General

My Take on James W. Loewen, Sociologist and Civil Rights Champion

At my late stage of life, I find that the first thing I read every morning is the obituary section of The New York Times.  I took particular notice of the obituary of James W. Loewen in the August 20, 2021 edition of the paper.  Excerpts:

James W. Loewen, a sociologist and civil rights champion who took high school teachers and textbook publishers to task for distorting American history, particularly the struggle of Black people in the South, by oversimplifying their experience and omitting the ugly parts, died on Thursday in Bethesda, Md.  He was 79. . . .

In 1995 he published “Lies My Teacher Told Me Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong,” his study of 12 history textbooks widely used in America.  That book, which accused historians of propagating blind patriotism and sanitized optimism, was acclaimed by critics and won the American Book Award.  Updated editions were issued in 2005, 2008 and 2018 by the New Press, which has called the book its all-time best seller, accounting for the bulk of almost two million Loewen books sold. . . .

“Jim Loewen’s great achievement was his ability to combine meticulous, dogged research with humor and messianic zeal to correct the way history is taught in textbooks—which is to say all too often with large doses of xenophobia, racism, sexism and outright lies,” Ms. Adler of the New Press said in an interview. . . .

His book “Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism” (2005) documented the stories of thousands of communities from 1890 to 1968 that systematically, and often forcibly, excluded Black people, Jews and others. The word “sundown” referred to signs at city limits that warned Black people not to “let the sun go down on you” there.

I’m not nearly as big a fan of Loewen’s as the Times’ obituary writer obviously is.  Back in 2009, I wrote a review of a book mentioned in the obit, Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism (New York: New Press, 2005).   I’ve decided it is worth resurrecting that review to provide a bit of balance to all the fawning occasioned by Loewen’s death (it wasn’t just the Times).   Here it is.  2009.

*   *   *

A good way to get a handle on what author James W. Loewen is up to in Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism is to see where he ends up and then go back to the beginning of the book and trace how he got there.

A few paragraphs from the end of the book, Loewen declares, “America should not have white neighborhoods or black neighborhoods.”  Note that he doesn’t say that America should not have sundown towns (defined in a bit); he says no white or black neighborhoods.  Also in these last pages, he reveals that he is not satisfied with merely advocating that people do things his way.  If white communities don’t have a requisite percentage of blacks by his standard, he’d have them cut off from funds for sewage facilities, police training, “and a 1001 other programs,” and the whites who live there would lose the tax deduction for their mortgage interest.  James W. Loewen is not kidding around.   Father knows best.

Who’s Loewen?  He is professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Vermont, where he taught race relations for twenty years.  He is currently [this is 2009, remember] a distinguished lecturer for the Organization of American Historians.  His books include Lies My Teacher Told Me, which according to his website is a “gripping retelling of American history as it should be told” that has sold 800,000 copies.  Loewen’s awards include the First Annual Spivak Award of the American Sociological Association for sociological research applied to the field of intergroup relations.  The Gustavus Myers Foundation named Sundown Towns a Distinguished Book of 2005.

At this writing, Loewen is teaching a course entitled “Race Relations through Feature films” at the Catholic University of America.  It appears he is in big demand.  His website lists twelve speeches and workshops he has lined up in the next six weeks.   “Have Jim Loewen Speak at Your Community, School or College,” his site proclaims, and lists as one of the workshop possibilities, “How History Keeps Us Racist—And What To Do About It.”

Let’s go through Sundown Towns and see how Loewen makes his pitch—which is the way to look at this book, because while it is framed as a scholarly sociological and historical inquiry, it is a polemic pure and simple.

What are sundown towns?  The term comes from signs posted in towns that said “Whites Only Within City Limits After Sundown” or something to that effect.  Loewen begins the book with this definition:

Beginning in about 1890 and continuing until 1968, white Americans established thousands of towns across the United States for whites only.  Many towns drove out their black populations, then posted sundown signs.  Other towns passed ordinances barring African Americans after dark or prohibiting them from owning or renting property; still others established such policies by informal means, harassing and even killing those who violated the rule.  Some sundown towns similarly kept out Jews, Chinese, Mexicans, Native Americans, or other groups.

In Sundown Towns, Loewen concerns himself with whites’ exclusion of blacks from their communities.  He asserts that sundown towns were rare in the South but common in the North.  In 1970, he informs us, Illinois had 475 towns and cities that were all-white (by “all-white” Loewen means very few blacks).  Notice his use of the “all-white” descriptor.  This begins the process of blurring the distinction between a sundown town and any all-white community.  This is a pattern in the book: establish a pejorative concept—sundown towns in this case—and then include within it, or associate it with, or equate it with, a wider and wider range of phenomena.

Illinois with its large number of all-white (think sundown, bad) towns and cities isn’t exceptional, writes Loewen: “There is reason to believe that more than half of all towns in Oregon, Indiana, Ohio, the Cumberlands, the Ozarks, and diverse other areas were also all-white on purpose.  Sundown suburbs are found from Darien, Connecticut, to La Jolla, California, and are even more prevalent; indeed, most suburbs began life as sundown towns.”

