Anti-White Violence in South Africa

/27 Comments/in , , , /by

A constant theme on this website is that Whites living in societies run by non-Whites are in physical danger. From the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution to contemporary Africa, the lesson is the same: Loss of political power means murder and mayhem directed against Whites by minorities with deep historical grudges.

Right now racial tensions are escalating in South Africa following the death of Eugene Terreblanche, leader of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB). The mainstream media in the US has generally failed to even mention the violence directed against Whites, but today’s LA Times in an exception. An earlier report in the Times stated that Terreblanche’s killing was merely a dispute about wages. But today’s story notes that “police also say the killers stripped and humiliated the 69-year-old in a way that suggested extreme racial hatred.”

White people are not merely being murdered, but they are being horribly and gruesomely tortured by people that can only be described as psychopaths:

Chris Van Zyl of the Transvaal Agricultural Union said in a phone interview that in one recent case, a man’s soles were stripped from his feet while alive. An elderly woman’s breasts were sliced off; another was gang-raped. Another was raped with a broken bottle.

The police and government have no statistics on farm killings. Van Zyl’s group has recorded 1,266 slayings and 2,070 attacks since 2001. Other groups say more than 3,000 farmers have been killed in the last 16 years.

Van Zyl said that 78 farmers were killed in 2008, 55 last year and 19 this year, and that nonfatal attacks had increased dramatically. Most victims were elderly people on isolated farms.

Julius Malema, the powerful youth leader of the African National Congress, has been at the center of the storm. Malema revived the “Shoot the  Boer” song from the war against apartheid, and recently he “threw a white BBC journalist out of a news conference after calling him a ‘bloody agent’ and ‘bastard’ with a ‘white tendency.'”

The AWB has vowed revenge. But apart from a successful revolution to establish a White homeland or simply leaving, it’s very difficult to see how the plight of South African Whites can be alleviated. Hatred against Whites will continue not only because of the hatreds stemming from the period of White dominance, but also because of the present poverty of much of the Black population — due mainly to the traits that characterize Africans everywhere, especially low average IQ. The “ANC government [is] unable to deliver its promises to improve healthcare, education and other services. In the meantime, Malema capitalizes on the vast, disillusioned black underclass by turning its anger and despair against whites and “imperialists.”

But no African-led government or even a White-led government can ever develop a society in which the desires of the Black underclass (which continues to expand demographically) can be met. The result will therefore be continued hostility and friction — and increasing White desperation.

Christopher Donovan: The Mohawk Settlement: Some Justice For Whites

/2 Comments/in , , /by

Christoper Donovan: At VDare.com, I see that the class action plaintiffs in the Mohawk RICO suit have settled for $18 million.  Attorney Howard Foster’s idea was that by hiring so many illegal aliens, carpet giant Mohawk depressed the wages of American citizens working for the company.  This was a creative legal strategy, a nice victory, and the type of suit that benefits Whites (for the most part — one plaintiff was herself a legal Hispanic).  With a recovery of $250 per worker, the suit was largely symbolic, but it should make big companies think twice about brazen mass hiring of illegals.

In reading the account, I was surprised at what had happened to a Mohawk employee who made complaints while the suit was pending.  Norman Carpenter (not sure if he’s White, but I assume so) went to management about the number of illegal aliens working for the company.  In response, a Hispanic lawyer for the company was dispatched to meet with him — and allegedly threatened him with termination if he kept complaining about illegals.  But Carpenter kept talking, and he was fired.  That turned into a wrongful termination claim, in which Foster sought the deposition of the lawyer, Juan Morillo.  Interestingly, new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has let stand a decision that Morillo be deposed (perhaps she angled for the opinion in the hopes that it would cast her in an independent light).

I would be interested to see what happens to Morillo, whose career got a nice boost from networking with co-ethnics and clerking for a Hispanic judge.  No doubt he felt tingly flexing his prestigious legal muscles in defense of his race, but he’s run into a bit of a problem:  the whistleblower laws.

If Hollywood weren’t run by Jews, a character like Morillo would make for a great movie villain:  a self-satisfied minority fat cat whose trajectory screams “affirmative action” and who makes big bucks representing huge companies and bullying work-a-day Whites who toil in carpet factories, only to be brought low by a scrappy attorney who had justice on his side.

