Il ruolo degli ebrei nella formazione della politica di immigrazione statunitense

Capitolo 7
Oggi… gli immigrati – sopratutto gli immigrati ebrei – sembrano più americani di quanto possa sembrare [il WASP]. Sono loro le facce, le voci e le inflessioni di pensiero che ci sembrano più familiari, letteralmente d’istinto. [Il WASP] è l’eccentrico, lo straniero, il fossile. Gli diamo uno sguardo, un po’ attoniti, e ci chiediamo: “Dove sarà andato a finire?” Ce lo ricordiamo pallido, composto, vestito con cura, speditamente sicuro di sé. E lo percepiamo come un estraneo, un forestiero, una razza piuttosto nobile in via di estinzione… Ha cessato di essere caratteristico, e non ce ne siamo accorti fino a questo momento. Non in modo così enfatico, ad ogni modo. Read more

The United States Congress: Decorum Lost

Lord, what would the Founders say if they read the letter from the Congressional Black Caucus to President Trump indicating their desire to “educate” him on all things relating to—what else—the Black community?  It is one thing to enfranchise a group in our representative government; but to be condescended to by them in this manner?  Gerrymandered districts have given us an abundance of diversity in the House of Representatives, and to a lesser extent, the Senate.  This sometimes results in a complete debacle of stumbling incompetence and embarrassing displays of semi-literacy.  But what is most offensive, these diverse Congress critters exhibit impudence and a breach of decorum, which again, makes one think back to the Founders with regret.

The Congressional Black Caucus rejected Trump’s offer for a second meeting because his initiatives would not meet their agenda.  They’re not used to not getting their way.  In fact, many protected groups are having a hard time adjusting to the Trump Era.

They chided our President: “We took advantage of every opportunity to educate you on the needs of the Black community and provide you with the information and solutions necessary to act on them in good faith.”  Never mind the futility of any “solution” to the needs of the Black community that has already been the recipient of trillions in federal aid with nothing to show for it. What strikes one is their refusal to attend a civil meeting when their demands are not immediately accommodated. Could it be that Trump is not buying into the minority grievance industry?   Read more

Science and the Suicide-Cult: The Irrationalism of Richard Dawkins

The basis of science is the same as the basis of life: pattern-recognition. Even plants recognize patterns in the weather and the attacks of insects. The difference between scientists and trees, or scientists and sharks, is that scientists use reason and method, not instinct and other forms of biological automation.

Mathemodels of reality

Scientists try to identify and understand patterns in the world by creating patterns of their own: they perform experiments, they model and analyse data using mathematics, trying to create symbolic patterns that behave like real ones. Astronomy is the paradigm of this endeavour. There was sufficient regularity and permanence in the heavens for the ancients to predict lunar and solar eclipses. Ptolemy had an effective mathemodel of the solar system in the Second Century A.D.; Copernicus put forward a better one in 1543; Newton refined and expanded it in 1687. The power of Newton’s mathemodel was confirmed by the successful predictions it made: there were undiscovered planets out there. Neptune was mathematics before it became matter.

Stale pale male Charles Darwin

Biology proved much more difficult than astronomy and other branches of physics. The great pattern of evolution escaped the notice of Aristotle before Christ and Linnaeus long after, and when Darwin and Wallace recognized it in the nineteenth century, their description was linguistic, not mathematical. Their logic was good and their evidence substantial, but evolutionary biology didn’t become a proper science until it had a solid foundation of mathematics. Stale pale males like Ronald Fisher (1890–1962) and W.D. Hamilton (1936–2000) built mathemodels of biological systems that behaved like the real thing and made good predictions. Indeed, biology turned out to have a mathemodel of its own: the three-dimensional double helix of DNA carries a two-dimensional genetic code, which synthesizes proteins, evolves, and protects itself from error in ways that are illuminated by the human mathemodel of information theory.

Digital Dawkins

As Richard Dawkins puts it: “The essential difference between classical Darwinism (which we now understand could not have worked) and neo-Darwinism (which does) is that digital genetics has replaced analogue.” Dawkins will need no introduction. He’s much more famous than Fisher or Hamilton and a much better and clearer writer than his late rival, the Jewish Marxist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002). Dawkins’ line about Darwinism comes from the lecture “Science and Sensibility,” which is collected in a new book of his called Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist (Bantam Press 2017). I’ve enjoyed the book and it’s reminded me again both of what I admire about Dawkins and of what I deplore.

Powerful pattern: The DNA double helix

Read more

Kevin MacDonald Lecture 2: Social and Psychological Mechanisms of Group Cohesion (2005)

“Collateral Damage” or “Targets of Opportunity”? Children of Divorce in the War of the Sexes

No-fault divorce is a cultural artefact.  In other words, this “progressive” reform of family law is a product of human artifice.  Inevitably, any such cultural innovation will produce what economists soothingly describe as “negative externalities.”  The most toxic by-product of divorce law reform has been the concomitant breakdown of families with children.  This epidemic of dysfunctional families is not the unintended consequence of legal changes introduced for the best of reasons.  Did not conservatives predict that no-fault divorce would undermine the foundations of family life?  Did not churches remind secular reformers that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?

