Jews as a Hostile Elite

The problem with intellectually insecure Whites

America will soon have a White minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues — at least in the long run. After all, it’s difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering.

And it’s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu — another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation — which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan  (“For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better) has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.

It’s not surprising that the New York Times — the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media — ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it interesting.

Now we have an article “The End of White America” written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: “Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?” … Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”

Buchanan’s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as “rationalized hatred” presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore “precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan’s profile — wealthy, Ivy League–educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure — might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.”

Let’s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, “at once pretentious and intellectually insecure,”  would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995’s White Man’s Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like “the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.”

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority.

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals. And it means that whites — especially white males — are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama’s America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002–2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile homicide perpetrators increased 43%. Hence,  the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority.

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, “The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.”

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, “I think white people feel like they’re under siege right now — like it’s not okay to be white right now, especially if you’re a white male. … People are stressed out about it. ‘We used to be in control! We’re losing control’” Another says, “There’s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment.”

It’s hard to see why these feelings won’t increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, “I get it: as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth.” A professor comments that for his students “to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them to talk about who they are is, ‘I don’t have a culture.’ They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture … They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized.”

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years Whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop—a product of the African American urban culture.

The only significant group of White people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites — and only this group — there is  “a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with ‘the real America.’”

This is what I term implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, “cannot speak its name.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my opinion, it is the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.

It’s worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,

A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely accepted among people of very different levels of education and among people of different social classes.

Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and theWashington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald’s Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: ““Like, I’m aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. … And there’s a bunch of white people who are desperate — desperate — to say, ‘You know what? My skin’s white, but I’m not one of the white people who’s destroying the world.’”

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like — what it’s like to be a self-hating White. We must get to the point where college-educated Whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of Whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, Whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a White person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as White people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it’s the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it’s the same situation with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won’t continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance fostered by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimousin condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The “God damn America” sermon by President Obama’s pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure — as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were “Stalin’s willing executioners.”

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinian people in one of the largest prison systems the world has ever seen. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the “transformation” of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, “cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity.” And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted that:

the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of  “unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness”…. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. …

After the Revolution, … there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. … The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, “in all the institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard” (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, “the Russian Federation…was still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity-free society” (p. 276). While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It’s happened before.

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

Ben Stein’s Expelled: Was Darwinism a Necessary Condition for the Holocaust?

In my previous column, I noted the Stalinist tendencies of the leftists that are so entrenched in the academic world. The fact is that the academic left has never been concerned about truth when truth is incompatible with their political objectives. This is the fundamental message of my book, The Culture of Critique where I trace the involvement of Jewish intellectual activists in producing a leftist academic culture that promoted specifically Jewish goals, including lessening the political power and cultural influence of European-derived peoples and the eradication of anti-Semitism.

Chief among the bogeymen of these Jewish intellectuals is Darwinism. The war against Darwinism is a major theme of The Culture of Critique, and it persists as a constant drumbeat in our culture—from the cultural Marxists who are in charge of socializing our college students to a great many examples in popular culture.

Consider Ben Stein’s film Expelled. Stein depicts Darwinism as a stifling orthodoxy that suppresses free inquiry into how things got this way. And in particular, the triumph of Darwinism has meant that the theory of intelligent design has been banished from the realm of reasonable discourse in the academic world.

Of course, intelligent design is not a reasonable alternative at all, but a highly motivated effort to legitimize a religious world view in the sciences. But why would Ben Stein produce a movie that panders to religious conservatives? It would doubtless be pretty hard to find anyone in the Jewish intelligentsia who in the privacy of their innermost thoughts believes in God.

Indeed, it’s fair to say that the mainstream Jewish community regards Christian religious sentiment with fear and loathing. For example, Elliott Abrams, whose title in the Bush Administration (Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy) sounds like a neocon wet dream, acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known.

The deep structure of Expelled can be inferred from another comment by Elliott Abrams.Abrams thinks that a strong role for Christianity in America is good for Jews:

In this century we have seen two gigantic experiments at postreligious societies where the traditional restraints of religion and morality were entirely removed: Communism and Nazism. In both cases Jews became the special targets, but there was evil enough even without the scourge of anti-Semitism. For when the transcendental inhibition against evil is removed, when society becomes so purely secular that the restraints imposed by God on man are truly eradicated, minorities are but the earliest victims.

