Kevin MacDonald

Posts

The Republicans’ Temporary Reprieve

To listen to pundits like Rush Limbaugh, one would think that the Republicans had died and gone to heaven. Getting a strong majority in the House and picking up several seats in the Senate certainly sends a message. But they shouldn’t get too comfortable.

The Republicans had their big day because Whites were a larger percentage of the electorate than in 2008 and because they were more inclined to vote for Republicans. Comparing the CNN exit polls for House races in 2008 and 2010 is revealing. In 2008, Whites were 74% of the electorate and voted 53% Republican, 45% Democrat.  In 2010, Whites were 78% of the electorate and voted 60% Republican and 37% Democrat. (The White category includes a substantial percentage of Jews and Middle Easterners who do not identify as White and tend overwhelmingly to vote Democrat.) Read more

Geert Wilders’ Unrequited Love

Geert Wilders loves Israel. He lived there for two years in his youth and sees it as a bastion of the West in a sea of Muslim barbarism: For example:

“If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism. There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan.” He called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.

Wilders also includes Judaism as part of the European cultural tradition, expressing his desire that “the European Judaeo-Christian tradition to be formally recognised as the dominating culture.”

Wilders also rejects certain elements of the right that are particularly offensive to Jews:

‘My allies are not Le Pen or Haider,’ he emphasises. ‘We’ll never join up with the fascists and Mussolinis of Italy. I’m very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.’ Dutch iconoclasm, Scandinavian insistence on free expression, the right to provoke are what drive him, he says.

One would think then that Wilders would be popular among Jews, but he is not. It’s one thing to support Israel, but the problem is that he has the outlandish idea that Europe should be for Europeans and that immigration from Muslim countries should be halted.  Read more

Why Are Professors Liberal?

Richard Redding’s LA Times op-ed,  “It’s Diverse If You Are Liberal” comes to the shocking conclusion that conservative viewpoints are excluded from college campuses. Who’d have thought? Indeed, “most [students] did not think it entirely safe to hold unpopular opinions on campus.”

Intellectual diversity is what schools value least. Instead, it is only diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation — all of which are very desirable, to be sure — that rules the day in higher education. This agenda dominates higher education in faculty hiring, student admissions, curricula, student life programs and virtually every other aspect of college life.

Redding must establish his bona fides by genuflecting before the gods of the “very desirable” forms of diversity. What if the conservative faculty he thinks would be a great addition turn out to really hate all this other diversity—as a real (at this point, revolutionary) conservative would?

I have a recent article on this, in The Occidental Quarterly—soon to be available online to subscribers. (Hint.) Redding notes that conservative students are at a disadvantage because “conservative students lack academic role models, have more distant relationships with their professors and have fewer opportunities to do research with professors (particularly on sociopolitical issues).” Read more

Rabbi Yosef’s Statement: “Goyim were born only to serve us”

A strong sense of Jewish racial superiority can be seen in some recent statements by Israeli Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef as well as quite a bit of other similar material.

The JTA article on the rabbi’s statement includes this disclaimer:

The American Jewish Committee condemned the rabbi’s remarks in a statement issued Monday.

“Rabbi Yosef’s remarks — suggesting outrageously that Jewish scripture asserts non-Jews exist to serve Jews — are abhorrent and an offense to human dignity and human equality,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. “Judaism first taught the world that all individuals are created in the divine image, which helped form the basis of our moral code. A rabbi should be the first, not the last, to reflect that bedrock teaching of our tradition.”

Which goes to show how easy it is for the Jewish community to project whatever image it desires–no matter what the facts. Americans and other Westerners have been long indoctrinated with the view that Jewish ethics are universalist, so the AJC’s statement will have a ring of truth for most readers, Jews and non-Jews alike. Indeed, the AJC statement implies that Judaism made an irreplaceable contribution to universalist ethics.

The transformation of Jewish ethics to a veneer of universalism was an important project of the 19th-century attempt to present Judaism as on a par with Christianity.  In doing so, it trampled on a great deal of its own history. As John Murray Cuddihy noted, “these Diaspora groups were uninterested in actual history; they were apologists, ideologists, prefabricating a past in order to answer embarrassing questions, to outfit a new identity, and to ground a claim to equal treatment in the modern world” (The Ordeal of Civility, p. 177). Read more

Jewish Liberals and Israel: Managing the Enemy

Philip Weiss expressed his surprise that “liberal” rabbis would support buying products produced at a West Bank settlement. Of course, this is not too surprising, and one of his readers called him on it.  In the reader’s experience, there are plenty of rabbis who are

progressive on issues such as labor, immigration, environment, capital punishment, etc. …  They say they feel for the plight of the Palestinians, but when it comes to any real challenge to the status quo, such as BDS in any form, they are not to be found. Their voices during the Lebanon and Gaza invasions were there in mild, but very mild, criticism. They spend most of their time on the Middle East “reaching out to our Muslim brothers.” I must say they are very supportive of Muslim groups and Islamic mosques when it comes to anti-Muslim discrimination. But, there is an unstated and sometimes stated price for these folks to pay, which is “be gentle on Israel, be critical of certain measures, such as house demolitions, but be understanding in general.”

