Did the Jews Do It?

Jews as a group do support leftist causes but I believe their over-representation in higher education has a lot to do with it, rather than a fear of racial consciousness. Colleges and Universities at times seem to be the factories of liberalism.

I think some Jewish activists, but not Jews in general, have perceived multiculturalism to be in their interests but the Kennedy’s for example proved that other groups like the Irish are capable of doing the same. Also, some Jewish activists like the JDL and JTF (www.jtf.org/e) do not take this pro-displacement ideology.

Clearly the idea that 2% of the population did this on its own would entail that the other 98% of the population of whites and non-whites are very easily manipulated. On the other hand, sometimes a person can pioneer an idea that goes very far, such as the bible, it shaped an entire civilization.

The realist here challenges the idea that Jews on their own pushed this demographic nightmare onto America. I think he does it fairly well by pointing out others who are guilty.

Like I said have said in other places, its correlation vs causation. Just because Jews tend to be liberal and want certain things to happen doesn’t mean its because of them that it happens. Jews could want an earthquake, and they may get it, but that doesn’t mean they caused it or that there wasn’t another bigger reason.

The realist did not hit on how the general wn idea of WHY jews in general are leftist is wrong, and admitted that certain Jewish organizations are motivated more by ethnic strife than by human compassion (something I’ve always said of a few Jews, but not Jews in general). Of course, I always add that other white ethnic groups have had certain members engage in similar behaviors, too, and those who would resist this comparison are closing their eyes to the truth.

Thanks for your comments, Daryl.

My priority in writing this piece was to argue that the “Jews did it” explanation of the rise of multiculturalism is of limited value. However, once one has grasped that, I do think it’s important to recognize the genuinely illuminating aspects of MacDonald’s work. CoC had a deep effect on me when I first read it, which was in 2002 or 2003: it added a whole dimension to my understanding of intellectual movements that I had been reading about for years. I had never realized the strong ethnic identification that people like Freud and Boas possessed and how their work advanced an ethnic agenda. I emerged from my reading of MacDonald with a very different perspective on all the movements he writes about. That is high praise.

In fact, the main reason why my news editor left is that I would defend MacDonald’s work in my conversations with him. The man, who is a Jew, thought drawing any connection at all, no matter how qualified, between Jewish interests and the rise of anti-Westernism was a slander on his people akin to 9/11 conspiracy theories. This, despite the fact that he had never read any of MacDonald’s books. I urged him to, but he said he couldn’t possibly, as though they emitted deadly radiation or something. He also greatly resented my article on Adorno, which he thought was too much in the MacDonald spirit.

Some people think this website has a pro-Jewish agenda, despite the fact that little of what I’ve written deals with Jews, and none of that actually praises them. In fact, I’ve been sharply critical of Theodor Adorno and Susan Sontag. No, really all I do is follow where the truth leads me according to my best lights. The consequence seems to be that I offend everyone.

“I do is follow where the truth leads me according to my best lights. The consequence seems to be that I offend everyone.”

By The Realist on 7/14/07 at 9:31 pm

Hang in there Realist, your perspective is greatly appreciated and rings of common sense. I for one never could comprehend the assertion that Jews are THE sole cause of White ethno-masochism and decline. Many Jews indeed have had a great negative impact on Western culture, but to assign them as THE reason Whites are declining is absurd on it’s face. One would have to believe Jews are a SUPER race of people that demonstrate super-powers! Reality clearly shows us otherwise.

I think, in general,Jews are a paranoid group of people…for good reason. It is said that paranoid people feel everyone is out to get them so they,in turn, irrationally go on the attack. They attack any and everyone they perceive to be a threat. Hence, Jewish interest groups constantly attack on Whites they see as a threat to them. That would include WN because Jews perceive them to be in league with the Nazi’s. Many in the WN movement are confused by the Jews paranoic behavior, they think it’s deliberate calculated hostility towards gentile Whites.

1 or 2, WN is openly anti-Jew so it makes sense for Jews to attack it. I agree that Jews, as a group, resent anti-Semetism (I’m 1/4 Jewish myself), but I don’t agree that Jews as a group resent the west.

The question to me about anti-semetism is not whether Jews are guilty.

Jews have as a group ran to the left. I think its understandable as they were persecuted and are involved in institutions that teach them those values. The question is whether it is productive.

I don’t think anti-semetism is good because it only encourages Jews to fight you, and it generally makes you look like you don’t have any class.

The most important point in this entire post is contained in one sentence (or more accurately, one clause in one sentence):

the major cause of multiculturalism was not Jewish activism itself but the shifts in Gentile attitudes that made Jewish activism possible.

The real issue is: what is it about us (white Gentiles) that made us unwilling to defend our own civilization and territory?  All other peoples, and even animals, defend their own kind instinctively.  I’m sure that if somebody in Japan suggested that that country should dilute its culture as much as possible by importing hostile, ignorant denizens of the Third World by the millions, and that the hallmark of intellectual erudition is contempt for everything Japanese, he wouldn’t get very far.  Why did we so enthusiastically, and knowingly, adopt beliefs that obviously can lead nowhere except to our own destruction? 

The Realist suggests some possibilities:

Since multiculturalism began the 20th century, we should seek its source in the forces of modernity. The real causes of multiculturalism will likely be found in the major changes in the economy and society of the West that characterize this period: the transition from industrial societies of scarcity to post-industrial societies of abundance, the decline of religious belief, universal suffrage, increasing levels of education, and so forth.

But where is the causal link?  And what can be done about it?  These are the life-or-death questions currently confronting us.