Note the term “on purpose” in the above quote.  To the equation of the broader “all-white” for “sundown,” it adds “on purpose” to the list of negative practices in the definition of sundown towns that led off the book.  So now simply choosing to congregate in white areas is damned.   You don’t need ordinances or signs; just intentionally (as well as unintentionally) living around people like you is enough to get you on Jim Loewen’s most-wanted poster.

Loewen’s shift in tense from past to present in the quote—from “were” in the first sentence to “are” in the second, check out the shift—serves to impart the impression without his having to make the case that once a sundown town always a sundown town and always bad, regardless of what may have occurred since 1968.

How can Loewen be certain about the genesis and maintenance of the racial residential patterns in so many places?  I got to the end of the book and still couldn’t figure out why I should accept his say-so that sundown towns were/are that ubiquitous.

How did whites establish and maintain all these sundown towns?  The picture Loewen paints with a sopping-wet five-inch brush—nothing subtle or nuanced about Jim—is one of white perpetrators and black victims.  The words he uses to depict whites’ conduct include “racial exclusion,” “terror,” “fraud,” “steering,” “lying,” “stalling,” “gentlemen’s agreements,” and (his scare quotes) “legal means.”

Loewen’s favorite word to describe whites’ actions is “mob”—lawless, violent, beastly, rampaging whites committing heinous acts against innocent and harmless blacks.  I’ll briefly list ten of the “mob stories” Loewen recounts in the book to give a sense of the cumulative affect these depictions are likely to have on readers, in most cases young white people reading it as a required text in a university course taught by someone like, well, James W. Loewen.  Keep in mind I’m leaving out a lot of the gory details.  Think about the perception of their ancestors that young whites are likely to form from these accounts.  Also, see if you can think of any other race or ethnicity depicted as negatively in our schools or in the public discourse generally.  Imagine a group of black university students being assigned to read comparable accounts of their racial kinsmen.

  • A white mob looted the apartment of a black who tried to move into Cicero, Illinois, threw his furniture and belongings out the window and set them on fire while police stood by and watched.
  • A white mob stoned members of the Congress of Racial Equality as they marched in support of open housing.
  • A white mob of twenty or thirty men, armed with guns and clubs, tied black men to trees and whipped them, bound black men and women together and threw them in a four-foot hole, burned several homes, and warned all blacks to leave town that night.
  • A white mob of fifty men drove out all the blacks living in Decator, Indiana.
  • A mob of more than eight hundred whites marched from Spring Valley, Illinois to a settlement of African Americans two miles west of town, dragged the blacks from their homes, clubbed and trampled them and shot them, insulted and slapped the black women, and shot and killed two of them as they begged for mercy.
  • A mob from Cairo and Anna, Illinois hanged accused murderer Will James while women in the mob sang and screamed in delight. The word “mob” was used twelve times in the description of this incident.
  • A white mob rioted and forced Revenna, Kentucky’s blacks out of town.
  • In Duluth, Minnesota, a mob of whites hanged three workers they suspected of raping a white woman. Loewen says whether she was raped by anyone is doubtful.
  • A white mob in Eldorado, Illinois told the Reverend Peter Green of the African American Church to leave town in twenty-four hours under penalty of death.
  • A white mob in Okemah, Oklahoma hanged a black woman and her son from a bridge because they became anxious about a neighboring black town.

Got it?   Now, when I say “white,” what comes to your mind?  What images, what words?  What feelings come up?  What do you feel in the pit of your stomach, throughout your body, when I say “white”?  Like everything in this hefty tome, the mob stories contribute to demonizing, splintering, and domesticating white people and rationalizing, within a nation conceived in liberty,  the dictatorial management of their lives by people like James W. Loewen.

According to Loewen, why did whites create these terrible sundown towns?  Whatever justifications they offered for their conduct—black’s behavior prompted it, anything else—don’t hold water, that’s for sure.  Loewen backhands any and all defenses of sundown towns and, what he really cares about, any community that isn’t multiracial.  He dismisses whites’ attempts to explain a desire to live among their own as “nonsensical,” “tautological,” “erroneous,” “preposterous,” and “excuses.”

Loewen refers in passing to white solidarity in the book, which he defines as “whites sticking together in order to stick it to minorities.”  Nowhere to be found is the term white separatism, the desire of whites to live with others of their race, who share their culture, their ways, their heritage, absent the desire to dominate or exploit other people.  Loewen’s not going to bring up the possibility of thinking that way about racial matters.  He gives a lot of play to white supremacy, which he links to guess who: the Nazis.  White attitudes, Loewen informs us, are “eerily reminiscent of Germans’,” and “it is sobering to realize that many jurisdictions in America had accomplished by 1934–36 what Nazis could only envy.”

What accounts for whites’ exclusion of blacks?   What else?   Racism.  Loewen gives no energy to defining what he means by racism.  Keeping things vague allows him to expand the concept of racism so that eventually he can include even a hint of criticism or disrespect of blacks’ collective behavior.  Don’t let Jim Loewen catch you saying anything bad about blacks.   He’ll call you up to the front of the room and slap your fingers.

What does Loewen hold to be the cause of malevolent white racism?  White ignorance of blacks.  And what accounts for this ignorance?  Whites’ limited experience with blacks, or as Loewen calls it, “whites’ lack of an experience foundation.”  “I have found that white Americans expound about the alleged characteristics of African Americans in inverse proportion to their contact and experiences with them.”  For their own good, whites in America should be denied freedom of association and forced to live among blacks.  Jim Loewen is doing them a favor.

