Kevin MacDonald

Tag Archive for: Kevin MacDonald

Tom Sunic’s "Camp of the Holy Ghosts"

/21 Comments/in , , , /by

Tom Sunic’s “Camp of the Holy Ghosts” raises a number of important issues. Should White advocates curry favor with Zionists in the hope of getting Jewish support for their aims? Sunic thinks not: “Such pathetic comments by the Vlaams Belang or the BNP, and by some American White advocates, won’t help their White constituents in the long run, nor will they appease their Jewish detractors.”

I suspect that is correct. The only reason the organized Jewish community would really get behind White advocacy in a quid pro quo for support of Zionism would be if White advocacy already had substantial power — which it does not. Jewish power and influence will be directed at supporting their own ethnostate of Israel and dispossessing Whites in the Diaspora for exactly as long as that strategy continues to work. If White activism makes headway, Jews will certainly attempt to participate in order to promote Jewish interests within that new environment.

If this is the case, then it certainly makes sense for at least some factions of White advocacy to continue to document and critique the role of Jewish power and influence in the dispossession of Whites, if only in the interest of historical accuracy. But I also think that Whites who understand Jewish influence are simply more aware of how things work and therefore less likely to succumb to Jewish ideologies like neoconservatism as a solution for White dispossession. For example, it horrifies me that even people like Glenn Beck — probably the most implicitly White mainstream conservative and regarded as an extremist by the ADL — is nevertheless solidly in favor of legal immigration:”I’m not a racist. [Illegal immigration] isn’t to be confused with legal immigration.”

Another important point in Sunic’s article is the contrast between Catholicism in Eastern and Western Europe:

The Catholic Church in Central and Eastern Europe is a projection of local White national identity and not so much the symbol of spiritual salvation. Catholic Poland, Slovakia, Croatia and Hungary take special pride in calling themselves “antemurale cristianitatis”, or “antimurale occidentis — i,e,, the “bulwark of Christianity” and the “rampart of the West” — first against Turkic Islamic invaders, then against godless communism.  Seen in retrospect, communist repression in Eastern Europe strengthened the role of the Catholic Church and the White consciousness of its congregation. By contrast, in Western Europe the liberal system is now quickly turning the Catholic Church into a multiracial clearing house.

Catholicism and Christianity in general have been harnessed to the power of the multicultural left which has reigned supreme since WWII. The power and influence of the multicultural left has permeated all aspects of Western intellectual and political life, including all mainstream Christian sects. But there is nothing inherent in Christianity that implies that it will inevitably cooperate in the suicide of the West. What is needed is to change the secular power structure and to actively encourage ethnically defensive forms of Christianity.

Bookmark and Share

Further Evidence for the Racial Polarization of American Politics

/24 Comments/in , , , , /by

Recent election trends clearly indicate an increasing White disenchantment with the Democrats, especially among the working class. The enraged Whites who are expressing themselves in the tax revolts, tea parties, and town hall meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class.  Ronald Brownstein points out that their incomes have been stagnating or declining for years, even during periods of economic expansion of the Bush years. Bush did nothing for the White working class, but still only 40% voted for Obama.

The Democratic vote among Whites in 2010 will probably be quite a bit lower than in the next election. In Massachusetts there was a huge shift from 2008 to 2010: In the 2008 presidential election, working class Whites voted overwhelmingly for Obama: 75% for incomes between $30-50K; 65% for incomes between $50-75K. But Brownstein notes that 60% voted for Scott Brown.  Moreover,

Much of the Democrats’ distress among blue-collar whites results from long-term changes that have re-sorted the electorate more along the lines of cultural values than of economic interests. These working-class voters, mostly conservative on cultural and foreign-policy issues, have moved toward the GOP …. But the disaffection from Democrats among blue-collar whites is especially severe now. That is probably because their financial pain has intensified. (The unemployment rate among this group, at 10.4 percent, is well over twice the level for college-educated whites.) Polls suggest that these voters have focused their discontent more at government than at business.