I would think the increased ability of Jews to influence their host societies’ way of thinking is a consequence of the decay of medieval Christian corporate society. This decay, and the “enlightenment” which was its ideological expression, was to some extent a consequence of increasing material prosperity. The origins of contemporary multiculturalism and hyperindividualism are to be sought in the eighteenth century. Jewish “emancipation” was also a part of the enlightenment program, of course. MacDonald does note the pivotal importance of the enlightenment (and the failure of expected Jewish assimilation) in the history of Jew-Gentile relations.

1 or 2,

Thanks for your encouragement. It means a great deal to me.

“Reality clearly shows us otherwise.” That gave me a good chortle. But now that I’ve quenched my annoyance with my former news editor, it’s time to give him his due. For six months, he spent a large part of his days diligently searching for news articles for this site. And he did a good job. He did more for this cause than most people ever will. And for that he deserves credit.

Chicago Amren and F. Roger Devlin pose the tough questions. Hopefully, I’ll get around to giving them serious answers this evening or tomorrow morning.

Another key question to ask here, is how do Jewish “elitists” attitudes reflect the same destructive proclivities as those of Gentile white “elitists,” in terms of the multicultural myth of utopian construction, through societal “deconstruction.” Both groups hold prominent and powerful sway over their countries as a whole, so why seek to “deconstruct” them into that which will (at least in theory) bring about “equality” and the elimination of cultural and political norms, that benefit them the most currently?

Here, it would make a sort of twisted sense of shortsighted long term calculating (given the Holocaust) for Jews to wish to accomplish this, but not Gentiles. Here, I speak very broadly though, because near recent events in Zimbabwe and South Africa should convince Jews in any Western society that nonwhites view them as whites too, or worse in the same irrational terms of the ultimate “exploiters” in a Marxist “Liberationist” framework that mirrors Nazi and other right wing anti-Semitic political philosophies. Since many Jews in Western societies excel up to or beyond middle class status, to nonwhites they can be seen as nothing less than this; hence, the vicious anti-Semitism of groups like the Nation of Islam or La Raza.

Again, we are at the point of having to accept as a very generalized position, that it is a top down process of an irrational “across-the-board” Western guilt for having comforts and other material successes, that drives this absurd but also eerie process. In the Judeo-Christian ethos, it is charity that “absolves” one of the “sins” of greed or social prominence. In many respects, this charity does not have any limits or qualifiers directed toward larger outcomes, only that the intent and initial outcomes are “good.” Thus, since the American poor who are white (regardless of ethno-religious considerations) are better off than poor American blacks and other nonwhites, they can take a backseat to them. So too, poor American nonwhites, can also take a backseat to the even more “oppressed” peoples of the lands where nonwhites actually “run” things. Like a night of drunken debauchery, it provides instant gratification and later consequences that are simply not grasped until the hangover and genital warts are endured.

The Judeo-Christian ethos is not the problem, but the twisting of it by the few for the many which is the problem here. Much like sexual “freedom,” it is only viable when individual and societal responsibilities are considered fully. A sort of forgetting of the fact, that doing onto others as you would yourself has limits when the cheek turned is again violated in reciprocation. That was never meant to be an option, only a humbling lesson to the first blow! Moreover, this twisting of the Judeo-Christian ethos does not require that I actually turn my cheek if I am “blessed” and “enlightened,” only that you do so if you are not?

Hypocrisy and Chutzpah have a meeting place?

For now yes, in the next two or three decades, I think not?

If not, God help us all!

F. Roger Devlin and ChicagoAmren,

You both make comments about the causes of the decline of white racial consciousness. As I say at the beginning of this article, I’m still looking for the causes. Lots of vague theories swarm around in my head, and I seem to change my mind every day.

The explanation that I currently favor is that white racial consciousness declined as a result of the triumph of the urban/secular/cosmopolitan mindset over the rural/religious/traditionalist/nationalist mindset. Essentially, the first is the modern outlook, and the second the pre-modern one. From the beginning of the century, you saw a battle between secularist cosmopolitans and religious nationalists in America—witness H.L. Mencken’s campaign against what he called “Ku Kluxery.” The modernists effectively portrayed the pre-moderns as ignorant, narrow-minded, and dangerous. The critique was so effective that to this day anyone arguing for white racial identity simply can’t get a hearing.

As much as we may resent this characterization, effectively combatting modernism requires giving it credit. The fact is that the secular/cosmopolitan mindset won on its merits. The modernists defended evolution over creationism; indeed, the Scopes trial was one of the main battles in the conflict between the two camps. The modernists chose the right side, because evolution is true. Modernists favored a broad-minded appreciation of Western culture as opposed to a parochial Americanism, which is also an intelligent position. Modernists favored pragmatic relativism over “foundationalism,” the belief in transcendent, universal truths, and there is a great deal to say for relativism, given the inevitable limitations of any individual’s perspective.

Anyone who espouses white racial identity is stigmatized as a moral idiot who is incapable of appreciating the strengths of the modern outlook. The key to resuscitating white identity is to acknowledge the strengths of modernism, and even, to a certain extent, to incorporate them into our philosophy.

An absolutely disastrous position is to call modernism “Jewish subversion,” which is essentially what MacDonald does. Gentile America was converted to modernism through rational persuasion, not through demonic trickery. Traditionalism, and along with it white racial identity, was abandoned simply because there were very good reasons to prefer the Mencken/John Dewey worldview over “Ku Kluxery.” Resuscitating white identity will not be achieved by returning to a pre-modern outlook, but by progressing through and past modernity.

Such is my current broad, hazy, intuitive, hand-waving perception of the crucial issue.

The key to resuscitating white identity is to acknowledge the strengths of modernism, and even, to a certain extent, to incorporate them into our philosophy.