My own research contradicts Loewen’s “lack of experience foundation” explanation for whites’ negative perceptions of blacks.   I wrote a book [which I suspect won’t make it into a New York Times obituary] in which seventeen average white people report their experiences and outlooks regarding race.[1] They told me that it wasn’t their lack of contact with blacks but rather their close contact with them that led to their negative view of blacks and desire to get themselves and their families away from them.

Loewen says he believes in the value of oral history: “We must talk to long-time residents.”  He may have talked to long-time residents, but I saw no indication that he heard them or anybody else who didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear.

There was the “pleasant conversation” he had with a woman “fifty years behind the times.” There was the friend who made the mistake of saying in his presence, “I just don’t understand why blacks would want to live where they aren’t wanted.”  Loewen points out that her question “presumes that African Americans can be expected to assess whether whites want them and should comport themselves accordingly”—which it didn’t, it just asked the factual question, why do blacks want to live where they aren’t wanted?  “When we buy a house,” lectures Loewen, “we do not assess whether our neighbors will like us.  We presume we will be accepted or at least tolerated.”  Wrong again.  The parallel to his friend’s question is white people moving into an all-black area.  Indeed, they would assess whether their neighbors would like them and would not presume they would be accepted or tolerated in the all-black neighborhood.

Here is an excerpt from the oral history of a forty-year-old man I talked to from the northeastern part of the United States of the sort that didn’t make it into Loewen’s book:

People who think of themselves as enlightened and on the moral high ground in matters of race write off people like me as ignorant racists.  Unlike them, so it goes, we pre-judge people.  If only we were exposed to racial and ethnic diversity we would learn to value different kinds of people—etcetera, etcetera, you’ve heard the line.  You’ll notice that most of these people doing the pontificating and finger pointing about racial equality and harmony and the virtues of integration and multi-racialism do it from the far distance of the leafy suburbs or a university campus somewhere.  The fact of the matter is that, unlike practically all of them, I have lived up close with the reality of race in America.  And regardless of what they might like to think, I am not stupid or unenlightened or their moral inferior.  The people who look down their noses at people like me should come live for a year or two or three where my family and millions of other white families live.   Let their children grow up and go to school in this pigsty and be threatened and attacked and robbed and raped.  Then they can talk.[2]

In Sundown Towns, Loewen refers to whites’ “amazing stereotypes” about blacks—and of course he means amazingly off-base.  He doesn’t cite data related to black crime statistics, illegitimacy rates, welfare dependency, and educational and work performance to show how amazingly wrong whites are in their negative perceptions of blacks.  He doesn’t refer to what has happened in America’s cities when blacks displaced whites.  He doesn’t describe the quality of life in sundown towns and what happened when they integrated to the point that they included a critical mass of blacks, say 30%.  As a sociologist or historian, however Loewen defines himself these days, I would have expected him to do this.   He doesn’t bother.  Today’s university academics in the social sciences see no need for this kind of thing.  They see what they do as akin to preaching the gospel.

Loewen negatively stereotypes whites left and right in Sundown Towns.  What particularly stuck in my craw was his characterization of young whites from the suburbs.  “These young people have grown up with a sense of entitlement,” Loewen declares.  “The world is their oyster, and they intend to harvest its pearls.  Families like these can go to Bali and never meet a Balinese family, because they stay at the Sanur Beach Hyatt.”

For many years, I have taught young whites from this background at the same university Loewen did, the University of Vermont.  (I didn’t know Loewen.  I had just one brief long-range exchange with him.  In response to an article in a national publication disparaging my racial views, he emailed me suggesting I read Sundown Towns to help straighten out my thinking.  I replied that I had read it, and that it had actually reinforced my thinking.)  Loewen’s portrayal of the decent, hardworking young people I came to know well is cruel and hurtful.  I presume their parents have no sense of the class resentment university faculty like Loewen—he is far from alone—harbor toward their children, who, at significant financial sacrifice, they turn over to them.  Imagine what it is like to be a nineteen- or twenty-year-old white student from a suburban background—or a graduate student—and be in a classroom with a professor who has thinly veiled animus toward you.

Loewen has a section on the “social pathology of the white ghetto” in which he goes on about how it limits white children’s horizons and provides “fertile recruiting fields for the KKK.”  (Have you come across any KKK members lately?)  He calls white flight “a pestilence.”  Loewen dumps on the multitudes of white people—including those being driven out of southern California by the Hispanic presence, I think of a woman I interviewed for my book—heartlessly discounting the reality of their lives.

Here’s someone else of the sort that Loewen kept us from hearing, a fifty-year-old man from the Philadelphia area who described to me what had happened to his childhood neighborhood.  He was confronting the same situation in the neighborhood he and his wife and daughter had moved into fifteen years previously:

Before it became illegal, local realtors would show houses only to white families.  Although it has been painted as an unfair arrangement, it really reflected the point of view of the town.  The people there wanted to live among their own people.  They wanted to live in a white community.  Now, I see that as the highest form of self-determination: people defining their own community, people deciding what comes into their collective lives, people determining their own standards.  It doesn’t matter if their standards are rational or moral by someone else’s measure.  People have a right to decide whom they are comfortable living next to and not comfortable living next to.  This is fundamental and it not a matter of rationality or morality.   It is simply human.  It is not that they have ill will toward anyone.  It is just that they know the atmosphere that they like.

