Recently two articles in TOO have expressed diametrically opposed views of the proper place of Christianity in the fight to save the West demographically.

Thomas Dalton outlines Friedrich Nietzsche’s critical view of Christianity and its origins. Nietzsche ridiculed the traditional religion of the West as senile and decadent and speculated that Christianity was invented by embittered Jews, especially St. Paul, to turn the lower classes against Rome and thus provide Israel with a degree of freedom from Roman rule.

Michael Colhaze is loyal to Christianity. He attacks Nietzsche’s character and sanity, portraying his writings as fanciful and his superman ideal as monstrous social Darwinism. He praises Christianity for embodying the love and compassion of Christ that empowers believers.

I have agreements and disagreements with both perspectives based on the criterion of what is good for the survival of ethnic groups that adopt Christianity, though my main interest is the corporate survival of Western peoples. I come down roughly in the middle of the two positions, though tilting decidedly towards a Christianity of the traditional variety informed by anthropology and genetics.

Thomas Dalton, in his article “Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity,” demonstrates considerable sympathy for the German philosopher  —  born 1844, died 1900. Dalton reveals aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy that will be attractive to many White advocates, as we shall see.

Nietzsche began his treatment of Christianity with a bold accusation — that it is decadent, weak, and nihilistic. Dalton writes: “It led to a sickly, subservient, herd morality, and suffocated the quest for human excellence. Worst of all, it replaced a life-affirming naturalness with an otherworldly, life-denying negativism. It has become, in fact, ‘the greatest misfortune of mankind so far.’”

Here Nietzsche must be radically wrong. The Church ministered to European peoples during our long resistance to Islamic aggression, our invention of science and industry, and our spectacular global expansion. That includes all three Christian worlds — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. The arrest of Western confidence and expansion and its accelerating contraction have coincided with the liberalization of Christianity or its actual suppression under communist regimes. I shall take up this theme again.

The alleged disaster of Christianity can only be explained, Nietzsche thought, by understanding its Jewish origins. Jesus and the apostles were Jewish, as were Mark, Luke and Paul and the many unknown authors who contributed to the New Testament. This meant that Christianity is stamped with the Jewish character, which Nietzsche refers to as “race.” That character comes through in the slave morality embodied by the religion from the beginning, which Nietzsche interprets to be Paul’s strategy to subvert the masses of the Roman Empire, weaken Rome’s aristocratic grip on its far-flung provinces, and thus give Israel a chance to break free.

It should be emphasized that this is speculation.

For the success of this alleged strategy Nietzsche mainly blames the West. Dalton quotes Nietzsche: “There is no excuse whatever for their failure to dispose of such a sickly and senile product of decadence [as the Christian God].But a curse lies upon them for this failure: they have absorbed sickness, old age, and contradiction into all their instincts — and since then they have not created another god. Almost two thousand years — and not one new god!”

Dalton states that a fitting — a fitness enhancing? — re-conception of religion needs to be “a truly uplifting, life-affirming, and ennobling enterprise — decidedly unlike Judeo-Christianity — and must never be taken as permanent and absolute truth. All superstitious, i.e. anti-natural, religions are out of the question. The human condition, and human ‘salvation’, must be firmly rooted in the present, physical world — the real world.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the need for a religion that engages reality, especially the reality of humans as an evolved species with biological interests of survival and continuity. However I cannot accept such a negative depiction of the traditional religion of the West. At the same time I have difficulties with blanket praise for what it has become, which brings me to the article critical of Nietzsche.

Michael Colhaze, in his article “Nietzsche and No End” turns Nietzsche’s critical blowtorch back on its inventor. Colhaze describes Nietzsche’s superman as “[a] kind of socio-Darwinian zombie whose general credo is the exact reversal of Christian ethics. Goodness is stupidity, compassion the dumbness of slaves, beauty ugliness, love utter contempt, gentleness dirt under his fingernail. In short, a two-hundred-fifty-page glorification of hate without any strings attached.”