The fact is that some, perhaps all, of those who promoted the putative “democratization” of divorce intended to subvert the traditional institutions of marriage and family (particularly as practiced among white Anglo-Saxon Protestants).  Reform was marketed as a compassionate response to the personal plight of people “trapped” in loveless marriages.  Decades later, Andrew Root concedes that the ideal of love-based marriage did not create divorce, but insists that “it was the love-based union that democratized it.”[1]  But is marriage really about “love” in any recognizably Christian sense when the law enables any married person to sacrifice on the secular altar of personal happiness the health of society, perhaps even the future of Anglo-European civilization?  Neither legal prohibitions nor religious taboos, much less social shaming, constrain the selfishly unilateral repudiation of solemn matrimonial oaths.  Not surprisingly, the end of matrimony as a binding, irreversible covenant between husband and wife inaugurated an age of cascading, ever-more socially corrosive cultural revolutions.  Read more

Heart of Darkness: Hip Hop, Existentialist Theology, and the WASP Cult of the Other

Introduction

Hip-hop is another cultural artefact attracting the attention of Christians working with young people.  Back in January, at the five-day intensive university course for Youth Culture and Ministry, Andrew Root, a professor of youth ministry from Luther Seminary in Minneapolis, devoted an afternoon session to the subject.  His very effective audio-visual presentation reflected what I now recognize as the received understanding of hip-hop among progressive Black academics teaching at leading American universities.

Root left unexplored the ethno-political dimension of the hip-hop phenomenon.  My subsequent journey through the proudly ethnocentric work of several prominent Black hip-hop scholars took me to the front line of the contemporary cultural war on White America.  These Black writers describe hip-hop as a primary means by which Americans talk about race.  Debates about hip-hop, according to Tricia Rose, “stand in for discussion of significant social issues related to race, class, sexism, and Black culture.”  Commercial hip-hop provides “the fuel that propels public criticism of young Black people.”[2]  Strangely, however, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans such as Andrew Root never ask themselves whether “the hip-hop community” (inclusive of rappers, fans, record companies, and well-connected professors) is friendly or hostile to young White people. 

Is Hip-Hop Good for Black People?

While properly repulsed by the violent and crudely sexist lyrics in contemporary commercial hip hop, Black scholars emphasize “the importance of craft, innovation, media literacy, and other practices that have made hip-hop such an enduring and inspiring force in the lives of young people, especially Black youth.”[3]  Some emphasize the ways in which the gangstas and guns, hustlers and pimps, the bitches and the hoes featured in hip-hop lyrics both reflect and contribute to “the socially and culturally toxic environment” of urban Black and Latino ghettoes.  Orlando Patterson, for example, laments “the fact that instead of artistically representing and transcending the realities of ghetto life, under the pressure of corporate packaging, elements of the street and prison culture have now been morphed into hip-hop, so much so that it is often difficult to differentiate the two.”[4]  Others celebrate the creativity of Black youth, from the “compelling aesthetic innovations of hip-hop’s founding figures” to the “countless variations” which they inspired “in the ensuing decades.”[5] Read more

Darren Osborne and the Finsbury Mosque Incident: A Rebellion against the Idea that Revenge Couldn’t Even Be Contemplated

At time of this writing, the Left and the British state are busily engaged in portraying a solitary, frustrated, drunken son of Albion as that great figure of myth — the ‘right wing extremist.’ By most accounts Darren Osborne is an everyman figure, a married father of four who enjoys his beer and the quiet life of the suburban lower middle class. In images displayed by the media, green weeds split the ground just outside his otherwise tidy home, while a police officer stands at the gate of a small, neat, garden fence. It’s the kind of home you’d walk past and not look at twice; a home like your own. Like a lot of men his age, Osborne appears to have grumbled occasionally at ‘the Muslims,’ and bristled at the growing number of Islamic terrorist attacks occurring in his nation. But there was nothing to suggest he might be a ‘man of action.’ He was not a member of any nationalist organization. He had no blog, no history of activism. The leader of the South Wales National Front, Adam Lloyd, told the press that Osborne “is not known to any of us here in South Wales National Front, and to our knowledge is not and never has been a member.” Darren Osborne surprised ‘the movement’ with his actions in Finsbury, though I suspect he surprised himself even more.

Modern ‘society’ is expert at controlling the behavior of men — in particular, the expectations, responsibilities, and burdens of the consumer society, propped up by mortgage and credit card usury. Shackled from cradle to grave. For many people, leaving education is merely the start of a succession of races to pay the bills each month. No grander purpose or vision lies beyond this bottom line. A wife may come and go, homes are bought and debts incurred, children are born in order that they too might one day begin the same race.

Some might say that this has always been the case, and in some respects they are correct. However, the last five decades have witnessed the steady politicization of the working environment, and this is unique. Being socially and politically compliant became a more important part of life than at any time in history. In the past, there always existed ‘the frontier’ or beyond. There was thus always a place to go for ‘the man with a cause,’ the noble outlaw. The Icelandic Sagas, which in many respects exalt this type of man, are replete with individuals and individualism — tales of people who wanted more from life than existing social systems offered, and so set forth into new lands or waged war on the status quo in old ones.

The globalized world of the 21st century offers no frontier. Nowhere is free of the airport, the convenience store, the security camera, the detective, or the State. The world, as they say, is getting smaller, not bigger. Only the born slave could see this as a good thing. Today, there is no place for rebellion to be displaced to, and the State maintains a greater monopoly on the use of force than at any time in history. In this context, conformity has become endemic. Rebellion of even the most mediocre kind now results in ejection from employment and disaster in the race to pay those all-important bills. Loss of job can result in loss of home, and in many cases family. At some point in recent times, a man’s ability to conform and remain silent became the fulcrum upon which his entire personal fate would rest. And because of this, the vast majority of men remain silent and still when it comes to anything meaningful. Robinson Jeffers, the great ‘inhumanist’ poet of the early 20th century wrote of this malaise in ‘Decaying Lambskins’:

Because we are not proud but wearily ashamed of this peak of
time. What is noble in us, to kindle
The imagination of a future age? We shall seem a race of cheap
Fausts, vulgar magicians.
What men have we to show them? but inventions and appliances.
Not men but populations, mass-men; not life
But amusements; not health but medicines.

Read more