The neighborhood where I grew up has turned into a wasteland.  Whites still make up a majority of the community—55%—but nevertheless the neighborhood has gone in the same direction of a typical urban black area.  When I was living there, when a tree died an Irish guy named Fred Fagan would plant a new one.  Now those saplings are mighty trees.  When a tree dies these days, no one plants a new one. There is broken glass all over the place, and things like busted up shopping carts lying on their side blocking the alleys.  Many of the old brick houses are covered over with some kind of god-awful siding.  When I was a kid, repairs and restorations were done in the mode of the existing architecture of the town.   Now, from one house to the next, they are all different.  There is no common thread to the look of the houses now.  There used to be hedges and white picket fences that lent a common feel to the area—no more.

My mother still lives there. Recently, a black teenager knocked my mother to the ground, injuring her, and took her purse.  This sort of thing was unheard of in my old neighborhood, but it is commonplace now. The black woman across the street was just arrested for robbing 7-Eleven stores.  When I was growing up, kids could go anywhere in town on their bicycles.  We could go in the woods and explore down by the creek and there would be no danger at all.  Now, there is no way you would allow your child to even take a walk around the neighborhood.  Just this year, a young white woman was abducted by two black men and taken to a place where we used to play ball and raped and murdered.  These heinous crimes are happening regularly there.  My mother’s house, when she dies, would have sold for a pretty penny, but it is worth very little on the market now.

The place I live in now, on the outskirts of Philadelphia, was a clean and safe place when my wife and I moved here fifteen years ago.  But the pattern of my childhood home has been repeated.  Nonwhites have moved in and the neighborhood has deteriorated drastically.  More and more, I find that this isn’t a suitable place for my family.  It doesn’t reflect our heritage and values.[3]

As it turned out, this man was “saved” from this circumstance; he died several months after telling me this.

In Sundown Towns Loewen comes down particularly hard on the town of Edina, a largely white suburb of Minneapolis.  I grew up in Minneapolis.   When I was a kid, Minneapolis was just about all white.   You could walk anyplace at any time in that beautiful city of lakes.  But Minneapolis has gone the demographic route of other urban centers in this country and you can’t walk just anywhere in “Murderapolis,” as it is now called.  A few years ago, my brother moved from Minneapolis—call it escaped—to Edina.  Indeed, Edina is a sundown town, but not in the way Loewen thinks about it.  Edina is a sundown town because it is a town where white people feel safe after sundown.


[1] Robert S. Griffin, One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race (1stBooks Library, 2004).

[2] Griffin, One Sheaf, One Vine, 154–55.

[3] Robert S. Griffin, Living White: Writings on Race, 2000–2005 (AuthorHouse, 2006), 65–66, 70.

Deborah Lipstadt nominated to be the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism

Deborah Lipstadt has been nominated to be the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, a  position where, if confirmed, she will have an official position as a Jewish activist, as opposed to her current position in which she masquerades as a “scholar.” Because I participated in David Irving’s lawsuit against Lipstadt, I wrote the following on her, excerpted from this general discussion of my participation in the trial. Yes, Lipstadt is yet another academic Jewish activist.

Despite the fact that David Irving contacted me because I had discussed the suppression of his book, I continued to be concerned that this issue was not really central to Irving’s case and that my purported expertise on Judaism was irrelevant. The link to the case was that Deborah Lipstadt had joined the effort at suppression despite her lack of scholarly expertise on Goebbels. The Washington Post of April 3, 1996 quoted Lipstadt as stating that “In the Passover Hagadah, it says in every generation there are those who rise up to destroy us. David Irving is not physically destroying us, but is trying to destroy the memory of those who have already perished at the hands of tyrants.” “They say they don’t publish reputations, they publish books…. But would they publish a book by Jeffrey Dahmer on man-boy relationships? Of course the reputation of the author counts. And no legitimate historian takes David Irving’s work seriously.” These comments were made in reaction to the St. Martin’s Press rescinding publication of Irving’s book, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, and were clearly intended to support that decision. The decision to sue Lipstadt came only after St. Martin’s Press had rescinded publication of the book, and only after Lipstadt’s public support for that decision (David Irving, personal communication; see also Guttenplan 2000, 53).

In the trial, the defense argued that my testimony was irrelevant and the judge seemed to agree but then changed his mind when the link with Lipstadt was made clear. Irving’s complaint goes beyond simple libel against him to the assertion of an organized campaign of suppression. Evolutionary theory did not enter into my testimony, and it only entered my written statement to the court in a general way—that I saw Jewish- gentile relations as being examples of competition between ethnic groups.