I agree that Nietzsche’s superman is not the sort of person to invite for dinner, at least to the family table. And would he be someone who could be relied upon? I also agree with Colhaze that this so-called superman evinces some social-Darwinistic values which should be rejected. But social Darwinism is not the same as modern evolutionary theory and it has never constituted the theory. In fact Darwin himself was interested in untangling the causes of morality and compassion, not abolishing them, even if at the same time he was quietly proud of his English and European identity and pessimistic about the potential of primitive races.

It is one thing to criticize Nietzsche’s excesses, another to rubbish his call for a religion that respects reality. Colhaze does so by mischaracterizing the evolutionary process:

a process similar to tossing an infinite amount of golf balls into the air, each numbered, and each falling accidentally into a hole with the corresponding number.

The only alternative, Colhaze concludes, is an omnipotent God, “one whom I believe to be solely responsible for the world’s creation and its grandiose theatre, though not for the crimes of mankind which cause about ninety nine percent of all its suffering.” Actually the great majority of suffering is caused by competing life strategies, e.g. between predator and prey.

Colhaze believes that Christianity delivers “man’s highest and most sublime aspiration. An aspiration to consummate, on a strictly personal level, Christ’s divine message of Love and Compassion. A message that is, for those who handle it calmly, an inexhaustible font of joy and inner certainty, a way of life that can brace adversities more thoroughly than any other. And a message that might one day, ’one day’ after many a summer, enable mankind to live in the Utopia we sometimes dreamt about when we were young.”

The science of human bonding is converging remarkably on the moral truths of Christianity, especially the traditional Catholic ordering of love and duty. Christianity does distil and train a purity of attachment dependent on abstract intelligence. Since our ancestors converted at the urging and example of pioneer Medieval monks, we have been enjoined to nurture our families and local communities and to stand against the heathen at the city gate.

Conclusion

Nietzsche longed for a religion that embraced nature red in tooth and claw, that did not shy away from reality. There is no doubt that the West needs religious leadership that defends our temporal interests, not only short-term individual ones but corporate survival — cultural and genetic continuity. And it is undeniable that Nietzsche appeals to masculine values of strength and heroism in an age of white domestication. Those familiar with the shortcomings of the modern mainstream churches might find his writings attractive on that score.

In the face of diversity’s many sins, not one major Christian denomination stands with the majority of Westerners in opposing mass Third World immigration. Nor do they defend voluntary reciprocal segregation in multi-ethnic societies or criticize the elites that are forcing diversity on an unwilling but leaderless public. The depredations of diversity — higher divorce rates, alienation, destruction of downtown social life, uncaring societies, the decline of education, rising corruption and crime, loss of general social trust, reduced economic growth, less foreign aid, not to mention civil war and genocide — all have been shown to be exacerbated by diversity (see here and here).

Despite these failings Christianity is not inherently weak or ignoble. For example, post-Vatican II Catholicism does not represent much of the Church’s noble history.

Nietzsche’s criticisms remain valid only if they are taken to apply to the Church’s weakness in defending the ethnic interests of their modern Western congregations. However that interpretation reduces his charge to a criticism of Church policy, not of Christianity root and branch.

Such a reinterpretation is a favour to Nietzsche because his accusation of Christian weakness is absurd when tested historiographically. As Kevin MacDonald has documented during the Middle Ages the Church became an organic part of European society. Not for nothing was the West known as Christendom. The Church acted to save bodies and posterity as well as souls. It blessed new knights in the ceremony of knighthood, sanctified the new code of chivalry that forbade harming civilians and enacted the first codified rules of war. War was justified when it advanced Christendom — an ethnic-friendly legitimization that reduced or at least regulated fighting among Christians and culminated in the Crusaders’ attempt to wrest Near Eastern lands of the Eastern Roman Empire back from the Arabs. The Church defended the ordinary man from a parasitic aristocracy. It helped forge nations with responsible governments. It protected the mass of the people from enemies without and within. The English Church promoted the expulsion of Jews — who had become a predatory financial elite — from the country in 1290 as a pastoral duty, also a trend elsewhere in Western Europe. Throughout Europe the Church was Gentiles’ repository of sophisticated culture, of literacy and record keeping. It was indispensible for governance, advising kings and educating princes. It prevented the Jews from monopolizing the niche of trans-generational literary group strategy. It underwrote the earliest stirrings of modern science. The university, one of the greatest creations of the West, was founded under the Church’s auspices. Professors were priests of learning. Gregor Mendel was an ethnic German monk!

