Race Bias and Conception Risk: Implicit and Explicit Whiteness in Action

/51 Comments/in , , , /by

A recent article in a top psychology journal (“Race Bias Tracks Conception Risk Across the Menstrual Cycle” shows that women have more race bias when they are most at risk for conception. Further, it shows that race bias is even stronger if the woman feels more vulnerable to sexual coercion.

The study once again shows a difference between implicit and explicit race bias. Implicit bias is unconscious. Implicit bias was shown by subjects taking longer to associate negative words like ‘horrible’ or ‘evil’ with photos of Whites than with photos of Blacks. (You can take a similar test here to see if you have implicit biases toward Blacks; around 80% of Whites do)  The study is saying that White women are more likely to have unconscious negative thoughts about Blacks when they are ovulating and this is especially the case if they think they are vulnerable to being raped.

Explicit bias, on the other hand, is assessed by rating how strongly subjects endorse negative racial stereotypes of Blacks (e.g., ‘‘Generally, Blacks are not as smart as Whites’’; ‘‘It is likely that Blacks will bring violence to neighborhoods when they move in’’). People tend to give more socially acceptable answers on race bias items compared to their unconscious, implicit attitudes.

Usually the differences between conscious and unconscious race bias are very large — especially for liberals. Liberals are supreme hypocrites when it comes to race. My favorite is the White affirmative action officer at a university who was horrified to find that she had strong unconscious biases toward Blacks.  Unconscious biases have been shown to have subtle effects on behavior.

What was surprising here was that these White women were also more likely to explicitly endorse negative stereotypes of Blacks when they were ovulating. The effect was weaker than for unconscious attitudes, but it was in the same direction and nearly as strong as for unconscious attitudes — what statisticians call a trend.

In other words, the hormones that make them ovulate are also making them less politically correct. Their unconscious negative attitudes about Blacks are more likely to leak out in their conscious opinions. The primitive brain wins out over the politically correct censor in the higher part of the brain, so that they become more conscious of their negative attitudes toward Blacks. They would therefore be better able to consciously plan ways to avoid them.

The other two tests of race bias were also quite explicit. In fact, the strongest single predictor of conception risk was explicitly stated fear of Black males. The subjects rated how “scary” photos of Black men and White men were. In general, these White women found photos of Black men scarier around the time they are ovulating — especially if they feel vulnerable to rape.

This shows that despite all the propaganda to the contrary, White women retain defensive attitudes — both consciously and unconsciously — about Blacks as potential rapists. The authors suggest that this psychological mechanism may work by being sensitive to the stereotype that Blacks are dangerous. In other words, White women’s evolutionary psychology is making them behave adaptively based on the stereotype that Blacks are more likely to rape. It works by making them avoid Black men, especially if they are ovulating and especially if they are in a situation where there is a danger of rape. And it is making them more conscious of the real threats posed by Black men and less likely to suppress these attitudes in order to be socially acceptable.

Of course, the stereotype has more than a grain of truth: The 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report show that though Blacks are only 12.4% of the US population, they commit 33.6% of the rapes of White females.

Bookmark and Share

Trudie Pert on Birthright Israel

/56 Comments/in , , , /by

Trudie Pert’s current TOO article “Birthright Israel: A Model Ethnic Charity” shows once again that, despite being pillars of multicultural righteousness, the laws of political correctness do not apply to the organized Jewish community. As noted in the article, Charles Bronfman, one of the largest funders of Birthright, obviously has a deep attachment to Jewish DNA. Birthright has successfully raised the percentage of Jews who marry Jews to 72%. Given that the program will reach one third of young Jews and given that a lot of Jews who don’t go are from the more conservative wings of Judaism who are not in need of a program like this or have already been to Israel, it suggests a major effect on retaining the ethnic basis of Judaism in the Diaspora. It reminds us that for the early Zionists, the main reason for establishing Israel was to preserve Jewish DNA:

[These] Jewish racial Zionists, such as Arthur Ruppin … were motivated by the fear that Diaspora Judaism would lose its biological uniqueness as a result of pressures for intermarriage and assimilation.

