White Pathology/Guilt

Kevin MacDonald: Review of Podhoretz, Part II

Kevin MacDonald: Part II of my review of Podhoretz is now posted on Alternative Right. Quite a bit of it relates to the current discussion of Jewish intellectual style on this site. I agree with Podhoretz that Jews are attracted to religious thinking in which they accept theories that explain everything but are incapable of disconfirmation. The problem is that Jews have advanced these religious theories as “scientific” not only in the social sciences and humanities, but also, perhaps, in theoretical physics, as some have argued here.

The other point is to underline the fact that the only theory that can account for Jewish political behavior in the Diaspora is that it is motivated by ethnic conflict with the White, Christian majority seen as the historical enemy. I note that the status as an elite outsider has grave moral implications. In fact, Jews are actively engaged in making alliances with the soon-to-be non-White majority. Whites should be deeply concerned about what this portends for the future.

It’s interesting that in the Comments section Paul Gottfried agrees with my analysis but also points to White guilt as a critical factor. I agree with that and have written about it several places. For example, White predispositions to guilt and the manufacture of White guilt by prominent Jewish intellectual and political movements is the topic of my review of Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. (see also here.)

Bookmark and Share

Mark Green on Tim Wise’s Hypocrisy

Mark Green’s current TOO article “My Smackdown with Anti-White Crusader Tim Wise” is a must read. The article is an email exchange between Green, the editor of Persecution Privilege And Power, and the notorious Tim Wise who makes a living laying guilt trips on Whites about how privileged they are. Wise turns out to be Jewish (Why am I always the last to find out?). The interesting thing then is how Wise deals with the fact that he has directed all his energies against White “racism” in America and against apartheid South Africa while pretty much avoiding the issue of Jewish ethnocentrism and apartheid in Israel.

Wise is typical of the vast majority of American Jews. 83% voted for Obama, and the Jewish community is a pillar of multiculturalism in America. At the same time the Jewish community strongly supports Israel even though it has become dominated by racial Zionists and religious fundamentalists dedicated to Israeli expansion and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

I think that Wise is better than most Jews in trying to be intellectually consistent. He desperately wants to feel like a good guy, but there’s a huge blind spot. When I brought these issues up on faculty email battles at CSU-Long Beach in responding to morally superior Jewish professors who accused me of racism, the response was a mild version of Wise’s — something like “I oppose some of Israel’s actions” — and then immediately go back to attacking me. They didn’t feel any need to oppose Israeli racism with the same energy and intensity as they oppose any manifestation of White ethnocentrism. And yet as members of the Jewish community they certainly bear a huge burden of responsibility for Israel’s actions, since US support for Israel continues to be critical to its ability to create an apartheid state and oppress the Palestinians.

As Green’s article makes clear, the only consistency is “What’s good for the Jews.” Wise and other Jewish leftists are consistently pursuing their ethnic interests — opposition to the White majority in the US motivated by fear, loathing, and a desire for power, while supporting at least implicitly the aggressively ethnonationalist state of Israel. Hard-nosed, aggressive ethnic politics all around. But Tim Wise will be the absolutely last person to see his own actions as the height of ethnocentrism.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: The Genteel Mr. Bradlaugh

I agree with everything in Christopher Donovan’s blog on Bradlaugh’s take on the AmRen cancellation. But a couple of things Bradlaugh wrote stick in my craw. It used to be that Jews complained about genteel anti-Semites. Now we have people like Bradlaugh who spout genteel philo-Semitism: He complains about “the antisemitism of the AR followers, which rubs me the wrong way. I fall in line with the long tradition of British philosemitism (Cromwell, Victoria, Lloyd George, Maggie Thatcher), and just have no patience with the other thing.” He could have included Winston Churchill who was philo-Semitic to the point of corruption.

It seems to me that anyone writing on politics has a responsibility to write honestly about the various forces that influence public policy. For Bradlaugh, it’s simply not genteel to discuss embarrassing things like Jewish power. I suppose Mearshimer and Walt rub him the wrong way as well. I had this to say about John Derbyshire, Bradlaugh’s alter ego:

Derbyshire is, apart from some minor irritations, quite uncritical about Jewish motives and influence, even when they conflict with the interests of people like himself. He implies that non-Jews should understand Jewish motivation to break down the ethnic homogeneity of their own societies while advancing the interests of Israel as an ethnostate. … Derbyshire lives in a sort of childlike world in which Jewish interests are legitimate and where Jewish attempts to pursue their interests, though they may occasionally be irritating, are not really a cause for concern much less malice. It doesn’t require an evolutionary theory to realize that good, reasonable people can have conflicts of interest, and that the results of conflicts of interest can be devastating to the side that loses.

I think that Bradlaugh’s problem is that he sees himself as genteel and that being genteel is a very good thing. (Definition: 1. Refined in manner; well-bred and polite. 2. Free from vulgarity or rudeness. 3. Elegantly stylish: genteel manners and appearance. 4. a. Striving to convey a manner or appearance of refinement and respectability. See Synonyms at polite. b. Marked by affected and somewhat prudish refinement.)

