Whites’ lack of empathy for other Whites

/67 Comments/in , , , /by

There are doubtless a great many factors accounting for the general willingness of Whites to allow themselves to be pushed aside and to voluntarily become a minority amid a sea of non-Whites, most of whom hold historical grudges against them. My general view is that these cultural transformations are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting tendencies of Europeans toward individualism interacting with the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of Europe.

The problem with individualism is that we have weak ties to other Whites and we don’t have a sense (yet) of common fate. In other words, we are low on ethnocentrism. We hear about a White person who was victimized by a Black criminal or denied a promotion or admission to a university in favor of an “underrepresented minority”, and we don’t feel empathy for the victims simply because they are White. We don’t feel any psychological pain when we hear that White working class men have moved out of an area because their jobs have been taken by illegal Mexican immigrants.

At a rational level, Whites may well think that victimization of Whites is morally wrong. Hence the finding that Whites support ending affirmative action and ending immigration (especially illegal immigration) as has been shown in California and other states. But I suspect that there isn’t any real gut feeling of empathy with other Whites. And it’s the gut feeling of empathy that in the end motivates the sort of behavior that can really begin to alter things politically.

This was demonstrated recently in a study that scanned the brains of Black and White subjects viewing Black and White victims of Hurricane Katrina (Race and Empathy Matter on Neural Level, Science Daily). Everyone reported empathy for the victims. This is a verbal judgment that reflects nothing more than conventional morality. People certainly would not want to tell the experimenter that they have callous disregard for suffering.

But the brain’s emotion centers told a different story. Black subjects had empathic responses to Black victims, and the more ethnocentric Blacks had stronger emotional responses. Whites on the other hand, did not show any empathic responses to people of either race.

It’s not that Whites are incapable of empathy. Images of family members would doubtless result in strong empathic responses among Whites — responses that would motivate helping family members. Indeed, all the research shows much stronger family bonds among Whites than among Blacks — bonds that are motivated at least in part by empathic concern for family. But in general, we just  don’t get emotionally aroused when we see Whites  suffering or victimized.

And it also suggests that the many Whites who do behave altruistically toward Blacks or other non-Whites are not acting out of an emotional imperative of empathy, but for some other  reason — quite possibly social approval. What better way these days to show you are a good person?  I thought about this today when viewing a photo of Sandra Bullock with her newly adopted Black baby. Of course, it may be misplaced maternal affection.


But this lack of empathy for other Whites is a problem for political action on behalf of Whites. People are motivated far more by emotions than by rational appraisals. The  empathy among Jews for Jewish suffering is legendary. As Walter Benjamin once said, Hatred and [the] spirit of sacrifice . . . are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren. (Illuminations, 1968, 262)

There is undoubtedly variation among Whites for ethnocentrism, implying that at least some Whites would be upset by the suffering of other Whites more than by the suffering of, say, Blacks. In other words, they would have the same pattern that Blacks show, only reversed.

Personally, I have found that I do have an emotional reaction to Whites being victimized. This could be because I am more genetically inclined toward ethnocentrism than most Whites. But it could also be influenced by living in Southern California where Whites are now a minority. Social psychologists have shown that members of majority groups do not have the same sense of an ingroup feeling as do members of minority groups.

The good news is that as Whites become a minority, ingroup solidarity–and empathy for other Whites–would be expected to increase. And getting involved in White advocacy with like-minded others doubtless has the effect of reinforcing and increasing those tendencies, especially when it is not at all difficult to imagine nightmarish scenarios of the future for Whites. Such nightmarish scenarios have a great deal of emotional impact, especially when they are graphically depicted. That is the reason why we will not see such depictions in the media.

The bad news is that even with empathy for other Whites, there are still huge barriers for Whites to really get involved in White advocacy — barriers such as losing one’s job and social ostracism. The power of the left to inflict economic pain is huge, as recently shown by the burgeoning movement to inflict economic sanctions on Arizona for having the temerity to enact a law aimed at getting rid of illegal aliens.

