Featured Articles

The Ethnic Gap Revisited

/2 Comments/in /by

In my October 29 editorial titled “Maximize the Racial Divide,” I hoped for a large and clear polarization of the racial vote, such as the black candidate winning with as little as 40% of the European vote (excluding Jews) and fully 80%of the non-European vote — a racial gap far exceeding any other gap based on gender, age, income, or region. Such a gap would clearly demonstrate that race was the most important factor determining how people voted.

This electoral divide was the subject of my analysis of the 2000 election titled “The Ethnic Gap” that appeared in the first issue of The Occidental Quarterly.

Based on the initial results of the 2008 election I am happy to report that my hopes were essentially fulfilled, and the “Ethnic Gap” is alive and well, and as determinative as it was in 2000. It seems that the economy didn’t trump race in this election after all, in spite of what the pundits might claim. All the greatest economic crisis of the last 70 years did was restrict the Ethnic Gap to the same importance and level of influence it had in the 2000 election.

In 2000 whites were 72% of the population but were 80.7% of the voters (down from 90% in 1976). In that election, whites gave Bush 54.8% of their 81.5 million votes, or about 44.7 million votes. In 2008 whites are about 67% of the population but comprised 74% of the voters, and they gave McCain 55% of their 89.8 million votes, or about 49.4 million votes.

But what is important to us is the European vote, which excludes Jews as well as whites from North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. I assume that if 74% of the voters were white, then Europeans can be estimated to be 69% of the voters and non-European whites to be 5%. This 5% can be broken down further into 3% Jews and 2% other non-European whites. This means that 31% of the total voters were non-European.

The following analysis is based on the results of the CNN National Exit Poll but corrected for these assumptions — that is, it is corrected for the assumption that Europeans are actually 69% of the electorate and that non-Europeans classified as white make up 5% of the electorate. It is also based on the assumption that non-European people classified as white voted 80% for Obama. This is based on exit poll data for Jews indicating that 77–78% of Jews voted for Obama and on the plausible theory that Obama would have a strong appeal to Muslim Americans.

With these assumptions, the results show that the European vote split approximately 59/40 for McCain. (49,484,867 Europeans voted for McCain; this is 40.79% of all votes and 59.12% of European votes; 33,628,843 Europeans voted for Obama; this is 27.72% of all votes and 40.17% of European votes. The balance of white voters voted for minor parties.)

[adrotate group=”1″]

Another way to look at it is that Obama’s 52.6% of the total vote was derived from 40.17% of the European vote and from 80.26% of the non-European vote. On the other hand, McCain’s 46.5% of the total vote consisted of 59.12% of the European vote and 18.42% of the non-European vote.

What this means is that the Ethnic Gap is as large and determinative as it was in 2000 in spite of strong competition from the greatest economic crisis of the last 70 years. Without that crisis, and given the non-European identity of the democratic candidate, it would certainly have been much greater than it was in 2000, and probably would have given McCain the victory.

European-Americans did not elect Obama. They voted overwhelmingly against him, voting for McCain by a margin that would be termed a landslide victory if it applied to the total electorate. The American electorate remains deeply divided on race, despite the claims that this election proves that everything about race has changed in this country, that race is no longer a consideration in elections, and that we are now all united in our support for a president of color who will lead us on a path that will transcend race — that will be the end of our race.

The racial change heralded by this election is not a deep change in racial attitudes, concerns or preferences, but an ongoing demographic change in the racial composition of the population and electorate. That is the difference between the results of this election and what the results would have been in a similar contest as recently as eight years ago.

So European-Americans and Europeans around the world, our racial kinsmen in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, should not be dismayed or discouraged by what they are told by their elites — the triumphalist spin spouted by multiracialists, racial Marxists and non-European peoples the world over, that the once-great European people of America have been overthrown, that we have been transformed by a racial revolution that has overcome racial considerations and loyalties and cast them, and us, forever into the dustbin of history.

Quite the opposite, they should take heart. The fact is we are still here, and we have not changed, and we have not surrendered. We have not collapsed like the South Africans in 1994. The great majority of us still vote for the interests of our race, with strong racial preferences and concerns, in spite of strong competition from other major issues and problems.