David Irving is in many ways not an ideal person. There is no doubt in my mind that he has strongly held political views — although the extent to which this is a reaction to his demonization by Jewish activist organizations is at least open to conjecture. Whenever a person has strong political views, it is reasonable to assume that these views may color one’s perception of reality. Since I am not a professional historian, I am in no position to judge the validity of his archival research. I am very impressed by the fact that Irving is a recognized expert on certain aspects of W.W.II— recognized by several noted authorities for having made original contributions to knowledge in the field — none of whom are Holocaust deniers or revisionists. These include Gordon Craig, A.J.P. Taylor, Hugh Trevor-Roper, and John Keegan. (A column by Keegan, written for the Daily Telegraph (UK) appears as Appendix 1 below. [Keegan concludes: “Prof Lipstadt, by contrast, seems as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be. Few other historians had ever heard of her before this case. Most will not want to hear from her again.”])

Post-trial comment: In his opinion, Justice Gray seems to concur with this evaluation:

As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving’s military history … and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans …. [Richard Evans, a historian who testified for the defense, had stated that Irving has had “a generally low reputation amongst professional historians since the end of the 1980s and at all times amongst those who have direct experience of researching in the areas with which he concerns himself”; although not noted by Judge Gray, Evans also reiterated Lipstadt’s charge that Irving was not a historian at all.] But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving’s military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.

The judge is implicitly agreeing with me that Lipstadt libeled Irving by writing he was not a historian and by writing that “no legitimate historian takes David Irving’s work seriously.” I suppose that in the judge’s view this was far less serious than the accusation that he had manipulated data in order to exculpate Hitler, etc., and I have no objection to that judgment.

I also felt that Lipstadt exaggerated the extent to which Irving denied the Holocaust, since there are many places in his writings where Irving describes Nazis engaged in organized killing of Jews. I was also swayed by my knowledge that Irving’s Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich received a positive but critical review in The New York Review of Books (Sept. 19, 1996) by Stanford historian Gordon Craig who cautioned against censoring people like Irving. And finally, I had finished reading Goebbels myself and decided that, whatever faults a close analysis might reveal, it was highly informative on many points—an indispensable source of information on the man and the period. Obviously I would not trust only my own feelings on this issue; but in fact I had satisfied myself that indeed it was a major contribution to the field.

I was also swayed by finding that Lipstadt is a Jewish ethnic activist whose own writings have been criticized by a well-recognized historian as exaggerating the role of anti-Semitism in the Western response to the Holocaust during World War II [see below]. Lipstadt is thus part of a pattern discussed extensively in Separation And Its Discontents in which some (but by no means all) Jewish historians engage in ethnocentric interpretations of history. It is highly significant that Lipstadt’s book Denying the Holocaust was written with extensive aid from various Jewish activist organizations, including the ADL. Lipstadt’s book was commissioned and published by The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In her acknowledgements, she credits the research department of the Anti-Defamation league, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Institute for Jewish Affairs (London), the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the American Jewish Committee’all activist organizations.

Lipstadt is the Chair of the Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University. Historian Jacob Katz finds that academic departments of Jewish studies are often linked to Jewish nationalism: “The inhibitions of traditionalism, on the one hand, and a tendency toward apologetics, on the other, can function as deterrents to scholarly objectivity” (p. 84). The work of Jewish historians exhibits “a defensiveness that continues to haunt so much of contemporary Jewish activity” (1986, 85). Similarly the preeminent scholar of the Jewish religion, Jacob Neusner, notes that “scholars drawn to the subject by ethnic affiliation’Jews studying and teaching Jewish things to Jews’ turn themselves into ethnic cheer-leaders. The Jewish Studies classroom is a place where Jews tell Jews why they should be Jewish (stressing “the Holocaust” as a powerful reason) or rehearse the self-evident virtue of being Jewish.” (Times Literary Supplement, March 5, 1999).

Perhaps the best indication of Lipstadt’s Jewish activism is that she serves as Senior Editorial Contributor at the Jewish Spectator, a Jewish publication for conservative, religiously observant Jews. Her column, Tomer Devorah (Hebrew: Under Deborah’s Palm Tree), appears in every issue and touches on a wide range of Jewish issues, including anti-Semitism, relations among Jews, and interpreting religious holidays. In her column she has advocated greater understanding and usage of Hebrew to promote Jewish identification, and, like many Jewish ethnic activists, she is strongly opposed to intermarriage. “We must say to young people ‘intermarriage is something that poses a dire threat to the future of the Jewish community.’ ” Lipstadt writes that Conservative Rabbi Jack Moline was “very brave” for saying that number one on a list of ten things Jewish parents should say to their children is “I expect you to marry a Jew.” She suggests a number of strategies to prevent intermarriage, including trips to Israel for teenagers and subsidizing tuition at Jewish day schools (Jewish Spectator, [Fall, 1991], 63).

In his recent book, The Holocaust in American Life, historian Peter Novick clearly thinks of Lipstadt as an activist, although not as extreme as some. He repeatedly cites her as an example of a Holocaust propagandizer. He notes that in her book Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945, Lipstadt says Allied policy “bordered on complicity” motivated by “deep antipathy” toward “contemptible Jews.” Novick says that while there is no scholarly consensus on the subject, “most professional historians agree that “the comfortable morality tale … is simply bad history: estimates of the number of those who might have been saved have been greatly inflated, and the moralistic version ignores real constraints at the time” (Novick, 1999, 48). Novick characterizes Lipstadt as attributing the failure of the press to emphasize Jewish suffering as motivated by “willful blindness, the result of inexcusable ignorance’or malice” (p. 65) despite the fact that the concentration camp survivors encountered by Western journalists (Dachau, Buchenwald) were 80% non-Jewish. Lipstadt is described as an implacable pursuer of Nazi war criminals, stating that she would “prosecute them if they had to be wheeled into the courtroom on a stretcher” (p. 229). In a discussion of the well-recognized unreliability of eye-witness testimony, Novick writes: “When evidence emerged that one Holocaust memoir, highly praised for its authenticity, might have been completely invented, Deborah Lipstadt, who used the memoir in her teaching of the Holocaust, acknowledged that if this turned out to be the case, it ‘might complicate matters somewhat,’ but insisted that it would still be ‘powerful as a novel.’ ” Truth is less important than the effectiveness of the message.

