Christopher Donovan: Those Dreaded All-White Juries, Again

/22 Comments/in , , , /by

Christopher Donovan: To follow the path of the White advocate is to encounter, every so often, situations of unremarked absurdity that make you want to scream.  First, for the absurdity itself.  And second, for the fact that nobody seems to notice the absurdity.

The media drumbeat against the “all-white jury” is one such situation.  The New York Times is now weighing in again, accusing prosecutors in the South of wrongfully excluding Blacks from juries.  Of course, reporter Shaila Dewan never bothers to mention that defense lawyers want Blacks ON the jury for reasons that mirror why prosecutors want them OFF.

The story itself is a farce.  Dewan mocks a prosecutor for calling one potential Black juror unsophisticated for spelling “Wal-Mart” as “Wal-marts.”  Really?  A New York Times reporter doesn’t consider that a sign of unsophistication?  It’s pretty easy to imagine Ms. Dewan attributing unsophistication to a White person for doing the same thing.

On this thin reed, Dewan then opines that “Arguments like these were used for years to keep Blacks off juries in the segregationist South, systematically denying justice to Black defendants and victims.”  Were they, really?  This particular line is both sweepingly unsupported and oddly rhetorical.  But precision is never the order of the day when the press deals with race.

Dewan lines up her SPLC-type sources one after the other, never bothering to reach out to anyone but the prosecutor himself for a different take — and knowing full well he can’t talk.  I guess this is what Spiro Agnew meant when he called the press “a gang of cruel faggots.”

Sigh.  Allow me to reiterate my point.  It’s total hypocrisy for Blacks to complain about the exclusion of Blacks from juries because their motivations for doing so are based on the same generalizations as those made by prosecutors.  They know — as well as prosecutors — that Blacks don’t convict Blacks.  Therefore, Black defendants want them on juries, and prosecutors don’t.  It’s that simple.  Same analysis, different conclusion.  Is this really a quest for “justice”, or a quest for a legal victory, no matter the facts?

Why won’t the press ever look into THAT?  If it’s a big racist lie that Blacks are predictable in their behavior as jurors, wouldn’t the press be rushing to tell us so?

And does the press ever wonder why Blacks are such frequent defendants that this is even an issue?

And does the press ever wonder whether the Black defendant did, in fact, commit the crime charged?

And does the press ever stop to wonder whether it’s being racist against whites by casually assuming that no “all-White jury” could ever render a fair verdict?

I’d love to ask Shaila Dewan these questions, but I’m pretty sure she won’t be taking my call.

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

Bookmark and Share

The burden of Israel

/70 Comments/in , , /by

The Obama administration continues to insist that Israel is not a burden to the US, but even the LA Times came out with an article showing describing the problems that Israel presents to the US. (Print version headline: “Raid throws a wrench in U.S. agenda“). The article  lists several current foreign policy problems exacerbated by the raid:

  • US-sponsored peace talks in the region (despite the fact that Israel has no interest in peace);
  • US drive for new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran (in other words, Israel has made it more difficult for the US to advance Israel’s agenda);
  • Complications with the US relationship with Turkey which is “a NATO member and has been important to U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan” (several Turkish nationals were killed in the raid, and the ships sailed under Turkish flags);
  • Difficulties in the US push for nuclear non-proliferation given that Israel is well-known to have nuclear weapons: “other countries demanded that Israel take a more active role in the effort to reduce nuclear arms, a reference to the atomic arsenal Israel has never acknowledged possessing.”

The article also highlights comments from a prominent foreign policy expert and from General David Petraeus:

“The costs of alignment with Israel are becoming ever more apparent, and the benefits are becoming harder to identify,” said James Dobbins, who was an envoy for both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and now heads Rand Corp.’s International Security and Defense Policy Center. …

This week’s raid underscored concern expressed in recent congressional testimony by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, who said perceived U.S. bias toward the Jewish state was a negative factor in the Muslim world.

What’s remarkable about this article is that it doesn’t quote the usual well-placed Zionist fanatics in the media who claim that Israel is a great asset to the US. Glib talk about the benefits of Israel to the US will be more difficult to maintain with a straight face. But of course those concerned about their political future will continue to do so:

U.S. officials say they do not view their relationship with Israel as a burden, regardless of criticism from the Middle East, Europe or elsewhere.

“Let me be clear here,” White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday. “We have a trusted relationship. They’re an important ally. And we are greatly supportive of their security. That’s not going to change.”

 


Bookmark and Share

Playing Favorites: Two Illustrations of Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory

/in /by

Can humans distinguish subtle genetic differences, even within the immediate family?  Apparently, grandmothers can do so, as explained in Molly Fox, et al., Grandma plays favourites: X-chromosome relatedness and sex-specific childhood mortality, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, in October of last year. The story is an excellent example of how evolutionary thinking sheds light on human behavior. As J. Philippe Rushton has theorized, the genes really do matter. People who share a greater percentage of genes favor each other compared to people with less genetic overlap.