What has changed, and is changing, are the racial proportions of our population. That is the transformation that is taking place: our replacement and dispossession by demographic change. This is the same transformation that is happening in most of the other European homelands. It is not a transformation of our values and loyalties, our beliefs and spirit. We have survived this test intact, and as a result will be more ready than ever for the tests to come.

Richard McCulloch’s website is at www.racialcompact.com.

First thoughts on the election

/in /by

It would seem to be the worst of all possible results—an Obama presidency and much larger Democratic majorities in Congress. What can’t be erased is the picture of adoring white faces in the crowd at Grant Park in Chicago during Obama’s victory speech. They  were the faces of people who had just been granted racial deliverance. Hanging on his every word, on the verge of tears of joy.

Granted, these pathetic white people do not represent the majority of white people. The CNN exit poll data indicate that 55% of whites  voted for McCain, including 57% of white males and 53% of white females. In the 2004 election,58% of whites voted for Bush. (As Richard McCulloch points out, these are low estimates because non-European whites, especially Jews and Muslims that voted overwhelmingly for Obama, are included in the white count.)

The only white age group to vote for Obama was the 18–29 year old category—a category still under the sway of the educational system and filled with youthful idealism. 54% of them voted for Obama. Quite a few of them will grow out of it by the time they are 30—much sooner if they begin to see that the job market is stacked against them and that the Obama administration is pushing quotas.

But the bottom line is that McCain could not hold the advantage that Bush enjoyed in 2004 among whites, especially working class whites. This is doubtless due to the extreme unpopularity of the  Bush administration—an administration that not only gave us the disastrous neocon war in Iraq but also did absolutely nothing to win the affection of its base by standing up on issues like immigration.

And the McCain campaign labored under the economic crisis that, in the public’s mind at least, was linked to the Bush administration. There is no question that a lot of white people put their economic fears ahead of anything else. In an economy where good jobs with good benefits are increasingly difficult to find for working class people, one has to sympathize. This is another area where the Bush administration did nothing to help its natural constituency.

Nevertheless, the Republican Party remains a white party. Whites represented around 90% of Republican votes cast in this election. Minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama (95% of blacks, 66% of Latinos, 61% of Asians). (TheLA Times says only 30% of Latinos voted for McCain — this despite McCain being the Republican poster boy for amnesty for illegals.) So much for Karl Rove’s idea of expanding the Republican vote by favoring mass immigration of non-whites.

In  fact, the big change between 2004 and 2008 is that much higher percentages of minorities voted for Obama than voted for Kerry. (Kerry was supported by 88% blacks, 53% Latino, 56% Asian). This shift in the direction of the Democrats is quite a bit greater than the shift among white people. Even though whites were less racially polarized in this election, the minorities were more polarized. There is little question that the Democrats have become the party of the minorities.

And the electorate itself was less white (77% in 2004, 74% in 2008). The clock keeps ticking.

In a previous editorial, we suggested that if Obama were to achieve a landslide victory, it would lead to immediate and drastic change desired by the far left. The landslide did not materialize, and no one is suggesting a mandate for drastic change. We suspect that the new administration will tread lightly and attempt to retain its white constituency by not openly advocating quotas or other issues that needlessly alienate whites. That is perhaps their best strategy for retaining power for two terms.

But such a strategy must go up against increased expectations among blacks and other minorities that their time has come. The problem for Obama and the Democrats is that white discrimination against blacks and Latinos is pretty much irrelevant to their achievement patterns. Group differences in IQ and impulse control are far larger contributors, and Obama’s election is not going to change these traits.

So in the end, the only way that Obama can satisfy his black and Latino constituents is to get results by implementing programs like quota-style affirmative action and transfer payments that will alienate whites in droves.

A true post-racial leader would fight discrimination while working to convince blacks and Latinos to accept their lower socio-economic positions as an inevitable outcome of a free market. But quite obviously, the probability of that happening is right up there with pigs flying and hell freezing over.

In the end, we think that in the long run Obama’s election will indeed contribute to the racial polarization of the country. Our day will come.