Among the Zionists, the racialists won the day. Ruppin’s ideas on the necessity of preserving Jewish racial purity have had a prominent place in the Jabotinsky wing of Zionism, including especially the Likud party in Israel and its leaders—people like Ariel Sharon, Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir. (Here’s a photo of Sharon speaking to a Likud Party convention in 2004 under a looming photo of Jabotinsky.) Jabotinsky believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.”  As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”

Israel is obviously living up to its intended function of preserving Jewish DNA — not only in Israel, but via Birthright, in the Diaspora as well.

The other important point about Pert’s article is the complete lack of this sort of thinking by wealthy White philanthropists. Bill Gates gives billions to non-Whites and actually excludes Whites — even poor Whites — from applying for his aid programs. Gates and other wealthy Whites are behaving according to conventional attitudes of multicultural America, reaping the public acclaim in the media and doubtless feeling morally righteous. (Again, George Gilder’s sense of moral righteousness comes to mind.) We have to change all that.

Bookmark and Share

Tom Sunic: Announcing Postmorten Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity

/31 Comments/in /by

Author: Tomislav Sunic
Foreword: Kevin MacDonald
Title: Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity (Collected Essays)
ISBN: 978-0-9561835-2-1
Pages: 224
Imprint: The Palingenesis Project
Publication: 11 February 2010
List Price: £14.99
Edition: Paperback
Publisher’s Webpage
Amazon Webpage
 
Tomislav Sunic is one of the leading scholars and exponents of the European New Right. A prolific writer and accomplished linguist in Croatian, English, French, and German, his thought synthesizes the ideas of Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Vilfredo Pareto, and Alain de Benoist, among others, exhibiting an elitist, neo-pagan, traditionalist sensibility. A number of themes have emerged in his cultural criticism: religion, cultural pessimism, race and the Third Reich, liberalism and democracy, and multiculturalism and communism. This book collects Dr. Sunic’s best essays of the past decade, treating topics that relate to these themes. From the vantage point of a European observer who has experienced the pathology of liberalism and communism on both sides of the Iron Curtain, Dr. Sunic offers incisive insights into Western and post-communist societies and culture. Always erudite and at times humorous, this highly readable postmortem report on the death of the West offers a refreshing, alternative perspective to what is usually found in the cavaderous Freudo-Marxian scholasticism that rots in the dank catacombs of postmodern academia.

Bookmark and Share

The Kvetcher, the ADL, and David Duke

/55 Comments/in , , , , /by

Patrick Cleburne over at VDARE.com has done a great job publicizing the Kvetcher’s comments on the enthusiasm of the organized Jewish community for displacing Whites. The oddity here is that Kvetcher is not only Jewish but rather blatantly Jewish.  Kvetcher gets it — he understands that people who advocate for Whites have absolutely normal human concerns about their future and that the ADL and the HIAS are pushing a hostile and aggressive Jewish ethnic agenda that should be abhorrent to every White person in America.

The ADL advertizes this quote from Duke as symptomatic of Duke’s vicious hatred:

As America is transformed from a 90 percent European American nation, as it was in the 1960s, to one where we will soon be a minority, should we not ask some pertinent questions? Is this racial diversity enriching, or will it be damaging to our social fabric?

The Kvetcher writes:

How is this not a good question? What does this say about the ADL and its donors that they cite this as a proof of how evil David Duke is?

Is this about “fighting anti-semitism,” or is this about the ADL’s attempt to smear anyone who questions the ADL’s fanatical goal of a white minority (as soon as possible) as a white supremacist?

Exactly. For the ADL, David Duke is the supreme bogeyman. The very first move that Jewish activists (including the ADL’s Abe Foxman) made in their campaign to discredit Mearsheimer and Walt was to solicit Duke’s approval of their writing — and Duke’s approval was then dutifully published throughout the mainstream media, from the Washington Post to the New York Sun and the Wall Street Journal.

It’s simply ridiculous to go after Duke because he deplores the fact that a powerful set of interests like the organized Jewish community has a fanatical goal of displacing Whites. But using Duke is doubtless very effective as a fundraising tool for the ADL and the $PLC.

The pathetic thing is that we get excited when we find a Jew who has the temerity to stand up to his own community on an issue like immigration, much less race. Non-Jews are well aware of the very powerful forces that will come down on them if they advocate for the interests of Whites or defend anything that Duke has ever said. The vast majority of Whites tremble at the very thought of challenging anything the ADL says for fear of being branded a racist or anti-Semite and then having to wonder if they will have a job next week. Kvetcher presumably doesn’t have to worry about that.