He seems very impressed with good manners, a well-rounded education, and being polite. Genteel people simply don’t discuss Jewish power and influence for fear of offending the Jews. In the same way, genteel people would not want to offend others by calling attention to their garish clothes. To do so would make one impolite and vulgar and therefore consign one to a lower order of society.

His gentility is probably also why he doesn’t resonate with AmRen’s “ethos of the South, which I don’t really … get. I wonder if a foreigner ever can get it. It’s as odd and particular, in its own way, as Tibetan Buddhism.”

The reality is that White Southerners are by far the largest identifiable group of White Americans who have held onto their culture and identity in the face of the onslaughts of the last 50 years. The White vote for Obama was nearly in the single digits in three southern states, and lopsidedly Republican in the others. White Southerners understand, at least implicitly, that it’s about racial and ethnic conflict. As the racialization of American politics continues, all Whites will tend even more in this direction. (The recent election in Massachusetts certainly supports this). Conservatives who think they can take back the country without Southern Whites are seriously deluded.

Bradlaugh’s gentility also leads him to entirely avoid framing the issue in ethnic or racial terms at all:

My own strong preference, as I argued in that debate with Jared, would be for everybody to shut up with the race business. There doesn’t seem to be much prospect of this happening, though, so it’s not hard to see the AR-ers point of view. In any case, I say again, whatever you think of that point of view, it’s a point of view. It shouldn’t be shut out of the public square; and if it is so shut out, by goons phoning in death threats to hotel employees, there ought to be a fuss made. Well, here I am on Secular Right, making a fuss as best I can. Freedom of speech! Freedom of assembly! Liberty! Liberty!

This is “proposition conservatism” at its finest. If only people would stop talking about racial and ethnic conflict, then we could frame everything in terms of principles like free speech without soiling ourselves like the AR crowd. For people like Bradlaugh, massive immigration would presumably be fine if the immigrants were all principled people like himself.

The reality, of course, is that whether or not we talk about it, racial and ethnic conflict will continue. There is no other possible outcome given that 100 million more non-Whites are to be added to the population of the US in the next few decades.

The bottom line is that no one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. None seems on the horizon. And in the process of losing the ethnic battle, the society will be less and less committed to Bradlaugh’s cherished principles because, in the end, the principles of free speech, individual liberty, and the rest of the corpus of Western individualism are ethnic creations.

But people like Bradlaugh are more willing to lose the ethnic battle than to become anything less than genteel by mentioning the ethnic conflict that is at the heart of the political divisions in the US. It just wouldn’t seem proper.

Bookmark and Share

Note to Whites: Animals Aren’t Children, May Actually Kill You

Dawn Brancheau, the 40-year-old White woman killed by a (surprise) killer whale, was married and had no children.  But “she loved the animals like they were her own children”, a family member says.

Allow for a moment my angle on this, which I realize isn’t shared by some White advocates:  Dawn Brancheau represents a disturbing trend among Whites whereby puppies, kittens, dogs, cats, horses, orangutans and other beasts are considered their “children.”  They collect them, work with them, hoard them, fawn over them and spend absurd amounts of money on them.  Meanwhile, they have no actual children — and I’m betting it’s not often because they’re biologically unable.

My unclinical opinion is that this is a form of obsessive compulsive disorder, though possibly with a historical root in an evolutionarily-developed survival affinity for animals (unique to Whites) that can provide food and protection.  The latter is understandable, but the former is a problem.

White women seem to be able to think of pretty much anything as their children — except natural children from their own wombs:  adopted children from Africa, expensive houses, dogs, even killer whales.  It has to stop.  Dawn Brancheu was fit and attractive and probably would have borne great White children.  Instead, she walked in front of nature’s moving train and got crushed.  Can you hear the Black comedians joking about this one? (“Da lady got in the tank with killer whales.  And guess what happened?”)

I’ll have to give them this one. Talk about survival of the fittest.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Trudie Pert on Birthright Israel

Trudie Pert’s current TOO article “Birthright Israel: A Model Ethnic Charity” shows once again that, despite being pillars of multicultural righteousness, the laws of political correctness do not apply to the organized Jewish community. As noted in the article, Charles Bronfman, one of the largest funders of Birthright, obviously has a deep attachment to Jewish DNA. Birthright has successfully raised the percentage of Jews who marry Jews to 72%. Given that the program will reach one third of young Jews and given that a lot of Jews who don’t go are from the more conservative wings of Judaism who are not in need of a program like this or have already been to Israel, it suggests a major effect on retaining the ethnic basis of Judaism in the Diaspora. It reminds us that for the early Zionists, the main reason for establishing Israel was to preserve Jewish DNA:

[These] Jewish racial Zionists, such as Arthur Ruppin … 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.”

