Jews as a Hostile Elite

My Smackdown with Anti-White Crusader Tim Wise

A TOO contributor recently brought to my attention to one of those hard Left, Jewish fanatics who wrap themselves in activist virtue as they roam the countryside in search of monsters to destroy.

The crusader’s name is Tim Wise. Tim Wise hates racists; but from what I discovered, only one kind of racist. The White kind.

To investigate, I decided to contact Timothy Jacob Wise and explore his sympathies and uncover his inconsistencies, which turned out to be extensive. First, here’s a bit about “Anti-White Privilege” activist Timothy Jacob Wise fromhis website:

Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S., and has been called, “One of the most brilliant, articulate and courageous critics of white privilege in the nation,” by best-selling author and professor Michael Eric Dyson, of Georgetown University. Wise has spoken in 48 states, and on over 400 college campuses, including Harvard, Stanford, and the Law Schools at Yale and Columbia, and has spoken to community groups around the nation.

Tim Wise has written at least four books on racism and “white privilege” and has perhaps appeared on as many talk shows as Joan Rivers. And he’s every bit as charming.

Wise claims to be an “anti-Zionist Jew” but he avoids the subject of Jewishness, of Israel and Palestine. And he definitely avoids the ethical shortcomings inherent in Zionism. One of Wise’s books is titled, White Like Me. Yes, Wise detests “white privilege” as well as “haters” like David Duke, and even televangelists like Pat Robertson. Wise’s list of hate objects constitutes a rather familiar pattern. Indeed, from what I could uncover, among Wise’s scores of articles on race, there was virtually nothing on America’s unconditional commitment to the Jewish people of Israel and their infamous assortment of racial extremists. I wanted to explore this.

I decided to contact Mr. Wise and initiate a conversation about his deep concerns over “white privilege”. Below is our unexpurgated correspondence. Mr. Wise finally stopped talking to me. To find out why, read on. The email messages remain as in the original, with minor editing and added links.

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 22, 2010]:

Dear Tim,

I’m bothered by racism in all its expressions. But history creates challenges for those of us who wish to counter injustice as well as advance equal treatment for everyone under the rule of law. Allow me to ask you then: are you Jewish? (Please forgive me for being so bold). 

This is an important question however. There is no Caucasian group in the US that operates with such privilege (and enjoys such political double-standard) as American Jews and, especially, the state of Israel. Indeed, if white racism is deplorable, isn’t Jewish racism? For all of us devoted to combating racism, the Zionist movement poses pressing moral dilemmas. This cannot be ignored. 

By any objective measure, Jews in America are very successful, influential and free to travel anywhere. This is good. But it can be argued that there is an underlying racial element to ‘global Jewry’. Many organized Jews groups denounce racism but work tirelessly to prevent Jews from marrying individuals without a Jewish mother. This is not only hard to justify, but it suggests an overriding Jewish concern with DNA (race). This raises difficult issues. 

Many Jews operate in countless (and exclusive) groups that are designed to enhance Jewish cohesion, solidarity and influence. But there’s clearly a downside to this. Not everyone’s in the club.  

American Jews, I’ve noticed, tend to support multi-culturalism (and high levels of immigration) here in the US as they champion Jewish purity in Israel/Palestine. Isn’t this double-standard a challenge to our anti-racist agenda? This level of Jewish privilege demands scrutiny. Public scrutiny. We cannot ignore it. 

Many Jews are proudly atheistic. (I’m something of an atheist myself.) But interestingly, these atheistic Jews are as Jewish as any rabbi. Why? It is their ethnic identity that makes them Jews. Religious ideology, it seems, is a sidelight to modern Jewishness. Indeed, racial identity is what motivates Israeli Jews (and their supporters here) to try to ethnically-cleanse Palestine. As an anti-racist, isn’t this hard to support? Should people in Palestine be penalized to the point of exile for not having a Jewish pedigree? This is a difficult issue. 

As you doubtless realize, Jews also have extraordinary influence in Hollywood and Washington. If political/cultural underrepresentation is problematic, why not political/cultural overrepresentation? After all, power is a zero-sum game. 

Today, many Jews in America have attained privileged status. At the highest levels, many organized Jewish groups seem willing to inflict damage upon numerous Mideast peoples in order to enhance security for their ethno-state in Israel. This campaign is hugely expensive to the US taxpayer and, at times, undermines our reputation abroad. Favoring one ‘religion’ over others is also incompatible with settled American law. What (if anything) should we do about this?  

There are exclusive Jewish fraternities, Jewish neighborhoods, Jewish country clubs, Jewish political action committees (by the score) and even a Congressional Jewish caucus in Washington DC. These organizations actively discriminate against non-Jews and, since Jewishness is a birthright among Jews, the question of racism inevitably arises. It cannot be ignored. 

Most Jewish Americans seem comfortable with Israel’s harsh treatment of native non-Jews in Palestine. What’s the proper course of action for America now? Today, we Americans of all races are taxed to subsidize the Zionist battle against non-Jews in Palestine. Is this compatible with fighting racism? On a related subject, should America invade Iran to make Israel safer? These are challenging questions. But I think that it’s time that you spoke out against the most virulent forms of Jewish racism, particularly since it’s so intimately connected to the imperial doings of Washington DC.  

If possible, please take the time to explore these concerns, Tim. I as well as many of your supporters will surely appreciate it. Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely, Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 22]

I am an anti-Zionist jew and always have been. I have written about it and spoken out about it for years. If you did your homework you would know that. Although I do not think American Jews have nearly the power you think, I am certainly opposed to our special relationship with Israel. I think we should spend all military aid to Israel (and everywhere else for that matter), and that the proper solution in Palestine is a one-state, bi-national state, where all have equal rights, entirely.  tim wise

[Mark Green to Tim Wise on Feburary 24, 2010]:

Hi Tim. Thank you for your comments. I’ve done some reading by you and about you. Your anti-racist positions are indeed selective. I discovered little in your writings that critically explore Israeli racism. Nothing about ‘Jewish supremacism’. As far as I can tell, you’ve even managed to ignore the sorry condition of black Jews in Israel. Are you an Israeli mole? 

Perhaps you’ve described yourself as “anti-Zionist Jew” once or twice (though I missed it) but the sweep of your articles ignores Israeli violence and systemic Israeli racism altogether. Wikipedia has nothing to say about your being an “anti-Zionist Jew”. In fact, even your list of recommended books hasn’t one title devoted to the destruction of Palestine or the inordinate influence enjoyed by the Israel Lobby in Washington. Did you forget? 

Your obsession with “white privilege” is conveniently narrow. Is it the white privilege we find throughout our country at integrated, white-created institutions that hire and recruit African-Americans over more qualified white applicants because of their race? — or is this the kind of ‘white privilege’ that allows a nation of European Jews to colonize an already-populated area in the Middle East and then exile or subjugate the native people there because they lack a Jewish pedigree? Oddly, your writings obsess over the former and ignore the latter. Your sympathies lack moral balance.  

You say you want to suspend “military aid” to Israel. Big deal. The Israelis already have a nuclear arsenal and they’re threatening to use it. Doesn’t the threat of genocide concern you? Then say so. Or should thousands of Iranians die because their President doubts the Holocaust or intends to enrich uranium? 

Do you support the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement(BDS) against Israel? You did so aggressively in the case of Apartheid South Africa. If you do support these broad sanctions against the Zionist Israel, then why not say so loudly and endorse BDS?  

Your mining the same territory that Jewish liberals have been prospecting for the past 60 years: integration for blacks and whites, separate but equal for Israelis. This is a moral charade.  

The greatest racial violence and extremist danger today comes from Jewish zealots and their fundamentalist Christian allies. These people are threatening nuclear war against Iran and pushing our government towards continued aggression in Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Yeman, Lebanon, and Iraq. Meanwhile, the slow motion annihilation of Palestine grinds on. As one who claims to be committed to the struggle against racism, doesn’t this bother you? Then say something about it that’s loud and clear. And keep saying it. 

Desmond Tutu famously said conditions in Palestine are “far worse” than anything he witnessed in Apartheid South Africa. Do you not believe him? Why then are you so accommodating towards the ‘special relationship’ (besides private claims to the contrary)? Your writings evidence more contempt for pro-lifers in America’s Bible Belt than an Israeli garrison dropping white phosphorous on Palestinian civilians. Why? 

You are you frothy over a problem that is rapidly improving (race relations in the US) but indifferent to a crisis that is growing worse (Zionist extremism). This smacks of intellectual dishonesty, Tim.  

