General

Ron Unz on the JFK Assassination: Strong Suspicion LBJ and Mossad Responsible, as recounted in Michael Collins Piper’s “Final Judgment”

/5 Comments/in /by

Do Liberals Really Care about Children Being Separated from Their Parents?

/in /by

The American news media have apparently just realized that when foreigners illegally enter the United States in the company of their minor children and get arrested, those children are temporarily separated from them. It would be surprising if it were otherwise: keeping the children with their parents would require throwing them in jail as well. It would hardly be fair to punish minors for the acts of their parents, so they are accommodated separately. We are now being told this amounts to “ripping families apart” and “child abuse.”

I would like to draw attention to a passage quoted in a review essay of mine from The Occidental Quarterly, Summer 2007, regarding children forcibly separated from their fathers through divorce. Such children, we read,

expressed the wish for increased contact with their fathers with a startling and moving intensity….The most striking response among six-to-eight-year-old children was their pervasive sadness. The impact of separation appeared so strong that the children’s usual defenses and coping strategies did not hold sufficiently under stress. Crying and sobbing were not uncommon…. More than half of these children missed their father acutely. Many felt abandoned and rejected by him and expressed their longing in ways reminiscent of grief for a dead parent…In confronting the despair and sadness of these children and their intense, almost physical, longing for the father, it was evident that inner psychological needs of great power and intensity were being expressed.

This has been allowed to go on every day in America—year in, year out—and no major media outlet has yet seen fit to treat it as newsworthy. Today, however, the nation is awash in maudlin sentimentality over the unavoidable inconveniences suffered by the children of foreign lawbreakers because of their parents’ crimes.

If American children victimized by family courts have less claim upon our attention and sympathy, it would appear to be because their suffering cannot be used to further the project of deconstructing the historical United States. What the liberal establishment really wants is open borders.

Ann Coulter: “Meanwhile, 10 miles from the White House…”

/15 Comments/in , /by

I thought I would start writing blog posts with excerpts from articles I find interesting, sometimes with brief comments.

Now that Trump has solved Northeast Asia’s problems, maybe he can get to a problem in our country — in fact, within 10 miles of the White House. For some reason, The Washington Post recently ran an article on something important — the MS-13 gang presence at a public school on the outskirts of our nation’s capital, William Wirt Middle School in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The media’s usual approach to the diversity being inflicted on us is: Don’t report this! It’s better if no one knows. Maybe the left has decided it’s too late to do anything about the transformation of our country into a Third World hellhole, and Trump couldn’t stop it even if he wanted to. The Post reported that, like many schools up and down the East Coast, MS-13 has turned Wirt into a battleground. There have been near-daily gang fights, rampant drug dealing, one reported rape, gang signs on the walls, one shooting — more in nearby schools — and teachers afraid to be alone with their students. At least two students are required to have security officers assigned to them, walking them from class to class and watching them during lunch hour, on account of MS-13 threatening to kill them. How many different categories of immigrants require special law enforcement officers devoted to them? Thanks to mass Muslim immigration, the FBI has terrorist watch lists in ALL 50 STATES. That’s why whenever there’s a terrorist attack, the FBI says, Oh yeah, we were watching that guy. And now we have police bodyguards for kids at schools wherever “unaccompanied minors” have been dumped by our government. …

The reason for this transformation of our country, our culture and our politics is to flood the market with low-wage workers and Democratic voters.

That’s right, but we shouldn’t leave out the ethnic lobbies who (often in opposition to the wishes of their own constituents) keep up the pressure for unending immigration. Obviously, my writing has emphasized the role of Jews and the organized Jewish community. I just came across some material on the sentiments of John Podhoretz, from his Wikipedia page. Obviously, his Jewish identity is critical to his attitude on immigration to the U.S. (not Israel).

In disagreement with several writers at National Review and conservatives in general, Podhoretz has aggressively favored a more open immigration policy for the United States. He wrote: “I said merely what I feel deeply—which is that, as a Jew, I have great difficulty supporting a blanket policy of immigration restriction because of what happened to the Jewish people after 1924 and the unwillingness of the United States to take Jews in.”[9] Podhoretz has been generally supportive of President Bush’s proposals for a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for certain illegal immigrants in the U.S.
This hostility among Jews for what happened nearly 100 years ago is quite common. The argument then goes that the holocaust would have been prevented or ameliorated except for the 1924 law. And of course, there are other motives as well, especially a perception that Jews are safer in in more diverse societies because of a lessened possibility for homogeneous White movement to rise up against them (here, p. 246ff).