The intrusion of ethnocentrism into historical scholarship is a well-recognized problem in Jewish historiography, discussed at length in Separation and Its Discontents. Historians such as Jacob Katz (1986) and Albert Lindemann (1997) have noted that this type of behavior is commonplace in Jewish historiography. A central theme of Katz’s analysis—massively corroborated by Albert Lindemann’s recent work, Esau’s Tears‘is that 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. To quote the well-known political scientist, Michael Walzer: “Living so long in exile and so often in danger, we have cultivated a defensive and apologetic account, a censored story, of Jewish religion and culture” (Walzer 1994, 6).

The salient point for me is that Jewish historians who have been reasonably accused of bringing an ethnocentric bias to their writing nevertheless are able to publish their work with prestigious mainstream academic and commercial publishers, and they often obtain jobs at prestigious academic institutions. A good example is Daniel Goldhagen. In his written submission to the court on behalf of Deborah Lipstadt, historian Richard Evans, describes Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners, as a book which argues “in a crude and dogmatic fashion that virtually all Germans had been murderous antisemites since the Middle Ages, had been longing to exterminate the Jews for decades before Hitler came to power, and actively enjoyed participating in the extermination when it began. The book has since been exposed as a tissue of misrepresentation and misinterpretation, written in shocking ignorance of the huge historical literature on the topic and making numerous elementary mistakes in its interpretation of the documents.”

These are exactly the types of accusations leveled by Lipstadt at Irving. Yet Goldhagen maintains a position at Harvard University; he is lionized in many quarters and his work has been massively promoted in the media while his critics have come under pressure from Jewish activist organizations (Guttenplan, 2000).

“No, the Unvaccinated Aren’t Selfish or Ignorant. Here’s Why I’m not Vaxxed”

There are some signs that vaccine hesitancy is becoming more respectable. The following appeared in the mainstream media (Newsweek):

A colleague of my parents reportedly died from complications of the Moderna vaccine, a friend suffered from deep vein thrombosis, and a teenage nephew of another friend now has chronic cardiac issues. These are three examples from my immediate network of family and friends, and I know many others with their own stories. And while it’s true that these are anecdotes and do not represent the majority, they are powerful nonetheless.

Now, we know that age, weight, and other comorbidities play a role in how COVID-19 impacts the individual, and for someone at serious risk from COVID-19, these rare risks are probably worth it. But what about for someone who is not at risk from COVID-19? The risk/benefit analysis for otherwise healthy, young individuals may be a different calculus.

Public health messaging has consistently portrayed the vaccines are safe and effective, and therefore everyone eligible should get vaccinated. But companies like Moderna and Pfizer are protected from lawsuits related to their COVID-19 vaccines until 2024.

It’s just one of the many facets of the inconsistent public health messaging and moving of goalposts when it comes to the vaccine and herd immunity, which makes it hard to trust such guidance. A cocktail of mixed messages on who is at risk from COVID-19 and dubious masking guidance coupled with a lack of clear messaging on what exactly is the goal and rationale of these measures and policies adds to the skepticism many of us feel. The focus has now shifted from deaths and hospitalizations due to COVID-19 to a new hyper-focus on breakthrough cases, though the majority of them are benign.

But even while the experts push the vaccine, they have undermined it by arguing that vaccinated individuals spread the virus as effectively as unvaccinated individuals. It begs the question: If everyone now has to wear a mask because everyone is now back to being suspected asymptomatic carriers, why get the vaccine at all?

The personal risk/benefit analysis still plays a role and preventing serious illness is definitely important, but getting the vaccine to protect others (and calling unvaccinated adults selfish) no longer seems to be relevant if the vaccinated can spread it, too. In fact, some experts have advised only individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19 to get vaccinated, in order to prevent the evolution of even more vaccine resistant variants.

Along with the mixed messages is the obvious role that politics has played in COVID-19 policy. There was Kamala Harris saying she wouldn’t trust a vaccine produced by President Trump—then doing an about face. There was the way that Democratic politicians and even the CDC itself justifying Black Lives Matter protests during lockdown while criticizing Trump rallies as “super spreader” events. Most recently former President Obama hosted a huge, maskless birthday party in the midst of renewed mask mandates and concern over the spread of infection.

The inconsistent policies and public responses, the repeated “do as I say, not as I do” from those pushing restrictions, has led many like me to skepticism of any government issued guidance. And adding bribes, mandates, and censorship to the mix has only served to heighten that sense of mistrust. Perhaps most unnerving has been seeing experts who question and warn about adverse reactions to the vaccine being censored or blacklisted.