But having empathy for other Whites would certainly be a great first step in the right direction–and probably a step that is necessary if we are going to see really intense commitment by Whites to change the current regime.

My view is that these cultural transformations
are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted
Winter 2006-2007 / MacDonald 23
tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science)
and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of
EuropeMy view is that these cultural transformations
are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted
Winter 2006-2007 / MacDonald 23
tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science)
and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of
Europe..

Bookmark and Share

Too Hot to Miss: Above the Law Debates Race and Intelligence

/13 Comments/in /by

Legal blog Above the Law posted a Harvard law student’s e-mail suggesting that race and intelligence might be linked — and it set off a highly unusual debate between the original poster, Elie Mystal (who is partly black) and the blog’s founder, David Lat (who is partly Asian).  The comments are a must-read.

In a rare move, Lat, a former federal prosecutor, posts in the comments and backs the Harvard Law student:

Let me play devil’s advocate for a second….

If we accept “race” as a biological concept — which I realize is questionable, becoming diluted through intermarriage, etc. — is it really so insane to suggest that some races might, ON AVERAGE, possess certain qualities to a greater or lesser degree than other races?

For example, would it be racist to say that, ON AVERAGE, African-Americans are taller than Asian-Americans? Or that Caucasians are more likely to have blond hair than Asian-Americans?

Mystal provides a lengthy response, summing that it’s “insane” to believe such a thing.  But of course.

A great point from Lat — made by race realists for years — is that it’s impossible to deny that race exists while maintaining affirmative action policies at the same time.

I for one am encouraged that 1) a Harvard law student is at least aware of — and doesn’t reject out of hand — a race/intelligence link, and 2) that an Internet pundit like Lat would put in a cautious defense and 3) that the entire business is now spilled over onto the Internet for robust consideration.  Is the Internet helping to dismantle one of the biggest myths of the 20th Century?

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

Bookmark and Share

James Howard Kunstler Worries about Jewish Behavior

/30 Comments/in , /by

I’ve written before that I get a kick out of the writing of blogger and author James Howard Kunstler. And I love to observe how he twists and turns worrying that the goyim his fellow Jews are mocking and fleecing will finally wake up and take a swat at their tormentors.

A week ago, April 19th, he really let his fears of the goyim show, so much so that I began a blog about it. As things do, a few days led to a week and now we have another Kunstler blog. And he continues to sweat about “the white trash elements” that are catching on to what slick city Jews are doing to America.

For instance, he reported last week that a fellow named Litowitz ran a scam that defrauded, among others, the Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Foundation. I’ll let readers work out the ethnic trappings of that story for themselves.

Now, here’s what I really like. First, Kunstler will outline an obvious problem:

How is it not a racket to deliberately and systematically construct investments designed to fail so you can collect what amounts to insurance against them — and then to sell those financial instruments to customers without telling them that these investments were engineered to blow up? At the very least it amounts to a failure to disclose material information, which is the basis for distinguishing illegality. More to the point, it almost certainly amounts to prosecutable criminal fraud and insider trading.

Then he’ll allude to the presence of so many of his fellow Jews involved in the schemes, someone like former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who then went on to head Citicorp, which lost 70% of its value under Rubin. As a consequence, Kunstler reports, Mr. Rubin was paid $17 million in 2008 and received $33 million in stock options.

This week his column may be even more revealing. He builds his tale on a phrase uttered by then-President George W. Bush, “This sucker could go down.” Kunstler parses the meaning of the phrase, concluding that it means the whole schmeer, this “rather creaky vessel we call modern civilization.”

And he again points the blame at the Jews (well, it’s mostly Jews): “a banking system that is running a hostage-and-ransom racket on civilization.”