Instead of speculating on the basis of almost non-existent ancient documents concerning St. Paul, Nietzsche should have been looking for the origins of the seamless dovetailing of Christianity and European culture, achieved in a very few centuries. A plausible theory is offered by James C. Russell in his book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity (1994).

Russell shows that the seamlessness resulted from the missionaries’ policy of accommodating the Church to local custom. The result was the reciprocal Germanization of Christianity, though the process is better described as the Europeanization of Christianity because the Celtic peoples of the British Isles and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe also had their folk festivals incorporated into the Church. Irish monks were instrumental in converting the Germans, working from the Lake Constance area northwards from the fifth century, while Greek monks began the conversion of the Russians. The deep imprint of the northern winter and isolated settlements is clearly evident in the Christian calendar.

Nietzsche should have been content that this Europeanization was, as Russell puts it, part of the broader phenomenon of a “world-rejecting” religion such as early Christianity being transformed by its accommodation to “world accepting” Indo-European peoples.

Very few grasp how central the Church was to European society for more than 1500 years because modern education and the mass media — notably the movies — have all but expunged the monk and Sunday services from the record or pathologized them. Ministers and priests are routinely shown as corrupt and generally deplorable.

That was not always so. Even Hollywood finds it difficult to delete Friar Tuck from the story of Robin Hood or his dual identity as priest and warrior. Religious patriots were depicted in the glory days of Hollywood, when its Jewish proprietors were disciplined by powerful Christian elites. Who can forget the striking imagery of Charton Heston as an upper class Jew awestruck by the grace of Christ in Ben Hur (1959) or as a Visigoth nobleman smiting the Muslim occupiers “for God, Alfonso, and Spain” in El Cid (1961). Christian-conservative external control of Hollywood slipped after 1965, and the rising Jewish elite had its coming-out decade, a general uprising against White Christian society and culture. Some modern movies, notably Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, show monks blessing the Scottish army on the battle field. But that is rare. Who wants to be accused of religious bigotry?

Civilized and cultivated by this “senile” religion, the West rose in a little over one millennium from the ashes of the Roman Empire to dominate global trade, to invent modern science and industry, to subdue most of the world and settle three continents. As Churchill would say, some senility!

All this was done without knowledge of genetic interests, that humans are a specially endowed evolved species with the same vital interest in reproduction as all other species (even more vital if those endowments are valued). However the Church always  acknowledged the values attendant on individual reproduction. It blessed sex within marriage because the resulting children and bonds harmonize reproduction and the stability of the child-rearing family. Partly for that reason the Church stands against sex outside of marriage and against homosexuality.

Whatever the deviations of this stance from an evolutionary perspective — for example homosexuals also have ethnic interests — the fact is that the Christian Church has historically stood for the heterosexual family, which makes good evolutionary as well as humanitarian sense.

Modern knowledge of biology supports the Church’s pro- family policy. And extends it. Humans have never existed as isolated individuals or even single families but as parts of genetically related communities. We evolved to have genetic and cultural interests not only in the continuity of our families but of our tribes and nations. Historically the Church recognized this, not perfectly but well enough to establish precedent. The Christian Church was the West’s evolutionary group strategy. We were Christendom, and Christendom defended, elevated and shaped us. Priests were not abstractly removed hermits but organic parts of their communities. As they became more mobile, taking up appointments in the Church’s far-flung domain, so they served the wider European interest.

Now Christianity’s domain is the entire world and priests should be true to the vital interests of all peoples. That is the truth of Christian universalism. But just as the Church protects parental rights and the autonomy and dignity of families, so it should defend national rights. It would be wrong for Chinese bishops to promote mass foreign immigration to China, or for Japanese monks to undermine Japanese homogeneity.