I think Abrams and Stein are on the same page. I make this inference because in his film promoting intelligent design Stein argues that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. In making a movie that attempts to legitimize “Creation Science” in the academic world, Stein is thinking not so much about intellectual honesty or the relative adequacy of Darwinism and Creation Science in producing testable hypotheses and mountains of supporting evidence. He is asking an age-old question: “Is it good for the Jews?” If Darwinism is not good for the Jews, then so much the worse for Darwinism.

In mounting a war on Darwinism or at least attempting to control it, Stein is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion, at least for the last 100 years or so. The triumph of the Boasian school of anthropology over Darwinism in the early years of the 20th century was a watershed event in intellectual history of the West — in effect more or less obliterating what had been a thriving Darwinian intellectual milieu. This era of Darwinian domination of the social sciences included several well-known Jewish racial Zionists, such as Arthur Ruppin, who were motivated by the fear that Diaspora Judaism would lose its biological uniqueness as a result of pressures for intermarriage and assimilation.

Among the Zionists, the racialists won the day. Ruppin’s ideas on the necessity of preserving Jewish racial purity have had a prominent place in the Jabotinsky wing of Zionism, including especially the Likud party in Israel and its leaders—people like Ariel Sharon, Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir. (Here’s a photo of Sharon speaking to a Likud Party convention in 2004 under a looming photo of Jabotinsky.) Jabotinsky believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.” As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

But it was the Boasians who won the day in the academic establishment of the West. Whereas Jewish intellectuals played a bit part in the wider movement of racial Darwinism, the Boasian revolution which triumphed in academic anthropology in the West was overwhelmingly a Jewish intellectual movement.

And besides the Boasians, a great many Jewish social scientists of the period were also attracted to a thriving cult of Lamarckism — the view that evolution works via the inheritance of acquired characteristics rather than Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Indeed, Lamarckism became official ideology in the Soviet Union because of its easy compatibility with Marxist visions of utopia: Creating the socialist society would biologically alter its citizens.

Both theories combated racialist theories of Judaism that depicted it as having a biological uniqueness. (Actually, Boas’s approach is more an anti-theory because it cast doubt on general theories of human culture common among Darwinian anthropologists of the period, emphasizing instead the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human cultures, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation.) For example, based on skull measurements and IQ testing, racial scientists, including some racial Zionists, concluded that Jews had evolved to have higher IQ, but this was often linked with a tendency toward psychopathology—the “nervous Jew.”

The Boasians and the Lamarckians countered with the view that Jewish traits had resulted from historical conditions. As historian Mitchell B. Hart notes, “the positions taken by Jewish researchers [i.e., the Zionist racialists, the Lamarckians, and the Boasians] were driven in large measure by ideological commitments and political goals.” Three different groups of Jewish social scientists, three different ideological agendas stemming from their different views on how social science can best serve Jewish interests.

Boas’s famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was a very effective propaganda weapon in this cause of the anti-racialists. Indeed, it was intended as propaganda. Based on their reanalysis of Boas’s data, physical anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz do not accuse Boas of scientific fraud, but they do find (pdf) that his data do not show any significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration. They also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire to end racialist views in anthropology:

While Boas never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a personal agenda in the displacement of the eugenics movement in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point.

This view certainly dovetails with my research. Boas can now be officially grouped with his student and protégé Margaret Mead as using social science to further a leftist, anti-Darwinian political agenda.

Concerns about scientific fraud have also dogged Larmarckism. Lamarckism was a pillar of the intellectual left in the West during the 1920s but declined rapidly after its major scientific proponent, Paul Kammerer, committed suicide shortly after an article appearing in the prestigious British journal Nature accused him of scientific fraud. Kammerer, who was half Jewish on his mother’s side, was a staunch socialist. He wrote that Lamarckian inheritance offered hope for humanity through education, and he became a hero among committed Socialists and Communists. Despite Kammerer’s disgrace, Lamarckism lived on in theSoviet Union under Trofim Lysenko, with disastrous results on agricultural policy.