Stalinism lives — in the CSULB Women’s Studies Department

/in /by

The Women’s Studies Department at California State University–Long Beach finally put out a statement on my work. I say “finally” because a long list of other departments put out statements last Spring, culminating in a resolution by the CSULB Academic Senate that quotes from these statements.

After awhile, the statements by the departments have a familiar ring. The general plan is something like: We strongly believe in free speech and academic freedom, but we deplore MacDonald’s shoddy scholarship and his bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic conclusions.

The Women’s Studies statement is in line with this, but it does depart a bit from the script. It is worth commenting on because it reveals quite a bit about the state of the academy.

The statement starts with an unabashed assertion that the purpose of the Women’s Studies Department is leftist political activism:

The field of Women’s Studies is committed to the creation and promotion of research and teaching that challenges racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and related bigotries that undermine the possibility for all populations to exist free from discrimination, deprivation, hostility, violence and marginalization. Women’s Studies is dedicated to analyzing and critiquing social institutions that support or promote oppressive conditions against any targeted populations. Informed by feminist methodology and feminist theory, the core mission of Women’s Studies is to promote positive social transformation that eradicates the full range of bigoted institutions that prevent people from realizing the highest possibilities for their lives.

The media has at times pointed out the tendency for professors to be on the left. But this goes well beyond that. Their whole purpose is social transformation in the direction of a leftist utopia. (See also their webpage.) This is Antonio Gramsci’s march through the institutions with a vengeance. And it shows that people like me who see value in the traditional peoples and culture of the West have a very long way to go. The culture of the radical, transformational left is thoroughly ensconced in the university, dominating entire departments in the social sciences and humanities.

This culture of the left is constantly spouted in classrooms by professors such as those in the CSULB Women’s Studies Department. At the same time that students are inundated with politically correct propaganda from the left, every attempt is made to silence professors who have different points of view. My troubles on campus began when the SPLC pressured the university about my writing and associations. A major concern was that I was teaching things in my child development course that contradicted the SPLC’s positions on issues like race differences in intelligence. It didn’t matter that my views and what I taught were entirely consistent with mainstream research and with what my textbook says. Their point of view was that MacDonald should not be teaching any course where he might be spouting opinions disapproved by these arbiters of truth.

And the university went along with the SPLC: I had to agree to stop teaching race differences in intelligence or they would not allow me to teach the course. And no one at the university from top to bottom had any problem with that. Leftist hegemony indeed.

The Women’s Studies statement goes on as follows:

Further, Women’s Studies rejects any claims to a natural, biological or essential basis for social hierarchies that impute lesser or greater social value to designated populations. As such, the mission of Women’s Studies and the ethical and political impulse of feminism stand in direct contrast to the fields of socio-biology, evolutionary biology and by association, the work of Professor Kevin Macdonald.

In other words, they know the truth and are entitled to act on the basis of this knowledge. It’s the same philosophy as the Spanish Inquisition or Stalin’s show trials for intellectual deviation. Such a statement should be astounding in any academic environment, but there’s nary a peep from my colleagues. When I went into academic research I was under the naïve impression that truth is not supposed to be assumed but sought after. What we find now is that entire fields are rejected out of hand because they might yield inconvenient results. If the results conflict with their political agenda, they can be safely rejected out of hand. No research needed.

This should be underlined and repeated. The Women’s Studies Department is not really going after me. They are going after any academic discipline that they see as producing or likely to produce inconvenient results. Indeed, they go on as follows:

Challenging Professor MacDonald’s work in isolation from the fields of study that grant him legitimacy runs the risk of individualizing him and his research as exceptional and unsupported by the academy. This is not the case. Professor MacDonald works in fields that are considered to be legitimate by academic standards, and unfortunately, research into the genetic basis for the social value of racial and ethnic groups, women and homosexuals continues under the auspices of many fields of study.