The “grandmother hypothesis” has been invoked to explain why women live several decades past the end of their reproductive years.  Older, post-menopausal women can enhance their biological fitness by contributing to the survivability of their grandchildren, since there is significant genetic relatedness between grandparent-grandchildren.  Thus, the grandmother hypothesis suggests that a long post-reproductive lifespan for human women evolved because of the adaptive value of assisting in the care of their children’s children.

However, due to the specific mechanisms of the inheritance of the sex chromosomes, the genetic relatedness of grandmother to grandchild will differ depending on whether the grandchild is a boy or a girl, and whether the grandmother is the paternal grandmother (father’s mother) or maternal grandmother (mother’s mother).  Let me explain.

Girls have two X chromosomes, one from the mother and one from the father, while boys have one X chromosome (from the mother) and one Y chromosome (from the father).  These X and Y chromosomes are, in turn, inherited from the grandparents.   

Let us consider a maternal grandmother. She has two X chromosomes.  One of these two X’s will be passed on to her daughter (the mother); thus the probability that any specific X chromosome gene will be passed from maternal grandmother to mother is 0.5. (See Figure.)

The figure shows that a paternal grandmother (PGM) is more closely related to her granddaughter because the granddaughter carries a more or less exact replica of one of her X Chromosomes (the blue X chromosome in the figure) while her grandson carries neither or her X Chromosomes. Theoretically, she should prefer her granddaughter to her grandson. The maternal grandmother  (MGM) is equally related to grandson and granddaughter, so she should not show favoritism. The chromosomes with red and black parts result from recombination (crossover) during meiosis.

The mother has two X chromosomes herself, so the probability of the mother passing any specific X chromosome gene to either a boy or a girl child is likewise 0.5.  Therefore, the probability of any specific X chromosome gene being passed on from a maternal grandmother to a grandchild is 0.25 (0.5 x 0.5).  From the standpoint of the maternal grandmother, there is no difference between grandson and granddaughter in X-chromosome relatedness and, hence, approximate overall genetic relatedness.

The situation is markedly different for a paternal grandmother, the mother of the grandchildren’s father.  Again, she has two X chromosomes, one which can be passed on to her son (the father); thus, there is a 0.5 chance of any X-chromosome gene being passed from paternal grandmother to father.  However, the father has only that one X chromosome to be passed on to his own children. If he has a girl (granddaughter), there is a probability of 100% (1.0) that his X chromosome is passed on to his daughter; therefore, one of the two X chromosomes in that girl must be derived from the paternal grandmother.

[adrotate group=”1″]

What about the grandson of a paternal grandmother?  His only X chromosome comes from his mother, not his father.  Therefore, the paternal grandmother does not contribute an X chromosome to a grandson, implying an X-chromosome relatedness of 0.

Therefore (and this is the important point), a paternal grandmother, all else being equal, is genetically less related to a grandson than to a granddaughter, and less related to a grandson than is a maternal grandmother.  Conversely, a paternal grandmother likely is more genetically related to a granddaughter than is a maternal grandmother, given the certainty that the granddaughter possesses an X chromosome from the paternal grandmother.

Further, genetic recombination between the X and Y chromosomes in the formation of sperm is very limited, meaning that a granddaughter inherits from her paternal grandmother a more or less “intact” X chromosome. On the other hand, the X chromosome inherited from the maternal grandmother will contain some amount of genes from the maternal grandfather, due to the extensive recombination between X chromosomes that occurs during the formation of the human egg.

The bottom line is that the highest degree of genetic relatedness is most likely to be between paternal grandmother and granddaughter, the least between paternal grandmother and grandson, with maternal grandmother-grandchildren exhibiting more intermediate levels of relatedness. (See Figure above.)

The authors of this study hypothesized that grandmothers’ investment in their grandchildren would mirror the relative genetic relatedness.  They analyzed the effect of the presence of paternal or maternal grandmothers, in the grandchildren’s household or in the grandchildren’s village, to childhood survivability/mortality.  The data were obtained from seven populations: Japan, Germany, England, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Malawi, and Canada dating in some cases as far back as the 17th century (when available) and extending to the 21st century.

The findings are remarkable.  The presence of the paternal grandmother was detrimental to the survivorship of grandsons.  In six out of the seven populations (Gambia being the exception) the presence of the paternal grandmother was better for girls than for boys.  In all populations, boys survived better with the maternal, as opposed to the paternal, grandmother; in four out of the seven populations, girls survived better with the paternal, as opposed to the maternal, grandmother.  The findings essentially support the authors’ fundamental hypothesis.

What can be the mechanism behind this phenomenon?  Here the authors speculate that a “behavioral adaption” may cause women to favor grandchildren of a specific sex; alternatively, the grandchildren may be sending out “signals” that represent relative genetic relatedness (e.g., physical resemblance, pheromones, etc.).