Interestingly, Boas, who was also a political radical, continued to accept Lamarckism up until his death in 1942 — long after it had been discredited by accusations of scientific fraud. The moral seems to be that people who use science to advance their political agendas are unlikely to reject politically attractive theories for trivial reasons like lack of evidence and a history of cooked data. Isn’t that how science is supposed to operate? Not surprisingly, that other pseudoscientific charlatan, Sigmund Freud, also continued believing in Lamarckism long after it had been scientifically discredited.

Ben Stein’s brief for intelligent design is therefore in the long line of movements, beginning with Boas and Lamarck, that have attempted to undercut Darwin as a pillar of Western science. Each of them is mistaken (to be generous) and each was highly motivated. Among Jewish participants, the motives can be quite straightforwardly related to their Jewish identity.

But we still must ask what to make of Ben Stein’s claim that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. John Derbyshire characterizes the charge as a “blood libel on our civilization” which indeed it is.  Nevertheless, such a claim should not be taken lightly. For example, it is common among historians to hold views similar to Michael Hart’s statement that “it is impossible to understand the Holocaust without comprehending the degree to which racial science and a medicalized racial ideology occupied central positions in Nazi thought and policy.”

By the same token, I suppose, one could argue that the Palestinian catastrophe is the result of the triumph of the racial Zionists and their Likudnik descendents in Israel. Or one could argue that Darwinism does not necessarily lead to the specific views attributed to the National Socialists.

And one could certainly note that genocides occurred long before World War II and they have continued to occur without any specific Darwinian ideology. Indeed, as noted above, Elliott Abrams places Communism in the same category as Nazism when it comes to the ill effects of removing a religious world view. In April, 2008, the Ukrainian Prime MinisterYulia Tymoshenko petitioned the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to recognize the 1932–1933 Ukrainian famine as an act of genocide—a genocide carried out by an avowedly Marxist government at a time when Jews formed an elite within the Soviet Union. (See also Charles Dodgson’s lucid comments in TOO on Jewish involvement in the Ukrainian genocide as a blind spot in Jewish memory. Abrams is an example of a Jewish writer who deplores the discrimination against Jews that occurred after World War II in the USSR, but is silent on the pre-World War II period when Jews formeda hostile elite in the Soviet Union and served as Stalin’s willing executioners.) Indeed, it has been estimated that Communist governments murdered over 90,000,000 people in the 20th century, including 25,000,000 in theUSSR. These murders were certainly not carried out under a Darwinian ideology.

And genocides have been carried out under religious ideologies as well. Christiane Amanpour’s God’s Warriors series certainly shows that religious ideology can motivate the most extreme of fanaticisms, from Jihad to much of the West Bank settler movement (including both its Christian and Jewish supporters). (The Christian and Muslim segments are still on You Tube. But the Jewish segment has been removed, presumably by the same Jewish fanatics featured in the segment. But you can still see two rebuttals put out by the pro-Zionists: Part I and Part II.  My description and commentary on the Jewish segment ishere.)

Ben Stein is wrong. There is no reason at all to suppose that adopting a religious world view immunizes against genocide. Perhaps he and Elliott Abrams are simply expressing their belief that present forms of Christianity would not lead to a Holocaust even if they achieved a great deal more power over public policy. This was the view of neocon guru Leo Strauss who is quite possibly the inspiration for both Abrams and Stein. They could be right about that, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

But let’s not be naïve. Darwin did indeed have a dangerous idea. In the same way that the evolutionary theory of sex has illuminated the deep structure of the human mating game, evolutionary theory points to the deep structure of genocide as a particularly violent form of ethnic competition. But ethnic competition is ethnic competition whether its carried out in an orgy of violence, or by forcible removal of people from land on the West Bank by Jewish settlers or by forcible removal of Native Americans during the 19th century by white settlers, or by peaceful displacement of whites via current levels of immigration into Western societies.

From a Darwinian perspective, the end result is no different. The genetic structure of the population has changed. Darwin, of course, understood this. Notice, for example, the subtitle of his masterpiece: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

We all have an implicit understanding of human sexual politics. What Darwin did (with the help of Robert Trivers) is to produce an explicit theory which explains sexual politics. But sexual politics and genocide existed long before Darwin came along. And it is at least questionable whether the occurrence of future genocide would be more or less likely if most people had an explicitly Darwinian theory. Humans seem to be able to commit mass murder under multiple ideological umbrellas.