The problem is not “shoddy research.” The problem is that the research has academic legitimacy and continues to appear in scholarly journals and in books published by academic publishers. Obviously, this must not be allowed to continue. They conclude by asking a series of questions:

What are the social, political, intellectual and academic conditions that enable racially supremacist research to be conducted, funded, and legitimated in today’s academy? What do we do in our fields of study to counter racially supremacist ideas? How do we shape our research and teaching to undermine the social conditions that make racial supremacy possible? How does our work contribute to transforming the academy and the larger society to counter racial supremacy and bigotry?

Their last question is key: “How does our work contribute to transforming the academy and the larger society to counter racial supremacy and bigotry?” In their ideal world, entire academic disciplines would be proscribed—expunged from the academy—if they produce results that conflict with their dogmas.

It’s just like in the USSR. When the results of genetic science conflicted with Lysenkoism, so much the worse for genetics. Purge the academy.

The academic left is now in charge. When the left was on the defensive during the McCarthy era, they were strong advocates of free speech and academic freedom. Now that they have the power, there’s a very different tone. Indeed, as noted in a TOO editorial, the left has been strong supporters of “hate speech” laws in Europe and Canada, and these same forces have advocated getting rid of tenure at universities. When that happens, I’ll be the first to go. And no one at the university—least of all Women’s Studies—will lose any sleep over it.

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

KevinMacDonald.net


Maximize the Racial Divide

/in /by

Our project, our purpose, our goal and our cause is to save our race. But we in the white racial activist community, by ourselves, lack the power to save our race — to save it from its dispossession, from the loss of its homelands, from the loss of its independence, from its subjugation to alien rule and domination, from its reduction to minority status, from its destruction and ultimate extinction.

Since it is beyond our power, and beyond our control, to save our race, we look to something else beyond us, far greater than us, to help us.

The only human agency we can look for, and hope for, to save us, is the existence of something inherent and latent, but presently mostly suppressed or inactive, in our race. The existence of such a power is the necessary precondition for any possibility of saving our race. Only such a power could give us something we could direct, that we could work with, sufficient to save our race.

Thus everything we hope to achieve is based on the assumption that this power does exist. This latent power is an embedded sense of racial group identity and loyalty.

This sense of racial group loyalty is not distributed equally throughout all our race. It is essentially absent in many while in others it is so strong as to already be manifest and active, as in the white activist community. We must hope that it would be potentially strong enough in the majority of our race to be able to save us.

Ultimately all our hopes for the salvation of our race depend on this — to find that, when our backs are to the wall things will change. We have to believe that whites are like the lion in the old Disney cartoon Lambert the Sheepish Lion. The lion has always acted like a sheep, and always thought it was a sheep. But when the moment demands it, he is a lion after all.

In effect, our hopes are based on the assumption that enough of our race have the lion of racial loyalty somewhere inside them, and our mission is to bring it to life and direct it.

We look with both hope and despair for signs of this latent racial force that could save us. This power is generally so suppressed and hidden that evidence for it is usually indirect and circumstantial, often no more than fleeting hints. Yet it is the substance behind what Kevin MacDonald has termed “implicit whiteness” and what our opponents decry as unconscious racism.

What is needed is something to activate this untapped racial force, to make it snap on a mass scale. What could set in motion a rising tide of racial consciousness and sense of racial group identity and loyalty?

There are many things that can do this at the individual level, and we have all heard many stories of individual racial enlightenment. But this election could potentially be that very something that could trigger this power at the mass level.

Never has race been so conspicuous and prominent a factor as in this election. This is generally ignored or denied or minimized, like the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn’t there. But it is the dominant undercurrent of the election, with all intelligent observers on all sides knowing it, even if they pretend otherwise.

That is the reason passions are running much higher in this election than usual, and why record voter turnouts are expected. It could be, as it has been described, a racially transforming moment for our society and country, and the world.

Our opponents hope the transforming moment will be for them, but we can also hope that it will be for us. A racially polarizing moment could be a transforming event, elevating the implicit and unconscious white racial identity to the explicit and conscious level.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The best thing that can happen for us in this election is that it produces a degree of racial polarization sufficient to serve as the activating trigger for that latent sense of racial group consciousness and loyalty.