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

Bookmark and Share

The Dissolution of the Family among Non-Elite Whites: Review of “Red Families v. Blue Families” by Naomi Cahn and June Carbone

/40 Comments/in , , , , /by

I heard Naomi Cahn and June Carbone talk about their book, Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture (Oxford, 2010), on Commie Radio Pacifica, so you can be sure there is a “progressive” message. As summarized in their op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor, the idea is that families in Blue State America are thriving, while families in Red State America are failing because they are too hung up on old fashioned ideas like sexual abstinence.

There is an obvious dishonesty in this approach because it completely ignores race in the analysis in an effort to pin the blame on traditional sexual beliefs and customs. Blacks and Latinos who live in urban areas and in very Blue States exhibit high rates of teenage pregnancy, non-marriage, and dropping out of the education process — much higher than Whites in Red State America.

So what they are really trying to explain is variation in family patterns among White people. And there they have a point. Red State White America is in a crisis. (Indeed, it’s no accident that Red State America is where most of the much-commented-on White anger is coming from.) The data they are summarizing really relate to some of the correlates of education which are in turn linked to IQ. But we have known at least since The Bell Curve that higher IQ people not only are more likely to go further in the  educational system, they are more likely to have stable marriages, they don’t have babies outside of marriage, and they begin child bearing later. These people are more likely to live in large urban and suburban areas where there are jobs for educated people.

The Whites in non-urban Red State America have a lot to be angry about. The present economic crisis is just the most recent disaster in the long pattern of dispossession of Whites who are less educated. Good jobs in the private sector have pretty much evaporated — the unions are gone and the jobs have been shipped overseas. These people see their communities invaded by racial and cultural aliens, many of them illegal, making a middle class life impossible. They see themselves losing political power to the coalition of minorities and elite Whites that has become the Democratic Party.

As The Bell Curve emphasized, since World War II the cognitive elite are pulling away from the rest of America. Hard economic times only make it worse.

And hard times are always difficult on families. As Cahn and Carbone note, “the latest studies show that as the economy has gone south, teen and nonmarital births and abortions have all increased. … Employment figures also demonstrate that male employment has fallen even further than female employment, making youthful weddings that much riskier.”

In evolutionary terms, the high-investment style of reproduction becomes non-viable as men are unable to provide for their families. Women start having babies sooner and don’t expect to receive support from males over a long period of time, especially where welfare programs are available.

Being on the left, however, C & C use this opportunity to propose that the real culprit is traditional family values. If we could just get rid of those Bible Belt ideas, all would be well:

Missing from this debate is recognition of the bankruptcy of traditionalist family values as policy for the postindustrial era. …

In the United States, states that emphasize abstinence-only education, limit public subsidies of contraception, restrict access to abortion – and, yes, oppose gay marriage – have higher teen birth and divorce rates.

Yet the failure of the family values movement simply produces another round of moral panic and calls for more draconian restrictions.

Their solution combines typical leftist utopianism with a very real program of lowering the birth rate of people with traditional values.

The solution? As we outline in great detail in our book “Red Families v. Blue Families,” there are three critical steps we can take: (1) promote access to contraception – within marriage as well as outside it; (2) develop a greater ability to combine not only work and family, but family and education; and (3) make sure the next generation stays in school, learns the skills to be employed, and cultivates values that can adapt to the future.

This is a nice distillation of the bizarre idea that all Americans have the potential to be college graduates with lots of skills suitable for a post-industrial economy. IQ never enters the equation. But this utopian future is just not going to happen. A far better program would be to provide better economic opportunities for White people, especially White males, whose prospects have been blunted by the present regime.

The fact is that traditional sexual attitudes worked perfectly well in the West to produce a very adaptive culture of high-investment parenting combined with individualist social institutions. C & C attempt to tar traditional values with the stigma of Muslim and African societies where female virtue is prized: “We are entirely sympathetic with those inclined to lock up their daughters from puberty until marriage, but we do recognize that the societies abroad most insistent on policing women’s virtue are locked into cycles of poverty.”

But there is no reason to suppose that the problem with Muslim and African societies is policing the sexual behavior of women. Other traits of these cultures are far more likely culprits,  including low average IQ and social institutions like cousin marriage and clan-based social and political systems.