I agree, old school racialism is a tribalistic type of viewpoint. But new racialism should be based on biology, and based on askinging the question “can’t we all get along” and answering it with “no.” It should basically paint liberalism as unscientific, rather than praise nazis and confederates.

Kevin MacDonald is a dinosaur expounding upon old bugaboos of Jewish conspiracy and domination. Seems he’s found a scientific basis for them, I’m sure he’s partly right. But Ol’ Kev is stuck in the past, stuck on stupid, thinking he’s a heavy hitter for scrutinizing the Jews when it’s really Islam that’s the question for our times, that would be interesting to see him deconstruct. Islam is a much more pertinent subject to study, to expose the group evolutionary strategy of. But cowardly MacDonald would get a beating and more if he exposed Islam’s group evolutionary strategy. America is threatened by radical Muslims who swim in a sea of 1.1 billion Muslims where they get lots of support. There are 14 million Jews in all with about 5 million in the USA. There is no way Jews can call the shots in an America of 300 million now or in the past. Same for the world. Islam is what I worry about every day. Islam threatens my way of life with its hold over oil, the lifeblood of our economy. We are expending our blood and treasure in Iraq because of Islam and the murderous critters it spawns. We might bomb Iran any day because we don’t want Iran to get a lock on Mid East oil along with China and Russia, this will impact hard on world oil prices

Professor MacDonald:

This Jew has seen your wrings on the internet. You have made your bones studying the Jews, their choseness and their strategy for group survival and dominance. The Muslims are even more interesting. There is a Muslim supremacism many times stronger than Jewish choseness plus Islam proselytizes (Jews don’t) with Saudi Arabia spending billions worldwide and in America on Mosque building and propaganda. Now that’s what I call a real “group evolutionary strategy” for world conquest. In fact Islam proclaims that Jihad is eternal until the whole world is Muslim

What you attribute to the Jews, choseness, supremacism, drive to dominate host populations, is a thousand times more true with the Ummah, the worldwide Muslim community. Everyone is talking about how Islam can dominate European host nations in a generation due to explosive birthrates. Islam is opposed at birth control and abortion. Now how’s that for a group evolutionary strategy? Pretty darn good as far as I can see. And where is Kev MacDonald? Missing, too busy adding to his Jew scribblings

Polygamy is a very clever way to increase your numbers. The men left without marriage partners have an incentive to go to war and Jihad for women to forcibly convert and make new Muslim babies.  Islam permits Muslim men to marry non Muslim woman provided she agrees to convert, meaning dedicating her womb to Islam. But a Muslim woman is forbidden to marry outside Islam because this way Islam loses a womb and the babies it births. Jihad increases the population and territory under Muslim rule. People become Muslim due to forcible conversions.

There is lots of Muslim cousin marriage which strengthens clans and keeps wealth within clans. it makes them inbred and closed off. women are often murdered if they refuse to marry a designated cousin. Stanley Kurtz has written much on this cousin marriage. All of the above Muslim ways are very interesting subject matter and starting points for Kevin MacDonald.  But he never will because he is Jew obsessed and a chickensh!t.

Jews represent the boogey men to some whites. Yes, many Jews have been involved in egalitarian nonsense, but look at liberal Irish fruitcakes like Leahy and Kennedy and numerous other liberal white idiots.Look at big money gentile “good ole boys” who are very powerful. Also, if the all seeing, all powerful Jew was as powerful and ubiquitous as the Judeo-phobes believe, wouldn’t he attempt world domination in a more subtle fashion (ie not through ADL?)

People and groups are more nuanced and less monolithic than CoC would have people think. Liberal Jews are no different than liberal Irish or Italians. Those who are able to grasp the nuance are able to better deal with reality than are those whose perspicacity has a lower ceiling.

To The Realist, regarding:

“The modernists defended evolution over creationism; indeed, the Scopes trial was one of the main battles in the conflict between the two camps. The modernists chose the right side, because evolution is true. Modernists favored a broad-minded appreciation of Western culture as opposed to a parochial Americanism, which is also an intelligent position. Modernists favored pragmatic relativism over ‘foundationalism,’ the belief in transcendent, universal truths, and there is a great deal to say for relativism, given the inevitable limitations of any individual’s perspective.

Anyone who espouses white racial identity is stigmatized as a moral idiot who is incapable of appreciating the strengths of the modern outlook. The key to resuscitating white identity is to acknowledge the strengths of modernism, and even, to a certain extent, to incorporate them into our philosophy.”

You speak many truths here; however, only incorporating so much of “modernism” and being scathingly critical of its shortcomings, will allow the racial realist movement to succeed. The inherent hostility to religion and the arrogant acceptance of “secular humanism,” as its replacement by the modernists being a excellent example of this. Here, we not only have the modernists beat, we also have a vast majority of the American people behind a “pre-modernist” principle that isn’t going to change (short of divine intervention) anytime soon. Indeed, Americans believe in the existence of God by a crushing majority of 90% or better.

In many ways, this has sustained the success of the Republican party from the 1980s onwards. Where the modernist Democrats seek to secularly “humanize” our country, the Republicans are perceived as defending our religious traditions; where the modernist liberal Democrats were seen as accommodating toward the godless Soviets and Maoists, the conservative Republicans were seen as opposing them without intended quarter during the Cold War; and even now in the “War on Terror,” the principles of a sober Judeo-Christian ethic is questioned by the Neo-Marxist Democrats in relation to Islam, but not forgotten by the equally treasonous Neo-Con Republicans, at least superficially. In fact, it could be argued that it is the very superficial nature of their “intoning” of the Judeo-Christian ethic, that now leaves El Presidente and his fellow Neo-Cons currently twisting in the wind, in regards to the “Religion of Peace” and the “War on Terror.”