This can be accomplished by an unprecedented racial gap in voting patterns that is clear for all to see, and especially if it is so great as to carry the white candidate to victory against all the odds and predictions, against all the disparity in money, against his own lack of racial appeal and loyalty, and against the wishes and plans and agenda of the dominant elite in the power structure who have been working so successfully for our dispossession and destruction over the last century.

If not sufficient to produce a white electoral victory, we should hope that the racial voting gap will still be large enough to show that the black winner won with the smallest share of the gentile European vote of any previous winner in our country’s history.

It is possible that in this election cycle the black candidate could win with as little as 42% of the white vote, which would mean that he won with less than 40% of the gentile European vote. Such a percentage would be particularly striking given the natural tendency to vote for the Democrats in the wake of the catastrophic Bush administration and during economic hard times.

We should prefer that the awakening of our race will be achieved by a great victory that encourages and empowers them with the display of their united power. But if that fails, then our awakening could still be achieved if the racial voting gap is large enough to shock whites with the realization of their racial dispossession in the electoral process, with their loss of political control and independence.

So win or lose we must hope for the maximum racial voting gap, and a resulting racial polarization as clear as the different racial reactions to the verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

What is important in this election, whichever candidate wins, is that our race wins. Winning for us can be defined as the largest and clearest possible racial voting gap, such as the black candidate winning half the proportion of European gentile votes as the other votes, such as 40% of the European gentile vote and 80% or more of the others. If this happens then our race will have demonstrated an unprecedented degree of racial electoral unity, and this in itself will be its victory.

The point is we can still win this election if the white candidate loses, if the racial polarization resulting from a large racial voting gap is sufficient to awaken the racial consciousness of our people. If the black candidate wins we will need this newly awakened sense of racial unity and power to check the anti-white agenda and ideology of the radical left that he will bring to the executive branch. We will need all the help we can get.

In “Picking Up the Pieces,” Part 5 of the PBS series Making Sense of the Sixties , televised January 23, 1991, Doug McAdam, professor of Sociology at Stanford University, stated:

I remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention [in 1969], and sitting in a room and the question that was debated was, “Was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies.” At that point it seemed like a relevant framing of an issue, the logic being, “Hey look, through no fault of their own these white kids were going to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally, and so really your duty is to kill newborn white babies.” I remember one guy kind of tentatively and apologetically suggesting that that seemed like it may be contradictory to the larger humanitarian aims of the movement, and being kind of booed down.

The Racial Marxist ideology, mentality and agenda of the people who were booing in that room in 1969, perhaps including Weatherman co-founder William Ayers, will be strongly represented in an Obama presidency, allied, now as then, with the radical black racial ideologies represented then by such groups as the Black Panthers.

Our race, and especially white racial activists, will be entering much more perilous times. We must only hope that something will snap in the collective mind of our race, like Lambert, and awaken the lion within to rise to the challenge.

Richard McCulloch’s website is at www.racialcompact.com.

Charles Dodgson

/in /by

Review of Shadowlands, 1993. Spelling Films International; Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger; Director: Richard Attenborough; Screenplay: William Nicholson (based on his stageplay)

This one flew under the radar when it was first released in 1993.

The plot can be summarized thus. A Jewish-American divorcee—Debra Winger as Joy Gresham—enters the life of an Oxford don—Anthony Hopkins as C. S. Lewis. Lewis wrote the iconic children’s fantasy Nania. He is shown as the brilliant literary analyst in the role of teacher as well as in social exchanges with colleagues—all middle aged or older Anglo-Saxon males.

Gresham sees through the famous professor’s intellectual mastery to perceive a vulnerable, repressed man. She first matches him intellectually then subjects his emotional life to cutting critique. Lewis first resists this criticism but is drawn to the American’s honesty and intelligence. His resistance crumbles and before long he is breaking out of his cold persona.

The lessons all flow in one direction, from the Bronx to England. Lewis changes his ways, becomes more honest, more humble, more human. Gresham remains unchanged, as oracles do. What needs changing?