Since you’re keen on human rights, how is the Arab minority doing in Israel? Any hiring quotas that you know of? What about ‘the problem’ of discrimination in housing? Terrible, right? Are these not expressions of institutionalized racism?  

Here’s my theory: you’re obsession with (past) white (Christian) sins is a deliberate cover for ongoing, government-subsidized, worldwide Zionist criminality. The shoe fits, Tim. 

To cover up for your work as an Israeli asset, you occasionally make noises about “hard line” or “right wing” Israelis, but never about the whole stinking racist society there. 

Also, please explain how Israel can become “one state” but also be “bi-national”. Are you serious? A bi-national state is what many Apartheid-era white South Africans sought so they could avoid racial integration and black rule. Are you blowing smoke again for Jewish segregationists? Indeed, recent polling indicates that the vast majority of Israeli Jews want the Jewish State ethnically cleansed of all gentiles in the event of a ‘peace deal’. That whole country is chock full of racist, supremacist Jews, Tim. But it doesn’t seem to bother you. 

You are surely aware that Jews may not marry non-Jews in Israel. Why have you not explored this as an expression of systemic Israeli racism? Is DNA mixing a bad thing for the Jews? Many Israelis think so.

Finally, which past or present Israeli leaders should be held criminally responsible for the multitude of crimes committed by the Zionist state? Please name names.  

Those horrid white American racists that you make a living ranting about couldn’t get elected to deputy sheriff in Amarillo, but those privileged whites from Israel get a private meeting with our President. Which problem is more urgent, Tim? Moral and political corruption on a massive scale is subverting justice and damaging our civilization. And you’re looking the other way. -Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 23, 2010]:

Mark, You don’t get it. I am opposed to Zionism, entirely. I do not believe in a Jewish state, or any ethno-religious states.  

I spend my time focusing mostly on U.S. white racism because I am an American. I believe I can have the greatest influence where I live, and believe in cleaning up my backyard first. I receive white privilege in the U.S. as someone who is seen as white (whether you and your type believe Jews are white or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether we receive white advantage). I do not accept that as a Jew I have some special obligation to focus on Israel, per se, because I do not believe in Israel and have said so repeatedly. I would never live there, have no desire to go there, and even quit my own religious instruction as a youth because of my views re: Israel among other things.  

i agree with Tutu and have said so. 

I support the boycott and divestment from israel. 

When I say bi-national state, I merely mean that Jews should be able to live in palestine with Arabs (Christian and Muslim), with equal rights, but no special rights or privileges. 

I’m not sure what would satisfy you. Perhaps you think we should simply nuke Israel, or round up Jews and kill them, and only those who are willing to go along with such bigoted bullshit are legit in your view. Whatever. people like you who believe in worldwide Jewish conspiracies tend to be beyond reason, so I doubt there is much reason in discussing it with you further.  

I am critical of Jewish racism. You are not critical of traditional white racism. And therein lies the difference. You are the hypocrite my friend. Not me. 

Fuck you very much. Tim

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 24, 2010]:

Tim- No need for profanity or hatred. Your attack upon my character is a familiar canard. Stop changing the subject.  

Your written record is clear. Your public “criticisms” of Jewish racism are a basically non-existent. This is no accident. You have a forum but you’d rather denounce redneck hillbillies instead of billionaire Zionists. As for being an American, this didn’t prevent you from tirelessly pursuing sanctions against Apartheid South Africa, did it? It’s ‘white’ (Christian) racism that you detest. Nothing more. This is a familiar pattern among Jews. 

Israel is allowed to kill because US-based Jews such as yourself would prefer to blow smoke about less urgent issues. In case you haven’t noticed, racist Israel relies on American aid, American arms and American cover provide by Jewish activists like yourself to commit their everyday atrocities. Because of the highly effective efforts of Zionists, America and Israel are virtually one political entity. This arrangement damages America and undermines international law. Your deceptive behavior make you complicit, that’s all. -Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 24, 2010]:

… and I support cutting off that assistance, just like I did with South Africa. But actually, one thing I learned while doing the S. Africa work was that it was inappropriate to focus only on injustice elsewhere when there is substantial racism and injustice here (this is documented in my books, by the way, whether you believe it or not). I did not make the connections to the local context that I needed to when I was a student in the antiapartheid movement, and I resolved not to ever again focus mostly on what was going on elsewhere, over what was going on here.

To the extent the US is complicit, I call that out and am on record as supporting a) an end of all support for Israel (military and economic), b) an end to Israel as a “Jewish state,” and a one-state, democratic solution for all, c) an end to the special relationship with Israel in the U.S. I’m not sure what more I’m supposed to do. fact is, I receive white privilege in the U.S. and feel that it is ethically necessary to take responsibility for that, first, because that is the system of injustice from which I most directly benefit. I do not receive Jewish privilege in this country (I would in Israel, but don’t have any desire to even visit, let alone live there). In this country, I have never been favored in anything because of my Jewishness, while, on the other hand, I was often marginalized as a Jew growing up, told by Christian assholes that I was going to hell etc.

So, because I believe our first responsibility is to address injustice from which we benefit, I think dealing with white racism/privilege in the U.S. has to be my priority. But that has not kept me from writing about Israel, openly proclaiming my anti-Zionist views at hundreds of speeches, and ending up on the shit list of every Zionist and pro-Israel group in the country as a result. You may not be familiar with my public stance, but Zionists are. I have had them attempt to get me fired from jobs, they have forced places to cancel my speeches, I get death threats from them on occasion, etc. So frankly, your own ignorance about my views says little about the reality: I have attacked Zionism. Not just the hard right in Israel, but Zionism. The fact that this upsets your simplistic worldview, which says that all Jews are Zionists and support Israel, is your problem, not mine… tim 

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 25, 2010]:

Hello Tim. I’ve got to give you credit, you’re a lot better on the Zionist problem than most of your co-ethnics. I am also sorry to hear that you were “marginalized as a Jew growing up…by Christian assholes”. This is unfortunate, and revealing. Unfortunately, you’ve still got a chip on your shoulder the size of Brooklyn.  

You are wrong to allege that I believe that “all Jews are Zionists and therefore support Israel” (though polling data proves that the vast majority of the world’s Jews are committed Zionists and do support Israel with little reservation). But I never floated this facile, straw man generalization about “all Jews” so kindly stop claiming so. 

I don’t know whether or not you actually believe that you have “never been favored in anything because of [your] Jewishness”, but allow me to inform you that, as an American Jew, you are supremely privileged in our society. Supremely.  

Just consider your occupation. You go around scolding white (overwhelmingly non-Jewish) Americans for their ethnocentrism in what’s become the most integrated, tolerant and multi-racial nation in human history. Racism (and expressions of racial preference) have become truly taboo for ordinary, white Americans. If white Americans were half as racist as you believe, they’d be following Israel’s example and enacting laws to manage their ethnic future. Only it’s not happening. US borders remain open as Israel builds a “security fence” bigger than the Berlin Wall. What’s worse, the very discussion of these perplexing double-standards is severely limited. 

For instance, do you think that a gentile with my views (highly critical of organized Jewry) would be allowed to promulgate these concerns on any major campus (without violent interruption) or on any major media outlet? It just doesn’t happen. It’s not allowed to.  

Do you think this level of censorship or these political double standards has taken root by accident? Authoritarianism and conformity of this kind protects activists like you, Tim. Your opponents are delegitimized and marginalized. These double-standards are in place by design. This is privilege. It is Jewish privilege. 

Each and every day, white Christians pay tribute to the nuclear-ready Zionist State via taxation and unwavering diplomatic and military assistance. These subsidies have been going on without interruption for generations. And no level of Israeli cruelty causes their cessation. Yet you make a living out of scolding these witless, hapless gentiles for their racist tendencies! You’re so Jewish you can’t even see straight. 

And while American pay tribute to Israel, fully 98% of American taxpayers would be denied citizenship in Israel because of their non-Jewish genealogy. This grotesque problem isn’t about “another country”, Tim. This is happening in Washington, in Palestine, and on your TV right here and now.  

Israel’s extraordinary exemption from everyday rules (and law) is an expression of Jewish privilege. This is doing genuine and irreversible damage to our nation and the world.  