It’s good that the Kvetcher is writing like this, but he obviously has a very long way to go to really change things in the organized Jewish community.

Bookmark and Share

Birthright Israel: A Model Ethnic Charity

/1 Comment/in /by

Taglit-Birthright Israel, a Zionist charity that provides free 10 day trips for young Jewish adults to visit Israel, celebrated its tenth anniversary in January.  Shortly before the creation of the charity, American Jewish college students were asked to name the top 20 countries they would most like to visit.  Israel did not make the list at all and prominent American Jews became alarmed. Too few young Jews seemed to care much about Israel, and about religious observances, and too many of them married non-Jews.  Also of concern was the lack of growth in the Jewish population worldwide — stagnant between 1970 and 2000, at 13 million.

Birthright was created to correct these problems. One of the co-founders of Birthright, Michael Steinhardt, stated at the initiation ceremony of the organization, “We are at a crucial juncture in the history of the Jewish people, a time when we must do everything possible to strengthen young people’s connection to their culture and religion.”

In the 10 years since its creation, over 250,000 young Jews from 52 countries of the Jewish Diaspora have visited Israel through the Birthright program.  Seventy five percent of them have been American.  The organization hopes to bring 27,000 young people to Israel this year, a 20% increase from previous years.  It is estimated that at current rates 1/3 of American Jews born since 1995 will go on Birthright trips by their 27th birthdays.  The program is open to all young Jewish adults, ages 18 to 26, who have never traveled to Israel, or lived there past the age of 12.  Participants must have at least one Jewish parent and not be practicing another religion.  Its founders hope that the trips will inspire those who are non-observant and in danger of assimilation to strengthen their identification with Judaism, to discourage intermarriage, to create a stronger Jewish community worldwide, and to increase allegiance to Israel.”Taglit” is Hebrew for discovery, and young Jews are supposed to discover their racial and religious essence through contact with the land of Israel.  “Birthright,” refers to the right of each Jew to belong to the tribe and the right to settle in the land of Israel.

The deep concern about the ethnic basis of Judaism can be seen in this statement by Charles Bronfman, a main sponsor of Birthright Israel, on why encouraging Jewish identification and Jewish marriage is so important: “You can live a perfectly decent life not being Jewish, but I think you’re losing a lot—losing the kind of feeling you have when you know [that] throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.”(Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2000).

The elite trips are organized by various private Israeli companies accredited by Taglit-Birthright, which sets the educational and security standards. Tours vary according to age, degree of religiosity, and interests of the participants. One of the required features of the trip is a 5–10 day encounter with Israeli peers, especially soldiers serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, who join the tours. Over 30,000 Israeli soldiers have taken part in the program, disseminating a strong Zionist message.

The itineraries include visits to historical, religious and cultural sites around the country. The required sites are chosen for their emotional pull to Jewish historical memory as a long history of persecution: the Western Wall (the remnant of the Temple destroyed by the Romans), Yad Vashem (the Holocaust memorial), and Masada (the last stronghold of Jews battling against the Romans in 73 AD). There are five central themes: contemporary Israel, the narrative of the Jewish people, their values, their arts and culture, and the Jewish calendar (most importantly, the Sabbath).  Completion of the trips is celebrated by a huge “Mega event.”

This year’s Mega event brought together young Jews from 52 countries, musicians, Israeli luminaries, and benefactors. (Mega event highlights can be viewed at:  www.BirthrightIsrael.com ) The music is hip, the attractive young soldiers are dancing, and the audience participation is loudly enthusiastic.  With great emotion, Israeli President Simon Perez tells the enormous crowd that they are in “a family reunion of Jewish youth. Each of you is so precious, and we don’t have enough of you!” He states that it is “difficult to be a Jew, but it’s great” and points out that “we are always struggling. He concludes by saying, “let’s be together forever.” Also speaking are the largest benefactors of the charity: Michael Steinhardt, Charles Bronfman, and Lynn Schusterman.  Forbes Magazine includes all three in its yearly listing of billionaires.

[adrotate group=”1″]

An additional speaker at the most recent Mega event was Natan Sharansky, former world chess champion, who once served ten years in a Soviet Siberian labor camp for treason and spying for the US.  Because the Americans considered him a human rights spokesman, he was awarded the US Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush and the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. (Present at that ceremony were Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, and Cindy McCain.)  Thereafter, Sharansky became a pillar of the political right in Israel, opposing plans to withdraw from the settlements in Gaza and taking a hard line on the Palestinians.  He has made Jewish Peoplehood a priority and is director of the Israeli Diaspora Museum, a required stop on the 10 day Birthright Israel trip. According to him, “Birthright is one of the brightest ideas in Jewish history.”