This is doubly true for those who believe that God has been an agent in human genetic and cultural evolution. If He created distinct peoples over countless millennia, Christians should stand against the atheist-humanist drive to confound that creation. If one believes in God’s agency in the real world, Christians who support mass non-European immigration to the West on the basis that the immigrants are Christian are as blind to God’s will as are the immigrants themselves. They are destroying His creation by trying to rebuild the tower of Babel, not in the mythical way of a single language group challenging God’s glory but by forcing — against their will — a diversity of peoples to lose their many cherished identities in a single cosmopolitan mishmash that dissolves communities, flattens ethnic genius and is good for nothing except facilitating globalism.

The West is literally dying for the lack of warrior-scholar priests. White advocates need to win back their churches to become once again defenders of their congregations’ vital interests.

With Nietzsche we declare: “The last sacrament will always be irrelevant to us as a people!” But with Charles Martel, El Cid, Edward I of England, the English lords at Runnymede, Isabella I of Castille, and the Alamo martyrs we welcome the Victory Psalm [reprinted below] with the shout: “For God and the reconquest of the West!”

A cross looms over the army of Charles Martel at it defeats the Muslims at the Battle of Tours

Afterword

The 35^th Psalm is a regular part of Christian services, considered one of the masterworks of prayer that constitute the psalms. It was composed by King David and is part of the Old Testament, and as such Friedrich Nietzsche would undoubtedly approve. He would like the muscular tribalism, the unapologetic ethnocentrism. Yet it is also part of the Christian tradition. And it is a work of beauty.

I read the Psalm recently in the memoir by English super soldier Andy McNab (Seven Troop, 2008, pp. 414–415), recipient of the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Military Medal. It was given to Andy by another soldier who was a devout Christian. McNab saw frequent evidence of Christianity among elite soldiers. The Psalm is what one would expect from a biologically informed religion. Of course a universal religion seeks to defend the temporal interests of all believers, and as these can be opposed it would seek to harmonize those interests. It would seek peace and reciprocity. But it would never pretend that temporal interests do not exist and that people are not justified in defending them.

Psalm 35 (King James Version)

¹Plead my cause, O LORD, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.

²Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help.

³Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation.

⁴Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.

⁵Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the LORD chase them.

⁶Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the LORD persecute them.

⁷For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul.

⁸Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

⁹And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his salvation.

¹⁰All my bones shall say, LORD, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?

¹¹False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.

¹²They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul.

¹³But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.

¹⁴I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother.

¹⁵But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:

¹⁶With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.

¹⁷Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.

¹⁸I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.

¹⁹Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.

²⁰For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.

²¹Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.

²²This thou hast seen, O LORD: keep not silence: O Lord, be not far from me.

²³Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.

²⁴Judge me, O LORD my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me.

²⁵Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up.

²⁶Let them be ashamed and brought to confusion together that rejoice at mine hurt: let them be clothed with shame and dishonour that magnify themselves against me.

²⁷Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.

²⁸And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long.

Charles Dodgson (email him) is the pen name of an English social analyst.

“Here’s a WASP joke. Question: Why do WASPs not engage in more orgies? Answer: Too many thank-you notes to write.”

Thus began a NYTime’s book review last fall about the new book Cheerful Money: Me, My Family, and the Last Days of Wasp Splendor by Tad Friend.

I read the review and highlighted a phenomenon I thought was worth commenting on later. The passage was:

In his teenage years, Tad Friend chose to attend the Shipley School in Bryn Mawr, Pa., where he first grew aware of the designation “N.O.C.D.” — “not our class, dear,” an exclusion usually directed at Jews and Catholics. Friend offers a fitting tirade against WASP anti-Semitism, reminding us that well into the 20th century, signs on the lawn of the Lake Placid Club read “No Dogs. No Tuberculars. No Hebrews,” and noting that his paternal grandfather “was hardly alone, among the WASPs on Squirrel Hill, in fretting” that it was harboring an increasing number of Jews. In atonement, the author observes that “almost everyone” he’d hung out with at Harvard was Jewish, as was his first significant other, Melanie Grayboden. When relating his painful eventual shedding of Melanie, he digresses divertingly on different forms of ethnic guilt. “If Catholic guilt is ‘I’ve been bad’ and Jewish guilt is ‘You’ve been bad,’ then WASP guilt is ‘You probably think I’ve been bad.’ ”

This review that I clipped out of the Sunday Book Review then gathered dust on the big pile of magazines and papers that invariably grows on my side table. Atop it later came a curiously related story, this one about a WASP named George Gilder who seems to love Jews more than many of them love themselves, if that’s possible. By pure chance, I’ve just happened across the third review of Gilder’s latest book, which I take as a sign to now write about it.