Being Jewish in America today means never having to say you’re sorry (except to other Jews). It must be nice. And when criticizing Jews, we gentiles must be very, very careful, since the charge of ‘anti-Semitism can be ruinous. Jews suffer no similar opprobrium for any display of ‘anti-gentilism’. (Does such a thing even exist?) These double-standards are a cancer. In today’s multi-cultural America, there’s a galaxy of federations, alliances and organizations devoted strictly to ‘minority’ special interests. The vanishing white majority has been totally disarmed. This extraordinary double-standard represents the triumph of ‘political correctness, Tim, and it’s got Jewish fingerprints all over it. 

American Jews are blessed with top tier victim status today, in no small part due to the omnipresent Holocaust narrative. … In this universe, no other genocides matter. Perhaps no other genocide ever even happened. Today, the Holocaust parable symbolizes the eternal white (Christian) propensity for evil-doing (anti-Semitism) against a backdrop of Jewish exceptionalism and Jewish innocence. Those who doubt the veracity of any essential element (or meaning) of this Truth are to be shunned. In many democratic countries, repeated violators may suffer job loss or imprisonment.  

On the other hand, expressions of Jewish xenophobia — no matter how racist or extreme — suffer from no comparable sanction. Even Israel’s push for the annihilation of Iran achieves considerable US approval.

Jewish privilege is real and it is doing genuine harm. 

Thus ended our correspondence. I conclude with a quote from Wise’s website:

After all, acknowledging unfairness then calls decent people forth to correct those injustices. And since most persons are at their core, decent folks, the need to ignore evidence of injustice is powerful: To do otherwise would force whites to either push for change (which they would perceive as against their interests) or live consciously as hypocrites who speak of freedom and opportunity but perpetuate a system of inequality.

Who’s the hypocrite?

Mark Green is the editor of Persecution, Privilege and Power. He can be reached at:

Part 2 of Connelly on White Victimization

Part 2 of Edmund Connelly’s article on White victimization is posted. I was unaware of the following quote from Solzhenitsyn that Connelly found on Israel Shamir’s website:

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn summed up the process during the Bolshevik Revolution, when the

executed army officers were Russians, the noblemen, priests, monks, deputies were  Russians. . . . In 1920s, the pre-revolutionary engineers and scientists were exiled or killed. They were Russians, while their place was taken by Jews. The best Russian Psychiatric institute in Moscow, its Russian members were arrested or exiled, while their place was taken by the Jews. Important Jewish doctors blocked the advancement of Russian medical scientists. The best intellectual and artistic elites of Russian people were killed, while the Jews grew and flourished in these (deadly for Russians) years.

It’s passages like this that make an English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together essential. Americans must be made aware of the enormous risks that lie ahead when White political power diminishes and Jews continue to be a hostile elite.

Solzhenitsyn shows that the Bolshevik revolution meant the rise of Jews in psychiatry. The following passage from Ch. 4 of Culture of Critique shows that the result of Jewish domination of psychiatry in the USSR was that psychoanalysis became official dogma. It also shows the strong overlap among Jews, psychoanalysis, and political radicalism. As noted throughout CofC, psychoanalysis proved to be a very useful tool in constructing theories in which White identity and interests were analyzed as a sign of psychiatric disorder. To some extent, this revolution has already occurred bloodlessly in the West since WWII, given the influence of the Frankfurt School and other Jewish intellectual movements in the contemporary world. Psychoanalysis has died a well-deserved death and for that we should all be grateful. But the theoretical basis for rejecting White identity and interests has simply migrated to other pathologies of the academic left.

This belief in the curative powers of sexual freedom coincided with a leftist political agenda common to the vast majority of Jewish intellectuals of the period and reviewed throughout this book. This leftist political agenda proved to be a recurrent theme throughout the history of psychoanalysis. Support of radical and Marxist ideals was common among Freud’s early followers, and leftist attitudes were common in later years among psychoanalysts (Hale 1995, 31; Kurzweil 1989, 36, 46–47, 284; Torrey 1992, 33, 93ff, 122–123), as well as in Freudian inspired offshoots such as Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich (see below) and Alfred Adler. (Kurzweil [1989, 287] terms Adler the leader of “far left” psychoanalysis, noting that Adler wanted to immediately politicize teachers as radicals rather than wait for the perfection of psychoanalysis to do so.) The apex of the association between Marxism and psychoanalysis came in the 1920s in the Soviet Union, where all the top psychoanalysts were Bolsheviks, Trotsky supporters, and among the most powerful political figures in the country (see Chamberlain 1995). (Trotsky himself was an ardent enthusiast of psychoanalysis.) This group organized a government-sponsored State Psychoanalytical Institute and developed a program of “pedology” aimed at producing the “new Soviet man” on the basis of psychoanalytic principles applied to the education of children. The program, which encouraged sexual precocity in children, was put into practice in state-run schools.

Bookmark and Share

More On Our Unethical Financial Elite

Matt Taibbi is at it again, this time with “Wall Street’s Bailout Hustle.” I can’t really comment on many of his substantive claims, but there is an awful lot of smoke at this point for one to suppose that there is no fire. Note especially the point that the financial system “assumes a certain minimal level of ethical behavior and civic instinct over and above what is spelled out by the regulations” (p. 7).

That’s the thing. We have not only replaced a manufacturing economy with a financial economy (see Kevin Phillips). We also have a financial elite is completely corrupt — with devastating consequences to the rest of the economy and the long term prospects of growth. As Taibbi notes, the system depends on a “true believer” syndrome in which people simply can’t believe they were conned. We desperately want to trust our elites — the people who come from the best schools and have close ties to the government. As Francis Fukuyama emphasizes, trust in elites and the assumption of civic mindedness are critical characteristics of individualist societies:

To this set of traits, Francis Fukuyama also adds trust as a critical virtue of individualist societies. Trust is really a way of emphasizing the importance of moral universalism as a trait of individualist societies. In collectivist, family-oriented societies, trust ends at the border of the family and kinship group. Social organization, whether in political culture or in economic enterprise, tends to be a family affair. Morality is defi ned as what is good for the group—typically the kinship group (e.g., the notorious line, “Is it good for the Jews?”). This lack of ability to develop a civil society is the fundamental problem of societies in the Middle East and Africa, where divisions into opposing religious and ultimately kinship groups define the political landscape. The movement of the West toward multiculturalism really means the end of individualist Western culture. (See here, p. 27)

We are entering an era where trust in political and cultural elites is fast becoming a thing of the past. Robert Putnam has shown that trust is lower in multi-ethnic societies. This decline in public trust will be accelerated when people really grasp the enormity of the disaster created by Wall Street and its close connections to the government. It’s really the end of a key feature of what made Western societies so successful. As Taibbi points out, there’s no change on the horizon–just a short pause for reloading.

Finally, I can’t help referring to today’s Doonesbury cartoon about the development of an ethical sense among bankers. The banker begins as a college grad who thinks “I hope to do something of value well and be fairly paid.” By middle age he is saying “I demand to be paid obscenely well for destroying value.” The cartoon illustrates the point that lack of trust in financial elites is very widespread and that they are reasonably portrayed as a predatory elite rather than an elite that helps create value.

The only problem with the cartoon is that it’s at least doubtful that the people who make it to the top in this system ever thought much about creating social value. As Edmund Connelly’s recent blog recounts, there is a very long history of vastly disproportionate Jewish involvement in financial fraud. And rather than a long history of civic responsibility, there is a long history of Jews thinking of themselves as outsiders in Western societies — a hostile elite with a strong sense of historical grievance. The long term prosperity of the society is certainly not uppermost in their minds.

This is the relevant passage from page 7 of Taibbi’s article:

Con artists have a word for the inability of their victims to accept that they’ve been scammed. They call it the “True Believer Syndrome.” That’s sort of where we are, in a state of nagging disbelief about the real problem on Wall Street. It isn’t so much that we have inadequate rules or incompetent regulators, although both of these things are certainly true. The real problem is that it doesn’t matter what regulations are in place if the people running the economy are rip-off artists. The system assumes a certain minimum level of ethical behavior and civic instinct over and above what is spelled out by the regulations. If those ethics are absent — well, this thing isn’t going to work, no matter what we do. Sure, mugging old ladies is against the law, but it’s also easy. To prevent it, we depend, for the most part, not on cops but on people making the conscious decision not to do it.

That’s why the biggest gift the bankers got in the bailout was not fiscal but psychological. “The most valuable part of the bailout,” says Rep. Sherman, “was the implicit guarantee that they’re Too Big to Fail.” Instead of liquidating and prosecuting the insolvent institutions that took us all down with them in a giant Ponzi scheme, we have showered them with money and guarantees and all sorts of other enabling gestures. And what should really freak everyone out is the fact that Wall Street immediately started skimming off its own rescue money. If the bailouts validated anew the crooked psychology of the bubble, the recent profit and bonus numbers show that the same psychology is back, thriving, and looking for new disasters to create. “It’s evidence,” says Rep. Kanjorski, “that they still don’t get it.”