Allow Kunstler to expand in his own words:

This sucker is going down because the train of bankruptcies underway has a remorseless self-reinforcing power to provoke more and more bankruptcies at every stop along the line as every promise to pay is welshed on. The mortgages will not be paid and securities will not pay their investors and the banks will choke on the bad paper promises in their vaults and the pension funds will not pay their beneficiaries and the states and counties and municipalities will go broke and not pay their employees and creditors, and the federal government will not be able to “print” new money in sufficient quantities fast enough to compensate for all the money not being paid up-and-down the line… and one morning we will wake up and discover that all those promises to pay were sham promises based on no productive activity whatsoever… and that will be a sad day. Perhaps the Dow Jones Industrial Average will hit 35,000 on that day.

And make no mistake; Kunstler knows it is members of his Tribe, whom he blandly and ineffectually tries to attack: “How come no political figure of any stripe has called for the resignation of Summers, Rubin, Gensler and other Goldman Sachs ‘sleepers’ infesting high levels of government.”

Next, according to script, he turns his wary eye on the victims of all these high-level scams, and he describes those victims in his typical disdainful way:

Animosities brewing as they are among the white trash elements of the country, I just hope this sucker doesn’t resolve into an ugly bout of attempted ethnic cleansing. Certainly Obama’s racial make-up has inspired a revival of the Ku Klux spirit around the NASCAR ovals. I’m sincerely worried that the misdeeds of people name Blankfein, Rubin, and Madoff could provoke a red-white-and-blue pogrom.

Ah yes,  the infamous “cornporn Nazis” of Kunstler’s overactive imagination. And he’s right to bring up ethnic cleansing, except that he’s doing the typical Jewish tactic of projecting Jewish intentions and actions onto the actual victims. As in the Communist Soviet Union, it is ethnic White Christians who are enduring the attempted ethnic cleansing. Honestly, how many American Jews have even been physically smacked around because they are Jews? Meanwhile, the Whites who built the country are being dispossessed by massive non-White immigration and other tactics.

Still, I give Kunstler credit for consistently bringing up Jewish roles in this earth-shattering financial meltdown. It’s far more than we get from the dying Mainstream Media.

For instance, the other day I read in my newspaper a review of a new book about the collapse of Lehman Brothers. In vain did I search for even a code word about Jews. Nothing. Yet everyone even remotely connected to Wall Street knows that Lehman was a venerable old Jewish firm.

Connie Bruck and James B. Stewart wrote about Lehman’s role in the financial shenanigans of the 1980s in The Predators’ Ball and Den of Thieves, respectively. Jewish issues were always just below the surface, especially because Michael Milken was the central figure. In that case,

the mere mention of Milken and his cronies with all those Jewish names was enough to ignite a major uproar complete with accusations of anti-Semitism. Jewish activist Alan Dershowitz [who is now defending Goldman Sachs: “‘fraud’ is such a generic, vague accusation”] was center stage, even purchasing a full page ad in the New York Times (at a cost of $450,000) and ads in three other newspapers.

To get an idea of  how innocuous the references to Jews were during the Milken scandal, the following is the offending paragraph from a review of James B. Stewart’s Den of Thieves by Michael M. Thomas in the New York Times Book Review:

James B. Stewart . . . charts the way through a virtual solar system of peculation, past planets large and small, from a metaphorical Mercury representing the penny-ante takings of Dennis B. Levine’s small fry, past the middling ($10 million in inside-trading profits) Mars of Mr. Levine himself, along the multiple rings of Saturn — Ivan F. Boesky, his confederate Martin A. Siegel of Kidder, Peabody, and Mr. Siegel’s confederate Robert Freeman of Goldman, Sachs — and finally back to great Jupiter: Michael R. Milken, the greedy billion-dollar junk-bond kingdom in which some of the nation’s greatest names in industry and finance would find themselves entrapped and corrupted.

The lesson is that reviewers shouldn’t even mention Jewish names when writing about financial scandals.