One can’t help thinking that “cultural values” is a code word for implicit Whiteness. No matter what they say to the pollsters, it’s hard to believe that concerns about foreign policy or gay marriage really trump economic issues in a group that has been the most negatively affected by all the economic shifts of recent decades, including mass immigration. Indeed, the shift is apparent in all White groups: “In opinion polls, college-educated white men, always a tough group for the party, are hardening in opposition; college-educated white women, Democrats’ best constituency among whites, are softening in support.”

It’s often said of Jews that they earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans. Now, as ethnic interests become central even for Whites, economic interests are an increasingly poor predictor for everyone. Working class Whites vote Republican just like the Episcopalians— their cultural values are to vote along with people like themselves. Similarly, non-Whites vote Democrat whether they are successful Asians and Jews or Blacks and Latinos at the bottom of the economic ladder. Their cultural values are to vote against the Republicans at least because they see the Republicans as the party of Whites.  These trends have been apparent for some time, but there seems to be increasing polarization now.

Quite a few people anticipated that an Obama presidency would produce an upsurge of White identity — that an Obama Administration would be a clear harbinger of the non-White future of America. They were right. Many Whites got caught up in the emotion of the election — the feeling of moral righteousness of putting America’s racial past behind us. But the party is over and the Obama administration is in shambles. I can’t imagine that anything like amnesty for illegal immigrants would be possible now.

If, as seems likely, the Republicans get 70% or more of the White vote in the 2010 elections, the media is going to have to confront the racial polarization of American politics. It’s definitely not the multicultural future envisioned by the activists on the multicultural left and the mainstream media for the last 40 years. If there is a racially lopsided vote, we’ll hear a lot of talk about racist Whites. But at some point, thoughtful people will realize that it is entirely legitimate for Whites to want to retain control of their country, and explicit expressions of White identity and interests will begin to be heard whether the media wants to hear them or not. And that’s all to the good.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Michael Colhaze on Art

/15 Comments/in /by

Kevin MacDonald: I want to welcome new writer Michael Colhaze to TOO. His current article — written with elegance and passion — is a worthy successor to Lasha Darkmoon’s earlier TOO articles on the pathologies of the art world. Colhaze points out that becoming a famous artist is like winning a lottery where only psychopaths need bother to enter:

Among thousands of candidates, both academics or naturals, all waiting eagerly for a hint from the established Modern art Mafia, now and then one is chosen. Since he is, just like his many contenders, about as gifted as a bedbug, nobody with a sane mind would assume that considerations of artistic merit ever played a part. What counts is a rigorous talent for self-representation, unfettered by the smallest grain of aesthetics or ethics, an inborn and unlimited vulgarity, and the stated objective to be the most ruthless Judas Iscariot to the Fine Arts that ever set foot on our sacred earth.

This lottery of the psychopaths has special import for Colhaze because his son is entering into the field of art. It must be especially difficult for a parent to deal with the prospects of a son entering a field where artistic talent is not rewarded and where success is determined by a whimsical elite whose only prerequisite is psychopathy among the lucky few whom they promote.

Similar thoughts, with slight variations (e.g., a son who wants to become a professor in the humanities or social sciences where cultural Marxism is de rigueur), must be on the minds of many parents who realize that the prospects of their children are severely compromised in a culture gone mad.

Bookmark and Share

Mel Gibson to Dean Richards: "I’ve moved on; You’re an asshole"

/23 Comments/in , /by

Mel Gibson can’t avoid questions about his anti-Jewish comments. Dean Richards, a reporter for WGN in Chicago, brought up the topic once again, probably realizing that it was a great strategy for getting ahead. Gibson is obviously pissed off about it:

“That’s been almost four years, dude. I’ve moved on. But I guess you haven’t. …  That was a while back, and I’ve done all the necessary mea culpas, so … let’s move on, dude.”