The reality is that social support for high-investment parenting has always been a critical feature of Western social structure until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Since then, all of the markers of family stability have headed south  — including divorce rates and births out of wedlock for all races and ethnic groups. (Nevertheless, there are very large differences between races and ethnic groups in conformity with Rushton’s lifespan theory of race differences.)

But this relative lack of social support for marriage has had very different effects depending on traits like IQ. For example, a well-known study in behavior genetics shows that the heritability of age of first sexual intercourse increased dramatically after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. In other words, after the social supports for traditional sexuality disappeared, genetic influences became more important. Before the sexual revolution, traditional sexual mores applied to everyone. After the revolution, genes mattered more. People with higher IQ were able to produce stable families and marriages, but lower IQ people were less prone to doing so, and these trends have been exacerbated by the current economic climate. Hence the Red State/Blue State dichotomy among White people observed by C & C.

And this brings me to thinking about Jews and particularly Jewish influence on sexual culture. In their book, C & C note that Jews tend to exhibit  the Blue State pattern— an unsurprising result given Jewish IQ patterns. A theme of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique is that the psychoanalytic assault on traditional Western sexual culture had a disparate impact on different IQ groups and benefited Jews:

Jews suffer to a lesser extent than [non-Jews] from the erosion of cultural supports for high-investment parenting, and Jews benefit by the decline in religious belief among [non-Jews]. As [Norman] Podhoretz (1995, 30) notes, it is in fact the case that Jewish intellectuals, Jewish organizations like the AJCongress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union … have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. The evidence of this chapter indicates that psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement is a central component of this war on [non-Jewish] cultural supports for high-investment parenting. …

Although other factors are undoubtedly involved, it is remarkable that the increasing trend toward low-investment parenting in the United States largely coincides with the triumph of the psychoanalytic and radical critiques of American culture represented by the political and cultural success of the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s.

I then go into the academic version of the ideas presented here, especially the greater importance of social controls and traditional religious beliefs for people on the left side of the Bell Curve. (See here, in the  Conclusion).

There is nothing wrong with traditional Western sexual codes. C & C are trying to rationalize the destruction of the last vestiges of that culture by noting that people with traditional religious ideas on sexuality increasingly behave in ways that are contrary to those beliefs. But the problem is not the traditional culture. Rather it is the economic dispossession of non-elite Whites combined with a media culture that glorifies expressive individualism and uninhibited sexuality (i.e., drugs, sex, and Rock ‘n’ Roll) — a media culture that, in my view, was critically shaped by the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed in The  Culture of Critique.

Bookmark and Share

Take the Money and Run: Jewish White Collar Criminals Welcomed by the Jewish Community

/1 Comment/in /by

We Westerners really do live in a Jewish world. Jewish control of the media is undeniable, as I’ve written about for years. One area that remains under-treated is the one most people still associate with Jews—and not always kindly: financial matters. Whether a Jewish group evolutionary strategy is responsible for their outsized success with money, whether it is because Jews are “the synagogue of Satan,” as St. John’s gospel famously quoted Jesus as saying, or whether it is some other factor, at the end of the day Jewish temporal power comes down to money. And Jews have a lot of it.

I wrote about this in February in my blog Jews & Money. That has a lot of good background information, so I recommend that readers have a look.

Today I’ll expand on that theme, adding a few updates.

Let’s start with Rolling Stones reporter Matt Taibbi’s excellent introduction to his essay The Great American Bubble Machine:

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Taibbi knows how to turn a phrase, as he shows elsewhere in his writing on the economic crisis we’re facing:

It’s over — we’re officially, royally fucked. No empire can survive being rendered a permanent laughingstock, which is what happened as of a few weeks ago, when the buffoons who have been running things in this country finally went one step too far.

Folks, I have to insist: An awful lot of this massive theft and fraud has been done by Jews. And now that Jewish control is so pervasive, Jews can openly joke about their perfidy—and get away with it. Consider this skit from the heavily Jewish program Saturday Night Live. The skit makes fun of the prominent role Jews played in the financial meltdown, spoofing Herbert and Marion Sandler, Congressman Barney Frank, and even George Soros. Here’s the unadulterated original version. It’s a keeper.

Consider now the recent European crisis centered on Greece. The venerableNew York Times, in the article “Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis”, as much as confirms this Jewish role in the destabilization of Greece, including how Greece’s future airport revenue and lottery proceeds were squandered in order to keep current spending off the books.