The authors unfortunately tend to dismiss a behavioral mechanism based upon negative results of “questionnaires” that did not observe a relationship between preferential care and genetic relatedness. However, in my opinion, these sorts of social science analyses are very weak and highly dependent upon the types of questions asked and the honesty of those answering the questions.

The authors instead propose a purely genetic explanation in that genes related to phenotypes influencing fitness are likely found on the X chromosome and thus variation in the inheritance of these genes between grandmother and grandchild can influence survivability.  For example, if the paternal grandmother carries particularly helpful genes on her X chromosome, these would be present in the granddaughter, enhancing survivability, and absent in the grandson, depressing survivability.  However, this explanation, and the related one involving “epigenetic modifications” of X chromosome genes inherited from the paternal grandmother to granddaughter, do not explain why the presence of one or the other grandmother should have such a marked effect on childhood outcomes and why the presence of the paternal grandmother actually seems detrimental to grandson survivability.

I believe that the social science “questionnaire data” do not eliminate the possibility of a behavioral mechanism predicated on the ability of the grandmothers to somehow become aware of the differing levels of genetic relatedness of the grandchildren.  I do not suggest any sort of conscious activity — “that grandson of mine is less related to me than his sister, so I’ll ignore him and help her.”

On the contrary, similar to J.P Rushton’s “genetic similarity theory” (GST) of which this phenomenon is likely a variant, the grandmothers’ perception of genetic relatedness is probably more on the unconscious level; there is a greater attraction to and affinity for the more genetically related paternal granddaughter, resulting in a greater investment. Likewise, there may be a subconscious aversion towards a paternal grandson which results in a more careless attitude toward care and provisioning.  Averaged over large numbers of people, these subtle differences in behavior would result in variant levels of childhood survivorship vs. mortality.  How exactly the genetic differences are being unconsciously detected is as yet unknown.

Related to this, and also likely associated with GST, is a fascinating analysis from the laboratory of Neil Risch, who is one of the few population geneticists honest about the biological reality of race (Risch et al., Ancestry-related assortative mating in Latino populations, Genome Biology, doi: 10.1186/gb-2009-10-11-r132).  Risch and colleagues set out to determine whether there was any correlation between the ancestral proportions of spouses in either Mexican or Puerto Rican populations.  Assortative mating (like with like) is a proven phenomenon, based on a number of characteristics, including physical appearance, behavior, and other biological attributes.  Hispanic populations are well suited for analyzing whether genetic ancestry influences mate choice, since “Latino” groups are heavily admixed and exhibit a wide range of ancestries within single ethnic-national-cultural groups.  Both Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are significantly triracial (European-sub-Saharan African-Amerindian), with Mexicans characterized by greater Amerindian and minor African admixture, and Puerto Ricans by significant African and somewhat lower, but still significant, Amerindian ancestry.  Socioeconomic status (SES) and geographical origin (Mexico/Puerto Rico or the USA) of the study participants was controlled for, strengthening the findings.

Risch et al. discovered was that among Mexicans there is a strong correlation between spousal European and Native American, but not African, ancestry; in other words, Mexican husbands and wives are well matched in percent European and Native American ancestry, significantly beyond random chance.  African ancestry does not correlate significantly in Mexican spouses.  For Puerto Ricans, the spousal correlations were significant for European and African, but not Amerindian, ancestry.

It seems that Mexicans are somehow gauging the Amerindian admixture in their potential mates, while Puerto Ricans concentrate on matching levels of African ancestry.

Analysis of the distribution of gene alleles within and between individuals strongly suggests that this “like with like” mating has been going on for quite some time, and possibly was more pronounced in previous generations than today.  Given that SES and geographical origin do not seem to play any roles in markers of ancestry, what is the mechanism by which this assortative mating takes place?

Obviously, physical features can serve as a proxy for ancestry; therefore, perhaps, Latinos are hooking up with each other based upon who “looks Whiter” or “looks more Amerindian or African.”  However, the authors note that to achieve the fairly high correlations of husband-wife ancestry, a very marked association between physical traits and genetic ancestral proportions is required.  The problem is that previous studies of Latin American groups have not shown genotype-phenotype associations of the required levels.  Therefore, it is unlikely that physical appearance alone can suffice as an explanation.

Perhaps a number of different factors, including appearance, acting in concert can have a synergistic effect on ancestral identification for assortative mating. One must remember that a number of “Latino” cultures have historically prized higher degrees of White ancestry, and perhaps older family members “advertise” their “whiteness” so as to attract the “right sort” of mates for the younger generation.

Both the grandmother and Latino assortative mating stories are of relevance to us because they describe real-life examples of GST-like behavior. They show the ability of individuals to, at some level, recognize relative differences in genetic similarity.

This obviously has bearing on the recognition of ethnic kin in multiracial, multicultural societies, and the propensity to favor such kin, either consciously or unconsciously.  One may speculate that if people can perceive relative genetic ancestry via some sets of cues, and if this influences behavior, then this may explain some of the costs of diversity, including lower levels of societal investment.