Israel is obviously living up to its intended function of preserving Jewish DNA — not only in Israel, but via Birthright, in the Diaspora as well.

The other important point about Pert’s article is the complete lack of this sort of thinking by wealthy White philanthropists. Bill Gates gives billions to non-Whites and actually excludes Whites — even poor Whites — from applying for his aid programs. Gates and other wealthy Whites are behaving according to conventional attitudes of multicultural America, reaping the public acclaim in the media and doubtless feeling morally righteous. (Again, George Gilder’s sense of moral righteousness comes to mind.) We have to change all that.

Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly’s "Farewell, My Dear WASP"

Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article “Farewell, My Dear WASP” again raises the conundrum of why the WASPs collectively abdicated their position of power in the US. He mentions the Stockholm Syndrome and other possibilities — all of which should provide for an interesting discussion here. What strikes me most is the quote from Scott McConnell’s review:

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

This severe proneness to guilt has always struck me as the defining feature of the Puritan strand of American culture. And with excessive guilt comes moralistic aggression aimed at ingroups and outgroups alike. As I noted elsewhere, the Puritans have a unique ethnic background among Anglo-Saxons generally. They have a strong tendency toward moral idealism, whether expressed as opposition to slavery in the 19th century, or as anti-anti-Semitism in the 21st. Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins — perhaps a form of altruistic punishment as the term is used in the scientific literature.

Once Europeans were convinced that their own people were morally bankrupt, any and all means of punishment should be used against their own people. Rather than see other Europeans as part of an encompassing ethnic and tribal community, fellow Europeans were seen as morally blameworthy and the appropriate target of altruistic punishment. For Westerners, morality is individualistic—violations of communal norms . . . are punished by altruistic aggression.

And since Gilder has never quite forgiven himself for a minor ethnic slur, he has become a soldier on behalf of righteousness. Like a Puritan magistrate of old, he is ready to do battle against the sinners among his own people. Of course, in the current environment, people like Gilder also benefit in terms of fame and fortune. But their feelings of moral righteousness make them feel good about what they are doing. Happiness for a Puritan is when self-interest coincides with a feeling of moral righteousness.

Once Jewish intellectuals achieved the moral high ground in the US and elsewhere, people like Gilder lost their resolve to defend their own ethnic interests; the game was over. Fundamentally, we have to stamp out Puritanism among Whites, or at least find a form of therapy for people like Gilder:

Given this state of affairs, what sorts of therapy might one suggest? To an evolutionary psychologist, this moralistic aggression seems obviously adaptive for maintaining the boundaries and policing the behavior of a close-knit group.  … Groups of Angles, Jutes, and their Puritan descendants doubtlessly benefited greatly from moralistic aggression  because of its effectiveness in enforcing group norms and punishing cheaters and defectors. There is nothing inherently wrong with moralistic aggression. The key is to convince whites to alter their moralistic aggression in a more adaptive direction in light of Darwinism. 

The ultimate irony is that without altruistic whites willing to be morally outraged by violations of multicultural ideals, the multicultural New Jerusalem is likely to revert to a Darwinian struggle for survival among the remnants. But the high-minded descendants of the Puritans [like George Gilder] won’t be around to witness it.

Bookmark and Share

"Fearful suspensed animals trodding into rendering plants for destruction"

The following is from a correspondent. I suspect it reflects the attitudes of quite a few Whites observing their impending dispossession and feeling “empty, afraid and cynical.” It amazes me that such people do nothing but cower in fear aware of their impending doom but doing nothing to change things — terrified even to utter the phrase “White American.” Obviously we have to hope that a significant number of Whites are made of sturdier stuff.

Just finished your article  “The ADL: Managing White Rage“, in which you present the sinister influence and seemingly evident quandary that characterize the academia/political forces that represent the worst of “Zionist” intentions in the U.S.

I don’t think any attempt at scholarly discourse would serve any useful purpose, so I will wisely refrain from doing so.  But rather I would like to present another dimension aside from such.  That being the defeated underbelly of the collected,dispirited ethnic entity which is becoming America’s unrealized embarrassment — homogenized Whites.

Just speaking the words “White American” can cause such a range of unsettling emotions that elicit actions based on negative thoughts that totally surrender all logic and evolved pride of self. I find myself a reluctant observer to a devolvement and dissemination of once proud peoples who like fearful suspensed animals trodding into rendering plants for destruction — likewise unwaveringly plod towards unrepentant impotence.

I read with trepidity various social commentators such as yourself, exposing the beast among us — the judas priests of race if you will. I reflect, intone, and even commiserate your insights and spot-on commentary, but even after the feast of revelations and indictments, I still only feel empty, afraid and cynical for the state and future of affairs that will likely fulfill our destiny.  And I’m afraid the collective conscious that sits next to me in neat rows in deck chairs, oblivious to impending disasterous destiny on the USS Amerika, …maybe have only the dimmest of precognition of the great berg waiting in darkness at the edge of final resolution…..

Bookmark and Share