Jonah Goldberg and Harold Meyerson on the election: It’s all good

/216 Comments/in , , , /by

Two op-eds in the LATimes illustrate two Jewish reactions to the election. Although they supposedly are on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, they have much in common.

On one hand is Jonah Goldberg, editor of National ReviewOnline. Goldberg is a neocon—a faux conservative who recently was noted as supporting the firing of John Derbyshire for telling the truth about race. Goldberg has also attacked Peter Brimelow for what he described as “the narrow and nasty emphasis on what … Brimelow calls America’s ‘specific ethnic core'” (“Peter Brimelow (“a once-respected conservative voice”) on Goldberg of National Review (a once-conservative, now respected, magazine“). Brimelow’s main point is that Goldberg has been an enthusiastic supporter of displacement-level non-White immigration and is horrified at the thought of an identity politics for White people (for other groups, it’s just fine).

So it’s not surprising that Goldberg is not particularly upset by the election (“The right isn’t waving a white flag“). Goldberg claims that conservatism will come back, as it has before. Not one mention of the demographics of the vote or what that portends for the GOP or what the GOP ought to do about it. Read more

Surprise! Jewish Republicans want amnesty and gay marriage

/133 Comments/in , /by

Lots of soul-searching among Republicans on how best to proceed. And not much of a surprise on the direction advocated by the major Republican Jewish donors.

A number of Romney’s financial backers — including Fred Zeidman of Texas, Mel Sembler of Florida and Sheldon Adelson — are among the RJC’s leadership, and Brooks made clear that their voices would be heard.

“A lot of the major financial support the candidates received was from the members of this organization,” Brooks said. “There is a lot of weight behind their message on that.”

William Daroff, the Washington director of the Jewish Federations of North America and a former deputy to Brooks at the RJC, said Republican Jews would likely advise the party to moderate.

“The conventional wisdom is that the election will result in the shift of the Republican Party to the center, particularly on issues of immigration,” Daroff said. “To the extent that the party does shift, it would make Republican candidates more appealing to Jewish voters who may be inclined to vote Republican on foreign policy and homeland security issues but who have been turned off by conservative Republicans rigidity on social issues.

Some of the leading voices counseling moderation of hard-line Republican policies have been Jewish conservatives. One of the first post-election posts from Jennifer Rubin, who writes the Right Turn blog for the Washington Post, said it was time to stop opposing gay marriage in the political arena.

“Republicans for national office would do well to recognize reality,” Rubin said. “The American people have changed their minds on the issue and fighting this one is political flat-earthism. As with divorce, one need not favor it, but to run against it is folly, especially for national politicians who need to appeal to a diverse electorate.” (“On the morning after: Jewish Republicans Advise the Party“

See also John Graham on Jewish Republican donors on behalf of gay marriage: “New York gay marriage: Follow the Jewish money“). Read more

Disenfranchised White Males: Time for Secession

/498 Comments/in , , , /by

My impression is that in 2008 the mainstream media was basking in the glow of multicultural heaven with the election of Obama. There was very little commentary on the racial pattern of the results and what they portended a difficult time ahead for the Republicans (at TOO, we’ve been on it). This time around, one hears nothing but commentary on how the Republicans are doomed if they don’t pander to Hispanics (Hispander, as VDARE has it).

The racial fault lines are more apparent than ever. Whereas in 2008, the official version was that 58% of Whites voted Republican, this year, according to the CNN exit poll data, it split 59%–39%. Of course, the White population includes Jews and Middle Easterners classed as Whites but who do not vote like other Whites and do not identify with the traditional people and culture of America. (70% of Jews voted for Obama, down from ~80% in 2008, perhaps because Obama didn’t immediately bomb Iran at Israel’s behest. As a critical component of the new hostile elite, Jewish voters are mainly motivated by their identification with the non-White coalition of the Democratic Party, assuming [correctly] that support for Israel is sufficiently bi-partisan to carry the day.) As usual, the White percentage of the electorate continued to decline, from 74% to 72%. And as usual, the Republican Party received over 90% of its votes from Whites. Read more

Ethnocentrism is normal and rational

/259 Comments/in , , , /by

The most often heard accusation by liberals against white nationalists and critics of mass immigration is that they are bedevilled by “irrational fears”.  White nationalists are parochial and unsophisticated, outside the standards of morality, lacking in sympathy and compassion for others and for “humanity” itself.

But none of this is true. Science is now educating us that White nationalists are normal humans beings who happen to exhibit a healthy and “positive” evaluation of their own ethnic group consistent with evolutionary theory. This is the argument white nationalists can opportunely take from a scientific paper published in Psychological and Cognitive Sciences (January 2011), with the fitting title: “Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism”.

It is not an argument liberals wanted to hear. Written by a research team at the University of Amsterdam, directed by Dr. Carsten de Dreu, this article shows that oxytocin is a molecule associated with in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Through a series of experiments in which participants were administered doses of oxytocin,   the researchers learned that “a key mechanism facilitating in-group cooperation is ethnocentrism, the tendency to view one’s group as centrally important and as superior to other groups” at the expense of an out-group. Read more

Remembering a Scientific Pioneer—Arthur R. Jensen (1923–2012)

/48 Comments/in , /by

Jen-sen-ism (jen’se niz’em), n. the theory that an individual’s IQ is largely due to heredity, including racial heritage. [1965-1970]; after Arthur R. Jensen (born 1923), U.S. educational psychologist, who proposed such a theory; see -ism]—Jen’sen-ist, Jen’sen-ite’, n., adj.