The book mentioned above about Lehman Brothers is The Devil’s Casino: Friendship, Betrayal, and the High-Stakes Games Played Inside Lehman Brothers by Vicky Ward Wiley. For what it’s worth, the reviewer used a pseudonym. And as I said, there was no allusion to Jewish ethnicity, unless this opinion by the reviewer counts: “It’s tempting to conclude that what we’re dealing with here is not a cadre of crafty, evil wizards, but simply a bunch of petty, vicious schmucks.” Does that count as exposing Jewish involvement?

I don’t plan on reading these books. I did my homework in the 80s and 90s on this topic, so now it is the turn of others. Thus, I hope readers can let us know what is and isn’t useful in these new books. Kunstler will give us some hints, but it’s up to us to do the real work.

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

Bookmark and Share

Jews Embarrassed by Jews: Slumlords — and Goldman Sachs

/32 Comments/in , /by

Jill Jacobs writing in the Forward presents an interesting comment on Jewish ethics  (“When the Slumlords Are Us”). She essentially corroborates Edmund Connelly’s work on “The Culture of Deceit”:  Not only are sharp business practices common among religious Jews, they are encouraged in the sense that Jews with a well-deserved reputation for unethical business behavior are welcomed into the highest reaches of the Jewish community: “Some of these offending landlords have more than Jewish names. At least a couple have been accorded positions of leadership and prominence in their Jewish communities because of the money they give to Jewish groups and causes.”

That’s the important point. It’s certainly the case that all religions have their bad apples. But with Judaism, being a bad apple is quite compatible with being a pillar of the community, as long as you continue to donate generously to communal causes.

Because she has such a strong sense of being Jewish, she feels personally embarrassed because of the behavior of her landlord: “One day, the landlord himself dropped by the building. I shuddered when I saw his long black coat, black hat and bushy beard. Would the other tenants, mostly Latino families, think that all Jews treated others with such neglect?”

Yes, they probably would. That’s how human stereotyping works. The fact is that most people who develop negative attitudes about Jews probably do so as a result of personal interactions with Jews, not by delving into Jewish history or ruminating on the causes of our current malaise. Jacobs notes that she could talk all she wanted about lofty Jewish ethical principles, but it didn’t do much good when reality was so at odds with the lofty theory:

Inevitably, heartbreakingly, someone would say to me, “Jill, you’re telling us that Judaism says all of these great things about how landlords should treat their tenants. So why is it that my landlord, a religious Jew, won’t turn on the heat?” Or worse: “You’re the first Jew I’ve ever met who’s not a slumlord.”

Anti-Semitism among Blacks has often been the result of similar negative personal experiences during the period when Jews owned the stores and apartment buildings in Black communities. Jews have mainly moved on to higher callings than running stores and apartments in Black areas, their places taken by newer arrivals. Similarly, a survey conducted by the Jewish Labor Committee in 1945 indicated that the attitudes of working class Americans were shaped by actual experience with Jews. They saw

the Jew as a cheating storekeeper, a merciless landlord or rental agent, an unscrupulous pawn-broker, or an installment salesman and insurance collector who will take away the collateral or let the insurance lapse at the first delinquency. To this is added the idea that the Jews own all business and that at least most Jews are in business. All this is so because the Jews are money-crazy, selfish, grabby, take advantage of others, cheat, chisel, lie, are ruthless, unscrupulous, and so on. (See here, p. 50).

Jacobs recounts some attempts to make such unethical behavior unaccaptable within the Jewish community. She mentions some successes, but such efforts are up against the particularist, ingroup morality that has always characterized Jewish behavior and is clearly spelled out in Jewish religious writing: One moral standard within the group, and a completely different standard outside the group. Beginning with the Enlightenment, Jews put in a great deal of intellectual work inventing a universalist ethics for Judaism as a “light unto the nations” — a moral exemplar for the rest of humanity. But it was always a sham and continues to be so in the contemporary world. As reported by Haaretz, just recently, a rabbi on the West Bank wrote about how it’s permissible for Jews to kill pretty much any non-Jew even if they are not responsible for threats to Jews:

“It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation,” he wrote, adding: “If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments — because we care about the commandments — there is nothing wrong with the murder.”