Indeed, given that these studies suggest the ability to distinguish genetic differences even within immediate families, it is plausible that differences in ethnic kinship within single ethnic groups can determine societal harmony and progress.  For example, one would expect that ethnic-national groups that are relatively genetically homogenous would exhibit higher degrees of investment in collective goods, such as public health insurance. On the other hand, ethnic-national groups that are more genetically heterogeneous, for whatever reason, would exhibit less societal investment and more focus on the family unit and extended kin relationships.

The possibility that relative genetic homogeneity could be part of the explanation for differences in social structure and public goods investment in different European nations is a provocative hypothesis.  It is also possible that different ethnic and racial groups exhibit these sorts of behaviors to different degrees; more ethnocentric peoples may be better at detecting subtle differences in genetic kinship than those who are more tolerant.

And what if the mechanism behind the Fox and Risch findings is discovered? Will those opposed to our people’s survival attempt to find ways of short-circuiting this mechanism, perhaps even to misdirect it so as to make Westerners favor aliens over kin to an even greater extent than they already do? Conversely, can we use these discoveries to our advantage?  Only time will tell.

Ted Sallis (email him) writes on scientific issues.

Flotilla fallout

/61 Comments/in , /by

Jake Tapper,  a reporter for ABC News writes that “there won’t be any daylight between the US and Israel.” The rationale? A senior administration official says “The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure.”

Of course, that’s nonsense. Israeli security has nothing to do with it. The reality is that Israeli aggression is possible only because Israel understands that the US is its poodle and that the US will work on its behalf in the UN and elsewhere, no matter what Israel does. The Israel Lobby is ultimately to blame, meaning ultimately the influence of Jewish money on the political process.

AIPAC’s spin on this is an amazing piece of propaganda. AIPAC’s article is headlined, “Radical Hamas Supporters Beat, Stab Israeli Soldiers“–a breathtaking lack of context. The ADL said pretty much the same thing, calling the flotilla “a deliberate provocation against Israel.”

From Israel’s point of view, “the government appeared anxious to make an example of this six-ship flotilla — the largest effort to date to break the blockade of Gaza — to show the world that it would not tolerate efforts to break the blockage, international condemnation notwithstanding.” The main Israeli talking point, apparent in the AIPAC press release and the ADL statement, is that they had offered to unload the cargo at the Israeli port of Ashdod where it would be shipped overland to Gaza.

But that doesn’t square with the common understanding that Israel has erected a barrier of red tape for getting supplies into Gaza. A 2009 Christian Science Monitor report pointed to delays and arbitrary exclusions and stated that around 25% of the pre-blockade supplies were getting into Gaza. Another CSM article from June 2009 pointed to growth stunting in Palestinian children.

Despite Israel’s claims, there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Israel’s actions will likely make it far more difficult to develop a consensus against Iran, and that’s all to the good. It will also greatly increase the cost of the Israeli-American alliance, as the US attempts to shore up support for Israel in the teeth of moral outrage around the  world. That may well result in some push back here, as happened recently with the statement by General David Petraeus that Israeli policies oppose vital US interests in the Middle East. (He later denied it, doubtless under pressure.) Even Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad, acknowledges that Israel is becoming more and more of a burden to the US.

Israel’s supporters in the US never tire of playing the role of innocent victim. They will continue to do so, as indicated by the statements of AIPAC and the ADL. But such rhetoric is so far out of touch with reality that at some point politically aware Americans must realize that US support for Israel is based on nothing more than Jewish power with no moral justification at all. That doesn’t mean that the lobby will lose its power, but at least we will all know that it’s about power, and can’t be intellectually justified.

In turn, that may well help Americans to see Jews in a more realistic light–not as morally blameless victims, but as cynical and ruthlessly self-interested ethnic actors . The egregious double standard in which Jews profess to be dedicated to democracy, ethnic tolerance and human rights in the US while supporting a vicious ethnonationalism in Israel will be more and more difficult to hide.

And that should give us hope, because the collapse of the Jewish position commanding the moral high ground is a critical support for the multicultural left in America and throughout the West.

Bookmark and Share

Israel’s Latest War Crime: Peace flotilla attacked bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza

/153 Comments/in /by

Israel has done it again. (See news articles and videos compiled by Alison Weir at “If Americans Knew.”) Creating outrage on a daily basis seems to be its speciality. It has now launched an attack on international peace activists carrying humanitarian aid to besieged Gaza — “the world’s largest concentration camp” still recovering from war crimes committed by Israel almost 18 months ago. Here are some of the bare facts: The Mavi Marmara is a Turkish vessel. It was part of a 6-ship unarmed flotilla, including a U.S.-flagged vessel, carrying 700 passengers from 40 different countries and 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid on a mission of mercy to besieged Gaza.