Derbyshire vs. MacDonald Revisited

/32 Comments/in , /by

I don’t believe I’m exaggerating when I say that Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique is one of the most important books of our age. Despite this fact, it has garnered remarkably little attention in traditional spheres, particularly academic circles. Of course, the reasons for this are obvious — the book is critical of Jewish behavior, it helps Gentiles understand how Jews are working against Gentile interests, and it shows that Jews control much of the content of academic and media discussion.

At the same time, MacDonald and his works have garnered immense attention from those who are often harmed by Jewish behavior or are excluded from areas of cultural construction, including many in the loosely-defined “Alt-Right.” Further, Prof. MacDonald has been indefatigable in his efforts to spread his views, appearing on countless podcasts and other Internet shows, speaking at conferences, etc. In my estimation, MacDonald is the hands-down intellectual leader of resistance to Jewish attacks on the White race, and in our circles he is honored as such.

Recently, a young man in the academic arena chose to address MacDonald’s work, which has given MacDonald a chance to once again defend his various theses on Jews. The academic is Nathan Cofnas, a graduate student working toward his doctorate in the philosophy of biology at the University of Oxford. (He is not a professor yet, though as a potential graduate of Oxford with a Ph.D.  —  and as a Jew who has published an attack on MacDonald —  his chances of gaining a good tenured teaching position are almost guaranteed.)

Fortunately for us, Spencer Quinn, a prolific writer for Counter-Currents, has ably summarized the debate between MacDonald and Cofnas. See Parts 1,  2, 3 and 4.

This leaves me free to bring back a similar older debate among MacDonald, John Derbyshire, and Joey Kurtzman. Though these debates deserve a revisit based on their own merits, the fact that Cofnas has now revived similar discussions makes previous discussions all the more relevant.

I first wrote about Derbyshire’s opinions of KMAC’s work way back in 2008, then again in 2012. For the purposes of this current piece, I will crib liberally from those original two essays, though the links within have often not survived well.

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.” (Editors chose the title, not Derbyshire.)There Derb’s take on the book was mixed, beginning with “The Culture of Critique includes many good things. . . . Kevin MacDonald is working in an important field.” He 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.”

Derbyshire, however, then concludes that “This is, after all, in the dictionary definition of the term, an anti-Semitic book.” What? That’s odd. I suspect I’m not the only reader sensing an unexplained contradiction here. (See MacDonald’s reply.) Read more

Learning from Baseball

/14 Comments/in /by

There are lessons to be learned from the game of baseball.

A big one is around race.  In this area, baseball operates on the principles of equal opportunity and merit.  Everybody, no matter their race, gets an equal chance to play, let’s say, shortstop for the Yankees, and the person who can play shortstop the best gets the position.  No trying to make up for injustices in the past, no affirmative action, no racial quotas, no idea of adequate competence being the criterion of measure for getting the job.   You have the same shot at playing shortstop as everybody else, and if you can do it better than anyone trying out, you get it.

As a practical matter, minorities (at least minority in the U.S.—non-whites are ninety percent of the world’s population) have flourished under this arrangement.  I checked last night’s Yankee’s lineup, and of the ten starters—the eight position players, the pitcher, and the designated hitter—seven, including the shortstop, were minorities.   They are truly excellent, they deserve to be there, and no one is complaining about their right to be in those slots.  Compare that outcome with those in any area of society which operates under another arrangement than equal opportunity and no-exceptions merit—schooling, the workplace, grants and contracts, or the arts.

People tend to rise to the level of expectation.  If they know they have an equal chance at something and that no one is going to cut them any slack, they’ll do their best at it and succeed on their merits.  Everyone will get the benefits of their contributions and they’ll feel good about themselves and earn the respect of others.  If they don’t make the grade, they’ll get into some other endeavor where they can achieve results without somebody doing them a favor.   Whites don’t whine about not being in the National Basketball Association (last night, the Boston Celtics didn’t have a white player on its twelve-man game roster) and insist on preferential treatment for themselves at the expense of black players; they play games, broadly defined, where they can compete successfully.

Recently, I took other lessons from baseball.

Another Yankee example: a Yankee player slid hard, spikes high, into the lower leg of the Red Sox second baseman.  The second baseman could have been badly hurt; luckily, he wasn’t.  Right away, the Red Sox second baseman let the Yankee player know in no uncertain terms that he didn’t appreciate what had just happened.