As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street’s help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created byGoldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels. . . .

The bankers, led by Goldman’s president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece’s health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

Financial crime is deeply embedded in Jewish culture. M. Raphael Johnson wrote an expose of the Judeo-Russian Mafia based on Robert I. Friedman’s book Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America. Friedman stated that the entire “Russian” mafia is Jewish, without exception. Johnson also reported that

Friedman is also not afraid to admit that Jewish organizations throughout the world, led by the Anti-Defamation League, are the beneficiaries of largesse coming from organized crime, and that the organizations in question are aware of it. In other words, Jewish organized crime is considered an acceptable part of Jewish life, and that Jewish organizations have actually lobbied law enforcement to stop investigations into this phenomenon, almost always with success.”

Sadly, Friedman died young from a rare “tropical disease.”

I’m also happy to see that renegade scholar E. Michael Jones, author of the 1,200-page The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, is now at work on a new book about Jews and Capitalism. He has excerpted parts of the book in the February and March issues of his journalCulture Wars.

The basis of his March essay is a new book by Josh Kosman called The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Will Cause the Next Great Credit Crisis. There Kosman tells us that “the rapacious leveraged-buyout kings of the 1980s were still around. They had just adopted a new name, now calling themselves private-equity investors.” And their tactics remain the same. Just like Taibbi’s metaphor of the great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money,” leveraged buyout “artists” and private-equity (PE) investors suck the money and lifeblood out of otherwise healthy companies.

Jones and Kosman describe the process: PE investors buy a company, starve them of cash and human capital to generate short-term profits, then use the profits as a basis to borrow more money. The new loans are then piled on top of the original debt taken on to finance the LBO. All this new money is then used to issue a big fat dividend for the PE folks so that the money from the loans goes straight into their pockets.

Now they have moved into acquiring hospitals and nursing homes. Companies and health-care organizations so acquired by PE end up with “crippling debt, loss of reputation, the lay-off of skilled workers, and in many cases bankruptcy.” PE is “another word for looting. The companies which got taken over were plundered for their resources.”

Employing his skills as a historian, Jones notes the obvious fact that “the history of Jewish predatory lending practices, [is] something which antedates the leveraged buy-outs of the ‘80s by centuries.” He then argues that “The concentration of the nation’s wealth in the hands of a few avaricious Jews has led to corruption of both discourse and culture, which is subsidized to serve the Mammonites that feed it.”

The ancient Jewish practice of usury will be the death of the American economy as well. Usury, Jones claims, “knows no limits. It has no telos. It grows like cancer and only stops growing when it brings about the death of its host.” America (and parts of Europe) are approaching that end, for economic activity bereft of morality “becomes usurious, which is to say, cancerous, which is to say bound to bring about the death of the national economy which is its host organism.”

Again, Jones, Kosman and I are not talking about anything new. It’s long been a stereotype of Western folklore that Jews are deceitful, particularly when it comes to money. Now they seem not to bother with strenuous efforts to disguise it — although explicit assertions that these patterns have anything to do with Jewishness will be met with an outpouring of outrage and charges of anti-Semitism by the ADL. Over the previous few decades, they’ve pushed the envelope, and — I hope to even their own surprise — we goyim have barely reacted. Is their well-known contempt for us deserved, then?

There may well be contempt, but prudently there is also wariness of the riled goy. Observers have long noted that Jews are exquisitely sensitive to the mood of the far larger non-Jewish masses that surround them. There is no doubt that Jews have developed a fine-tuned radar for when things might turn sour.

Kevin MacDonald just wrote about this with respect to Jewish NYTimescolumnist Frank Rich. No doubt mindful of the prominent role his fellow tribe members have been playing in the financial crisis, in the placement of the first non-White in the White House, and in the more general multicultural program of White dispossession, Rich fears the “mass hysteria” that might reasonably accompany such a dispossession.  Rich wrote the following about soon-to-be minority Whites:

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory [of White rage]. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

Rich’s sharing of Jewish thinking is useful, but the fact is Rich is a grouch. Far more fun to read is blogger James Howard Kunstler, who more and more in his weekly Monday blogs has been showing his own hysteria about what might happen should the fleeced goyim ever wake up.