More to the point, the fact that we haven’t done much of anything to change the rules and behavior of Wall Street shows that we still don’t get it. Instituting a bailout policy that stressed recapitalizing bad banks was like the addict coming back to the con man to get his lost money back. Ask yourself how well that ever works out. And then get ready for the reload.

Bookmark and Share

Jewish Revenge Fantasies

A recent panel discussion of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds had some interesting tidbits about Jewish revenge fantasies:

But [Dr. Amy] Kalmanofsky quickly put that argument [that Jews should feel guilty about revenge]  to bed, noting that Jewish texts have always embraced revenge fantasies, from the destruction of the Egyptians in Exodus and Haman & Co. in Megillat Esther. And [Rabbi Jack] Moline — echoing the message of one of his Yom Kippur sermons from earlier this year — also praised the film, describing it as a way of helping American Jews shed some of their Holocaust baggage and getting more comfortable with their Zionist sides.

Moline told his congregants: “To my surprise, my complete and utter surprise, there was something cathartic and deeply satisfying watching this revenge fantasy play out. It was as if something I did not dare admit — my secret blood lust to do unto them what they did unto us — was being acknowledged, permitted and validated. I was liberated from victim hood.”

For making Jews feel good about their blood lust, Tarantino’s future in Hollywood is assured. The producer, Lawrence Bender, told Tarantino “Quentin you are about to make your Bar Mitzvah movie, you are going to be officially let into the tribe.”

This reminds me of Alison Weir’s wonderful recent article Israeli Organ Trafficing and Theft: From Palestine to Moldova.” She discusses the work of Prof. Nancy Scheper-Hughes of the University of California-Berkeley:

Scheper-Hughes discussed the two motivations of Israeli traffickers. One was greed, she said. The other was somewhat chilling: “Revenge, restitution – reparation for the Holocaust.”

She described speaking with Israeli brokers who told her “it’s kind of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We’re going to get every single kidney and liver and heart that we can. The world owes it to us.’”

Scheper-Hughes says that she “even heard doctors saying that.”

I think that revenge fantasies are a common among Jews and it goes way beyond Nazis. In “Memories of Madison” I wrote that

In my experience at Madison during the 1960s, there was also a strong desire [among Jews] for bloody, apocalyptic revenge against the entire social structure—perceived by them to be the goyish, fascist, capitalist, racist, anti-Semitic social structure. … This fits well with the set of interviews with New Left Jewish radicals in Percy Cohen’s Jewish Radicals and Radical Jews: many had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in “humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors.” These fantasies of destruction of the social order were combined with a belief in their own omnipotence and their ability to create a non-oppressive social order.

As Whites become a minority in Western societies and Jews constitute a hostile elite, this Jewish focus on revenge  has grave implications for the future. Revenge becomes an important issue given that Jews tend to interpret their history of living among Europeans as a long series of persecutions beginning with Christianity and ending with the Holocaust. (See, e.g., Norman Podhoretz’s Why are Jews Liberals?.)

Bookmark and Share

The Morality of Majority Rights and Interests

Assertions that Whites have interests are met with a firestorm of moral condemnation and ostracism. These moral panics warrant any and all actions against the miscreant, including removal from one’s livelihood, or even physical assault.

So what is the morality of ethnic self interest? There are at least two ways to think about. One is that many of the people who are most eager to create moral panics about such ideas also have strong ethnic identities and interests of their own. This is one of the first things that struck me about Jewish political and intellectual rhetoric — that they managed to create a culture of critique in which only Whites had a moral obligation to disappear as a racial/ethnic entity while minority cultures such as their own were encouraged to hold on to their traditions and group cohesiveness.

This way of thinking goes back to Horace Kallen, an important Jewish intellectual who was the first to develop a vision of multicultural America, combining this vision with a deep attachment to Zionism. Obviously, Kallen’s prescription for America is quite the opposite of his vision of the Jewish state as a state for the Jews. The only thing these beliefs have in common  is that they serve Jewish interests. This is an example of Jewish moral particularism — the age old “Is it good for the Jews?.” Kallen appeals to the tradition of Western moral universalism to attain the interests of his ethnic group.

Kallen had a major influence on Randolph Bourne whowrote a classic statement of a multicultural ideal for America in his famous “Trans-National America that appeared in Atlantic Monthly in 1916. All other ethnic groups would be allowed to retain their identity and cohesion. It is only the Anglo-Saxon that is implored to be cosmopolitan.

Randolph Bourne: High-minded Anglo-Saxon

This is a prescription for racial/ethnic suicide. However, at the time he wrote it, Anglo-Saxons like Bourne may have been confident enough to believe that they could safely allow others to have an ethnic identity and retain their cultures while shedding their own. Bourne’s implicit view of the world is that the ethnic identities of non-WASPs would make his world more colorful and interesting but not really threaten his basic interests. Like his mentor Kallen, he envisions of world of peaceful harmony amidst ethnic diversity:

America is already the world-federation in miniature, the continent where for the first time in history has been achieved that miracle of hope, the peaceful living side by side, with character substantially preserved, of the most heterogeneous peoples under the sun. Nowhere else has such contiguity been anything but the breeder of misery. Here, notwithstanding our tragic failures of adjustment, the outlines are already too clear not to give us a new vision and a new orientation of the American mind in the world.

I rather doubt that Bourne would have written what he did if he was aware that carrying out his recommendations would ultimately mean that Anglo-Saxons would lose control of their culture and their political destiny — and that even basic institutions like democracy and constitutional government would be in jeopardy.

What is the moral status of such a principled abdication of normal human strivings? Whites give up any claim to political and cultural control and hope that we will all enter a never-never land where we’ll all live happily ever after — White people expressing their individualism and everyone else advancing their ethnic interests.

The problem is that there is no way to rule out racial oppression and violence where Whites will be in a relatively powerless situation — at the mercy of people with festering historical grudges. Jewish historical memory about the 1924 immigration law and anti-Jewish attitudes, especially prior to World War II, is particularly bitter. The historical memory of Blacks in America is also especially bitter (Rev. Jeremiah Wright comes to mind), and Mexicans and Asians (see also here) have their own axes to grind.

The fact that Jews are an elite in the US and throughout the West and the fact that Jews have been a hostile elite in other times and places, most notably in the Soviet Union until at least the end of World War II, does not give much confidence in a rosy multicultural future when Whites cease to have the power to assert their interests. The great tragedy of the Russians and Ukrainians in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution is that they came to be ruled by ethnic outsiders with historic grudges against them.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Add to that the fact that Jewish political activism on behalf of a non-White America has often been accompanied by overt expressions of hostility toward White elites and toward Western civilization — even among Jewish “conservatives.” There is no reason to think that such hostility will be eliminated when Whites have less power.

In the multicultural America of the near future, gulags and anti-White totalitarian controls are at least as likely as the multicultural utopia envisioned by Bourne. And if they can’t be ruled out, there is a compelling moral case to be made that Whites should not enter willingly into such a world. If there is one thing we should have learned by thinking about the history of the 20th century, it’s that we should not believe in utopias.

I am reminded of the minister quoted in Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America who stated “Political optimism is one of the vices of the American people…. We deem ourselves a chosen people, and incline to the belief that the Almighty stands pledged to our prosperity. Until within a few years probably not one in a hundred of our population has ever questioned the security of our future. Such optimism is as senseless as pessimism is faithless” (pp. 68–69).

The good minister wrote this in 1885 — definitely ahead of the curve. And he was quite right that the Anglo-Saxons should not have been too confident. That’s why the title of Kaufmann’s book refers to the fall of Anglo-America. Well-meaning White Americans who are not concerned that the future could turn out horribly for people like them are simply not paying attention to all the signs around them.

The good news is that there does seem to be a growing anger and insecurity in White America. Spurred by the Obama presidency, large numbers of Whites seem to be questioning their future. But it’s far too early to guess whether this will lead to effective political action — much less a resurgence of White identity and explicit and confident assertions of White interests. The fact that this White anger will probably benefit Republicans scarcely gives one confidence that it will have a positive long term result.