Several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Yithak Ginzburg and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, have recommended the book to their students and followers.

The result of this Judeocentric ethics is that, apart from the efforts of Ms. Jacobs, there is far more concern about molding public perceptions than about altering Jewish behavior. This came up with the Bernie Madoff affair:

As in the [Michael] Milken case, the default  strategy is to proscribe any mention that a person like Madoff, who feeds into all the negative Jewish stereotypes, is Jewish. Indeed, some voices within the Jewish community are bemoaning the fact that Madoff’s Jewishness is so central to the media coverage. For example, in a letter to the New York Times, David A. Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee wrote, “Yes, he is Jewish. We get it. But was this relevant to his being arrested for cheating investors, or so key to his evolution as a businessman that it needed to be hammered home again and again?”

It’s well known that when the financial meltdown first hit, the ADL was concerned about “a dramatic upsurge” in anti-Jewish messages on Internet discussion boards devoted to finance and the economy in reaction to the huge bailout of Wall Street. The ADL press release is predictable in its attempt to characterize such outbursts as irrational hatred against Jews: Abe Foxman complained darkly that in times of economic downturns, “The age-old canards [the ADL’s favorite word is ‘canard’] about Jews and money are always just beneath the surface.”

The recent indictment of Goldman Sachs for security fraud is doubtless causing similar angst in Jewish circles. Yesterday’s front page headline in the LA Times screamed “E-mails show Goldman traders rushed to bet against the mortgage market as crisis spread.” [Addendum, headline for 4/27, print edition: Senate Evidence Mounts against Goldman; online: Goldman Played Key Role in Mortgage Meltdown, Senate Investigators Say] Based on documents released prior to Senate hearings this week, the article and the impending Senate hearings are sure to once again place Goldman and  Jewishness front and center in the public’s mind as the main villain in the meltdown — whether this is deserved or not. After all, despite the fact that any mention of the Jewishness of the key figures is verboten in the MSM, Goldman Sachs is an icon of Jewish financial power. Everyone knows that its basically a Jewish firm. It certainly doesn’t help that Lloyd Blankfein heads Goldman and is its publicly visible face. Nor does it help that the deal that brought the charges netted the firm of another Jew, John Paulson, $1 billion. (Paulson is worth $12 billion and is #45 on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans.)

Nor does it help that another firm that is being prominently mentioned as engaging in practices that exacerbated the mortgage meltdown is Magnetar whose principals, including founder Alec Litowitz, are all Jewish.  According to this article, Magnetar actively sought to include the worst possible mortgages into its CDO’s, then managed to get them rated as AAA investments, and then bet massively against them, leaving large financial institutions holding the bag.

Given the enormity of the repercussions of the economic crisis, it is only natural to seek the culprits. The fact that Goldman is  the most prominently featured firm and that other Jews also profited so greatly from the crisis while engaging in questionable practices will naturally feed into the stereotype of Jewish financial perfidy — a stereotype that goes back at least to the 19th century. (See Edmund Connelly’s discussion of Albert Lindemann’s historical research.)

But one thing we can be sure of, if anyone breathes a mention of Jewish involvement in the financial collapse in the mainstream media, the ADL will come out with its guns blazing. Truth is no defense.

Kevin MacDonald: Dr. Lasha Darkmoon's latest

/392 Comments/in , /by

Kevin MacDonald: Whenever Lasha Darkmoon sends me something to post I get a bit of an anxiety attack. On one hand, I know that her articles draw huge interest from readers. Her articles on Jewish influence on art struck a real chord, leading to dozens of emails to her and two later articles that summarized some of the comments — many from artists grateful that someone had finally put a finger on the problem.