The ship was attacked approximately 65 miles off the coast of Netanya and 80 miles from Gaza, well within international waters. This is regarded as an act of piracy in international law. It is a war crime. It is too early to put a final figure on the number of casualties. These keep changing by the hour, depending on which side is providing the figures. AP’s initial report, based on figures helpfully supplied by Israel, stated that only two peace activists had died. This figure has now been rejected. The latest reports indicate that 16 unarmed activists may have been killed and up to 60 injured. Israeli casualties, as expected, have been minimal and almost cosmetic: two gun-toting commandos killed and three lightly injured. The AP report skilfully managed to give the impression that the heavily armed Israeli attackers were in fact the victims. The AP version comes down to this (my paraphrase):

Armed to the teeth, the Israelis board a vessel in international waters with peaceful intent, only to meet with violent resistance from a bunch of potential terrorists consisting of members of parliament from Germany, Sweden, Ireland and Turkey. Among those on board: Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire of Ireland, Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein, US diplomats Amb. Edward Peck and Col Ann Wright, not to mention peace activists from forty countries — including a US Navy survivor of Israel’s infamous attack on the USS Liberty.

By some remarkable inversion of logic, all these highly respected humanitarian peace activists are portrayed as aggressors seeking a confrontation with peace-loving Israel, while their  Israeli attackers are seen as defending themselves by opening fire on orange-vested civilians rash enough to resist their ‘tough love’ overtures. Israel naturally claims that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Gazans are purportedly doing quite well under Israel’s benevolent supervision. All Israel wants is to stop arms getting through. And of course cement — for what is the point of rebuilding all those demolished houses if Israel, in its compassionate wisdom, intends to demolish them all over again? AP fails to mention that a recent Amnesty International report stated that Israel’s siege on Gaza had created a humanitarian crisis of horrendous proportions: that  four out of five Gaza residents needed humanitarian assistance and that hundreds were waiting for medical treatment that is cruelly denied by Israel.

Mass unemployment, extreme poverty, food insecurity and food price rises caused by shortages left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid,” said the 2010 report, released on Thursday. “The scope of the blockade and statements made by Israeli officials about its purpose showed that it was being imposed as a form of collective punishment of Gazans —  a flagrant violation of international law.

Pay no attention. This is only Amnesty International speaking — an organization that gives aid to terrorists. Gilad Atzmon speaks for us all when he says:

The Israeli government fails to gather that the tide has changed.  We see through them. We all know what the Jewish state stands for. We  all know about the devastation in Gaza, we know about the siege, the destruction and  the crimes against humanity…In case the Israelis fail to see it, they are dealing with an international flotilla that is sailing under Turkish and Greek flags, a fleet that carries 800 enthusiastic activists from  all over the world. The Israelis are dealing with peace  lovers who are determined to break  through the  siege and deliver  medical aid, cement, paper and food. On the deck we have 35 European parliamentarians who must have  decided to say NO to Zionist fund  raisers. This flotilla is a clear signal to Israel that the game is  over. Israel is now all but officially isolated. All that is left for Israel is to  come to terms with its true nature: a shameless racist, murderous and  terrorist state…. The Israeli government and the Israeli people better start to come to terms that the game is soon to be over. The Zionist project and the Israeli state is in a state of moral bankruptcy.”

The foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 will one day be seen, I believe, as one of history’s most tragic mistakes. We witness the bitter consequences now. We have witnessed them for the last sixty-two years. Is it too late to reverse this catastrophic error of history?
Bookmark and Share

Sex and Politics

/in /by

Political mores often reflect sexual attitudes. Conversely (and more commonly) political environment affects sexual mores. In our so-called best of all worlds, “free love” has become an aggressive ideology transmitted by left-wing opinion makers. The underlying assumption, going back to the Freudian-Marxist inspired student revolts of 1968, is that by indulging in wild sex a muscled regime can be muzzled and any temptation for an authoritarian rule can be tamed.

Palaver about “free love equals no war” is still a prevalent dogma in the liberal system. Hans Eysenck, the late psychologist and expert on race and intelligence (also occasionally defamed as a ‘racist’), deconstructed the Freudian fraud in his book The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire: “Freud’s place is not with Copernicus and Darwin but with Hans Christian Andersen and tellers of fairy tales.  Psychoanalysis is at best a premature crystallization of spurious orthodoxies; at worst a pseudo-scientific doctrine that has done untold harm to psychology and psychiatry alike” (1990, p. 208). One could infer from Eysenck’s statement what a great many Whites have known for decades, but have been afraid to utter aloud: Freudianism has been an excellent tool for pathologizing Whites into feelings of guilt in regard to their traditional attitudes toward sex and politics. 

Politically correct — sexually incorrect

Freudianism, instead of curing alleged sexual neuroses and phobias, has ended up creating far more serious ones. Fifty years after the “sexual revolution” the West is replete with men suffering from sexual impotence, with an ever growing number of women and men indulging in odd, perverted and criminal sexual behavior. Yet, despite the fact that the quackery of Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich is no longer trendy, the topic of sex continues to play a crucial role in social interaction. In order to liberate White youth from their feelings of traditional European shame (which is not the same as the Judaic concept of guilt), the non-stop media parading of geometric Hollywood beauties makes many young Whites develop the inferiority complex about their own sexual equipment — or performance in the bedroom.  As a result, a classical nucleus of society — the family — falls apart.