Why censor the adverse effects? Why not publicize them so we can make informed decisions?

And it’s interesting that there is a U-shaped curve for vaccine hesitancy, with PhD.s and the relatively uneducated being most hesitant and Masters degree people the least hesitant.

The researchers canvassed no fewer than 5 million Americans who responded to surveys on whether they were “probably” or “definitely not planning on getting a COVID vaccine.

The results will shock many.

“More surprising is the breakdown in vaccine hesitancy by level of education,” reports UnHerd. “It finds that the association between hesitancy and education level follows a U-shaped curve with the highest hesitancy among those least and most educated. People a master’s degree had the least hesitancy, and the highest hesitancy was among those holding a PhD.”

In addition, while the lowest educated saw the largest drop in vaccine hesitancy for the first five months of 2021, those with PhD’s were the most likely to not change their minds.

null

The study also reveals that the most common concern for those who are hesitant to take the vaccine is potential side-effects, with a lack of trust in government close behind in second.

The results of the investigation completely debunk the notion, amplified by media narratives, that only “dumb” people are vaccine hesitant.

It also demolishes NYT White House correspondent Annie Karni’s characterization of elitists who attended Obama’s 60th birthday party by as “sophisticated, vaccinated.”

How many of them haven’t taken the vaccine?

Meanwhile, the meme has been proven correct…

null

England’s Multiracial Potemkin Village Football Team Fails to Achieve Heroic Propaganda Victory

Propaganda storm troopers have feelings too

People who live in the UK may not have noticed what is going on because the changes are incremental and gradual. The boiling frog, y’know. But, for someone like me, who jets in and out every now and then, and observes from afar, it’s pretty obvious. The country has the atmosphere of a North Korea or a Nazi Germany in that there is a precise version, vision, or image of the country that is constantly being pushed out by all the organs of state, the mass media, the corporations, the institutions, and especially the adverts. Call it Gleichschaltung if you will. England’s participation in the Euro Championships was just one more piece in this massive propaganda puzzle
The UK is changing and the main driver of that change is demographics — or more correctly people’s freedom not to have children, an option that earlier generations of British people simply didn’t have or they would have died out earlier. Yes, if modernity teaches us anything, it is that people on balancein general, and given the choice simply don’t like having kids much, despite whatever social signalling crap they do in the opposite direction.
The result of all this is that since condoms and “The Pill” became widely available — and even before — the UK has been parasiting population from anywhere it can get it, with the result that the country is going Black, Brown, Asian, “Mystery Meat,” you name it.
This of course creates all sorts of social and identity problems, especially when the multi-culturalism has a strongly asymmetric character as it does between native English people and some of the “less adapted” in-coming groups.

The solution to all this chaos is not for the Ruling Elites to fight demographic change, but instead to “manage” it and positively package it. Fighting it would literally mean ‘forcing’ people to have children at this point and the elites are too weak for that. So, England these days is all about the “management” of diversity. This is where the England team, which just finished its European Championships with a commendable defeat on penalties in the final, comes in.

This team is an excellent expression of the British regime’s “management” approach. Manager Gareth Southgate has been praised/condemned for his “wokeness,” but the team he put together was actually a relatively inspiring vision of a well-functioning multicultural Britain. Or, more accurately, it was a propaganda version of how the British regime wants the racially shifting plebs to see themselves and their society — namely as a high-functioning entity where nobody even sees the racial elephant in the room or the death camp demographics that will continue to suck in population from abroad.In short, the England team represents a total fantasy, just like Nazi propaganda that Hitler was a towering genius or North Korean narratives that their country is a consumer paradise. But until the British system collapses, that is the vision they are going to run with. A successful multiracial football team is the Potemkin Village of the chaotic and dysgenic low-fertility vampire-demographic states that increasingly characterize the West.

In the latest case, however, the England team fell just short of a major propaganda victory to an all-White Italian team. Even better, some of the pretty little peasant houses in the Potemkin Village blew over in the wind due to the game finally being decided on penalty kicks (PKs), something that appears to disfavour players from a sub-Saharan genetic origin.
The problem with PKs is that everyone expects you to score, so that when you do nobody notices but when you don’t nobody ever forgets it. For example, apart from managing the English football team, Gareth Southgate is mainly known for missing a PK at a previous important competition (the Euros in 1996). The end result was that some of the craftier White players (and Raheem Sterling) hung back from the potential disgrace of missing a PK, allowing young, overconfident Black players — Marcus Rashford, Jadon Sancho, and Bukayo Saka to step up and fail.
In fact all three of England’s PK failures were by Black players, while the two that were scored were slotted in by representatives of England’s earlier population of Irish immigrants (both Harry Kane and Harry Maguire are of Irish origin). This is not to disparage any of the players. The 19-year-old Saka, at least, put in impressive performances earlier in the competition. But the cool-headed accuracy that is required to score penalties under immense pressure is probably not a major Black teenage strength.
So, rather than multiracial England celebrating a “heroic victory “secured by the PK of a young Yorubian Briton, the country was momentarily plunged into “racist” hysteria and recriminations again.
The Football Association: “Social media companies need to step up and take accountability and action to ban abusers from their platforms, gather evidence that can lead to prosecution and support making their platforms free from this type of abhorrent abuse.”

lot more propaganda, as well as an infinite amount of thought-policing by the British Stassi, is obviously required.