Richards wrapped up the interview with a standard thank-you-for-coming, and Gibson, drinking coffee, gave the reporter a thumbs-up before muttering a loud-and-clear [“asshole”] right into his mic before the satellite feed was cut.

The mea culpas don’t matter. Apologizing doesn’t work and never has. This is the kind of realization that radicalizes people. One can only hope that Gibson, with all his wealth, his movie-making ability, his  fan base, and his connections in the movie industry will realize that there is no going back and that he will make movies that can change the world.

Bookmark and Share

The Failure of Head Start — Another Blow for IQ Realism

/9 Comments/in , , /by

I teach courses on child psychology, and every textbook has a chapter on IQ. It’s always a bit touchy talking about it — I’ve got to be on my best behavior. I discuss the data showing genetic influences and then I point out that most of the “environmental influences” on IQ could equally well be explained by parent-child genetic correlations: Smart parents are genetically inclined to high IQ and they talk to their kids more. This results in correlations between IQ and parents talking to their kids.

But the chapter always ends on an optimistic note for the environmentalists because of the Head Start data. The standard line is that Head Start has a positive effect on IQ for a while and then tapers off to nothing after a few years. But the good news for environmentalists is that there are lots of other great things Head Start does, like improve academic achievement, prevent school dropout, etc.

However, the recent report on Head Start shows that there are no positive effects at all on academic achievement, social and emotional functioning, or health, even in the first grade. These are overwhelmingly poor non-White children — the future of America

As the Brookings Institute’s Russ Whitehurst notes,

The children in Head Start are overwhelmingly poor and minority. They are at high risk of starting school far behind their more advantaged peers, and falling further behind over time. They tune-out and drop-out at alarming rates. In a world in which nearly everything we value, from a long lifespan to financial wealth to family stability, is associated with educational attainment, these children’s lives are in danger.

So the ever hopeful left is back to square one. No positive effects at all. Indeed, things seem to have gotten worse: “In the critical area of vocabulary (a good measure of IQ), 3-year-olds entered the study at the 29th percentile in terms of national norms and finished first grade at the 24th percentile whether or not they attended Head Start.” They might as well have stayed home with grandma.

But because the ever hopeful educational establishment didn’t want the word to get out, they delayed the report for three years. During this time they sweated the data (as we psychologists say) to try to come up with some positive results. Not possible. And believe me, they were motivated. There are lots of private contractors and an entire bureaucracy to feed. They pulled out all the stops.

Actually, it’s quite surprising that they couldn’t come up with something positive, since, as Whitehurst points out, the same federal agencies that administer the programs are in charge of evaluating them. Short of  making up the data, they couldn’t come up with what they wanted. It’s something of a miracle that they didn’t falsify the data. All for a good cause, you know.

But, as Whitehurst notes, when the report was finally released there was absolute silence in the MSM. The New York Times did not think it was news fit to print, nor did the Washington Post. I am still waiting for an article to appear in the LA Times.

Reports like this are just not the sort of thing that the left wants to hear, because it does not augur well for the future of the impending multicultural paradise we are heading into. I wonder if the next edition of my textbook will even bother to note it.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Patrick Cleburne on Jewish involvement in immigration

/32 Comments/in , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: I was going to blog on the recent news reports of Latino-Jewish ties, but I really can’t improve on Patrick Cleburne’s  blog over at Vdare.com. A must read. Cleburne agrees with the Kvetcher that the real motivation is “the mutual goal of making the majority population a minority population. We need to all be ‘The Stranger.'” It’s obviously a goal that is radically opposed to the interests of White Americans.

Bookmark and Share

The academic left’s involvement in politics

/49 Comments/in , , /by

In today’s LA Times, the op-ed page was dominated by comments on Howard Zinn (“An experts’ history of Zinn”), who by all accounts was a leftist political activist as well as a professor of political science at Boston University. Zinn, who probably deserved a chapter in The Culture of Critique as an exemplar of a leftist Jewish intellectual activist, was involved in all the leftist causes of the last 60 years. He wore his political beliefs on his sleeve and was proud of his lack of neutrality in his writing, titling his memoir You can’t be Neutral on a Moving Train.  As one of the commentators, Sean Wilentz, notes,

He saw history primarily as a means to motivate people to political action that he found admirable. That’s what he said he did. It’s fine as a form of agitation — agitprop — but it’s not particularly good history.