In his recent blog Our Turn?, he begins with a familiar Jewish obsession:

Nations go crazy. It’s terrifying when it happens, especially to a major nation with the ability to project its craziness outward. We look back on the psychotic break of Germany in 1933 and still wonder how the then-best-educated population in Europe could fall under the sway of a sociopathic political program. We behold the carnage and devastation left in the wake of that episode, and decades later you still can do little more than shake your head in bewilderment.

Kunstler is talking about “a genuine descent into madness, with the very high probability of persecution, violence, murder, and mayhem — all more or less sponsored by various authorities and institutions.”

Working himself up into a lather, he continues, “One day soon, somebody with a gun or an explosive device, someone with a very sketchy sense-of-self, and perhaps a recent record of personal failure and humiliation, is going to sacrifice himself to become the Tea Party’s first martyr by shooting up a shopping mall in some blue district.”

Readers of Kunstler’s blogs will know of his fear and contempt for Americans who do not live in big cities and who are not reflexively liberal in their politics. These are the infamous “cornporn Nazis” of Kunstler’s nightmares. “The guerilla forces of the radical right will not know whether they are fighting for WalMart, or the Financial Services arm of General Electric, or against abortions, or for bigger and better freeways, or the rights of thoracic surgeons to drive families into bankruptcy, or against the idea of climate change, or evolution, or Jews-in-the-media, or their neighbors having something they feel envious about.”

In other words, in Kunstler’s views, these people are idiots, but they are dangerous idiots. As I say, there is some perverse fun to be had in reading Kunstler’s description of us Whites in flyover America, people who strive “so desperately to turn the United States into a high-definition Jesus tele-theocracy of Perpetual NASCAR.” The contempt is palpable.

What is to be done? Kunstler, like many other Jews, would like to see the heavy hand of state employed. “I hope Mr. Obama can discipline these maniacs. I would like to see him start by instructing his attorney general to look into the connection between Republican officials (including staff members) and the threats of violence and murder that were made last week around the country.”

Oh, I see it’s already started — sort of. CNN has been reporting on a “Christian warriors” militia that was supposedly on the verge of starting a massacre of Michigan law enforcement officials. Judging by the faces CNN is showing, Kunstler and other haters of “cornporn Nazis” are going to have a public relations field day.

You might want to take a look at the equipment employed by the state of Michigan—NOT the military—to respond to this threat. More and more, our civilian police forces resemble the military—and they’re not shy about aggressively attacking citizens either — Sam Francis’s anarcho-tyranny in action.

In any case, we need more scholarly treatments of Jews and money, something along the lines of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique applied to the financial world. It could show how Jewish economic behavior is a deeply ingrained aspect of Judaism as group strategy. It could further explore how economic behavior is related to activism in the media, politics, the legal system, academia, etc. As it stands now, that mountain of money in Jewish hands is at the disposal of a hostile elite (see here, and here . . . and here) that fears and mostly dislikes us— people like Frank Rich, William Howard Kunstler, and thousands of other antsy Jews like them. What will happen to us if such Jews feel so at risk that they preemptively seek to neutralize the “threatening” ones among us?

In Homo Americanus, as I’ve noted numerous times, Croatian savant Tomislav Sunic envisions such a scenario for any group in America that might be targeted: “Thus, in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” In his VDARE review Stalin’s Willing Executioners?, MacDonald made a similar observation, identifying what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union — the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.” They are the European-derived Whites populating vast areas of the American nation, particularly in the so-called “red states.”

The noose is tightening around our necks. We’ve all seen it — hundreds of examples of the “anarcho-tyranny” that Sam Francis described. A prank at a Wal-Mart asking black shoppers to leave sends the mass media into moral panic mode and the police are fast to react. Yet Blacks murdering Whites is not news. Thugs close down a perfectly legal conference by the White Nationalist group American Renaissance by making death threats against hotel workers, and the police, the FBI and the mainstream media are uninterested.

Some readers might smirk when viewing mug shots of the Christian militia group “Hutaree” above or photos of the trailer homes in which they live, but these things have a way of escalating.  It is we Whites, worried about our rapid dispossession, who should be anxious, not the well-remunerated Jews who are the dynamic force of our hostile elite.  Truly we live in an inverted world.