And it could be argued that adopting an explicitly Darwinian perspective would actually lead to less genocide. For example, by understanding that ethnonational aspirations are a normal consequence of our evolutionary psychology, we could at least build societies that, unlike theSoviet Union, are not likely to commit genocide on their own people. Nor would we be saddled with a multicultural cauldron of competing and distrustful ethnic groups. And, as noted in a previous article, societies based on ethnonationalism would have other benefits as well: Greater openness to redistributive policies; greater trust and political participation; and a greater likelihood of adopting democratic political systems based on the rule of law.

So three cheers for Darwin and for science. Long may they live. And please, no more Ben Steins trying to send us back to the Dark Ages.

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

The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity

I suppose we could just write off Sandra Bernhard as a nut case and leave it at that. But the thing is that her rant against Christianity and her threatened gang-rape of Sarah Palin occurred at Theater J—J as in Jewish.

Theater J is a project of the Jewish Community Center of Washington. At the bottom of the homepage there is the stamp of the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington DC. You can click on tabs for Jewish Living which direct you to material on classes and retreats. Another tab brings you to information on programs for infants, toddlers and school-age children. About what you would expect at a Jewish community center.

But then there’s the video (posted at the Jewish Community Center website) of Bernhard saying about Sarah Palin, “Don’t you fucking reference the Old Testament, bitch. You stay with your goyish, crappy, shiksa-funky [or is it “shiksa-fucking”?] bullshit. Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you bitch. Because we have left it open to interpretation. It is no longer taken literally. You whore …”

So the moral high ground comes from having the correct interpretation of the Bible? I thought that was the sort of thing that people like Palin are accused of. How very quaint coming from this super edgy and ultra-chic Jewish-lesbian radical.

This sort of invective ruins careers if one substitutes, say, anti-black invective for Bernhard’s anti-goy rant. Heard from  Michael Richardslately? Bernhard can refer to the New Testament as “goyish, crappy, shiksa-funky bullshit” and it’s a great career move. She gets rave reviews in the mainstream media, including the Washington Post. The audience can be heard laughing and clapping appreciatively in the background while she says it, and Ari Roth, the artistic director, informs us that there are standing ovations after every performance.

Roth’s defense of the indefensible is a masterpiece of double-think: “There is a message of hope and ecumenical tolerance at the heart of what we’re trying to achieve here. Even in Sandra’s show. It’s complicated. It isn’t hate ful [sic]. There’s hope for all of us.”

Yeah, it’s complicated. Love is hate. Up is down. Black is white. Orwell would love it. You can just see the ecumenical tolerance and love in her face in this photo taken during her performance. Feel the love.

The first take-home message, then, is that Jews don’t have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. In an era when talking disparagingly about other groups is a sure way to career oblivion, it’s still possible for a Jewish performer to denigrate  the goyim and the Christian religion and to advocate physical violence and sexual degradation against someone merely because they believe what most white people believe. And she can do it at a Jewish community center.

Whites should think about what this really implies about America of the future when whites are a minority and Jews remain as a hostile elite. As I notedelsewhere  in commenting on a previous situation where a hostile Jewish elite ruled over a society that they loathed — that is, the Jewish Communists who acted as mass murderers of Christians during a period when Jews were a hostile elite in the Soviet Union:

The situation prompts reflection on what might have happened in the United States had American Communists and their sympathizers assumed power. The “red diaper babies” came from Jewish families which “around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.” Indeed, hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews … has been the Jewish norm throughout history—much commented on, from Tacitus to the present.

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union…. These [white Christians]  now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections.

Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” … In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture [held by the Jewish elite in the USSR] is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

Sandra Bernhard is Exhibit A for this type of contemporary American Jew. And the target of her wrath is Sarah Palin, the personification of red-state America.

One can  imagine the horror that would greet someone who made analogous comments about Judaism or the Holocaust. We doubt that people like Ari Roth would attempt to find nuances and subtleties in such art. There would be no talk of artistic license.  No attempts to find deep meanings of tolerance and hope despite the surface message of hatred and the facial expressions of seething rage and sneering contempt.