After all, does not Heaven help those who help themselves, as opposed to shooting themselves in the foot?

To say nothing of the eyes and teeth!

Realist,

I discovered your website two months ago and I’m inspired by the seriousness with which you investigate these questions. But on this one I think you argue yourself into a kind of box.

If you agree with Professor MacDonald that A) Jews led major intellectual and political movements that relentlessly critiqued Gentile society out of a drive to make the world safer for Jews, and B) these movements succeeded in undermining white racial consciousness to the detriment of white people’s interests, doesn’t it follow that C) whites should have OPPOSED those movements… AS Jewish movements? (The way the Nazis chased Jews out of the universities?)

Doesn’t it also follow that whites TODAY should oppose similar Jewish-led intellectual and political movements (like neoconservatism)… AS self-interested Jewish movements? (The way David Duke does?)

In other words the question of whether Professor MacDonald lays too much blame at the feet of the Jews is irrelevant. If he is correct that these Jewish movements did have some damaging effect… and that the movements were pushed because of Jewish self-interest… then it makes sense, then and now, to oppose these movements in explicitly anti-Jewish terms.

We don’t have to believe in magical demonic Jewish powers in order to oppose Jewish influence… AS Jewish influence… in universities, in media, and in government. You come right up to the doorsteop of this conclusion without embracing it. It seems like you’re bending over backwards to avoid the obvious conclusions of your own case.

The immigration of today is the unintended consequences of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act. That act was passed as a tribute to JFK was killed 18 months prior. JFK was not a fan of the immigration quota system and the act was part of the whole Civil Rights movement. Thus since the 1965 Act ended the quota system which greatly favored British, Irish and German immigrants, we “reformed” immigration to end whites-only immigration and make everyone eligible so that could coincide with civil rights at home. the 1965 Act was kind of like a worldwide civil rights act as per the supporters of the reform. MacDonald is a relic with tenure. He used a method of finding individual Jews who make leftist comments and imply they are leaders of America’s 6 million Jews and thus are speaking on behalf of Jews. Can I imply since MacDonald is Irish, he is speaking for the 17 million Irish-Americans? There’s lots of blame to go around. MacDonald is too blind to see it.

Greco,

I have absolutely no problem with whites recognizing Jewish interests and opposing Jewish activism of the type MacDonald describes; in fact, I would be delighted if this happened. However, such opposition must proceed in a responsible and ethical manner, without conspiracy theories and scapegoating, and certainly without concentration camps. That’s the difference between me and the Nazis.

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/theinsanityofdavidduke/

I don’t think all Jews should be chased out of universities either, just the ones who oppose the formation of a white racial identity and white self-determination.

I’m also uncomfortable with calling “neo-conservatism” a Jewish movement. Certainly, the extent to which this movement is motivated by Jewish interests has been greatly exaggerated by the anti-war crowd. More on this, hopefully, in my next column.

It is sooooo easy to blame problems on Jews in times of crisis. Yes there are Jews that are problematic. There are also others, especially bleeding heart Irish Catholic do-gooders in the north, whose heads are firmly up their asses. But CoC implies ALL Jews benefit from this conspiracy, That is as silly as saying ALL white Gentiles benefitted from slavery or ALL white gentiles are benefitting from cheap Mexican labor . MacDonald has some great analysis in his books but he stops short of delving into the complexities inherent in human affairs.

I closely follow MacDonald’s thesis. There are, however, multiple trends that threaten the Jewish influence on Western nations.

1. Jews Have a Nation-State Jews have become adept at plying “host” states to their interests because that was the only way to determine their destiny - that was their only expression of sovereignty. They now have their own nation-state institution and will gradually develop a less “critical”, less “subversive”, more conservative perspective (a NEO-conservative one!).

2. Judaism is Declining Jews are rapidly secularizing, and losing their religion that promotes ethnic solidarity as they secularize. While there is secular nationalism (like my own), Zionism is becoming a less potent force in Jewish circles.

3. Jews in the West are Breeding Out With each passing generation, the genetic distinction between White coastal elite types and American Jews diminishes. Within a couple more generations, nearly everybody on the East Coast will have a smattering of Jew in them just like Midland/Appalachian Whites all have a smattering of Cherokee.

4. Jews in Israel are Even Worse Off The average IQ in Israel is 92. The “Jews” in Europe that we’re familiar with - the intelligent and powerful ones - are merely one group of Jews in the larger Jew family, which includes Black Jews, Arab Jews, all kinds of Jews.

5. The Internet is Democratizing Everything Jewish media control consists of Jews showing what they think is important and bringing up issues that they believe are topical. It’s not complicated and it’s not secretive. But the Internet is exposing perspectives, stories, and topics that the government and media can’t influence. The Duke Rape Hoax and the recent immigration bill come to mind.

Realist surprises me with his respectful treatment of MacDonald. It will require all of my ingenuity to continue to disagree strongly with him.

MacDonald is an acute observer and utilizes the vocabulary of evolutionary biology (which leads to formulations that understandably trouble Realist politically) to organize his observations. He writes quite well for a social scientist but I am struck by a lack of professional rigor in setting out his argument. He describes behavior by Jewish elites and asserts that such behavior is best explained as a group evolutionary strategy. It sure is, if MacDonald is allowed to play the trump card of a secret agenda that is always assumed and never proved. When non-Jews exhibit similar behavior, MacDonald is challenged to retrofit a competitive evolutionary strategy so he tends to dismiss such episodes as aberrant (or parasitical: George Will as the cadamite of Alan Bloom). I find MacDonald to be provocative, entertaining, original, but not scientific.