Another set of moral issues derives from biological differences among humans. If there is one common denominator to leftist activism throughout the last century, it is that biology doesn’t matter: Ethnicity is nothing more than culture. Unwelcome racial and ethnic differences in traits like IQ, academic achievement, and criminality are due to White evil. We are all familiar with this litany.

But this ideology leads to very real moral issues. The healthcare debate is a good example where the left is impervious to very real concerns among Whites that the proposed healthcare system will involve a massive transfer of resources, mainly from Whites to massive numbers of non-Whites, including tens of millions of legal and illegal immigrants imported by hostile elites against their wishes. From an evolutionary perspective, such concerns reflect evolved preferences and willingness to help people who look like them and have similar cultural proclivities.

Affirmative action raises a host of moral issues for the majority. Whites are doubtless concerned about the effects of affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos and competition from Asians, especially in states with high Asian populations, such as California which is ground zero for the multicultural future. By using “holistic” rating systems that deemphasize test scores, Blacks entering UCLA had SAT scores that were on average 300 points below White and Asian students. At the other end of the achievement curve, 46% of the undergraduates at the University of California’s flagship university, UC-Berkeley, are Asians despite the fact that Asians are only 12% of the state population.

Ironically, Whites may be unintended beneficiaries of recent policies put in place to aid Blacks and Latinos in a state where it is illegal to consider race in the admissions process. Even so, they will be underrepresented in elite public universities in a state that they built. Asians, who would be less overrepresented among UC students under the new rules (going from 35% to between 29–32%), are predictably outraged.

Welcome to a very small taste of ethnic politics in California where university admissions are still a zero sum game and political processes complexly interact with individual merit to determine how the pie is cut up.

Cleary Randolph Bourne did not think about what the long term effects of multiculturalism would be. There is simply no moral justification for  unleashing all this ethnic competition on the White citizens of California and the rest of the US without their consent. Indeed, the citizens of California voted for Proposition 187 that would have banned services for illegal aliens, but it was struck down by the courts. These same voters — mainly White and Republican — are now refusing to increase taxes that would keep the state of California afloat without drastic cuts in spending on education and health care for everyone.

Of course, the mainstream media sees this as a massive moral failing on the part of California voters. As an evolutionist, I see it as common sense. Why support a system that is fundamentally geared to support people unlike oneself?

This is the problem of donating to public goods like public education and public health care in a multicultural society. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has shown that increasing ethnic diversity lowers the willingness to contribute to charity or to public goods (including, apropos the current national debate, public healthcare). It also increases social isolation and it lowers trust both within and between races; it also lowers political participation and lessens confidence in political leaders.

Putnam himself is sanguine about the long term effects of immigration. (Such utopian hopes seem to be an occupational hazard of university professors.) These effects are massively unfair to the White people of the US who never voted for this onslaught and will never see any tangible benefits from it —  unless one counts ethnic cuisine as a really important benefit. Couldn’t we just import ethnic cookbooks?

The social isolation, distrust of the political process, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods means that as this process continues, Western societies will be increasingly unlivable for everyone. Civic mindedness and a strong concern about the society as a whole have been a hallmark of healthy Western societies.

On the other hand, one of the most striking aspects of the behavior of Orthodox Jews in Postville, Iowa was that they didn’t have any interest in developing social ties with their new neighbors or conform to community norms — even seemingly trivial ones such as taking care of their lawns, shoveling their sidewalks, or raking their leaves. They had no concern about the community as a whole; they treated their neighbors like strangers.

Civic mindedness and trust have been noted as unique features of Western culture. As I noted elsewhere,

Trust is really a way of emphasizing the importance of moral universalism as a trait of individualist societies. In collectivist, family-oriented societies, trust ends at the border of the family and kinship group. Social organization, whether in political culture or in economic enterprise, tends to be a family affair. Morality is defined as what is good for the group—typically the kinship group (e.g., the notorious line, “Is it good for the Jews?”).

This lack of ability to develop a civil society is the fundamental problem of societies in the Middle East and Africa, where divisions into opposing religious and ultimately kinship groups define the political landscape. The movement of the West toward multiculturalism really means the end of individualist Western culture.

In individualist cultures, on the other hand, organizations include nonfamily members in positions of trust. Morality is defined in terms of universal moral principles that are independent of kinship connections or group membership. Trust therefore is of critical importance to individualist society.

Yet, as Putnam has shown, trust and civic mindedness are the first casualties of ethnic diversity.

To inflict the White populations of the West with multiculturalism — especially when support for multiculturalism and support for their own demographic and political eclipse have never been majority views among Whites — is profoundly immoral. Imagine what happens when White Americans begin to behave toward their communities in the same way the Hassidic Jews behaved toward Postville.

What is needed is to pay more attention to the morality of infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the White majority. Everyone has rights and everyone has interests. The interests and rights of Whites as a majority are no less morally legitimate than anyone else’s rights. Whites must jettison the ideal of moral universalism and ask what is good for the future of Whites.

We have to seek a world in which Whites attempting to atone for their personal transgressions would seek moral legitimacy by working even harder on behalf of their own people.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

A comment on Paul Gottfried’s review of Cultural Insurrections

Paul Gottfried is outside the mainstream of Jewish intellectuals in being associated with paleoconservatives rather than either the left or the neoconservative right. In my eyes, therefore, he is a force for relative good in a world where paleocons like Pat Buchanan have been relegated to the fringes of intellectual debate in the US and have long rap sheets at powerful, well-endowed organizations like the $PLC and the ADL.

Another reason I am predisposed to be positive about Gottfried is that he reviewed Cultural Insurrections respectfully, noting pointedly that there are completely different standards in discussing the activities and influence of other ethnic groups or religions. And he agrees with much of my analysis that Jews have in fact been deeply involved in erecting the culture of critique that now pervades the West.

Inevitably, however, despite a great many good things in Gottfried’s review, my reply must necessarily discuss points of disagreement. As Gottfried notes, he has previously reviewed Culture of Critique in Chronicles, and we went back and forth on it in print, with a final rejoinder by me on my website. (The entire thread is here.) He makes some of the same points in his recent review, but it’s worth discussing them again because we have both refined our arguments a bit in last decade.

Jewish IQ

The area of Jewish IQ has attracted quite a bit of research since my review in 1994. My estimate of an IQ of 115 for Ashkenazi Jews is higher than estimates based on more recent data. Richard Lynn’s work is exemplary: Lynn finds that Ashkenazi Jews in Britain and the US have average IQ’s of 110.7 and 110.4 respectively, and I am happy to accept those figures.

Assuming those averages, then one would expect there would be 4 times the proportion of Jews with >130 IQ and 6 times the proportion of Jews with >145 IQ. As Lynn notes, this goes some way to explaining Jewish overrepresentation among academic elites in the US and Britain (by factors of 7.0 and 7.6 respectively) and among winners of Nobel prizes (by factors of 8.0 and 12.3 respectively).

But none of these data shows that, as Gottfried phrases it, “Jews have a right to treat Euro-Americans as natural inferiors or as people probably unfit to sustain their civilization (or what remains of it) without a Jewish master class.”

In fact, even assuming those proportions, because Jews are such a small percentage of the population, there are far more European-Americans and native Brits with IQ’s above either 130 or 145. And, also consistent with my 1994 analysis, there are far more non-Jews among Nobel prize winners than Jews.

In fact, if we take an IQ of 145 as a cutoff for genius and assume that Jews were around 3.4% of the White US population in 1950, there were nearly 4 times more non-Jewish White geniuses in the US than Jewish geniuses. If we use 130 as a benchmark for at least vastly easing the path to upward mobility, there were over 6 times more non-Jewish Whites in this category than Jews. And there would have been a much greater disparity in England where Jews were less than 1% of the population.

Europeans certainly do not need Jews to develop or maintain their civilization.The successful erection of the culture of critique is much more about ethnic networking and dominating key points in the cultural food chain — especially elite academic institutions and the media — than it is about IQ.

For example, even correcting for IQ, Jews are massively overrepresented at Ivy League universities compared to Whites. In 1998, Jews represented around 25–33% of Harvard undergraduates compared to around 25% non-Jewish Whites. In 2000 the Jewish population was around 3% of the non-Hispanic White population. On the basis of IQ, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or  4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio was at most 1 to 1. But even this may underestimate the gap because it’s hard to believe that all Harvard students have at least an IQ of 130. Could it be that that Jared Kushner’s route to Harvard is not at all unusual for Jews these days?

