing them in Trading Places. In fact, the theme has become so common now that it is a genre unto itself. Watch, for instance, the 1988 Caddyshack II or the 1991 Addams Family Values. Or watch ninety-five percent of ALL of Denzel Washington’s films, from Crimson Tide (1995) to Remember the Titans (2000) to Déjà vu (2006).

As I wrote in my previous column, Richard Faussette claimed with respect to unchecked non-white immigration that “the system is not broken.” Similarly, I would argue, the Hollywood system is not broken. It produces the plethora of anti-white films that it does because Hollywood Jews are bent on massively critiquing white society . . . and working furiously to physically replace us. What we see on screen, then, is the template for what is actually taking place. Morgan Freeman was the President in Deep Impact; Barack Obama is now the real President.

Edgar Steele recently lamented that “We had no idea that we were about to trade places with the Black man.” Yes, and the Asian man (and woman), and Hispanic man (and woman), and at the top the Jewish man (and woman). Look at the people around Obama, from Rahm Israel Emanuel on down.

The case of heretofore underachieving African Americans suddenly springing to positions of power and prominence is about the hardest to explain on its own terms. As one reviewer of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique concluded, MacDonald’s insights were right because “It is very rare for fundamental concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there has been something more than natural change.”

It is ALL more than natural changes. Much of it has to do with vigorous Jewish activism to put blacks where whites once stood. This, as I’ve discussed above, is perhaps nowhere more common than in current Hollywood fare. After all, as one observer wrote, “The way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated back to us every day.” Yes, Spielberg and Brooks and Mazursky and the Coen Brothers and a thousand others Jews making movies.