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

 

Women, Minorities and Academia

/24 Comments/in , , , /by

I recall that someone—perhaps it was William F. Buckley—said that you can’t have both affirmative action and nuclear power.

His point, of course, is obvious: merit of the highest order is necessary to invent, build and maintain a highly complex system like America’s nuclear power industry. To the extent standards are bent or diluted in favor of political goals such as increasing the number of minorities and women—though they be less qualified—a cost will be paid in efficiency, reliability, and potentially safety.

Despite this truism, America and other Western nations have headed down the road to diversity despite these costs. Thus, we have seen robust efforts to change the demographic face of life-saving occupations such as firefighting, where highly qualified White males are often passed over in favor of politically favored groups such as Blacks, Hispanics or women. For example, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor famously ruled against White firefighter Frank Ricci (the pre-Sotomayor Supreme Court overturned the ruling, a rare instance of justice and safety winning out over political correctness).

Another instance where ability and inclination still prevail over politics is commercial aviation, which has remained solidly in the hands of White males. Among commercial airline pilots, for example, only about 2% are women, with blacks accounting for far less than that. The Organization of Black Airline Pilots reports around 700 African-Americans working for U.S. airlines, about fifteen of whom are women.

In many areas of life, however, stakes are far lower, so blatant affirmative action policies elicit far less concern or reaction. For instance, does it really matter if your freshman English teacher at a community college is male, female, Black, White or other? Probably not that much. Even at better schools it is not a matter of life and death, though cumulatively it could affect the culture in some way.

Thus, the humanities have been able to politically alter the make-up of university faculty across America. Where White males overwhelmingly filled professorial roles through the 1960s, today’s academy is the dream-come-true of the  minority activists of the 70’s (though not of today’s activist, where complete absence of straight White non-Jewish able-bodied males is taken for granted as the holy grail).

As you leave the humanities and move toward the more quantitative subjects, however, political gerrymandering gets a little harder. By the time you are in the highly objective fields such as mathematics, engineering and physics, ability and merit are harder to fudge. Then-president of Harvard Larry Summers ran smack into this uncomfortable fact when in 2005 he commented on why, in the previous year, 88 percent (28 of 32) of newly tenured faculty had been men. Despite having reliable evidence on his side, his conjecture that men and women could have differing abilities in some fields created an uproar. (See Steve Sailer’s take here.)

As is so depressingly common under our multicultural regime, Summers was forced to apologize repeatedly, “in the style of a Communist show trial,” in the words of one observer. Wikipedia gives us the follow-through:

Desperately trying to keep his job, Summers quickly appointed female historian Drew Gilpin Faust, head of Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute For Advanced Study, to lead Harvard’s Task Forces on Women Faculty and on Women in Science and Engineering.

Heather Mac Donald noted in Harvard’s Faustian Bargain in City Journal:

“Faust runs one of the most powerful incubators of feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country.”

Eventually, Dr. Faust brought back a $50 million wish list of payoffs to feminist interests, which the beleaguered Summers immediately agreed to fund. Hey, the money wasn’t coming out of Larry’s pocket, so why not?

Such aggression on the part of Dr. Faust did no harm, as she now sits in the Harvard president’s office, where her website proudly displays endeavors such as this: Empowering girls all over the world.

This is all meant as background material for our current leading example of  “The Disappearing of the White Male Academic: Shirley Tilghman and Princeton.” As Kevin MacDonald reported in this blog space, “Once again . . . all of our elite institutions are essentially enemy-occupied territory. Princeton’s president, Shirley Tilghman, is the sort of White person that is absolutely poisonous to our cause…. She is also doing her best to absolutely eliminate White males from high-profile positions.” MacDonald noted something that stood out for me as well: “My favorite is making a woman dean of the School of Engineering even though she is not an engineer.” What could be more blatant than this?

And don’t think that Tilghman is alone as a female president of an Ivy League school. Currently half of the eight Ivy League universities have women presidents, with Ruth Simmons being the only African American. (I’m not sure if this is better or worse than the days when six or seven of the Ivy League presidents were Jews.)

This topic of White male displacement in academia has cropped up in other instances this week as well. For example, a friend who earned a graduate degree in the field of American Studies sent me information on gender representation in the discipline to justify his decision to abandon a career in the field. (This reminded me of Alex Kurtagic’s own justification “Memoirs of a Dissident Student in Postmodern Academia”.)