On the other hand, she seeks to have impact an an emotional level that is at times unsettling and may be seen by many as “over the top.” Her latest articles (see here and here) definitely push the envelope — beginning with the illustrations from Dees that appear at the top of each article. I cringed at both, especially the one that graces the top of the second article and only left it in after special pleading from Lasha. It’s not my style, certainly. But then I said to myself: Is it really wrong or inaccurate? Comparisons between Israel and Nazism are common these days, and this website has many examples (particularly by Edmund Connelly and me)  where the future is depicted as a brutal dystopia in which Whites are victimized by the emerging non-White coalition. Dees, who is a graphic genius, is simply depicting it in a very powerful way.

So as I went through the article, I tried to make sure that what she writes is accurate but to allow her to present her emotional appeal, toning it down and eliminating quite a bit of material that I thought was needlessly offensive.

One example that got the editorial ax: The famous quote from T.S. Eliot: The rats are underneath the piles./The Jew is underneath the lot. Maybe I should have left it in, but that’s the kind of anti-Jewish comment that I find unhelpful, even if it is comes from a great poet. In the absence of a real analysis, it just lends itself to being rejected out of hand as merely an expression of prejudice — as, of course, it has: Here’s a review of a recent book on Eliot titled: “‘Underneath the lot’: An incredible mind, for sure, though touched by blatant prejudice.”

But I left in the section where she depicts the horrific crimes against Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom — even though she thought I would remove them. Probably most TOO readers have heard this crime discussed, but Darkmoon’s treatment hits home emotionally in a way that I have never seen.

Will readers be upset? Perhaps. But the mainstream media does exactly the same thing in sensationalizing crimes by Whites against non-Whites — and particularly the crimes against Jews committed in WWII. And if one really has an image of this crime in your mind, the result will be a righteous anger that will motivate people to challenge what’s going on. This, of course, is exactly why such crimes against Whites are completely ignored by the media.

Darkmoon also did a photo essay interspersed with poetry that is a tribute to Rachel Corrie, martyr for the Palestinians (“She Died for Palestine”). Again, there was a huge positive response. I think that because the fate of the Palestinians has become a moral touchstone in the contemporary world to many across the entire political spectrum, the response was uniformly positive. (We don’t have many pro-Zionist readers.)

So I said to myself, why is this any different? TOO has posted numerous articles primarily directed at the left side of the brain — the facts and analysis that are entirely on our side. But facts and analysis only go so far in motivating people.  The fact is that we have to start screaming about what is happening, not only in Israel but in the West generally. We should have a righteous anger not only about the crimes of Israel, but about the crimes of Freud and the Frankfurt School. We have to have clear, emotionally compelling images in our memories — memories that motivate action. And Lasha Darkmoon is screaming.

Bookmark and Share

Lawrence Auster Gets Unhinged

/144 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I made a resolution to not to waste time and energy on Internet squabbles with people like Lawrence Auster. Auster’s agenda is pretty clear. As I said in some previous comments on him, “Auster’s comments, posted on his website, are first and foremost an attempt to place me beyond the realm of legitimate discourse. By titling the article ‘The idiocy of Kevin MacDonald,’ Auster is saying, “Don’t go near MacDonald—he is off limits.” Auster continues to draw lines, now trying to anathematize anyone who is remotely associated with me.

For awhile, it seemed that Auster had decided not to bother with any arguments at all. His complaints about my review of Norman Podhoretz’s Why are Jews Liberals? referred to “MacDonald-style Jew-hatred” and then had long quotes from the article. Not exactly an overwhelming argument.

Now Auster has taken to calling me an “exterminationist anti-Semite,” again with the aim of drawing boundaries for acceptable discourse and again without much of an argument:

Since Kevin MacDonald sees the Jews as a group that are genetically determined by Darwinian evolution to subvert and destroy white gentile societies wherever they encounter them, in the same way that rattlesnakes are genetically determined to sink their venomous fangs into the flesh of mammals wherever they encounter them, we must conclude that he doesn’t want Jews to exist in America and Europe. Further, as I explain here with regard to MacDonald’s recent article at Alternative Right, it is clear that he doesn’t want Jews to exist in Israel either. So MacDonald doesn’t want Jews to exist anywhere.