Judging by the responses of some of the participants who were interviewed at the Mega event, Sharansky seems to be right.  Typical responses include: “It made me feel like I was taking part in something bigger than myself.” “Too many times during the trip, I found myself speechless, and by the end of the trip, I found myself connected to the State of Israel and even more a Jew.” “Coming to Israel and learning more about why being Jewish was special really changed my view of myself and my life. A year ago I would have never believed that I would be on a program like this — or be wanting to marry a Jewish girl — my whole perspective on life and on Judaism has changed because of Birthright”.

A study released at the same time as the 10 year Birthright celebration is the first to describe the long range impact of the program.  The results are quite spectacular. The report by the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University is based on responses of interviews with 1,223 participants of the program between 2001 and 2004. The study found that of those who are now married 72% had a Jewish spouse, compared to 46% of married non-participants. 73% said that Birthright was a “life changing” experience.” Participants were 23% more likely to say that they felt “very” connected to world Jewry.  And those on campus were much more likely to come to Israel’s defense in student and class discussions.

Steve Cohen, a sociologist who specializes in American Jewish life, described the current situation for Jews as “a race between intermarriage and Birthright.” The study found that 52% of intermarried Birthright participants said that raising their kids as Jews is “very important,” compared to 27% of inter-married non-participants. Birthright participants are 12% more likely than non-participants to have a special meal on the Sabbath (an important indicator of “Jewishness”). 

These figures are quite astonishing if one considers that they pertain mainly to secularized Jews.  Devout Jews from observant families who have traveled to Israel were not eligible for the trip because many have participated in post-high school year-in-Israel yeshiva programs and are not in need of assistance to prevent assimilation.  For the great majority of secular young Jews, however, Birthright Israel is an inspired idea which has been enormously successful in promoting Jewish identification.

To encourage networking among its alumni Birthright Israel has begun an alumni outreach program called, “Birthright Israel Next.” According to the Executive Director of Birthright Israel Next, “behavior is only going to change through relationship building.  Young American Jews don’t feel comfortable in existing institutions like synagogues.” One of Birthright Israel Next’s ideas is to organize free Sabbath dinners. Birthright Israel Next will pay $18 per person for up to 16 people for Birthright Alumni to host a Sabbath dinner at their homes, thus encouraging young fellow Jews to continue to participate in Jewish life. Over 700 have now done so.

Not only do many of the participants in Birthright Israel become more Jewish, some of them actually become American-Israelis. The State of Israel, one of the benefactors of the charity, generally encourages Diaspora Jews to immigrate to Israel.  When the Jewish Agency, which is in charge of Israel’s relationship with world Jewry, sends officials to speak to Birthright groups, many stress the possibility of living in Israel.  In addition, all of Birthright’s tour guides are Israeli and personally support immigration.  If an American Jew decides to live in Israel (full or part time), he will not lose his American citizenship and can easily add an Israel citizenship.  Under the Israeli ‘Law of Return” an American of Jewish origin going to Israel becomes an Israeli citizen automatically unless he declines the offer.  In the future, dual citizenship for a great many Jewish Americans, even for a majority, seems inevitable.  Also inevitable will be the growing problem of divided loyalties.

As stated above Birthright Israel was designed to raise $100 million per year from a small group of donors: the Israeli government, the American Jewish Federations, and private donors. (Additional funding also comes from the German government – Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany.)  In practice, the program has relied most heavily on its founders and principal donors, Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman.

One ought to give credit where credit is due, and obviously Birthright is an inspired Jewish idea and its philanthropic donors most generous for a Jewish cause. Although it’s easy to find wealthy Jews who contribute to Jewish causes that strengthen Jewish identification and prevent intermarriage, this is definitely not the case with non-Jews.

Three non-Jew billionaires come to mind for their philanthropic contributions. Ted Turner has donated huge amounts to the United Nations for environmental study and population limitation.  Turner is America’s largest private landowner, owning 2 million acres — greater than the areas of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.  Bill Gates has just donated a vast sum to be used to develop vaccines for AIDS and other African diseases.  In the past, he has also set aside millions for inner city education. However, the Millenium Scholarship financed by his foundation explicitly denies eligibility to White children. Warren Buffett has donated several billion to the Gates Foundation.