On the question of how & why Americans became receptive to multiculturalsm (deracinated) I think that cold war passions are often overlooked. As we were locked in an ideological struggle, our identity as “proposition nation” was exaggerated, even warped. Segregation would not suit a shining city on a hill. How would it look to Frenchmen or Italians who might even vote Communists into a coalition government? The Soviets used the oppression of the negro to their advantage and our government sought to clean house. After all, we aspired to bring freedom to the world (we evidently still do) and this required us to regard ethnic subdivisions as essentially interchangeable. (The Soviets made the same mistake at ruinous cost).

Thus, the right and the left converged to favour equality over liberty in the ‘60s & ‘70s. Nixon—who often resisted the blandishments of philosemitism and actually thought negroes to be biologically inferior—pushed affirmative action as a species of wartime surtax. White ethnic interests never stood a chance. The machinery of dispossession has been chugging along ever since.

My quarrel with Realist, to the extent it persists, is over Jewish influence. The 2% is not distributed randomly—he will strain to find Jewish mechanics in Toledo. Jewish opposition to white interests is dangerous because of Jewish power, particularly in the media. This will not have gone unnoticed among many readers. There were plenty of idiot WASP bureaucrats in the Ford administration who plagued the white working class. But they have Alzheimer’s now, in Arizona. The mainstream media reflects Jewish prejudices & Jewish neuroses of the kind described journalistically if not scientifically by MacDonald and it scrambles alertly to defend its airspace from our sorties. That’s the only reason for my judeo-preoccupation. (If you’re being chased by a bear, you become ursine-obsessive for at least the length of the chase).

You fight this, first by identifying it.

(By way of footnote—Realist’s selection of the Wilkie quote would likely amuse MacDonald who documents the evisceration of Lindbergh as the first credited kill of a philo-semitic media.)

I might add that I very much look forward to Realist’s examination of neoconservatism.

If it is not condescending to describe it as such, in Realist’s surprisingly tightly reasoned exegesis of MacDonald he asks why nefarious Jews could not have injected multiculturalism into pre-modern Europe. Multiculturalism cannot exist without an advanced case of moral relativism. Moral relativism would have been < welcome in 13th century Europe.

Interestingly, Leo Strauss stood as a bulwark (a stone wall for the Confederate partisans among you) against moral relativism on the late 20th century American campus. Indeed, Levin took Bloom to task for emphasizing moral relativism at the expense of race norming as his explanation for the decline in campus discourse. I am troubled to admit that I side with Bloom in this argument.

Leo Strauss was the anti-Freud, the anti-Boaz. Strauss and his intellectual heirs opposed the culture of critque; indeed for the decade between 1975-1985 Straussean partisans might have represented the only organized academic resistance. It is salutary and instructive to experience & appreciate the integrity of a Jewish moral giant. Neoconservatism is not necessarily synonomous with Strauss, nor is he to be blamed for errors or excesses. He is to be credited with creating a distinctively Jewish patriotism—more than that, a Jewish passion for western values & achievement.

I would be interested in Realist’s take on the Straussean achievement.

ironic jihad,

I don’t know why MacDonald would be amused by my Willkie quote. He says that there were no non-Jewish intellectual movements pushing the idea of a multicultural America before 1965. The Republican party in 1943 was a non-Jewish movement, and its leading spokesman advocated multiculturalism, so this plainly contradicts MacDonald.

Multiculturalism and the race denial movement started in the second-half of Twentieth century, so it is obvious; it was triggered by something that happened in 20th century. Without much thinking it is clear that it was the WWII, particularly the Holocaust.

Multiculturalism and racial egalitarianism were promoted to check extreme form of nationalism, which forms the heart of Nazism and Fascism. The Europe and America had already witnessed the horror of narrow nationalism, so Europeans and Americans left no stone unturned in saving the future generations from clutches of extreme nationalism. The best way was to promote the Multiculturalism, to deny the existence of races, to promote democracy. The Jews vehemently supported it because they were the worst victims. The White gentiles also supported it as they were sufferers too. The European Union was also created solely for this: to curb any form of nationalistic feelings and to promote pluralisms. The same thing happened in Japan too, Japan was stripped of its army, democracy was established and nationalistic feelings were suppressed. But they resisted multiculturalism, this s where white guilt comes in. In America and Europe, anyone who spoke in favor of white interests was demonized and he was labeled as a ‘Nazi’. Anyone who took pride in the western culture and defended it was discouraged. It was done ,so that horrors WWII never repeat in future.And even today, most so-called White Nationalists stick to the dangerous views of National Socialism and White supremacism (and these includes both Kevin McDonald and David Duke) So most whites , whether Christians or Jews, resent them.So the Spanish journalist Sebastian Villar Rodriguez said “We assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims!”.

Just as fear of Fascism and Nazism, brought drastic changes in Europe and America, if people become aware of dangers of multiculturalism people will act against it too. People need to be reminded that protecting the white race and defending the western civilization has nothing to do with Nazism and everyone who does so is not a Hitler. (In fact none is)

It was a minor point but I suppose I should trouble to challenge your characterization of Wilkie’s statement. Wilkie sounds more like Ben Wattenberg than he does Susan Sontag. In other words, he was an astraleopithicus neocon at worst.