My first notice of The Israel Test, Gilder‘s new book, came while reading Scott McConnell’s review of it in the Dec. 2009 American Conservative. Titled Chosen People, the review sadly noted the usual mainstream fare: “For Gilder, the superior men are not Teutonic explorers or generals but Jewish scientists and financiers.” (Save the guffaws—we’re not supposed to notice that Madoff, Summers, Rubin, Blankfein et al. are all Tribe.)

We also see that Gilder’s prose includes, “Is one able to admire and embrace Jewish superiority and creativity, or does one, out of envy, oppose it?” Getting to the central argument of the book, we find that Gilder’s thesis is that “all opposition to Israel is rooted in anti-Semitism.” Or this: “We need Israel today as much as Israel needs us, as much as we needed Jewish physicists and chemists [for the Manhattan Project].”” Ho boy, the same old tired arguments trotted out by so many Jews. Fine, Gilder must be a Jew doing the usual group-shielding, meme-selling job. Or so I thought.

Much to my surprise, McConnell revealed that Gilder is a WASP raised in an upper-class world. And McConnell thinks he has found a reason for Gilder’s strange Judeophilia, an explanation that oddly parallels that of Tad Friend above. It seems that

an incident that occurred when [Gilder] was about 17. While trying to impress an older girl, his summer tutor in Greek, he blurted out something mildly anti-Semitic. The young woman dryly replied that she was in fact “a New York Jew.” Gilder was mortified. He relates that he has never quite gotten over the episode. It is the kind of thing a sensitive person might long remember. Variations on this pattern are not uncommon in affluent WASP circles to this day: guilt or embarrassment at some stupid but essentially trivial episode of social anti-Semitism serve as a spur for fervent embrace of Likud-style Zionism. Atonement.

This is simply bizarre. I cannot relate to a group that would be so easily traumatized by, as McConnell states, something so trivial. What is going on?

It gets worse.

The next time I ran into a review of The Israel Test was in the Nov. 2009 issue of Commentary, penned by Michael Medved. Gilder is quoted as declaring: “Israel is hated above all for its virtues.”

This of course is lunacy. Could Gilder be that clueless about Israel’s actual behavior? He shouldn’t be. After all, McConnell described him as a “veteran luminary of the American Right, author of a successful polemic against feminism and a Reagan-admired ode to the free market, and publisher of a newsletter touting technology stocks.”

I believe I understand why many Jews offer explanations for anti-Semitism in which Jews are blameless. Readers will likely recall what Kevin MacDonald wrote in chapter 7 of Separation and Its Discontents about Jewish failure to be realistic about their own often bad or brutal behavior: “Historians of Judaism have often falsely portrayed the beliefs of gentiles as irrational fantasies while portraying the behavior of Jews as irrelevant to anti-Semitism” (p. 220).

But of course Jewish behavior is overwhelming responsible for occurrences of anti-Semitism: people react angrily when their culture is relentless attacked, when they are swindled, and particularly when they are subjected to genocide. This is rational human behavior. Why does Gilder miss this?

Midway through his review, even the normally level-headed Medved gets taken in and becomes party to Gilder’s fantasy about Israel. The Palestinians, Medved and Gilder agree, are fortunate to have had the Israelis take over Gaza and the West Bank because this has “decisively raised the living standards of local Arab populations” [emphasis in original]. Between 1967 and the first intifada in 1987 “per capita income tripled in the West Bank while it rose in Gaza more than twentyfold—from $80 to $1,706.”