Recipients of Bill Gates Millenium Scholarships

Imagine for a moment that a program were created called “Birthright Europe,” in which every young adult of the Euro-White Diaspora had the opportunity to travel to Europe for 10 days in order to visit European sites of historical, religious, and artistic significance, to befriend White Europeans, to learn to appreciate the superiority of his European culture, and thus to decide to marry only Whites.  Would Turner or Gates or Buffett give the enormous amounts necessary for great numbers of vulnerable young Whites to travel to Europe to develop pride of race and heritage?

The reason many may laugh at the improbability of this suggestion is because they cannot fathom a wealthy person of European heritage helping his own kind. Jewish philanthropists come from the tradition of taking care of one’s own, and are very influenced by the strong religious imperative for individualized charitable giving called “tzedakah.” The highest form of charity in Judaism is to help sustain a fellow Jew by offering him a substantial gift in a dignified manner before he becomes impoverished.

Birthright Israel, as its website states, is a gift to young Jews. It is a benevolence given to them before they become impoverished by assimilation. Or, as a Jewish campus organization states, “With only about 14 million Jews remaining in the world, the Jewish community has genuine fears of extinction, so there’s a certain urgency about keeping Jewish traditions alive and teaching them to the next generation.” According to a site describing the program, “the founders of Birthright felt it was their moral obligation to touch the lives of those people whom no one was touching.”

For Jews, charity begins at home. For Whites, charity is misplaced everywhere else.

Trudie Pert is a pen name.  Email her.

Why Has Mahler Become a Cultural Icon?

/41 Comments/in , , /by

R. J. Stove has a delightful article on Mahler posted at the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation:

The Mahler symphonies … get me out of here. I keep surreptitiously cheering Kingsley Amis’s verdict “Mahler lacks talent even more spectacularly than he lacks genius.” …

The leap in Mahler’s stature from near-oblivion in 1960 (when, as Britain’s Spectatornoted on January 13, “[H]is impact on the general public was roughly the equivalent of, say, [Poland’s Karol] Szymanowski today”) to deification after that date, has little or nothing to do with musical merits and almost everything to do with external considerations.

And what might these external circumstances be?

Once it became widely known that Mahler had lamented being “a Bohemian in Austria, an Austrian in Germany, and a Jew in the world,” his identity-politics credentials became the aesthetic equivalent of a nuclear warhead, lacking only homosexuality to complete his posthumous triumph.

With the exception of a few musicians enthralled with the challenge of playing his music, the people who love Mahler love him because of who he is, not because they enjoy listening to his music.

Mahler has been the subject of TOO articles by E. R. E. Knutsson and Elizabeth Whitcombe. Knutsson described the Jewishness of Mahler’s music in the context of the fin de siècle cultural scene of Vienna: “It has been arguedthat Mahler’s music has links back to the Hasidic music of Eastern European ghettos of the eighteenth century in which dance music is deployed as a remedy to misery.” An anti-Jewish critic at the complained, “What I find so utterly repellent about Mahler’s music is the pronounced Jewishness of its underlying character. … It is abhorrent to me because it speaks Yiddish. In other words it speaks the language of German music but with an accent, with the intonation and above all with the gestures of the Easterner, the all-too-Eastern Jew.”

Whitcombe links Mahler to T. W. Adorno: “Adorno claimed that the bourgeois musical world was repressing Mahler’s work because Mahler shunned ‘moderate peacefulness.’ In Adorno’s words: ‘The genuine significance of Mahler that can be discovered for today lies in the very violence with which he broke out of the same musical space that today wants to forget him’ (Mahler Today,” 1930).”

Stove’s comment does not get into the details of how Mahler became so important. I suspect that an argument can be made that Mahler’s incredible success since the 1960s has to do with ethnic networking and with peculiarly Jewish attitudes toward culture. The topic deserves a full treatment.