And what, then, to make of Jewish representation of 60% in studies of the American media elite? (See here.) Pretty clearly, IQ has very little to do with it. This is entirely compatible with Merlin Miller’s recent TOO article on Hollywood where he notes that Jewish graduates of USC’s film production program were able to achieve much more with the  same credentials than their non-Jewish counterparts.

Indeed, the larger point is that the rise of the West happened without any significant Jewish contribution. The age of Spanish conquest and exploration began in the same year that the Jews were expelled from Spain and not long after the Inquisition was launched in 1481. During this period, Spain became the wealthiest and most powerful country in Europe. Eventually, the main competitors with Spain were Western European countries — especially England — that had expelled Jews in the Middle Ages.

The “rise of the Jews” — Albert Lindemann’s term resulted ultimately from a Jewish population explosion among Hasidic and other fundamentalist Jews in Eastern Europe. But Eastern Europe remained a relative backwater compared to Western Europe and America despite the fact that, as Yuri Slezkine has shown, Jews completely dominated the economic and cultural life in those areas, at least until World War II.

Jewish Hostility toward the Peoples and Culture of the West

Gottfried writes, “I am also skeptical about the possibility of extrapolating from the way a particular Jewish subculture has behaved in the U.S., Canada, and parts of Europe in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to how Jews have conducted themselves everywhere at all times.”

But I am not making any such claim. Each country must be analyzed separately, and one can never make generalizations across time and place without examining the data.

Nevertheless, an important aspect of traditional Jewish attitudes has been animosity toward the wider, non-Jewish culture. In reviewing Cultural Insurrections, Gottfried presumably noticed Chapter 2 — my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, subtitled “Jews as a hostile elite in the USSR.” That essay reviews Jewish hostility toward non-Jewish national cultures throughout Eastern and Central Europe beginning in the latter 19th century and extending into the mass murders of cultural non-conformists of the Soviet period.Cultural subversion was also an important theme of the essays on Henry Ford and The International Jew which also appear in Cultural Insurrections.

The first chapter of Culture of Critique also traces a long history of Jewish hostility toward the people and culture of surrounding societies — Muslim, Christian and pagan — beginning in the ancient world. For the most part this hostility remained within the confines of the Jewish community — especially inJewish religious writing. But this was due solely to the undeveloped state of the media and the self-segregation or exclusion of Jews from the wider society.

However, when Jews did enter the wider society, as in 15th-century Spain, the radical critiques of Jewish intellectuals appeared in the most prestigious academic and popular media. This has been the pattern in the contemporary history of the West, at least since the mid-19th century.

The point is that we should not minimize the tendency for Jews to create movements that are highly critical of the people and culture of non-Jews. One shouldn’t over-generalize this to all Jews. Paul Gottfried is certainly an exception, and he is doubtless correct that this tendency was at least muted in the contingent of German Jews who came to America in the mid-19th century. (In Germany, however, the association of Jews with cultural criticism was an important ingredient in anti-Jewish attitudes from the late 19th century up until the rise of National Socialism.)

Nevertheless, despite their relative lack of hostility, it should be noted that German Jews like Jacob SchiffLouis Marshall, and Louis Brandeis were effective activists on behalf of Jewish causes that were at least arguably not in the interests of the United States or its non-Jewish citizens. For example, Jewish activists led by the American Jewish Committee influenced US immigration policy so that Eastern European Jews were allowed to immigrate two decades after the American public opposed further immigration. This group also successfully influenced US foreign policy to oppose Russia until the triumph of the Bolsheviks, and Brandeis was an influential Zionist.

In these cases, their motivation was not so much hostility toward the US as simply their perception of Jewish interests. On the other hand, Franz Boas, a German Jew with a great deal of animosity toward Prussian culture, was a seminal figure in erecting the culture of critique in America. And then there’s the Frankfurt School of German-Jewish émigrés who, after being expelled from National Socialist Germany, brought to America their poisonous ideology that the group allegiances of non-Jews is a sign of psychopathology.

But in any case, there has been a clear tendency for at least some groups of strongly identified Jews to create influential intellectual movements that subject non-Jewish society to radical critique, and Gottfried seems to agree with this.

As reviewed in The Culture of Critique, the psychological basis for this is straightforward: Members of strongly identified ingroups tend to have negative views of outgroups, especially outgroups seen as historical enemies. And for many activist Jews — the ones who end up having so much influence on culture, Western history begins with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans, fast forwards to marauding Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, and expulsions from Western Europe, and culminates in Czarist persecutions, Henry Ford, and the Holocaust.

In saying that, I am agreeing with Gottfried that the animosity of Jewish intellectual movements is firmly rooted in their perception of history. (Ironically perhaps, this makes Gottfried much more on board with the general thrust of my writing than the review by “Garnet James Wolseley” that appeared in The Occidental Quarterly. See my reply.) I do not use the phrase “resource competition” to describe conflicts between Jews and non-Jews in Culture of Critique. The use of this phrase stems from my earlier books on historical patterns of Jewish behavior (e.g., the tendency of Jews to make alliances with oppressive elites) and historical anti-Semitism (e.g., hatred toward Jews competing for similar economic niches).

Culture of Critique formulates the conflict quite differently. The main framework is the psychology of ingroup/outgroup conflict, and there is little question that historical grudges have played a major role in that. Indeed, the theme of Jewish historical grudges is prominent in Chapter 1 of Cultural Insurrections: “Background Traits for Jewish Activism.”

Incidentally, others who have thought long and hard about Jews have come to a similar conclusion about the role of Jewish hatred as a motivating force. Consider Pat Buchanan’s pointed analogy between the hatred that is driving the persecution of John Demjanjuk and the hatred that drove the crucifixion of Christ: “The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.”

This is clearly a barely veiled reference to the “blood libel” of classic Catholic theology. But the point here is that the persecution of Demjanjuk is motivated by hatred and revenge for historical grievances— exactly the motives that Gottfried and I are ascribing to the creators of the culture of critique.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But having said that, there is little question that besides hatred and revenge, another very important part of the equation is displacement and domination. As I noted in my recent article on the Jewish left, it is more than the hostility of former ghetto dwellers suddenly released into the modern Western world — the phenomenon that was described so well by John Murray Cuddihy.It is about displacement and domination:

The displacement of the genteel white Protestant culture at Columbia that [Mark] Rudd hated is part of the general displacement of non-Jewish whites. … There is no doubt it was bent on a similar displacement of white elites. All of its policies led inexorably in that direction. To a considerable extent, the current malaise of whites in the US can be directly traced to the triumph of the attitudes of the New Left—especially non-white immigration, the rise of multiculturalism, and the steady erosion of whites as a percentage of the electorate.

Ultimately, it is about resources — political, economic, and cultural. When Whites become a minority in the US as a result of the mass immigration unleashed by Jewish activism and the culture of critique, they will come to realize how devastatingly true this  is.

I also agree with Gottfried that other historically aggrieved groups have been hostile toward societies seen as oppressing them. The only difference is that, as Gottfried, notes, Jews are so much better at this game than other groups —  much better at becoming an influential component of elite and popular culture.

There is no question that African Americans have legitimate historical grudges against the American past. However, there can be little doubt that, by themselves, they would not have had much of an influence in erecting a culture of critique. The culture of critique was successful because it emanated from Harvard, Hollywood, well-connected law firms, and the New York Times — the most prestigious academic and media institutions.

But of course this is exactly why we have to concentrate on Jewish influence, not Black influence or Latino influence, much less Huguenot influence.

Biological Reductionism?

In commenting on this general ethnic tendency, Gottfried states that “although friend-enemy distinctions are evident here, it is doubtful that these dividing lines operate strictly according to biological conditioning.” And again: “What MacDonald highlights looks like unfriendly behavior; and one may certainly question the biological reductionism used to explain it.”

My theory is that the tendency for hostility toward outgroups is indeed a psychological universal stemming from our evolutionary past, although it is doubtless true that Jews are far more motivated by ingroup/outgroup distinctions than typical Westerners — what I term Jewish “hyper-ethnocentrism.” But even so, invoking the evolutionary psychology of group competition certainly does not make me a biological reductionist.

I wish that Gottfried had read and commented on “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism” — another chapter in Cultural Insurrections and one that I think is perhaps the most important in the book. (This is the academic version of that chapter.)