The distinction is serious: the Wattenbergs of the world accept western values (i.e. the constitution, the declaration of independence as recited by Wilkie) while denying that those values have anything to do with the ethnic composition of the valuers. They are rational, logical, reasonably mistaken and one can argue with them. Multiculturalists are distinguished by their nihlism: no civilizational value system is superior to any other civilizational value system with the exception that western values are always the worst. They detest the constitution, the declaration of independence, and individualism. (Note that Wilkie essentially elevates individualism in the implicit argument that voluntary alleigance transcends ethnicity).

If I may use a Catholic simile the difference between Wattenberg/Wilkie and the west-hating multiculturalists is like the difference between a Protestant and a devil-worshipper. You may have to occasionally trade shots with the former, but you burn the latter at the stake wherever found.

I think your Wilkie quote represented a tendentious lapse in what was otherwise a strong article. MacDonald would associate Jews with the west-hating extremes of multiculturalism (though Wattenberg is not exactly an Irishman, is he?). You’re going to have to dig pretty deep to find Republican quotes supporting Noam Chomsky.

If multiculturalism involved nothing more sinister than getting misty-eyed every time an immigrant took the oath of citizenship, our campuses would not be the intellectual gulags they are.

Ironic jihad,

in fact the primary Jewish neoconservative magazine Commentary ws the biggest publicizer of the race and intelligence controversy and supporter of the minority opinion in the elite media. Look at the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant James Q. Wilson, the Scots Irish Charles Murray and the Jewish Dan Seligman, Richard Herrnstein and Michael Levin as examples.

To state that neoconservatism is Jewish liberalism that calls itself conservatism is true, but an oversimplification. There is much that of the movement that was flawed, but 2 things that make it conservative are:

1. Fierce opposition to communism and socialism

2. Denouncing of affirmative action and admitting to hereditary differences in IQ between races.

ajo wrote,

“2. Denouncing of affirmative action and admitting to hereditary differences in IQ between races.”

These are two separate issues. The latter clearly is a conservative position, but the former is not restricted to conservatives at all. Even the mainstream mostly liberal Jewish community swerves right on affirmative action. Although, perhaps actually denouncing affirmative action (and consistently so) is conservative. So maybe you’re right.

Source: http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11671

You’re right DK. Combatting AA is one of few issues that are supported mainly both by the right half of the political spectrum and the Jewish community. MacDonald notes this and says that Jews tend to see AA as a window dressed 1910s colleges keeping Jews out, except now they’re filling them up with blacks and Hispanics instead of WASPs. Buchanan, who is also one of the strongest people against AA, asya AA is equivalent to WASPs in the early part of the century blocking Catholics like himself and Jews. Since Jews materially lose out on affirmative action, they oppose it.

The question is what will WNs’ position on AA be in 50 years when without it, Asians, Indians and Jews combined will form a majority of elite colleges, and with it, Hispanics and Blacks will demand large shares of the pie. I personally think meritocracy is the best way to go. It’s in the tradition of American “conservatism” even if its technically classically liberal in that it exalts the individual’s accomplishment.

Only fools let Kevin “Tangled up in Jews” MacDonald set the order of battle as Jews first, first we deal with Jews and by extension Israel

No one has referred to my previous post. You all continue to miss the boat. Jews past, present and future are a distraction, are the sideshow. The main show is Islam, Islamic control of petroleum and what the West will do to respond. Kevin Mac is pure misdirection, you have fallen for his slight of hand that Jews are the issue when it’s really Islamic Jihad that’s the issue for our times

Previous poster referred to how Europe assassinated 6 million Jews, then eagerly took in 20 million (lot more really) Muslims. Europe is in the vanguard of the great cave in to Islam.

Hugo Chavez the ultra Mestizo allies himself with Iran and China. For you race realists out there Iran is cozying up to the Aztecs and Spanish of Nuevo España-Mexico. Judaism was a reaction to paganism and its human sacrifice cults. Iran-Mexico accord is where two human sacrifice cults link up, find common ground while you all squander time churning Kevin MacDonald and his cult of the Jewish controllers

Iran-Mexico reach agreement on creating joint economic commission

Madrid, July 22, IRNA

Iran-Mexico-Joint Commission

Iran and Mexico reached an agreement to set up a joint economic commission next year.

In a meeting between Iran’s new Ambassador to Mexico Mohammad Hassan Qadiri-Abyaneh with Mexican Deputy Foreign Minister Lurdes de Aranda the agreement was achieved.

Qadiri also invited Mexico to attend the Non-Aligned Movement foreign ministers meeting in Tehran on human rights and cultural diversities.

Iran’s plenipotentiary and extraordinary ambassador to Mexico expounded on Tehran stances on regional issues, especially Iraq and the results of Iran-USA negotiations about Iraq security and said Islamic Republic of Iran policy is to support national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Iraq.

Mexico deputy FM, for her part, said her country’s policy is to support peace, security and independence of the countries and has always defended negotiation and dialogue as a way to solve disputes between the countries.

The Mexican senior diplomat also expressed her country’s readiness to expand ties with Iran especially in cultural and economic fields.

1391/1771

dennisw,

You call us fools for disagreeing with your perspective and bemoan our failure to follow up your comment as proof of our failure to “get” it. Please be patient with us fools, as it will take time for us to learn all of your opinions so that we may wholeheartedly agree with them.

As for your point…

We all understand that the Muslim invasion is a serious threat to our way of life. What some people are arguing - and it’s an argument I take seriously - is that Jews are instrumental in creating the sort of “tolerant”, “multicultural”, and “post-nationalist” political climate where such an invasion is tolerated.

I hate to imply the AIDS analogy, but I believe that even productive and pleasant “invasive nationalities” have an obvious and simple interest in disabling the nationalism, nativism, and intolerance of the host nation. Swedish Finns do it in Finland. Jews do it in the US. Whites discourage “Azanian nationalism” in South Africa.