I suppose to worshippers of mammon, this represents progress, but what about all those thousands and thousands of Palestinians— including countless women and children—blown to bits by Israeli offensive weapons? Does a dying youth utter with his last breath, “All to the best. At least I would have earned more money . . . had I not died so young”? (See my essay “For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls” here and here .)

The best review so far of The Israel Test is a negative one by Robert Sungenis that appeared in the January issue of E. Michael Jones’s Culture Wars. (Subscribe here.) Readers should know that Culture Wars and its editor are pariahs among respectable company, mostly because The Jewish Problem is addressed forthrightly. I think that’s the whole draw of the magazine. Indeed, Jones and his writers are “Jew-wise,” as TOQ editor Greg Johnson likes to say.

The Israel Test is reviewed in Culture Wars by frequent contributor Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. He begins by noting the same Gilder quotes about Jewish and Israeli superiority covered above. He then addresses some of the negatives. To be sure, Sungenis’s critique is that of an arch-conservative Catholic, but his claims are nonetheless intriguing. For example, he writes that despite Jewish prominence in capitalism, technology, etc., “there has resulted more atheism, more murder, and more sexual deviance than at any time in history. If anything, these technological advances have stunted man’s development, since the tendency is now to rely on one’s own Tower of Babel to measure human worth to the virtual exclusion of the development of the inner man.”

He goes on to charge these smart Jews with “the promoting of homosexuality, divorce, adultery, gambling, insider trading, cultural revolution, and many other societal ills.” Mischievously he adds that “Among Israel’s Muslim neighbors these ills are practically non-existent.” 

With respect to Jews and capitalism, he asks, “How much more economic upheaval, corruption, greed and scandal do the capitalists need to realize that their system is on a self-destruct course? How many Savings & Loan debacles, Enrons, WorldCom’s, Ivan Boeskys, Bernie Madoffs, deceptive collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps are needed to see that the capitalist system is a racket of smoke and mirrors?”

Sungenis goes on to skewer other categories of Jewish “geniuses.” Psychologists? Well, take Sigmund Freud. Sungenis’s estimation of the good Doctor Freud is in line with what Kevin MacDonald wrote in The Culture of Critique, MacDonald’s culminating volume in his trilogy on Jews: Freud was a charlatan cult leader who was not good for gentile society.

Jewish feminists? Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem and their ilk “have destroyed the traditional role of wife and mother.” Jewish artists and architects? Fuggedaboutit. (See here, here and here.) Ditto for the eighty percent of American comics who are Jewish—“the raunchy Sarah Silverman or the sex-crazed Woody Allen and Howard Stern.” Such humor presents “the abnormal as normal, the neurotic as necessary, the outsider as the true insider.” Even a prominent rabbi admitted that “Some of the most notoriously foul-mouthed and obscene-minded entertainers are Jewish and earn no reproof for their public aggrandizement of filth.”

In summary, according to Sungenis, “The humanist Jew has poisoned every area of our culture. Gilder can’t see any of it because he lacks a properly tuned moral compass. The moral ineptitude of the humanist Jew at large is ignored and only his ‘technological achievements,’ ‘his raw genius,’ his ‘capitalistic entrepreneurial spirit’ is enshrined as the model which the world is not only to follow but to bow down to.”

This leaves me trying to get my head around why such an obviously brilliant WASP like Gilder would write what he does about Jews and Israel. From what I can tell, he sincerely believes what he writes, too.

Consider that this man is the product of the best America has to offer—wealth, Exeter, Harvard, exposure to top leaders (he was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon), etc. His long list of books attests to his intelligence and work ethic. Among them are:

Wealth and Poverty

Sexual Suicide (updated as Men and Marriage)

TELECOSM: How Infinite Bandwidth will Revolutionize Our World

Microcosm: The Quantum Revolution In Economics And Technology

The Spirit of Enterprise (updated as Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise)

The Silicon Eye: Microchip Swashbucklers and the Future of High-Tech Innovation

Life After Television

Visible Man: A True Story of Post-Racist America

In addition he writes the Gilder Technology Report.