American Studies was once a White male preserve that sought academic diversity by combining the study of American literature and history in an interdisciplinary way. Since then it’s gone the way of most other humanities departments and hosts minority activist groups such as The Minority Scholars Committee, Ethnic Studies Committee and Women’s Committee.

The women’s committee, of course, looks after the interests of women. Fair enough.

What, then, are we to make of the fact that women in American Studies today by far outnumber males? And by the looks of it, this disparity will only increase in the future, for recent Ph.D.s become future faculty, and they too are overwhelmingly female.

Last year, for instance, freshly-minted female Ph.D.s outnumbers males 65% to 35%. In 2008 it was a whopping 75% to 25%. I told my friend he should inquire about why American Studies still needs a Women’s Committee. (Better yet, why not agitate to establish a men’s committee?  Yeah, right.)

Anyway, I can only thank my lucky stars for the fact that I was born with and continue to enjoy White male privilege.

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

Stephen Walt on Dennis Ross

/18 Comments/in , , , /by

Stephen Walt has once again raised the issue of dual loyalty of American Jews — this time in the context of the role of Dennis Ross in shaping Obama Administration policy in the direction of Israel. As I have argued previously, I think that Walt (and Mearsheimer) tend to underestimate the problem of Jewish dual loyalty. It’s often been said of Jews that they are just like everyone else, only more so. In the case of dual loyalty, it’s certainly true that other people have various loyalties, but no other group has had such a passionate attachment to a foreign country. As The Israel Lobby shows, the American Jewish community is galvanized around doing the bidding of a foreign government. Dissent within the Jewish community has been effectively silenced, and the most energized, radical elements of the Jewish community determine the direction of the entire community.

Given all that, it is certainly not surprising that issues of loyalty would be raised. And, because of their status as a wealthy, powerful elite, Jews, far more than other minority groups, have been able to influence American foreign policy in the direction of Israel despite making up less than 3% of the population.

The charge of dual loyalty is an ancient one (reviewed here under the heading “The Theme of Disloyalty”), present in Jewish religious writing. In the Book of Exodus, Pharaoh states, “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land” (Exod. 1:9–10).

Walt writes that the accusation of dual loyalty was “a nasty anti-Semitic canard in old Europe.” But, then as now, dual loyalty accusations had much more than a grain of truth. For example, between the mid-19th century and the Bolshevik Revolution, there can be little doubt that the Jewish Diaspora throughout Europe and America opposed the Russian government and often influenced policy in other countries to oppose Russia — often in opposition to the governments of those countries. In 1911, long before Jews attained the level of power in the US that they have now, there was a successful Jewish campaign to abrogate a US trade agreement with Russia aimed at getting Russia to change its policies on Jews in opposition to the views of the Taft Administration.

The similarities to today are striking: AIPAC has rammed through punitive trade restrictions on Iran not because such restrictions benefit the US, but because Iran is seen as threatening Israel. And now there is a major push to get the US to bomb Iran — again promoted by Israel’s friends in the US. (Here’s Bill Kristol stating that it’s better for the US to attack Iran than for Israel to have to do it.)

Walt writes:

Needless to say, in a melting-pot society like the United States, it was inevitable that many Americans would also have strong attachments to other countries. These different attachments may reflect ancestry, religious affiliation, personal experience (such as overseas study), or any number of other sources. The key point, however, is that in the United States it is entirely legitimate to manifest such attachments in political life.  Americans can hold dual citizenship, for example, or form an interest group whose avowed purpose is to shape U.S. policy towards a specific country. This is how the American system of government works, and there is nothing “disloyal” about such conduct.

Dual loyalty issues therefore mesh with America as a multicultural society. Jewish dual loyalties are no different, say, from Mexican dual loyalties. But, whatever its legitimacy in multicultural America, dual loyalties are surely not ideal for the country as a whole because they detract from cohesion and sense of common interest and purpose. Whereas in the past assimilation was the norm (and was easy because the vast majority of immigrants were European ethnically), immigrants now are encouraged to retain their own language and culture, and they are encouraged to retrain powerful ties to their countries of origin.