Saka – Heroism and idolisation deferred
Reposted with permission from Affirmative Right.

Darryl Cooper (@martyrmade) on the 2020 election

Darryl Cooper put out a Tweet storm on the 2020 election that is incisive while never treading into far-out stuff. Suitable for mainstream conservative audiences, which is why Tucker Carlson read it on air. This is the kind of thing that should persuade normies/liberals that indeed there is a very powerful elite in America that is bent on retaining power. This elite controls the establishment media, big tech and social media, and it dominates the Democratic Party, and quite a few Republicans are on board. They were absolutely committed to defeating Trump in 2020 and used every bit of their power to do so. They are now committed to ensuring a permanent majority by engineering the election laws in the name of avoiding “Jim Crow 2.0.”

This is the sort of thing that I keep thinking could persuade White liberals that the election was indeed corrupt and that our elite (most of the media and political class, big tech) are totally corrupt. I know. I’m a hopeless optimist.

You can read the Tweet storm here:

  This is Tucker Carlson reading the Tweets and providing an introduction:

How Boomers Were Taught to Hate (Themselves): Black-pilled analyses Norma Rae

Very insightful analysis of Norma Rae is by a videographer, Black-Pilled. I don’t know how to get in touch with him, but very well done.

The Freud Illusion: Two Guest-Reviews for The Occidental Observer

Two guest reviewers offer us intriguingly diverse perspectives on a biography of the great Sigmund Freud. Dr. D’Bea’Qwarr insisted on not capitalizing ‘white’.

*   *   *

Freud: The Making of an Illusion, Frederick Crews (Metropolitan Books 2017)

This is a guest-review by Dr Benjamin M. Rubinstein

Burn this evil book. Burn it!

Dr Benjamin M. Rubinstein is a forensic accountant and passionate psychoanalyst who trained under a mentor who trained under a mentor who trained under The Master.

*   *   *

Freud: The Making of an Illusion, Frederick Crews (Metropolitan Books 2017)

This is a guest-review by Dr La’Toksha D’Bea’Qwarr

As a proud Black Woman of Size, I simply could not read all of this book. It wasn’t that Frederick Crews is a white male, because I was relieved to discover that Crews has managed to divest himself sufficiently of white privilege and racist white solidarity to expose his fellow white Freud as the true criminal and pervert he was. Nevertheless, I was unable to process so much about whites and their white wickedness. And there’s worse to come, it seems:

The first director of the [Freud] archives [at the US Library of Congress], Kurt Eissler, saw to it that other papers would remain unavailable for many more decades, extending as far forward as the year 2113. (“A Note on Sources,” p. xv)

The mind boggles at what still remains to be exposed! But the facts are already clear, as Crews lays out in unsparing detail. Freud was an archetypal white: a greedy, selfish, unscrupulous control-freak interested only in power and money, and prepared to tell as many lies and hurt as many people as it took to get what he wanted. I was sickened to my stomach, repeatedly, even in that short portion of the book I managed to fully process.

Fortunately, Crews brings a dry wit and a sure eye for a comic quote or wry comment to the task of cutting Freud down to size. In between being sickened to my stomach, I chuckled heartily many times as I read what I managed to read. Here are some of the additional laughs I found by dipping into the unprocessed portion of the book:

“I read through your manuscript in one sitting,” he [Freud] enthused [to Wilhelm Fliess] in 1896, with reference to The Relationship between the Nose and the Female Sexual Organs. “I was exceptionally pleased with its plain assurance, the lucid self-evident connections between the individual themes, the unpretentious unfolding of its riches, and…its wealth of glimpses of new riddles and new explanations.” (ch. 23, “The Secret Sharer,” p. 426)

In Freud’s world, it appears, all roads led to masturbation. Virtually every upsetting experience caused a child to start masturbating, and later her options were to keep masturbating and become neurasthenic or to stop and become hysterical. (ch. 29, “The Labyrinth of Reproaches,” p. 526)

Psychoanalysts were expected to march in step behind Freud’s anti-masturbatory banner. Between 1910 and 1912 the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society devoted no fewer than eleven sessions to discussing the ravages of the vice, and although dissenting voices were raised, Freud remained adamant. (ch. 35, “Imposing His Will,” p. 642)

[Margarethe] Csonka had kept him [Freud] busy analyzing fabricated dreams that were designed to satirize his preconceptions. Freud was just wary enough to suspect that her dreams were trying to deceive him, but not wary enough to perceive that Csonka herself was the trickster. After each session, having retired to a café, she would amuse her girlfriend with uproarious accounts of her therapist’s fatuity. (ch. 35, p. 644)

Freud schmeud, baby. This creepy Viennese shyster was a pervert and crook in typical white male fashion. Frederick Crews is to be congratulated on making a major contribution to the on-going campaign to expose the white male icons of the past as woefully over-rated, wildly over-exposed and way-way-way over-due for replacement in the so-called Western canon by the silenced voices of Persons of Color – especially Women-of-Size of Color and LGBTQTSIA+ of Color.

Dr La’Toksha D’Bea’Qwarr is the Hymie K. Diamondberg Professor of Black Diaspora Studies at the University of East Brooklyn.