If anyone has a reasonable interpretation of MacDonald other than that he is an exterminationist anti-Semite, I’d like to hear it.

There is a whole lot wrong with this, starting with interpreting me as saying that “Jews as a group … are genetically determined by Darwinian evolution to subvert and destroy white gentile societies wherever they encounter them.”

I certainly do think I have shown that Jews have a powerful sense of groupness. This is apparent throughout history and can be seen today in pretty much any statement put out by organizations like the ADL. And I do think that there are conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in a wide range of areas — my writing has focused on immigration policy, policy toward Israel, and the construction of culture generally.  Whenever I discuss these issues I always qualify my remarks by noting that not all Jews hold the same opinions. Making a case for Jewish influence is a matter of looking at where the great mass of Jewish money and influence is being brought to bear and trying to determine if their efforts are effective. For example, in the case of immigration policy, it matters little if Auster and Stephen Steinlight oppose our anti-White immigration policy when the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of Jews (including a great number of Jews with influential positions in the media and in politics) are in favor of it. (Here‘s a recent example: the ADL condemning the Arizona law that attempts to rid the state of illegal immigrants.) My argument is that Jewish influence was a critically necessary condition for the passage of the disastrous 1965 immigration law.

But this is a far cry from saying that Jews are “genetically determined by Darwinian evolution to subvert and destroy white gentile societies wherever they encounter them.” Even a casual reading of my work would show that it’s all about culture–why else write a book titled The Culture of Critique. (This is a recent academic version of my theory of culture.) Genetic determinism plays no role in my theory.

When it comes to why the organized Jewish community and most Jews have supported policies that oppose the interests of people of  European descent, I implicate Jewish ethnocentrism combined with their lachrymose view of their own history among Europeans — summarized in my review of Podhoretz. Briefly stated, Jews have a historical grudge against Europeans and their culture.

Besides the historical grudge that has fueled so much Jewish hostility toward European-descended peoples and their culture, the rise of a Jewish elite in 20th-century America is a story of ethnic displacement. No evolutionist is surprised at the desire to achieve elite status and displace previously dominant elites, and Jews are certainly no exception. Jews are doing what pretty much any ethnic group would do if they could. In today’s column, Pat Buchanan writes, “The Chinese of 2010 call to mind 19th-century Americans who shoved aside Mexicans, Indians and Spanish to populate a continent, build a mighty nation, challenge the British Empire — superpower of the day — and swiftly move past her in manufacturing to become first nation on earth.”

Yeah, we shoved aside other peoples. And now it’s happening to us — mainly, in my opinion, because of the  power of the new Jewish elite. The Indians didn’t like it when  it happened to them. I don’t like it as it’s happening to me and people like me. The Palestinians don’t like it either.

The only thing is that I suspect that everyone would have assumed that a 19th-century American Indian complaining about what was happening was being entirely rational. But now someone like me is treated as a raving lunatic and moral reprobate — ignored by the  elite media and vilified by the lavishly funded Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and the SPLC. We are not supposed to put up a fight. We are supposed to simply accept our displacement and pledge fealty to our new elite.

But I am not an exterminationist. Since when is someone who calls attention to conflicts of interest between groups necessarily advocating the extermination of one of the groups? By that logic, a historian documenting the influence of, say, Christian Zionists  and noting how their interests conflict with those of others would necessarily be advocating their extermination. By that logic Mearsheimer and Walt are exterminationists. Auster’s comment is nothing but an attempt to have any discussion of Jewish interests and Jewish influence be completely off the table–unlike the interests and influence of any other group.