Historically, this ideology of multiculturalism was the product of Jewish intellectuals (prominently Horace Kallen) designed to legitimize Jewish separateness in America while at the same time legitimizing the continuing ties between American Jews and the rest of the Diaspora. (Kallen, for example, was a strong Zionist and activist on behalf of Jews in Eastern Europe.) In the future we can expect that the US will be increasingly Balkanized as different ethnic and national groups jockey for political power in the US and seek to influence foreign policy in favor of the countries they left behind.

But I have to agree with Walt that even accepting the legitimacy of a multicultural model, people like Dennis Ross should not be allowed to have a voice within the administration. Walt points out that Ross has a long involvement with pro-Israel activist organizations, such as being director of WINEP.

But Ross’s ties to Israel are even deeper than that. Until his appointment as Middle East envoy in the Obama Administration, from 2002–2009 Ross was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. This organization has assumed the role of long term planning for the Jewish people, not only in Israel but also the Diaspora. The JPPPI is an independent think tank that reports to the Israeli government and has close ties with other Jewish organizations. Its mission is “to promote the thriving of the Jewish people via professional strategic thinking and planning on issues of primary concern to world Jewry. JPPPI’s work is based on deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people with Israel as its core state.”

The JPPPI’s report Facing Tomorrow 2008 is interesting because it focuses on the threat of Iran and but also because it sees people like Stephen Walt as a threat to Israel:

The Jewish people must, as the highest priority, develop an appropriate response to the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and to global stability as a whole. While there is no ambiguity about the need to do so in Israel, it is necessary to mobilize Jewish opinion around the world as well. The American Jewish community cannot be intimidated either by a post Iraq syndrome in the United States, or by the false and pernicious allegations of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, or former President Carter.

In other words, Jews around the world are encouraged to mobilize to combat the threat to Israel represented by Iran. The assumption is that Jews have common interests as Jews no matter what country they happen to live in. Dennis Ross is doing his best to promote exactly this view within the Obama administration.

One might think that such a view would leave Jews in the Diaspora open to the charge of disloyalty, but the problem is easily finessed: Jews in the Diaspora are told to frame Israel’s concerns about Iran as a global threat, not simply as a threat to Israel.

Of course, that’s what we are seeing now. But we needn’t be naïve. Jews like Dennis Ross are clearly far more loyal to Israel than to the US. Speaking as a psychologist, they wouldn’t be able to see a conflict of interest between the US and Israel if it was staring them in the face. Indeed, as Gore Vidal said of Norman Podhoretz, they are unregistered agents of a foreign government.

In a sane society, there would be a huge groundswell of public opposition to Ross’s appointment–as there has been for a number of Obama’s appointments. But that won’t happen.

Bookmark and Share

Eugene Terreblanche or Amy Biehl: Whites End Up Dead Either Route

/41 Comments/in /by

Despite a decade-long career as a pro-White thought criminal, I know precious little about Eugene Terreblanche, the South African political figure (“White supremacist” per the MSM) who was beaten to death by two Blacks recently.  To the media, he was an evil figure for opposing ceding power to Blacks in South Africa.  They use the word “supremacist” at every opportunity in describing him.

Recently, on a chatboard where I spar with liberals and conservatives alike on the issue of race, a poster mockingly offered me condolences on the murder of Terreblanche.  “You and your white-hooded buddies must be in mourning”, she said.

I responded with a post about Amy Biehl, the White Californian and Stanford student who traveled to South Africa as an anti-apartheid crusader.  Biehl, as it happens, met the same fate as Terreblanche:  she was brutally killed by Blacks.

Yet Biehl was at the opposite end of the spectrum, politically.  She’d gone to South Africa to “help” Blacks.  They returned the favor by beating her to death.  Her father, in an act of thoroughgoing racial groveling typical of today’s White male, forgave her killers and shook their hands.

My point:  whether a White person’s intentions toward Blacks are “good” or “bad”, it doesn’t matter.  Whites end up dead either route.  Whites imagine that Blacks distinguish between “good” and “bad” Whites, and that while a figure like Eugene Terreblanche might suffer a violent fate, a figure like Amy Biehl would be protected.  Thus, to earn their protective coating, Whites strive to be politically correct, sensitive toward Blacks, and so forth.  But Blacks aren’t thinking it through like this.  And the more Whites capitulate to Blacks, the more Blacks seem emboldened to lash out.

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

Bookmark and Share