The two protagonists’ bond despite pronounced differences. Lewis was deeply religious and belonged to a Christian milieu. Oxford had all the trappings of a Christian institution. The film opens to the angelic harmonies of a hymn sung by the Magdalen College boys’ choir. Dinner is opened with a Latin grace. Lewis was also an anti-communist. He had conservative social views. In 1934 he famously remarked that “Any large number of free-thinking Jews” is incompatible with the flourishing of a Christian tradition. Gresham was a self-declared atheist who announces early in the film that in the 1930s one was either a fascist or a communist. But arguments never develop over these differences, despite her knowing Lewis’s writings by heart. She never ridicules Christianity by word or gesture. Her only differences with Lewis concern his alleged emotional dishonesty.

The story has two climaxes. In the first Gresham delivers a devastating or perhaps merely a vicious critique, seemingly out of the blue. Lewis has married her to circumvent British visa regulations and allow her to remain in London. The marriage remains unconsummated. The relationship is ostensibly one of friendship. Lewis invites Gresham to a social function at his Oxford college, Magdalen, and the two retire to his rooms for tea. As Lewis puts on the kettle, Gresham begins to work herself up to critical pitch:

Gresham: “So what do you do here? Think great thoughts?”

Lewis: “Teach, mainly.”

Gresham: “What do they do, sit at your feat and gaze up at you in awe?

Lewis: “No, not at all.”

Gresham: “I bet they do.”

Lewis: “We have fine old battles here, I can tell you that.”

Gresham: “Which you win. It must be quite a boost for you being older and wiser than all of them. Not to mention your readers [colleagues].”

Lewis: “What?” [from the next room.]

Gresham: “Your readers; that gang of friends of yours. All very well trained not to play out of bounds.”

Lewis: “What are you talking about?”

Gresham: “Of course this morning, not much competition there!”

Lewis: “That’s nonsense. What about Christopher Riley. He never lets me get away with anything. You know that.”

Gresham: “Except doubt, and fear, and pain, and terror.”

Lewis: “Where did all that come from?”

Gresham: “I’ve only now just seen it. How you’ve arranged a life for yourself where no-one can touch you. Everyone that’s close to you is either younger than you, or weaker than you, or under your control.”

Lewis: “Why are you getting at me. I thought we were friends.”

Gresham: “I don’t know that we are friends. Not the way you have friends anyway. Sorry Jack.”

Lewis: “I don’t understand.”

Gresham: “Oh, I think you do. You just don’t like it. Nor do I.” She exits.

As Lewis says, Gresham is getting at him in a decidedly unfriendly manner. But he comes to agree with her, in practice if not in abstract. Surrender is eased by the crisis of her fatal illness and Lewis’s realization of how precious she has become. He loves her honesty.

In the second climax, Lewis finally completes his treatment by sobbing uncontrollably with grief following Gresham’s death. Gone is his reserve. Gone is his stoicism. He is delivered from Englishness.

This is an allegory of ethnic contest and dominance that plays on stereotypes. How different the plot would be if written to reaffirm European confidence in its traditions and culture. The visitor would have striven to conform to high-culture Englishness with its politeness and restraint. She would soon learn that in Britain overt verbal aggression is considered transparent one-upmanship—simply not cricket. She would be offered the example of one or two Anglo-Jewish dons who are assimilated to English ways. She would be taught that true friendship does not admit the relentless subversion of others’ self-confidence; and that tolerance is a form of civility which entails reciprocating others’ suspension of tribalism. And she would quickly learn to judge Bolshevism from the perspective of its victims as well as its beneficiaries.

Such a plot would also be flawed by simplistic ethnic stereotypes, though with Britain on top—a sort of ethnic missionary position that I suppose is also out of date. A balanced story would have shown some give and take. An outgoing, intelligent, and unpretentious lady from the Bronx blows some fresh air into stuffy Oxford and brings companionship to a lonely bachelor. In return she comes to perceive her own aggression and ethnocentrism and learns some social graces.

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

Media Watch – Now that’s Rich: Frank Rich comes to white America’s defense

/in /by

When does a Jewish, liberal New York Times columnist come to the defense of white America?  Only when he thinks it’s not as “racist” as portrayed by his media brethren.