 

(Boston MA, 04/11/18) Boston Red Sox second baseman Brock Holt tags out New York Yankees first baseman Tyler Austin during the first inning of the MLB game at Fenway Park on Wednesday, April 11, 2018. Staff photo by Matt Stone

Read more

Operation Excalibur: Back to Church, Bucko! Part 1

/48 Comments/in , , /by

Then, He said to them, “But now…he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

“Talk is for lovers.  I need a sword to be king!” Excalibur Opening Scene (Battle of the Knights) 1981

Setting the Scene

Images of Excalibur, King Arthur’s legendary sword, typically mirror the mythic iconography of the Christian Cross.  Note the cosmic aura surrounding the gleaming hilt of the sword in the stone on the cover of my book, Dissident Dispatches.  Its mysterious magnetism beckons the man of destiny.  Only a true hero, uniquely possessed of the strength to pull the fearsome blade from the rock of ages, will be endowed with the sacred majesty of kingship.  Excalibur was a fearsome weapon, striking down the king’s enemies in a spiritual struggle between good and evil.  Of course, as a figment of literary imagination, Excalibur is more useful as an instrument of psychological or cultural rather than physical warfare. Accordingly, like any other popular meme, it can be deployed in cyberspace by any number of combatants, for fun or in deadly earnest.

On the Alt Right, the most famous, politically effective meme has been the seemingly innocuous cartoon image of Pepe the Frog.  Amidst the tumult and confusion of the Trump campaign, Pepe helped the Alt Right movement sort out amused friends from outraged enemies. The sorting process was a two-way street, however.  As part of the wider push by corporate and political wire-pullers to de-platform the Alt Right, the powerful Jewish activist organization, the Anti-Defamation League conducted a concerted, well-funded campaign of its own to brand Pepe memes as anti-Semitic and racist “hate speech”.  The goal was to outlaw reproduction of the Pepe meme by Alt Right publishers, broadcasters, and bloggers.  The tool chosen to achieve that outcome was copyright law.  Simply for featuring Bishop Pepe on the cover of a book, Arktos Media, already well-known as a dissident right publisher, found itself the target of legal action organized by the ADL.

The response was both unexpected and disproportionate.  Bishop Pepe triggered determined, well-resourced, and crafty enemies.  The frog cartoon cover art was quickly leveraged into a credible threat to the survival of Arktos Media.  In its campaign against Alt Right Pepe , the ADL had enlisted Matt Furie, a cartoonist who had drawn a primitive Pepe in a comic book, more than ten years ago.  In the meantime, thousands of green frog images had appeared on the internet and IRL during the meme wars of 2015–2016.  The ADL supported Furie in his claim to copyright ownership and hence all profits derived from the commercial use of Pepe the Frog memes.  A major corporate law firm was engaged (putatively pro bono publico) to enforce Furie’s putative proprietary interest in Pepe against all the world.  In practice, only parties associated in some way with the Alt Right or the Trump campaign received notices to cease and desist their use of Pepe memes and to hand over to Matt Furie any profits they may have earned therefrom.  In their letter to Arktos, Furie’s lawyers threatened substantial legal and commercial penalties should the publisher not capitulate to this demand.  Read more

Letter to The Wall Street Journal re Jewish Involvement in Immigration Policy

/5 Comments/in /by

The Wall Street Journal published my reply to Abraham Miller’s op-ed critical of my work on Jewish involvement in immigration policy. They had a very limited maximum word count (272) and removed the references. I previously posted a longer version on this site.

12 COMMENTS

In dismissing my argument that Jewish organizations have been disproportionately influential in U.S. immigration policy, Abraham Miller fails to confront the data compiled in my 1998 book “The Culture of Critique,” which also describes changes in academic attitudes on race critical to passage of the 1965 Immigration Act (“The Theory Behind That Charlottesville Slogan,” op-ed, April 3). It was absolutely understood by both restrictionists and antirestrictionists in Congress that Jewish organizations spearheaded opposition against the 1924 law’s national origins, despite little public support. Jewish organizations also organized, funded and performed most of the work of a variety of umbrella organizations aimed at combating the 1924 law. The 1965 reform was thus not the result of popular pressure but rather of a 40-year program of activism.

Rep. Michael Feighan did indeed shape family based immigration in the 1965 law. But family based, rather than skills-based immigration, had been advocated by Jewish organizations since at least the 1920s. Feighan would be horrified at the results given his long record of support for the 1924 law (see NPR.org: “In 1965 A Conservative Tried to Keep America White. His Plan Backfired”). He may well have been deceived by the 1965 reform’s proponents, who insisted it wouldn’t change the ethnic balance of the U.S. by dramatically increasing non-European immigration.

Far from being unusual, my view of the role of Jewish organizations is shared by, e.g., University of California, Santa Barbara historian Otis Graham and Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham.

Em. Prof. Kevin MacDonald

Calif. State University, Long Beach