Viewed as a whole, my work is much more about culture than it is about biology— else why write a book titled The Culture of Critique? Hostility toward outgroups is indeed a biological universal, but the result is that Jewish intellectual movements then create a culture that is hostile to White people, their culture and their history. This culture of critique then has important consequences because culture is able to have a strong influence on human behavior for the reasons described in “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism”:

The culture of critique has become the explicit culture of the West, endlessly repeated in media messages but packaged differently for people of different levels of intelligence and education, and for people with different interests and from different subcultures. The message of this paper is that by programming the higher areas of the brain, this explicit culture is able to control the implicit ethnocentric tendencies of white people. … It’s the explicit culture, stupid!

Whatever else one might call me, ‘biological reductionist’ is not one of them. (Nor is it likely that anyone who has seen me would call me “small-boned.” And, for the record, I am not a clinical psychologist: Evolutionary/developmental/personality psychologist would be more or less accurate.

What’s Wrong with White People?

Finally, we come to perhaps the most important and difficult point — the fact that, as Gottfried says, “the majority group, including those who describe themselves as ‘conservatives,’ have lost their cotton-picking minds.” I completely agree with this, and it is certainly something that I have thought a lot about.

For starters, this is why I have always phrased my claims about Jewish influence as a necessary condition rather than a sufficient condition.

Secondly, I have emphasized how the reward and punishment structure of multi-cultural America provides a great many opportunities for self-interested Whites who  have no concern for their own people. Gottfried does a good job in recounting my emphasis on goyish careerists who flock to neocon think tanks, with the result that American conservatism is pretty much non-existent. (The “conservative” Heritage Foundation recently advocated a massive increase in H1B visas in the middle of a recession. Sometimes it seems as if “conservatives” and liberals are competing to see which group can speed up the displacement of Whites the fastest.)

But it’s not just about careerism in a world where Jews are a very substantial component of the American elite. As Gottfried notes, it’s also about White guilt. But here Gottfried ignores the chapters of Cultural Insurrections where I develop my ideas on the psychological tendencies of Whites that make them predisposed to support the culture of critique, particularly “What Makes Western Culture Unique?” and “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism.” This builds on earlier work, particularly the Preface to the Paperback Edition of Culture of Critique.

In general, my view is that these cultural transformations are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science) and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of Europe. At the psychological level, I have proposed that because Whites evolved in small groups where individual reputation rather than kinship relatedness was of the upmost importance, Whites are more prone to guilt for transgressing social norms. One’s reputation rather than one’s place in a kinship structure became of exaggerated importance for Europeans.

Christian Lander’s Stuff White People Like has the following example showing the powerful sense of guilt at transgressing social norms that seems to haunt most whites, even for trivial things like not recycling:

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

Following the social norm of recycling is motivated by avoiding guilt that will “eat at them for days.” White people are easily shamed if they think they are violating a social norm. It’s easy to see how this was adaptive in small groups that we evolved in. where your place in the kinship structure was less important than your reputation as a team player. But when the most important social norms in the West demand suicidal behavior by whites, upholding them becomes a pathology.

Recently, I have expanded on these ideas in my essay on how the Puritans erected a home-grown culture of critique in 19th-century America. There I discuss the psychology of moralistic self-punishment exemplified at the extreme by the Puritans and their intellectual descendants, but also apparent in a great many other whites.

Gottfried is correct that the culture of critique could have developed without Jews in 20th-century America. But it didn’t. The Puritan culture of moralistic aggression that rationalized the Civil War and the utopian idealism of the 19th century lost out to Darwinism by the early 20th century. (Hence the opposition to Darwinism that is at the heart of all the Jewish intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique.)

At that time it was common for intellectual elites to believe in the reality of racial differences and the reality of competition between races and ethnic groups. Bluebloods like Henry Cabot Lodge and Madison Grant who descended from the Puritans were extolling the virtues of Northern Europeans and funding the movement to end immigration — a battle that ended with the restrictive immigration law of 1924.  A. Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard and Vice President of the Immigration Restriction League, opposed the nomination ofLouis Brandeis as a Supreme Court Justice because of Brandeis’ ardent Zionism, supported quotas on Jewish students (15%), supported racial segregation, and opposed homosexuality.

As recounted by Jerome Karabel, Lowell lost the battle to explicitly restrict Jewish enrollment to a coalition of elite German Jews (notably Walter Lippmann) and elite Protestants led by former Harvard President Charles W. Eliot representing the older strand of Yankee universalism. Nevertheless, Jewish enrollment was reduced from a high of around 27% to around 15% by instituting a more covert process of student selection.

I think that my research shows that the destruction of this world was the result of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I describe in The Culture of Critique and Cultural Insurrections. Gottfried is skeptical of this:

Plainly MacDonald is not playing by the establishment rules when he observes that Jews have worked at weakening those non-Jewish societies in which they have lived. Although this thesis seems to me to be a bit too generalized, I have no objection to letting MacDonald go on trying to prove it.

I think that at this point the fair thing is for skeptics like Gottfried to show precisely where I am wrong. This requires far more than simple assertions of skepticism and claims that my claims are “too generalized.”

For example, over a decade after I originally showed that Jewish activism was by far the most important force behind the changes in US immigration law that has resulted in dramatically altering the politics and ethnic composition of the US, no one has even attempted to show that I am wrong. Yet this is by far the most important conclusion of The Culture of Critique because, quite simply, immigration is at the absolute center of the rise of multiculturalism and the displacement of Whites.

Critics like Gottfried need to mire themselves in the details of the  historical record, as I did. And if they show I am wrong, I will be the first to rescind my views.

Realize, however, that my views are entirely mainstream. Thus, my conclusion has been reinforced by Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham:

Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., anti-restrictionism], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration. (Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America (New York, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 56–57).

To be sure, the destruction of the Darwinian world of early 20th-century America would not have been possible with a group less prone to guilt and moralistic aggression against their own people. But without the establishment of a hostile elite dominated by strongly identified Jews, it simply would not have happened.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

Talking with Jews (or not)

A topic that is not discussed enough is the screaming, in-your-face, hostile aggression that people must withstand when they dare to trample on Jewish sensibilities. We are not talking about the sophisticated rationalizations one sees in the op-ed pages of the mainstream media, or even the smear techniques of organizations like the ADL or the SPLC. We are talking about interpersonal aggression. There is something absolutely primal about it.

Now comes a refreshingly frank blog post by Karin Friedemann, an ethnically Jewish anti-Zionist. She notes the “violent intolerance” that defenders of Israel show towards people with different opinions.

American Jews are actually being trained since childhood to interact with non-Jews in a deceitful and arrogant manner, in coordination with each other, to emotionally destroy Gentiles and Israel critics in addition to wrecking their careers and interfering with their social relationships. This is actually deliberate, wicked, planned behavior motivated by a narcissistic self-righteous fury….

The problem is that Gentiles are taught through emotional pressure and violence via the media and the school system to be very sensitive to Jewish suffering so when a Zionist becomes outraged at them for challenging their world view, the Gentile really has to fight against his own inner self in a huge battle against his “inner Jew” making him feel inadequate and intimidated. But the Jew doesn’t care how much he or she hurts others. Jews only care about what’s good for the Jews. …

I once reduced a 50 year old man to hysterical sobbing tears because I told him gently and lovingly that Jews were not that unique. I just told him the Jews, like everyone else, have had good times and bad times. Times when they were slaughtered and other times when they slaughtered others. Just like everyone else. Guess what he did next. He emotionally abused me in an insulting way and then cut off all further communication. Jewish behavior is so predictable that it’s truly scary. …

If you mention cutting off the money or if you mention the possible compromise of living with Palestinians as equals in one state they become very angry and start using bullying tactics, unless they have some reason to fear you, in which case they shun you and complain about you to the authorities, try to get you arrested or try and destroy your career or social status through character assassination. …

Zionists all believe in the myth of “1000 years of Jewish suffering” and feel that the world owes them compensation for their ancestors’ “unique” suffering. It’s a criminally insane viewpoint. They cope with the contradictions between their belief that they are the good guys and what Jews are actually doing to their neighbors, both in the Middle East and in the US, by developing mental health issues. Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.