Mahler’s visibility these days is truly phenomenal. Leon Botstein labels Mahler “the most visible figure from the high-art classical music tradition since Mozart.” Whereas in the 1930s Adorno complained that Mahler was on the verge of being forgotten, by the 1960s the intellectual landscape had changed dramatically, bringing to the fore the intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique, including Adorno’s Frankfurt School.  By several accounts, the two most important advocates of Mahler during the 1960s were Adorno and conductor Leonard Bernstein. Adorno’s campaign on behalf of Mahler did not bear fruit until his influential 1960 book Mahler: A Musical Physiognamy. An historian notes, “The effect [of Adorno’s book] on the cultivated, on many musicologists, on composers, has been immense.” The Culture of Critique shows that Adorno had a strong Jewish identity and a hostility toward traditional Western culture (viewed as inevitably leading to fascism and anti-Semitism) that colored all of his writing.  In his view, Mahler was attractive because he was the antithesis of the traditional muscial culture of the West. (The same can be said of Adorno’s attempt to promote Arnold Schoenberg; see TOO’s Knutsson and Whitcombe.)  Re Bernstein, Botstein notes that “Bernstein was Mahler’s most prodigious advocate in the seminal 1960s…. Bernstein implicitly set Mahler’s ambivalence to his fate as a Jew alongside his own proud assertion of Jewish identity and faith.”

The result was that Mahler has become a sainted icon of the new culture — another example of Jewish genius. Even if no one really enjoys listening to his music.

Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly’s "Farewell, My Dear WASP"

/94 Comments/in , , , /by

Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article “Farewell, My Dear WASP” again raises the conundrum of why the WASPs collectively abdicated their position of power in the US. He mentions the Stockholm Syndrome and other possibilities — all of which should provide for an interesting discussion here. What strikes me most is the quote from Scott McConnell’s review:

While trying to impress an older girl, his summer tutor in Greek, he blurted out something mildly anti-Semitic. The young woman dryly replied that she was in fact “a New York Jew.” Gilder was mortified. He relates that he has never quite gotten over the episode. It is the kind of thing a sensitive person might long remember. Variations on this pattern are not uncommon in affluent WASP circles to this day: guilt or embarrassment at some stupid but essentially trivial episode of social anti-Semitism serve as a spur for fervent embrace of Likud-style Zionism. Atonement.

This severe proneness to guilt has always struck me as the defining feature of the Puritan strand of American culture. And with excessive guilt comes moralistic aggression aimed at ingroups and outgroups alike. As I noted elsewhere, the Puritans have a unique ethnic background among Anglo-Saxons generally. They have a strong tendency toward moral idealism, whether expressed as opposition to slavery in the 19th century, or as anti-anti-Semitism in the 21st. Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins — perhaps a form of altruistic punishment as the term is used in the scientific literature.

Once Europeans were convinced that their own people were morally bankrupt, any and all means of punishment should be used against their own people. Rather than see other Europeans as part of an encompassing ethnic and tribal community, fellow Europeans were seen as morally blameworthy and the appropriate target of altruistic punishment. For Westerners, morality is individualistic—violations of communal norms . . . are punished by altruistic aggression.

And since Gilder has never quite forgiven himself for a minor ethnic slur, he has become a soldier on behalf of righteousness. Like a Puritan magistrate of old, he is ready to do battle against the sinners among his own people. Of course, in the current environment, people like Gilder also benefit in terms of fame and fortune. But their feelings of moral righteousness make them feel good about what they are doing. Happiness for a Puritan is when self-interest coincides with a feeling of moral righteousness.

Once Jewish intellectuals achieved the moral high ground in the US and elsewhere, people like Gilder lost their resolve to defend their own ethnic interests; the game was over. Fundamentally, we have to stamp out Puritanism among Whites, or at least find a form of therapy for people like Gilder:

Given this state of affairs, what sorts of therapy might one suggest? To an evolutionary psychologist, this moralistic aggression seems obviously adaptive for maintaining the boundaries and policing the behavior of a close-knit group.  … Groups of Angles, Jutes, and their Puritan descendants doubtlessly benefited greatly from moralistic aggression  because of its effectiveness in enforcing group norms and punishing cheaters and defectors. There is nothing inherently wrong with moralistic aggression. The key is to convince whites to alter their moralistic aggression in a more adaptive direction in light of Darwinism. 

The ultimate irony is that without altruistic whites willing to be morally outraged by violations of multicultural ideals, the multicultural New Jerusalem is likely to revert to a Darwinian struggle for survival among the remnants. But the high-minded descendants of the Puritans [like George Gilder] won’t be around to witness it.

Bookmark and Share