That being said, I believe the solution to our “Jewish Problem” is to guarantee the sovereignty and safety of Israel while encouraging the ones who are here to integrate and Americanize. The nationalist/Zionist ones will go to Israel and the rest will seamlessly integrate with the American national identity as have innumerable other White ethnic groups.

So, dennisw, while it seems blisteringly obvious to you that Muslims and Mexicans are problematic, I have agreed with you and asked myself “Why are we so powerless to defend ourselves from these militarily and economically inferior populations?” One proposal is that America’s Jewish population is instrumental in dissuading us from developing nationalist sentiments.

P.S. I forgive anybody who fails to respond to my post and I will try to be patient with any fools who may have an alternative (incorrect) perspective.

“The main show is Islam, Islamic control of petroleum and what the West will do to respond.”

You couldn’t be more right, dennis. Every major power is maneuvering their forces—both politically and militarily—to gain control over the oil fields in the middle east. Whoever gains control of those oil fields wins the international chess game.

What really scares me is leaders in countries such as Iran and Syria (not to mention Hamas and Hezbollah) are threatening to wipe Israel off the map. If, say, Iran drops a nuke on Tel Aviv, the government of Israel promises to wipe out every major Islamic population center in the middle east via “The Sampson Option.” If that happens, the entire world will immediately plunge into war, chaos, and barbarism. The “End Times” surly are at hand.

AJO -

There is a respectable minority of Jewish intellectuals who have argued effectively against affirmative action. For the most part, such birds of paradise tend to be academics of high integrity and not thoroughly politicized. They are defending the integrity of the data. They are found among neoconservatives, neoliberals and even the odd socialist.

I do not agree that “denunication of affirmative action” is a defining characteristic of neoconservatism. Neoconservative commentators (or politicians) tend to be less reliable on the issue than paleoconservatives. Charles Krauthammer, the leading neocon commentator, has burbled happily about the prospect of a Colin Powell Presidency and then a Condi Rice Presidency because of the delicious symbolism and has waived away objections about liberalism on social issues (including most jarringly, affirmative action).

Part of the liturgy of neoconservatism is to genuflect at the memory of “Scoop Jackson” who was a socialist anti-communist. Richard Perle & George Will actually served on Jackson’s senate staff (Perle for many years). Will has since favoured us with many books about the essential conservatism of the welfare state.

The political polemicists most prominently identified with neoconservatism would have been happy with a more or less permanent Hubert Humphrey incumbency: a left of centre cold warrior. Because the Democratic party switched sides in the cold war around 1982 (if not 10 yrs before) neocons had to make do with Republican bedfellows which made them politely reticent about their social liberalism. They have become somewhat less reticent of late (Podhertz, jr. denouncing Steve Sailer as “racist scum”).

Like all generalizations, this one admits of exceptions. But by and large the neocons—Jewish and otherwise—are not our friends.

Dennisw says the real threat is Islam and the Mestizos. But who has had a major hand in weakening our ability to oppose those forces on civilizational grounds, by demonizing white racial consciousness, mocking Christianity and Christian values and opening the floodgates to immigration from those very forces.

By insisting that Jews by immune from any critique (and by calling people “fools”) you’re the one trying to distract and intimidate and manipulate.

Dennisw says the real threat is Islam and the Mestizos.

You are a general fighting the last war Greco. Jews are not making Jihad, Islam is making Jihad. You go to extremes, I don’t exempt Jews from “any critique”. My first post said that some of what KevMac writes about Jews is true. Jews have weakened white ability to fight back but the greater blame lies not with a few Jews but with many whites. Unless you believe Jews are so superior, such powerful svengalis they can manipulate the white population of the US.

Who were the legislative promoters of this years Amnesty? George Bush, Mel Martinez, Carlos Gutierrez, Ted Kennedy, John Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John McCain. Not a Jew among them. Michael Chertoff of Homeland Security was the only high ranking Jew pushing it

As far as the mestizo threat keep your eyes on Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales of Bolivia and Mexico which drives its mestizos into the lands of the once feared Anglo, the United States

I am inclined to agree with dennisw.

I have fenced with Realist, and a few others (all well worthy of my steel), over the role of Jews in the deracination of white America. You can call it, as MacDonald does, a group evolutionary strategy; you can call it, as McCain might suggest, a banana.

But with aberrant exceptions (“affirmative speech” doctrines) Jewish elites are sold on due process and democratic structures. Jewish elites defend due process rather energetically in point of fact. Happily their religion is exclusionary as opposed to evangelical and is frankly not often taken seriously - as such - by adherents. (To revise the usual formulation, Jews earn like Episcopalians and pray like Unitarians).

Jewish mischief tends to be defensive and neurotic. Islamic mischief is offensive and psychotic. We accuse Jews of promoting an excess of tolerance. Consider that for a moment. Compare that, to the threat presented by Islam: slavery & misogyny. There is no comparison.

(In truth, there is a secular subschismatic sect of Judasm that spews anti-western bile so indiscriminately as to supply comfort to our Islamic enemies. Chomsky is their avatar. David Horowitz is patrolling that border most effectively. Jews cannot be held accountable for the self-haters among them.)

If I may be permitted to descend to the level of the anecdotal, I have had Islamic social acquintances—fashionably dressed, superfically socially adjusted, trained to laugh at SNL sketches—seriously urge the literal impalement of Danish cartoonists (and their defenders). These were not radicals, they were as assimilated as Muslims get. Am I more troubled by that kind of insane atavistic hatred or by Norman Lear?

Sorry, I don’t think that one is even close.