There is a widespread assumption fostered by liberal and leftist opinion-makers that right-wingers and nationalists are sexual perverts, misogynists, or wild macho-types suffering from a proto-totalitarian Oedipus complex — which accordingly, must lead to proverbial anti-Semitic pogroms. Such a diagnosis of the White man was offered by Erich Fromm in his famed The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, a book in which the ultimate symbols of evil, the incorrigible Hitler and Himmler, are routinely depicted as “case studies of anal-hoarding-necrophilic sadists.” (1973, pp. 333–411). Fromm’s and Freud’s avalanche of nonsense may tell us more about their own troubled childhood and their obsession with their own misshapen anal-nasal-oral-circumcised-penile-protrusions than about the non-Jewish objects of their descriptions.

Once could invert the Freudian dogma regarding the alleged pathogenic sexuality of young Whites and supplant it by solid empirical data offered by renowned sociobiologist Gérard Zwang,  an expert on sex and sexual pathologies and a contributor to European New Right journals — and someone who enjoys the occasional privilege of being labeled a ‘racist’.

If one was to assume that traditional child rearing is conducive to a White man’s sexual aberrations and his violent behavior in the political arena, then one should start with Oriental and African practices of circumcision first — which in Europe, ever since the ancient Greeks and Romans has been viewed as an act of morbid religious fanaticism.

Back from the Exodus, 500 years later, the “dictatorship” of Moses established circumcision as an absolute obligation, for fear of being excluded from the Chosen People. The prescription is still valid for the Orthodox Jew and for Israelis. … In France, the pro-circumcision followers argue that the prepuce would be a parasitic remnant of the femininity inside a masculine body. The myth of “native bisexuality” is an old craze with disastrous consequences. … In our territory (France), the very numerous circumcisions requested by Jewish or Muslim parents are often paid by the Social Security of a so-called secular country!  … The ideal should obviously be one day the definitive extinction of the dismal monotheistic religions, of their unacceptable dogmas, and of their ridiculous prescriptions. (G. Zwang, “Demystifying Circumcision”)

Auguste Rodin, „The Kiss,“ 1889

Liberal pontificators are quick to denounce the practice of infibulation (female mutilation of clitoris) on many immigrant African women residing in Europe, but hardly will they utter a word to denounce equally painful circumcision on new-born Jews or Muslims.

With or without this strange Levantine make-believe metaphysical mimicry of penile pseudo-castration, unbridled sexual activity has become today a quasi categorical imperative, largely dependent on the whims of the capitalist market. According to the logic of supply and demand one should not rule out that the liberal system may soon issue a decree for mandatory multiracial marriages. Marriage of White couples may be “scientifically” attested as an “unhealthy union at variance with democratic principles of ethnic sensitivity training.”  Never has the West witnessed so much psycho-babble about “love”, “interracial tolerance,” “gender mainstreaming,” “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc. — at the time when suicidal loneliness, serial divorces, sexual narcissism, and sexual violence have become its only trademarks of survivability.

The Ancients were no less sexually active (and probably even more so) than our contemporaries, as testified by their plastic art showing naked women in warm embrace of their men, or as depicted by Homer in his numerous stories of cupid gods and goddesses. Apuleius, a Roman writer of Berber origin, writes explicitly about a woman enchanted by the sex act. From the 14th-century ItalianBoccaccio, to modern Henry Miller, countless European authors offer us graphic stories of love making between White women and White men. But there is one crucial distinction. In the modern liberal system sex has become an aggressive ideology consisting of mechanistic rituals whose only goal is a “dictatorship of the mandatory orgasm,” thus becoming the very opposite of what sex once was.

[adrotate group=”1″]

In societies marked by the Puritan spirit, which is still the case among large segments of the White American population, the century-old scorning of sexual encounters has had its logical postmodern backlash: prudishness, promiscuity and pornography. The English-born poet and novelist, D. H. Lawrence was a remarkable man who is close to what we call today a “revolutionary conservative” and is highly popular among European White nationalists. In his essayPornography and Obscenity he wrote how one must reject Puritanism and sentimentalism. “Puritan is a sick man, soul and body sick, so why should we bother about his hallucinations. Sex appeal, of course, varies enormously. There are endless different kinds and endless degrees of each kind.” (The Portable D.H. Lawrence, 1977, p. 652,).

Despite globalization, “Americanization” and the increasing difficulty to distinguish between sexual mores in White America and in White Europe, some differences are still visible and often lead to serious misunderstanding among transatlantic partners. This time, the inevitable cultural factor, and not a genetic factor, takes the upper hand.