In other words, only when whites wrest themselves from their natural instincts (and logical objections) against a black candidate for office and prostrate themselves before the Multiracial Messiah are they deserving of mercy.  Some defense.  This is rather like a foreign conquering sovereign who decides, after enough native nobles have knelt to kiss his ring, that the locals aren’t so bad, after all.

Of course, this is not “defense” of white Americans.  It’s another cruel and clever twist in the campaign against them.

An associate of mine, Edmund Connelly, likes to highlight the richly-textured anti-white bias of many modern movies.  In his analysis of Remember the Titans, he describes a scene where a white football player who’s favored by the coach — but is not as skilled as his black counterpart — voluntarily gives up his playing spot to the black player.

What I note from this analysis is the incredibly powerful (and dangerous) message it sends to young white men:  The measure of your goodness is your willingness to voluntarily step aside for the superior black man.  This is what makes for a white hero.  It’s not a matter of simply grudgingly stepping aside for affirmative action’s sake.  The truly great and decent white man acknowledges both internally and externally that he’s a weak wisp who’s only been propped up all these years by a racist white system. This pathetic weakling shows his Christ-like character by handing over his place.

These are the white Americans Frank Rich reserves his “defense” for.  Certainly not those who would rise to the defense of whites who seek to assert their white identity and their legitimate interests as white people.  Certainly not those who openly object to the powerful Jewish influence on American policy both home and abroad.  Only those who go along to get along — who have been psychologically broken by the system Rich’s co-ethnics and their cohorts have built.

And indeed, there are such whites.  Many are found among the ranks of so-called “conservatives,” whose first place of refuge against accusations of racism is to protest that not all whites are “racist.”  That this is the first place of refuge is a bad sign because it confirms who’s already won the argument:  the anti-white crowd.  I like to fantasize that more whites will respond, “So what?  All ‘racist’ means is that I stick up for whites just like blacks, Jews, and others stick up for their people”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Yet I fear that the water cooler isn’t quite ready for that yet.

In the meantime, whites should be wary.  When Frank Rich claims to defend you, he’s probably not really trying to come up with the true defense of your people.

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

The Sandlers and the Arnalls: The subprime meltdown funds Jewish political activism

/1 Comment/in /by

By now everyone’s seen the Saturday Night Live skit on the financial corruption that threatens to bring down the world’s economy. Of course, it depends on which version you’ve seen. NBC originally pulled the skit from its website after the complaints rolled in, but then restored it after some strategic editing so as not to offend the left. The version on the NBC website deletes any mention of the role of the Democrats in the financial meltdown (including a section where the Sandlers thank Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi for not regulating the subprime mess in 2004). The caption “People who should be shot” beneath the  names of Herbert and Marion Sandler was also removed. Here’s the original.

But what’s really amazing about the skit is what is left in: The only people named in the pyramid of corruption are Jews — Herbert and Marion Sandler, and George Soros. And they are at the top of the heap.

As usual, this fact was lost on the mainstream media. Like respectable people everywhere, the brain of the mainstream media reflexively blocks out the Jewish identity of Jews who do bad things. Perhaps this is what NBC was counting on when it reposted the edited version.

But the Jewish press, with its antennae always sensitive to these issues, picked up on this obvious fact. In an article that doubtless reflected the anxieties of many Jews, the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle described the skit as follows:

On the bottom are poor and minority homeowners victimized by predatory lending. Next come condo-flipping yuppies out for a quick buck. They’re followed by rapacious bankers who cashed out before the economy crumbled. And on top are billionaire financiers who pocketed the government bailout and quickly moved it offshore.

In the SNL imagination, the top two categories seemingly are populated by Jews.

Seemingly?

Our favorite parts of the skit: The caption under Soros’s name is “Multi-Billionaire Hedge Fund Manager; Owner, Democratic Party. At the end of the skit the Soros character says to the yuppie man, “Your wife is physically attractive. Sell her to me please.” To which the yuppie says “sure” and his wife says “yes” with a big seductive smile.

As Mel Brooks would say, it’s good to be king. The ultimate victory of the Jews over the WASPs.

And part of that ultimate victory is that there is huge Jewish money funding the Democratic party and other leftist causes. The Sandlers did indeed aggressively sell subprime adjustable rate mortgages to poorly qualified people but then managed to sell out at the top of the credit bubble to Wachovia Bank which then basically went under.