Since I work with the same Muslim groups, going back several years ago I found their deference to their “liberal Jewish friends who are so supportive of us” to be very frustrating. But, fortunately, these are not foolish people and they have now seen the ploy. As a result, while interfaith dialogue between liberal Jewish clergy and Muslims still exists, it is pretty much window dressing and Muslim groups are much more outspoken on Palestinian issues. But, in conclusion, liberal/progressive Jewish clergy in the LA area set back support for Palestinian rights like Wiesenthal Center, ADL and AIPAC never could; and I believe that was their role.

In my experience, it’s the same with secular Jewish academics: constantly reaching out to all non-White groups, including Muslims, and advocating all things multi-cultural. Paragons of tolerance and moral uplift, they are quick to make minor criticisms of Israel but never suggest that the US government or American Jews abandon their support for Israel or seriously question the settlement project. Their goal is to seek Muslim cooperation in the assault on White America while channeling Muslim outrage at Israel to manageable levels. In faculty email debates, the Jewish professors do all the talking, while their Muslim colleagues defer to them. So there were no peeps of protest by the Muslims when the Jewish activist professors ignored my suggestion that they channel all that moral outrage at intolerance, violations of human rights, and ethnic cleansing by directing their activism at changing policy in Israel. Read more

Rob Lonaker on 9/11

Kevin MacDonald: Rob Lonaker’s current TOO article “9/11: Media Ignores Evidence for WTC Explosives” was a difficult editorial decision. I have long been very sympathetic to the idea that Israel knew about 9/11 in advance. This was based on reliable descriptions of the Israeli filming crew and the art students, as briefly summarized in the article. But I was very reluctant to go further into 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, I decided that the common denominator here is huge pressure on the media from Jewish activist organizations to prevent discussion and a full investigation—even when there was presumptive evidence of Israeli foreknowledge—and that always rankles me.

The question, as always, is: What do they have to hide? Pressure against public discussion of Jewish issues is very common: the role of neocons in promoting the Iraq war, the bombing of the USS Liberty, the power of Jews in the media and the political process in the US and throughout the West, role of the organized Jewish community in promoting massive non-White immigration and multiculturalism in the West,  the status and role of Jews in the early decades of the USSR, the causes of historical anti-Semitism, and on and on.

There is definitely a logic whereby Israel and its agents had a huge motive to ensure maximum destruction. So if they knew about it in advance, then it is not much of a leap to suppose that they went further and made sure that the attack would be a success. I am not concluding that this is what happened, only arguing that it should be investigated by an impartial commission.

Anyway, the point of this post is simply to solicit commentary on this issue. Let the chips fall where they may.

Two Recent Ventings against Whites: Bill Maher and Gregory Rodriguez

I have always disliked Bill Maher, partly because of his over-the-top smarminess and partly because this White-hating liberal had the audacity to call one of his shows “Politically Incorrect.” His recent column on the pathetic Bret Favre suddenly veers off into a celebration of the imminent eclipse of White males. “Brett Favre is like a lot of white males: he’s owned the world for so long, he’s going a little crazy now that he doesn’t.”

The unthinkable is happening. White penises (sic) are becoming the minority: 2010 was the first year in which more minority babies were born in the U.S. than white babies. This is what conservatives are really upset about — that the president is black, and the best golfer is black, and the Secretary of State is a woman, and suddenly this country is way off track and needs some serious ‘restoring.’

Right. We are really pissed off about it and we want our country back. Nothing wrong with that. I’d like Maher to name any other group of people who didn’t find their own eclipse a bit scary, especially when so many people like Maher seem absolutely ecstatic about it and especially when so many of the people displacing them have such hatred for Whites.

You have to read his column to see the scatological depths to which he descends, but let’s just say he has nothing but contempt for his subjects. Which brings up why he should have such contempt for White males since most people would classify him as a White male. Turns out his father is Irish and his mother Jewish, and that he self-identifies as half Jewish. Maybe that has something to do with it, since it’s well known that the organized Jewish community and the great majority of Jews strongly support the displacement of Whites via non-White immigration. A pity he can’t think like the Irishmen who resisted English colonization for centuries. Read more