White Spectral Lovers

What may be viewed as vulgar sexual conduct from the perspective of WhiteAmerica is often hailed as something natural in Europe. A sharp and well-travelled European eye, even with no academic baggage, notices a strong dose of hypermoralism and sentimentalism among White American males and females. Examples abound. For instance, public tearful confessions by an American male, either on the podium or at the pulpit about cheating on his wife, while viewed as normal in America, are viewed as pathetic in Europe. Many European White males and women, when visiting America, are stunned when an intelligent American speaker, gripped by emotions, starts shedding tears on his microphone, regardless of whether the theme of his allocution is the plight of Jesus Christ or the predicament of the White race.

One might explain this phenomenon by suggesting that on a psychological level White Americans, given the early and strong influence of the Old Testament, have been more influenced by the Judaic spirit of guilt than White Europeans, who have traditionally been far more obsessed with a sense of shame. Judaic feelings of guilt were, in the 20th century, successfully transposed in a secular manner by the Marxist Frankfurt School on the entire White population all over the West, and particularly on the German people. By contrast, in the ancient Greek drama and even later among heroes of the Middle Ages, one can hardly spot signs of guilt. Instead, characters are mostly immersed in endless introspective brooding about some shameful act they may or may have not committed.

Conversely, many White American women rightly conclude that sexual behavior of European males is often erratic, quirky and disorderly. European males are often poorly groomed when dating or mating, often lacking respect for their female partners. For a newcomer to Europe, the overkill of pornographic literature all over public places and the torrents of x-rate movies aired on prime time are indeed unnerving. There is also a different conceptualization of sex and decadence by White Europeans and White Americans respectively.

Many European White nationalists like to brag about their Dionysian spirit, which often borders on undisciplined behavior. Numerous Catholic holidays in Europe, such as St. Anthony’s day in June, St. Patrick’s day in March, St. George day in April etc., are celebrated from Ireland to Flanders. Typical are Flemishkermesse celebrations depicted by Pieter Breughel.

Pieter Brueghel the Younger, „The Kermesse of St. George“ (1628)

These celebrations are not meant for Bible preaching, but rather as an occasion to release residual, primordial and pagan feelings. The pent-up sense of the tragic, the accumulated sorrows that come along with age, must be wildly vented, even at the price of appearing grotesque in foreigners’ eyes.

The duration of such mega-feasts is strictly limited. Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been shrewd enough to incorporate the pagan heritage into Catholic feasts, because otherwise its monotheistic dogma would not have lasted long. Not surprisingly, kermesses and carnivals are in reality far more prophylactic and effective for good sex than all the Viagra and Freudian shrinks combined. On such occasions, still alive in Catholic rural Europe, everybody revels, drinks, everybody pinches each other’s backside, as shown long time ago on Rubens’ and Breughel’s paintings. However, when the fun is over the same revelers go back to their traditional family chores.

It is a common practice among high intellectual classes in Europe for a married man to flirt with an unknown attractive woman at a social gathering — even in the presence of his own spouse. In fact, for a married man in Europe courting an intelligent woman is considered a sign of good upbringing and chivalry — with a tacit ocular understanding between the two that they may end up in bed together — but with no strings attached. On public beaches from France’s Saint Tropez to Croatia’s Dalmatia, all the way to public parks in Copenhagen, it is normal in hot summers to observe naked women of all ages sunbathing and skinny-dipping in the presence of young children. This is something unimaginable on the Santa Cruz Riviera in California, as it would immediately attract a crazed local peeping tom or a stern-faced police officer.

Several years ago a scandal broke out in the USA caused by the former US President William Clinton’s sexual escapade with a Jewish woman, Monika Lewinsky. Clinton’s sexual adventures literally became a federal case in America, with many American journalists across the political spectrum demanding his resignation. In Europe, Clinton’s extramarital affair was received by many with a shrug of shoulders. One can hardly imagine a voter in Europe asking for the president to be removed from office just because he was cheating on his wife. Having a mate, a concubine a maitresse has been an age-old practice among European politicians, deliberately ignored  by their spouses, approved by their constituencies, and tolerated by the Church, and in no way seen as a sign of character weakness.

Thousands of Western scientists, artists and poets, who had an organic view of love making, have disappeared now from the academic radar screen. The antebellum South, still demonized as a backward place, was the last place in the West that had at some point in history salvaged White European medieval customs of honor, virility, generosity and chivalry. This can be seen in the tragic poetry of unreconstructed Southerners, such as John Crowe Ransom.

By night they haunted a thicket of April mist,
Out of that black ground suddenly come to birth,
Else angels lost in each other and fallen on earth.
Lovers they knew they were, but why unclasped, unkissed?
Why should two lovers be frozen apart in fear?
And yet they were, they were.