— The Random House and Webster’s Unabridged Dictionaries

Arthur Jensen’s death on October 22 is a pathetic reminder of the strangehold of political correctness on our society. To the extent that it has been mentioned at all, Professor Jensen’s death has been contextualized in such a manner that leaves little doubt among readers that Jensen was wrong about his ideas on race differences in IQ. Thus the New York Times obituary mentions Stephen Jay Gould’s critique of IQ testing, despite Gould’s well-established track record as a leftist activist who likely engaged in fraud to support his views (see also here). The obituary also gives far less prominence to Jensen than to one Sonja C. Grover, an educational psychologist at Lakehead University in Ontario who feels that “you cannot separate social science from human rights.”

However it also quotes Prof. James Flynn whose work has indicated rising intelligence over recent decades and has taken the rather cautious view that “The best we can say is that it is more probable that the I.Q. gap between black and white is entirely environmental in origin.”

“Jensen was a true scientist, and he was without racial bias,” Professor Flynn added. “It never occurred to Arthur Jensen that people would use his data to argue for racial supremacy. Now, to be fair to his critics, over time he became more and more convinced that the evidence did show a genetic component.”

I suppose we should be grateful for the statement that Jensen was a true scientist, but how in the world are his critics supported by the simple fact that Jensen continued to believe that racial differences were genetically influenced when his own views are hardly a ringing endorsement of environmentalism? Read more

Norman Lear’s “All in the Family” resurfaces

/287 Comments/in , , , /by

In an argument about Jewish domination of the media, once you get your opponent to admit that yes, Jews do run the media, the usual fall back line is to say that it really doesn’t make any difference. Jews are Americans like everyone else, so we really couldn’t expect anything different no matter who was in charge.

I thought about this reading an LATimes article on the 40th anniversary of Norman Lear’s All in the Family (“Norman Lear Recalls ‘All in the Family’s’ Beginning“). The article begins with Lear recounting how proud he is of getting “a reference to sex that would be considered tame today” into the first episode  The show was wildly successful: “The series was brilliant, daring, funny and poignant. Over the seasons, “All in the Family” explored racism, homosexuality, women’s liberation, menopause, impotence, the Vietnam War and the loss of faith. It was the No. 1 series for five years, won 22 Emmys including four for comedy series…”

I remember reading an article about Carroll O’Connor, who played the main character, Archie Bunker, being wildly applauded whenever he went out in public during the height of the show’s popularity. The show was indeed brilliant—brilliant propaganda because it managed to identify ingrain in the American mind the idea that illiberal thinking was a sure sign of being an uneducated buffoon.

It is repeatedly brought out that the main character, Archie Bunker, is uneducated and none too smart—constantly mispronouncing even ordinary words and lacking a basic understanding of geography or history—Lincoln signed the Declaration of Independence, Denmark is the capital of Colorado, and Florida is on the West Coast. But this TV show still shapes current attitudes about people who have a problem with multiculturalism. I found the following posted online by a fan of the show:

This is definitely my favorite show and I am glad that there are re-runs on Nick-At-Nite. One of my favorite episodes is when Archie gets locked in the cellar and is finally “rescued” by a repair man, but Archie is drunk, and he thinks that the repair man is God; little does he now, that the repair man is black! (Not that it matters, but to Archie?!) And when Archie bows down to him and lifts his head to see his “God” the audience roared in laughter as did I. . . . I hope this show remains  on the air for a long time, because I could never get sick of watching All in the Family! (see here) Read more

Is the Press freer in the United States than in Europe?

/126 Comments/in /by

What follows below is the author’s translation of his piece in French (Fall 2012). The original text in French can be accessed here or here. It is published in Réfléchir et Agir, a political-cultural quarterly published in France. It can be roughly categorized as non-conformist “national-anarchist” journal with critical articles on art, literature and politics. The journal has published interviews with prominent French personalities from cultural and political life (Brigitte Bardot, Jean Raspail, Alain de Benoist, Vladimir Volkoff, etc).

America does not yet know freedom-killing laws that have by now become the trademark of the Federal Republic of Germany and France. Compared to the French Penal Code, especially the Fabius-Gayssot law, or the dreaded Section 130 of the Criminal Code in Germany, the famous First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution opens up avenues to freedom of expression that one could only dream about in Europe. Intellectuals who write for newspapers labeled “racist” or “extreme rightwing”, or heads of U.S. institutions who voice doubts about the official casualty figure of the Jewish Holocaust, such as The Barnes Review or The Institute of Historical Review, could be liable to a 4-year prison sentence in Germany, or subject to heavy legal fines in France. None of this exists as of yet in America, where one can see even proscribed European scholars such as Robert Faurisson and David Irving as guests of honor of different revisionist groups. Moreover, openly anti-Black, indeed racist gatherings are not uncommon in America, just as wearing the Waffen SS uniform, or sporting the swastika by U.S skinheads, or for that matter displaying the Celtic cross in one’s own back yard — all this baggage, all of this behavior is strictly protected under the U.S. legal system.

One must not be fooled, however. American media and especially the mainstream press attuned to the System, such as The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, let alone the major television channels, such as CNN, are careful not to venture into open discussions of the great taboos of our postmodernity: the Jewish question and the race question. It is not fear of judicial censorship that rules over the intellectual landscape in America; fortunately there is none for the time being. Rather, self-censorship among journalists and well-known professors, or the paranoid anticipation of inadvertently crossing paths with an “evil thinker” produces unprecedented psycho-anthropological knee-jerk reflexes. Fear of social ostracism and fear of being consigned to professional oblivion turn out to be stronger antidotes than fines, imprisonment, or the loss of job [American professors with tenure can’t be fired for expressing their views on politics or scholarly issues]. Read more