The second take-home message is that this sort of hostility to whites and to Christianity is a mainstream Jewish phenomenon. Whatever else one might say about Bernhard, she is part of a very large and vibrant Jewish subculture in America and throughout the West. In this case, it is performed by a Jewish comedienne at a Jewish community center, with an appreciative audience, many of whom are doubtless Jewish. And this is no insular culture far removed from the American mainstream. Rather, her work is reviewed respectfully and even enthusiastically in the prestigious media.

The hostility of the mainstream Jewish community, and especially the organized Jewish community, to white Europeans and the culture of the West can be seen across the entire Jewish political spectrum, from leftists like Sandra Bernhard to the neoconservative right.

The neocons do not express their contempt with the apoplectic rage of Sandra Bernhard — at least in public. But it’s there nonetheless. As Jacob Heilbrunn notes, the neocons had “a lifelong antipathy toward the patrician class.” The result, as Norman Podhoretz phrased it, was to proclaim a war against the “WASP patriciate.”

And, like Sandra Bernhard, the neocons aren’t very fond of Middle America either. But of course, they aren’t in competition with Middle America in their crusade to dominate American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.

This anti-white hostility affects a wide range of phenomena, from Jewish involvement in the media—as exemplified by Bernhard, to Jewish involvement in immigration policy.

But it goes even beyond that. Bernhard is quite frank about being a lesbian and typically draws a large number of the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendercrowd to her performances. The audience laughing about “big black brothers” gang-raping a female Republican vice-presidential candidate and trashing the New Testament is part and parcel of the culture of the left. It is the sort of humor that would work well among professors at elite universities or op-ed writers at theNew York Times.

This culture of the left therefore includes a lot of non-Jews. Destroying this culture is an enormously uphill battle. It is a culture that is now decades old and entrenched in all the  elite power centers of society. The task will not be easy. But, considering what happened in the Soviet Union when a hostile Jewish elite obtained political power and was unleashed on the people and culture they  hated, there is an obvious moral imperative in doing so.

The Washington Post’s Willing Executioner?

Last week, an editorial on this site made reference to a Washington Post column in which a Jewish writer contended that “the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party . . . the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.”

There was a picture of the writer, Harold Meyerson, at the top of his column:

An acquaintance of mine put the anti-white sentiment together with the photo and concluded:

It is the policy of Jews [that is, White-Jews] that White people [that is, White Christians] have no place in America or the American future. Anyone who says it is labeled an anti-Semite. Yet Meyerson’s is an unambiguous exterminationist position. Whites have as much place in America as Palestinians in Israel.

(His face is, BTW, like that of the NKVD killers who murdered 40 million Christians in the Soviet Union.)

It is as blatant as that.

At first blush such words come across as overly harsh, but upon reflection they make sense. This struck home for me because earlier this year I had a long essay published in which I used Yuri Slezkine’s descriptions of seemingly normal Jews turning into blood-thirsty killers during the Bolshevik Revolution.

Titled “Israel’s Willing Executioners,” the essay included long considerations of two recent books, The Power of Israel in the United States and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants, by retired professor James Petras. (The essay can be found in the Winter issue [7,4] of The Occidental Quarterly. Unfortunately, it is not available online.)

Petras was unique among academic writers in that he expanded upon the identities of Zionist American Jews to include the “sayanim” —Those who cooperate directly with Israeli intelligence agencies”; the sayanim comprise “a huge worldwide network of Jews in strategic or useful places.” What’s interesting for my purposes is they include “doctors, dentists, philanthropists, real estate magnates, financiers, journalists, media moguls, and academics.”

In my essay, I wanted to use the common image of the “Jewish dentist” to show the transformation from a familiar and harmless member of the American community to a potential killer. Perhaps it was because I found a passage where Slezkine described the highly visible cadre of Jews charged with executing the Russian Tsar and his family. One of the murderers, Shaia Goloshchekin, was a dentist.

In any case, my editor did not think the dentist trope would fly, so my line “Is it so unthinkable that today’s typical Jewish American, say a dentist, might become an executioner?” was axed.