(John Crowe Ransom, “Spectral Lovers”)

An iconic French nationalist scholar, an artist, and a political prisoner in France after WWII, Maurice Bardèche was well aware of the slow coming darkness in the West following the defeat of the South in the Civil War:

Firstly, to be a Southerner is to see and feel that one of the biggest catastrophes of our times was the capture of Atlanta. The defeat atSedan is for me nothing more than an event of history; a sad event, but as any other event colorless and historical.  As for the defeat atWaterloo – I cannot convince myself that it has changed the destiny of the world. Even the collapse of Germany, although it seems to me an injustice, a bad whim of God and as any other appearance against all good sense — I do not consider irrevocable.  But the capture of Atlanta — this is for me an irreparable event, the fatal beacon of History. It is the victory of the Barbarians. (Sparte et les Sudistes, 1969, p. 96).

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Third Position. His new book, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, has just been released. Email him.

Kevin MacDonald: The Coen brothers' "A Serious Man"

/36 Comments/in , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: I happened to see A Serious Man, the Coen brothers’ meditation on Jewishness, at the same time that Peter Beinart’s now  famous article is making us think about the future American Jewish community as more nationalist and ethnocentric. A Serious Man is really about the consequences of the breakdown of the traditional Jewish community in the  Diaspora.

The movie opens with a scene from a traditional Polish shtetl community in which the wife stabs a man that she thinks is a dybbuk — the point being that  these people had strong unquestioned beliefs and were willing to act on them.

But fast forward to 1960s, and things are falling apart. The main character, Larry Gopnik, is undergoing all sorts of crises–his wife’s affair and her desire for a religious divorce so she can marry another Jew; his troubles at his job; his brother’s health and psychiatric problems; financial problems, his own health.

But the three rabbis he goes to for help are completely useless: The young one mixes platitudes with irrelevancies about the parking lot at the synagogue. The middle-aged rabbi tells him a weird, pointless story about a non-Jew with Hebrew lettering on his teeth; the letters don’t make any sense but he translates them into a phone number — of a grocery store. The old rabbi won’t talk to him because he’s “thinking.”

Meanwhile his son and  the rest of the students are completely bored with Hebrew school–blank faces and vacant stares.  The teacher is old and decrepit, as is the school secretary. The son listens to pop music during class on on a 1960s version of an Ipod and smokes pot with his friends. His older sister has no interest in Judaism, hangs out with non-Jews, and seems to be saving money for a nose job (so she won’t look so Jewish). She’ll probably marry a goy.

The movie ends with a tornado bearing down on the school, the rabbi fumbling with the door lock and unable to protect the children, just as he and the other rabbis were unable to help the father. The message seems to be that it’s no use to look to the rabbis for help with life’s problems. The safety and security provided by the powerful traditional communal ties and strong, unquestioning belief (of the kind that motivated killing the dybbuk) are gone.

The ties within the community are fractured: The son thinks about repaying the money he owes to the school bully, but he doesn’t. Why pay him back when he won’t be part of the community in the future? The father learns that his wife’s lover was writing malicious letters to his tenure committee at the university. The Jewish lawyer he hired to deal with a property issue with his (viciously stereotyped non-Jewish) neighbor drops dead, and the Jewish lawyer he hired to defend his brother charges him $3000, prompting him to accept a bribe from a student to raise his grade.

He will have to find some other way out of his difficulties than rely on communal ties. The only help he gets from being Jewish (and this seems odd given the rest of the story) is that the Jewish department head assures him he will get tenure (even though he hasn’t published anything). But right after hearing the news, he receives an ominous phone call from his (Jewish) doctor about his x-rays. Getting tenure isn’t really going to help.

So what, if anything, does this say about the American Jewish community? Probably not a lot. Despite the main thrust of the movie, there’s still a huge benefit to Jews from ethnic networking with other Jews–the story of Elena Kagan shows that Larry Gopnik wasn’t the last Jew to benefit greatly from Jewish ties in the academic world, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

On the other  hand, Beinart’s concerns about young Jews with less commitment to Israel are doubtless reflected in the young people represented in A Serious Man — smoking pot, bored with Hebrew school, getting nose jobs, and dating non-Jews. But these reasons for this lack of Jewish commitment fit more with Steven M. Cohen‘s theory than Beinart’s: It’s not because of the behavior of Israel, but rather assimilation and intermarriage that draw Jews away from Israel. Indeed, one of the remarkable things about the movie was the complete lack of the ADL-type bunker mentality: No obsession with anti-Semitism, no mention of Israel, no gung-ho liberal politics, no mention of what an evil, racist, anti-Semitic place America is. No mention of politics at all.

If all Jews were like Larry Gupnik, the ADL would be out of business and the Israel lobby would grind to a halt. Not a bad outcome at all. But, as Beinart notes,  in the real world, the more conservative branches of Judaism are thriving and are projected to be a large and increasingly dominant segment of the American Jewish community. Quite a few Jewish children are not bored with Hebrew school, and they are the ones who are having the  children.

These are the people who staff the Jewish activist community now and in the future, so it’s very doubtful that there will be any change from its posture of strong and effective support for the dispossession of Whites at home and equally strong and  effective support for ethnonationalist Israel abroad.

Bookmark and Share