To a point, he helped correct mainstream popular conceptions of American history that were highly biased. But he ceased writing serious history. He had a very simplified view that everyone who was president was always a stinker and every left-winger was always great.

But other historians are much more sympathetic to Zinn. Eric Foner, who is described by one reviewer as the “sainted PC commissar for US history and Reconstruction fabulist” is, like Zinn, an academic radical activist. Foner says about Zinn:

The idea that historians have to be neutral about everything they study is the death of history. Every historian has beliefs and feelings about what they’re studying. Howard made them very explicit. The teachers you remember are the ones with a passion for history who made it clear what they thought. They were not polemicists. They respected the canons of historical scholarship, as Zinn did, but they cared deeply.

Well, I’m not sure how much Zinn respected the canons of scholarship in creating what one commentor called an “eternal struggle between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.” The print version of the Times op-ed provides some quotations from Zinn’s work A People’s History of the United States. The Western culture = evil, native peoples = good theme is obvious. Europe of the Renaissance was “dominated … by the religion of the popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western Civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.” The natives, on the other hand, are all about hospitality and sharing, and they have no concept of war. (Imagine the horror if someone made blanket assertions about Jews as having a frenzy for money.)

As an evolutionist, the idea that Western culture is uniquely evil is ridiculous, but the idea that it is uniquely evil has been common among Jewish intellectual activists, most notably the Boasian anthropologists. As I noted in The Culture of Critique,

one consequence of the triumph of the Boasians was that there was almost no research on warfare and violence among the peoples studied by anthropologists (Keegan 1993, 90–94). Warfare and warriors were ignored, and cultures were conceived as consisting of myth-makers and gift-givers [or, as hospitable, loving, and sharing people, as Zinn would have it]. (Orans [1996, 120] shows that Mead systematically ignored cases of rape, violence, revolution, and competition in her account of Samoa.) Only five articles on the anthropology of war appeared during the 1950s. Revealingly, when Harry Turney-High published his volume Primitive Warfarein 1949 documenting the universality of warfare and its oftentimes awesome savagery, the book was completely ignored by the anthropological profession—another example of the exclusionary tactics used against dissenters among the Boasians and characteristic of the other intellectual movements reviewed in this volume as well. Turney-High’s massive data on non-Western peoples conflicted with the image of them favored by a highly politicized profession whose members simply excluded these data entirely from intellectual discourse. The result was a “pacified past” (Keeley 1996, 163ff) and an “attitude of self-reproach” (p. 179) in which the behavior of primitive peoples was bowdlerized while the behavior of European peoples was not only excoriated as uniquely evil but also as responsible for all extant examples of warfare among primitive peoples. From this perspective, it is only the fundamental inadequacy of European culture that prevents an idyllic world free from between-group conflict. 

The reality, of course, is far different. Warfare was and remains a recurrent phenomenon among prestate societies. Surveys indicate over 90 percent of societies engage in warfare, the great majority engaging in military activities at least once per year (Keeley 1996, 27–32). Moreover, “whenever modern humans appear on the scene, definitive evidence of homicidal violence becomes more common, given a sufficient number of burials (Keeley 1996, 37). Because of its frequency and the seriousness of its consequences, primitive warfare was more deadly than civilized warfare. Most adult males in primitive and prehistoric societies engaged in warfare and “saw combat repeatedly in a lifetime” (Keeley, 1996, 174).

Howard Zinn was obviously in this tradition. But because he plugged into the anti-Western zeitgeist of the academic left, he had a long and happy career at Boston University — untroubled by student activists trying to get him fired.

Bookmark and Share