Clearly, we have to take such a man seriously. But, again, what could make him believe such things about superior Jews and an enlightened and moral Israel when the facts are so starkly otherwise?

Kevin MacDonald attempted to unravel the effects Jews and WASPs have had on each other. This came in his discussion of Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. In essence, Kaufmann argued that WASPs voluntarily relinquished hegemony in America—cultural “suicide,” in other words.

Writing on VDARE.com, MacDonald explained why he viewed it as murder rather than suicide. In short, as he argued at length in his book The Culture of Critique, “the rise of Jews to elite status in the United States and the influence of particular Jewish intellectual and political movements, especially the push for mass and indiscriminate immigration, were key contributions—necessary conditions—to the demise of WASP America.”

Crucially, MacDonald complained that Kaufmann

never mentions coercion and the penalties that are imposed on people who dissent from the elite cosmopolitan consensus. The fact is, Whites who violate these strictures are severely censured — a phenomenon with which I have considerable personal experience.

Kaufmann presents the views of elite Whites who are cooperating in the demise of their own people as nothing more than the enlightened opinions of an intellectual and moral elite. But it is far more than that. Since the 1960s, Whites who depart from the consensus of cosmopolitanism have been penalized in a wide variety of ways — from lack of access to the mainstream media, to firing from their jobs, to social opprobrium. Conversely, those who collaborate are rewarded. This revolution is neither peaceful nor bloodless.

I’m not sure if this helps understand Gilder. In fact, doesn’t it deepen the mystery, because, as MacDonald concluded about the Jewish-WASP ethnic war in America, “For the Anglo-Saxons, it is a defeat of cataclysmic proportions.”

How could Gilder not recognize this? He’s old enough (b. 1939) to have grown up with older relatives who represented the apogee of WASP power in America, but his whole life has witnessed the unbroken decline of his caste — and a concomitant rise of the Jews. Are we witnessing a form of the Stockholm Syndrome, in this case, one where a formerly free man worships the power of his (cultural) captors? I confess I don’t know.

I almost wish I could find evidence that Gilder was blackmailed into writing The Israel Test, or that he did it as a quid pro quo for something else, or that he’s in love with a Jewish woman. Lacking any evidence of that, however, I’m forced to grapple with the question of how an otherwise highly intelligent man could be so misguided about Jews.

Whites in America have suffered in recent decades because of the migration of power from WASPs to Jews. To be sure, middle and working class Whites who are not elite WASPs have done their best to protect their interests. Ford was from a rural background, Lindbergh was never part of the Eastern elite, and McCarthy, Coughlin, and Buchanan were or are Catholic.

Where are the WASPs today? Some have led lives unworthy of their ancestors (think Paris Hilton), while others have died young after fleeting and dissolute lives. The Short Unhappy Life of Casey Johnson may be fitting:

Lesbian heiress, socialite, and Hollywood celeb Casey Johnson, 30, was found dead in the bedroom of her West Hollywood home on January 4, 2010. Jewish gossip website TMZ reported that Johnson, last heard from on December 29, 2009, had been dead for several days before her body was discovered by a maid. A coroner’s toxicology report has yet to be issued, but foul play is not suspected. Johnson suffered from diabetes and had a history of drug abuse.

Casey Johnson’s death provides a convenient window into the seamy underbelly of the contemporary WASP “elite.”

Mostly, it seems, American WASPs have simply disappeared. Updike died, while President Bush (41), undeniably a WASP, gave way to his son Dubya (43), who certainly did not look, speak or behave like a WASP. Where can we now find in positions of power those tall, lean men who, whatever their vulnerabilities, once so confidently bestrode the world stage?

Averell Harriman

George H. W. Bush

Where once we had men like Averell Harriman and George Herbert Walker Bush, we now have Alan Dershowitz, Larry David, Woody Allen, and Michael Chertoff.

America, including its White gentile majority, is about to find out what it’s like to be ruled by a hostile elite. The upper crust WASPs seem to have gone quietly for the most part, but what of the remaining White masses? As MacDonald said with respect to the WASPs, “For the Anglo-Saxons, it is a defeat of cataclysmic proportions.”

The same now goes for all Whites.

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