Still, the general message of peril came through. I noted that during the Red Terror in Russia, some expressed shock that seemingly pacifistic Jews changed almost overnight: “We were amazed by what we had least expected to encounter among the Jews: cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical, warlike activity; those who yesterday did not know how to use a gun are now found among the executioners and cutthroats.”

Slezkine also describes a “formerly oppressed lover of liberty [who] had turned into a tyrant of ‘unheard-of despotic arbitrariness.’” He had been “transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness.” He could now be pictured as “standing in a Cheka basement doing ‘bloody but honorable revolutionary work.’”

Petras makes a similar claim with respect to Jews today, at least “those who claim to be a divinely chosen people, a people with ‘righteous’ claims of supreme victimhood.” We must, he admonishes us, expose the fact that “many descendants of victims have now become brutal executioners.”

Left to his own devices, I initially wrote, our American Jewish dentist may well remain nonviolent and lead a life of industry and contentment. But too often Judaism and Jewish groups have worked on such ethnic Jews to radicalize them, with or without their consent. As Kevin MacDonald has emphasized, “At all the turning points, it is the more ethnocentric elements—one might term them the radicals—who have determined the direction of the Jewish community and eventually won the day.”

Petras makes the same point, noting that “Judeocentrism is the perspective which guides the organized, active minority driving the major Zionist organizations and their billionaire camp followers. And it is always the organized, zealous and well-financed minority, which assumes ‘legitimate’ claim to speak ‘for the community.’”

Getting back to Harold Meyerson’s mug at the top of this page, the point is that when someone like him writes that “whiteness is a huge problem,” we whites have reason to worry. We have seen the radical turn in Russia, which resulted in rivers of gentile blood. Now Jews have risen in America. Ominously, as MacDonald has noted, “If there is any lesson to be learned, it is that Jews not only became an elite in all these areas, they became a hostile elite—hostile to the traditional people and cultures of all three areas they came to dominate.”

MacDonald expanded on this theme in the foreword to Tomislav Sunic’s Homo Americanus, arguing that the current American regime is “maintained less by brute force than by an unrelenting, enormously sophisticated, and massively effective campaign to constrain political and cultural activity within very narrow boundaries.” A violent communist death is not yet necessary because dissenters “are not yet trundled off to jail or beaten with truncheons, but are quietly ignored and marginalized. Or they are held up to public disgrace, and, wherever possible, removed from their livelihood.”

I suppose that is a relatively happy state of affairs, at least when compared to the potential bloody future such as the one Petras envisions. Already the “Zionist Power Configuration” has “effectively colonized the  White House and Legislative Branches,” and “ultra-Zionist” Attorney General Michael Mukasey and “Israel-First” Head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff man critical posts. To be sure, they may in fact be honorable men, but the point is to recognize the parallel to the rise of Jews to power in Soviet Russia and their role in the deaths of millions of perceived ethnic enemies (disguised as “class” enemies).

MacDonald, Petras and Slezkine have all shown in their own ways how talent, high intelligence and above all ethnic networking have allowed Jews to exercise great power despite low numbers. Jews operating in other Jewish movements in America have already succeeded in disestablishing the tradition European-derived majority, whether through Boasian anthropology with its scientifically unsupported claims that race is an illusion; whether through the arguments of Horace Kallen and others that America is merely a “propositional nation” without a founding people; or whether through activists like those in the Frankfurt School who combined psychoanalysis and Marxism into a “devastating weapon against the ethnic consciousness of white Americans.”

Sunic also sees dark clouds on the horizon for any group in America that might be targeted: “Thus, in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” MacDonald identifies what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.” They are the European-derived whites populating vast areas of the American nation, particularly in the so-called “red states.”

In fact, Jewish sources have long been openly admitting that a less white America is in their interests. Activist Ben Wattenberg, for example, has said that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”

Another Jewish activist, Earl Raab, explained why Jews have led “immigration reform” movements that favor non-whites, one factor being the belief that a less homogeneously white America will be less anti-Semitic. In an oft-cited passage, he wrote:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

This is the sentiment that the unhandsome Meyerson expressed in the above Washington Post column, the view that “this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white.”

Ultimately, is it so unthinkable that today’s typical Jewish American, say a Washington Post columnist, might become an enthusiastic executioner?

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