The  Sandlers walked off with $2.4 billion. What is interesting to us is that they are using their fortune to advance causes that they support because of their Jewish identity. And  those causes are decidedly on the left.

As noted in a previous column, Jewish financial support of the left makes no sense except in terms of Jewish identity politics. Fundamentally, Jewish identity politics is based on hostility to the white Christian majority of the  United States. This hostility spans the Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right.

The top contributors for the left are, besides Soros and the Sandlers, insurance magnate Peter Lewis and Hollywood mogul Stephen Bing. Together they contributed $78 million to leftist causes during the 2004 election cycle alone, creating a “shadow Democratic Party” via so-called 527 groups designed to conform to the McCain-Feingold campaign financing law. The main recipients are organizations like MoveOn.org, ACORN, the ACLU, the Center for American Progress, and American Coming  Together.

What these top four contributors have in common is a Jewish background. It’s interesting also that the person contributing the sixth most to the 527 groups in the 2004 election cycle  is Dawn Arnall, wife of Roland Arnall, the former head of Ameriquest, the largest subprime mortgage company. Arnall “was chiefly known as a pioneer of lending to high-risk, or subprime, borrowers. Using databases to identify customers and set loan terms, he partnered with Wall Street firms that provided funding and bundled his loans into mortgage-backed bonds — the business whose recent meltdown has shaken the global financial system.”

Arnall’s appointment as Ambassador to the Netherlands was held up until Ameriquest paid a fine of $325 million to settle lawsuits over predatory lending. Here’s a video of a victim who received a check for $212.00 (!) as part of the settlement.

Like the top four contributors, Arnall was also Jewish and a billionaire. But there is a difference: The $5,000,000 Arnall donation was to a 527 group, Progress for America, set up to be the Republican counterpart of the shadow Democratic Party.

Roland Arnall was a neocon whose main motivation for contributing to Republicans was because of the Bush  administration’s support for Israel. Indeed, one might say that he was a typical neocon — liberal on domestic policies but a hardliner on Israel. He started out contributing mainly to Democrats and was widely considered to be the main force behind California governor Gray Davis.

But he switched to the Republicans; he and his wife contributed over $12,000,000 to Republican candidates since 2004. Until his death in March, 2008, he was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, basically a roster of neocon luminaries, whose stated mission is to stamp out “militant Islamism and the terrorism it is spawning.”

As is typical of neocons, Arnall had a very strong Jewish identity. Leftist Jews like the Sandlers seem focused mainly on transforming America into a multicultural utopia according to the traditional views of the Jewish left. Arnall, on the other hand, was mainly motivated by his attachment to Israel. He was a Holocaust survivor and a founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. His will specified a  bequest of $18,000,000 to the Chabad Lubavitch, a fundamentalist Jewish group.

Despite Arnall’s involvement in predatory lending and his contribution to the current financial crisis, he is fondly remembered by Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for his involvement in Jewish activism: “He played a leadership role in the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museum of Tolerance since its inception in 1977 and served as co-chair of its board until he resigned to become U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands.”

There are at least two lessons in all of this. One is that crime does pay. Jews like the Sandlers and the Arnalls whose actions contributed to the current crisis made huge fortunes. Their money is now being used to further specifically Jewish political agendas even as taxpayers are being asked to funnel huge sums of money to banks and other financial institutions in order to attempt to avert a depression caused in part by their actions. Indeed, it is something of an enormity that the candidate favored by the Sandlers and the Wall Street left has benefited enormously from the ongoing financial disaster.

Secondly, the Sandlers and the Arnalls are a microcosm of Jewish political activism. The beneficiaries of their largess define the boundaries of acceptable politics in the US — from the far left to the neoconservative, pro-Israel, pro-immigration right. There is simply no appreciable amount of money beyond this political spectrum.

The losers in all of this are the traditional people and culture of the US. We sense that there is a rising anger in this group. But unless there is money and political organization to fund their interests, there will be no fundamental change. Certainly this election offers no hope in that direction.