I am perfectly happy for Jews to live where they want. I just wish they would not continue to oppose the interests of people like me.  Obviously, in saying this, I am implying that  I don’t believe in genetic determinism in the area of political choices. It is within the power of Jews to change their political behavior. In fact, rather than behaving like mindless robots acting out of a genetic imperative, Jews have always been flexibly responsive to historical contingencies, and this agrees with everything we know about human psychology.

It really doesn’t matter if groups with little power and influence oppose the interests of White Americans. But it matters greatly if a substantial component of the elite in terms of wealth as well as political power and media influence opposes our interests and brings to economic ruin and political oblivion anyone (Jew or non-Jew) who comes to our defense.

Nor do I have any conceptual problem with Jews living in Israel. As I wrote in my previous comments on Auster, I would be willing to make a quid pro quo with the organized Jewish community: If you support white ethno-nationalism in the US and provide intensive, effective support for ending and reversing the immigration policy of recent decades (i.e., something approaching the support you presently provide Israel), I would be willing to go to the wall to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, even at substantial cost for the US. The fact that a minuscule number of Jews — none of them part of the main Jewish activist organizations that have been so destructive to White ethno-nationalism — are immigration patriots and see value in America as ethnically and culturally European is certainly not a reason for someone like me to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel.

But I don’t see the organized Jewish community getting behind a White America any time soon — from which I infer that they continue to believe that it is their self-interest to oppose the interests of White Americans (not that they are the victims of some phantasmagorical genetic imperative). The fact is that Israel is costing the US dearly in terms of blood and treasure at the same time that the Jewish community in the US opposes the interests of White Americans. I really don’t see why I should support it.

However, that’s not the same as wishing Israel would be wiped off the map — only that they should fend for themselves. I do not believe that it is in my ethnic interests nor is in the interests of the United States to antagonize the Arab and Muslim world in the interests of an expansionist, apartheid, ethno-nationalist Israel. It’s simply not our fight.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Spinning Illegal Immigration: How the Anti-White Media Does It

/24 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan: ABC News’ report on Arizona’s latest illegal immigration legislation is juicy example of extreme anti-white bias in the MSM. Correspondent “Huma Khan” loads up five — count ’em, five — anti-legislation sources:  two Hispanic women who feel aggrieved, a spokesman for MALDEF, another spokesman whose group is described as seeking “comprehensive immigration reform”, and no less than Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles.

Were Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter busy?  Mark Potok taking a cigarette break?
 
Against this phalanx is the lonely state rep who wrote the bill.
 
Khan’s description of a “national uproar” against the bill is based on calls to the governor’s office, though it’s doubtful how well this reflects America’ mood.
 
Khan does not seek out the opinion of any “man on the street” who’s for the bill.  She does not speak to any (real) immigration reform spokespeople.  She does not speak to the family of the murdered rancher.  She doesn’t talk to Peter Brimelow.  She doesn’t talk to the Pinal County Sheriff.  She doesn’t talk to Dan Stein or Julie Kirchner.  No recent poll data on America’s opinions of illegal immigration.

Bookmark and Share

 
But she gives Cardinal Mahony a platform to call the bill a “Nazi” law.
 
Let me note the obvious.  “Huma Khan”  is outraged by efforts to restrict immigration.  She personally hopes there’s a “national uproar” against the bill, which sets the template for her account.  She can’t imagine anyone but evil White racists supporting the bill.  As a non-White woman, she feels a particularly acute duty to save the legions of Hispanics illegally in Arizona from detection.  She imagines herself winning journalism awards for her sensitive hand-holding of the poor illegals.  And she’ll do what she can from her MSM post to kill the bill.
 
Huma Khan’s presence in this country and her writing for ABC News are yet another example of Whites’ worsening prospects in multi-racial America.  As Huma Khan’s vision becomes reality, more police die.  More ranchers are shot.  More White-earned tax dollars are handed over to illegals.
 
And she will not be telling that story.

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

Bookmark and Share