My take:

  • These tactics are not restricted to critics of Zionism. As one who has experienced a barrage of hostile email from my faculty colleagues, I can certainly attest to this. One quickly notices that assertions of the legitimacy of white identity and interests will also result in a barrage of hostility. This  despite the fact that support for racial Zionism is strong throughout the entire Jewish political spectrum (see below). A correspondent sent me the following recently:
  • I have encountered many liberal, politically correct Jews who react vociferously (almost violently) to the most innocuous comments about any topic related to Israel or Jews.  One Jew upon my mentioning that my wife and I had been to Russia spent several minutes virtually frothing at the mouth about Russians.  Another upon hearing me say I was sympathetic to the problems of the Palestinians demanded to know who I was and how dare I say such a thing.  Often zero tolerance for any difference in opinion.
  • The media constantly present images of Jewish suffering—most recently the endless glut of Holocaust movies. But the media ignore instances, such as the early decades of the USSR and now in Greater Israel, where Jews have inflicted horrible suffering. Right now I am reading E. Michael Jones’The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Effect on History. It is striking to read his account of Jewish violence against non-Jews in the ancient world, particularly the persecution of Christians whenever Jews had the power to do so. Long before Christians had any influence on Roman policy, Christians’ complaints about Jews were not stereotypes based on historical memory but resulted from direct experience with Jews: “Origen understood that Jewish calumny helped to cause Christian persecution, and that Jewish hatred was a fact of life for the Christians, continuing unabated after the repeated defeats of Messianic politics” (i.e., the defeats of Jewish rebels at the hands of the Romans in 70 and 135 ad) (p. 69). This is the basis of my concern on what will happen to whites when Jews become part of a hostile elite in white-minority America.
  • Non-Jews absorb these media images and as a result feel inadequate and emotionally intimidated. Eventually they identify with the aggressor, much like a browbeaten hostage or, as Friedemann suggests, an abused spouse. Or they maintain their friendships but studiously avoid talking about anything related to Israel. Non-Jews do the bidding of their “inner Jew” because they have internalized images of Jewish suffering. They therefore aid and abet Jewish brutality and aggression.
  • Non-Jews who persist in criticizing the organized Jewish community are threatened with loss of livelihood and social ostracism. As I noted in a previous article the organized Jewish community does not believe in free speech. It is important to keep in mind that when Jews were dominant in the first decades of the Soviet Union, the government controlled the media, anti-Semitism was outlawed, and there was mass murder of Christians and the destruction of Christian churches and religious institutions.

As Friedemann notes, the situation is nothing less than a sign of serious mental health issues for the mainstream Jewish community: “Most Zionists are functional schizophrenics.”

I think this is what happens when people who deal with Jewish issues finally realize that there is no hope for dialogue and begin to think of what to do next. Honest people finally realize that when it comes to critical issues like Israel and multicultural America, the divisions among Jews are an illusion. (Friedemann herself has renounced her Jewish identity.) As Friedemann’s husband, Joachim Martillo, notes, “Jews, who want to be decent human beings, have no choice but to renounce being Jewish and serve the anti-Zionist struggle (right now).”

Exhibit A for this right now is the murderous Israeli invasion of Gaza. We know (see, for example, John Mearsheimer’s article in The American Conservative) that this invasion occurred after a prolonged period when Israel restricted supplies into Gaza and then attacked tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. We know that the invasion was designed to “to inflict massive pain on the Palestinians so that they come to accept the fact that they are a defeated people and that Israel will be largely responsible for controlling their future.”

The tone of Mearsheimer’s article suggests a dramatic shift in attitude where the usual inhibitions on public discourse are finally beginning to fall, even for a respected academic:

There is … little chance that people around the world who follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon forget the appalling punishment that Israel is meting out in Gaza. … [D]iscourse about this longstanding conflict has undergone a sea change in the West in recent years, and many of us who were once wholly sympathetic to Israel now see that the Israelis are the victimizers and the Palestinians are the victims.

The gloves are coming off. This is what happens when smart and honest people who work hard to get the scholarship right are nevertheless smeared as anti-Semites guilty of the vilest misdeeds. Not surprisingly, Abe Foxman — a premier defender of the racial Zionist status quo in Israel — devoted an entire book to smearing Mearsheimer and Walt. Quite simply, there is no point to talking to such people or taking seriously what they say about us.

[adrotate group=”1″]

We know that the government of Israel is firmly in the hands of the racial Zionists — followers of Vladimir Jabotinsky and his view of the racial distinctiveness and superiority of the Jewish people. Indeed, the only question in the Israeli election is which brand of racial Zionism will form the next government. One knows that racial Zionism has completely won the day in Israel when Kadima — the party of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and the Gaza invasion — is now described by Benjamin Netanyahu as the party of the left. (The LA Times dutifully calls it “centrist” but, as Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery writes, Livni “cries to high heaven against any dialogue with Hamas. She objects to a mutually agreed cease-fire. She tries to compete with Netanyahu and [Avignor] Liberman with unbridled nationalist messages.”)Indeed, Netanyahu’s only worry is that the openly racist Liberman — a disciple of the notorious Meir Kehane — will take away too many votes from Likud.

The situation is analogous to a US election where Pat Buchanan is the candidate of the far left. (I can dream.)

Avnery analogizes the election to a joke where a sergeant tells his men: “I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you are going to change your dirty socks. The bad news is that you are going to exchange them among yourselves.”

Once again we see at work the general principle that within the Jewish community, the most extreme elements carry the day and pull the rest of the Jewish community with them. As I noted in “Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of Judaism,” “over time, the more militant, expansionist Zionists (the Jabotinskyists, the Likud Party, fundamentalists, and West Bank settlers) have won the day and have continued to push for territorial expansion within Israel. This has led to conflicts with Palestinians and a widespread belief among Jews that Israel itself is threatened. The result has been a heightened group consciousness among Jews and ultimately support for Zionist extremism among the entire organized American Jewish community.”

The fanatics keep pushing the envelop, forcing other Jews to either go along with their agenda or cease being part of the Jewish community. Ominously, if elected, Netanyahu promises that a top priority will be “harnessing the U.S. administration to stop the threat” of Iran’s nuclear program.

Incidentally, E. Michael Jones (The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Effect on History, p. 42ff) has expanded this argument to the ancient world. He shows how the Jewish community was pulled in the direction of fanaticism by the Zealots  who expelled the followers of Jesus from the synagogue and adopted a disastrous path of revolution against Rome, leading ultimately to the defeats of 70 and 135 a.d.

A good example of the schizophrenia described by Friedemann comes from the fact that around 80% of American Jews voted for Obama but around thesame percentage blames Hamas for the escalation of violence and believes that the Israeli response was “appropriate.” These results of the poll on the Gaza invasion were proudly announced by Abraham Foxman of the ADL, an organization that is one of the principal forces in promoting a post-European America. The Jewish left is a pillar of multi-cultural America but strongly supports racial Zionism in Israel.

This same schizophrenia was on display at a recent presentation at the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles by Chris Hedges and Mark Potok — he of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The program dealt with the usual bogey-men of the organized Jewish community: Christian fundamentalists, skinheads, David Duke, and (I am gratified to report) The Occidental Quarterly. In a comment on the alliance between Christian conservatives and Zionists, an audience member mentioned (to stifled applause) that “There are Jewish fascists.” But the moderator, Ian Masters, saved the day when he stated that “the vast majority of American Jews are secular and liberal” — a comment that brought much applause, presumably because it reassured the many Jews in the audience that they weren’t like THOSE Jews. For his part, Potok, that stalwart warrior against White America, expressed his support for what he sees as a beleaguered Israel on the verge of apocalypse at the hands of the Arabs. Schizophrenia indeed.

The politicians who are running Israel are, if anything, more racialist and nationalist than anything even remotely on the horizon in American or European politics. As Avnery notes:

In every other country, Liberman’s program would be called fascist, without quotation marks. Nowhere in the Western world is there a large party that would dare to advance such a demand [to annul the citizenship of Arabs]. The neo-fascists in Switzerland and Holland want to expel foreigners, not to annul the citizenship of the native-born. …

When Joerg Haider was taken into the Austrian cabinet, Israel recalled its ambassador from Vienna in protest. But compared to Liberman, Haider was a raving liberal, and so is Jean-Marie le Pen.  Now Netanyahu has announced that Liberman will be “an important minister” in his government, Livni has hinted that he will be in her government, too, and Barak has not excluded that possibility.

The optimistic version says that Liberman will prove to be a passing curiosity. … There is also a pessimistic version: Fascism has become a serious player in the Israeli public domain. The three main parties have now legitimized it. This phenomenon must be stopped before it is too late.

So I have a suggestion for the Foxmans, the Potoks, the neoconservatives, and the secular Jewish liberals of the world: If you want to fight racism and ethnic nationalism, start in your own backyard. And my suggestion for the rest of us is to get rid of what Friedemann calls the “inner Jew.” I know it’s hard to do. But once you tune out the screaming hostility (and assuming you don’t fear losing your job), it’s easy. Just don’t expect a pleasant or rational conversation.

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