Wikitopian wrote,

“One proposal is that America’s Jewish population is instrumental in dissuading us from developing nationalist sentiments.”

I would have to concede that many of the leading Jewish “defense” organizations have an inappropriately pro-multicultural and “diversity” position, and worse, focus, particularly publicly, and wield a powerful legitimizing voice to these positions. As someone relatively outspoken against this in the secular, affiliated Jewish community (even if I am just a minor someone) and takes heat for this on occasion, I have a few theories about this, as well as about the division which exists and simmers divisively usually below the surface, where there are resentments and differences that aren’t reflected in institutional “defense” groups.

Many of the Jews who came prior to 1925, though our numbers have shrunk considerably due to assimilation, simply have less fear of white racial consciousness (as opposed to hardcore White Nationalism) than the Jews who descend from Holocaust survivors. This division plays out in other areas beyond just immigration and American nationalism (as opposed to Zionist nationalism, or a Neocon conflation of the two), in terms of Holocaust museum after museum, a tragedy which happened in Europe, for crying out loud. Now, leaving aside for the moment the deleterious effect this has on American Jewish identity for young Jews (not relevant here, but an important selling point to convincing the Jewish community to repeal this negative identity), I would also note that the resentment of the pre-1925 camp towards the Holocaust survivor descendants in terms of their perception of the U.S. as in some way a potential Germany. Quite frankly, post-genocidal stress disorder should not be crafting Jewish communal policy as it currently all too often is.

A main reason Wiesel started this Holocaust Museum proliferation anyway was out of Zionism, (I can prove this), not specifically out of a prophylactic attempt at stopping either American fascism specifically or international genocides generally, but that’s another issue.

It is incumbent for Jews outside of Holocaustism to stand up to descendants of Holocaust survivors, and quite frankly, it’s going to be a difficult internal fight, if it happens, though in many ways it already began heating up in the 90s (with the flourishing of these museums, and corresponding Jewish communal backlash), even if the division isn’t cast in pre-War, post-War communal terms.

The thing is — American Jews not bound by Holocaust-centric identity need to understand why this is happening, and speak out, as it is understood to be absurd to call us self-hating Jews (which is attempted, but is not particularly successful, particularly when the Jews challenging this identity are affiliated and Jewish educated, perhaps non-Zionist, but not anti-Zionist).

For American Jews to live in the past according to victimology is simply not a luxury the U.S. nor the Jewish community can afford.

Jews need to impress upon Jews that,

1) Diversity and multi-culturalism as ideals are harming and will further harm both the U.S. and the Jewish community. They probably need to understand the latter in order to accept the former.

2) Why and how the immigration issues we are facing today are very different than in 1921 and 1924, when Jews were blocked from immigrating to the U.S.

3) While the vocal, if small, far-Left is unreachable, as are many of the social liberals (much more of a problem), there is a moderate Jewish Left that is much more reasonable, and can be influenced. The challenge is they are much less active in terms of Jewish communal affairs.

I realize many in the right-wing camp do not differentiate between moderate-Left and Very Liberal Left, but there most certainly is, for instance, the social-democrats (whose ancestors came in the 19th and early 20th century) mostly stood on the sidelines during the Civil Rights Movement, assessing that this was not their fight. Though considered more left-wing than the Neocons, I would note that some of the important Neocons were from a much more hardline Left than the social-democrats, whose socialist forebears and their leaders were ferociously anti-Communist generally, not just anti-Stalinist specifically. See the beginning chapters of “The New York Intellectuals” for corroboration of this.

4) Once this is understood, then and only then will they force Jewish “defense” organizations to change their tune, or at least, face greater and more frequent challenges. The American Jewish Committee might be the first of the large Jewish “defense” orgs to shift policy, and could neutralize the ADL to some degree.

5) Imagine if Jews would successfully explain to themselves and then to whites that a white identity — let’s call it European Americans, have every right to such an identity and pride in such an identity (just like every other group is allowed an identity, including Jews or Hispanics, the latter a very broad identity containing numerous specific nationalisms), and that it has absolutely nothing at all in common with Nazism or fascism, which was True White Nationalist’s point above. If respected Jewish leaders said this (moderate and affiliated Jews, Auster doesn’t cut it, he’s Episcopalian and quite right-wing, no offense to Auster, seriously…I’m just saying) clearly and consistently, it would be a powerful affirming voice that no other minority group would be able to successfully veto.

Steinlight breached the dam to some degree. But there is so much change that needs to happen internally within the Jewish community…

Whites can’t live in the shadow of guilt over racism, despite the horrors of slavery. No other nation lives in this constant state of shame over their slavery, as The Realist has pointed out previously. I mention this, because obviously, this is an issue that affects whites, and this is not a Jewish issue, but continues to take its toll on European American morale and pride. This is anyway solely between European Americans and American blacks, not other “diverse” peoples. So too, Jews can’t afford to live in a European past. This is not an American issue. Jews need to understand and accept this, and tell European Americans the same thing.

The past can cripple a man, and apparently, it can threaten a civilization. If you let it.

Why let it?

Ironic Jihad, I did not mean to imply that the neocons were our friends, just that they were visibly to the right of modern liberals, at least 20 years ago.

Dennis W, Islam is the bigger threat, as there are 1 billion of them. But the US can help solve it by keeping the Muslims out, sealing both borders and bolstering defense. The Jews are the more insidious threat in that they seem to advocate on behalf of the general white population. Take the original neoconservatism as one of many examples.

It’s clear that many Jews are big advocates of Islamic immigration and possibly costly intervention in Israel. Stephen Steinlight and Lawrence Auster, both Jews, have demonstrated it. The Jews who are against Muslim immigration are usually neocons who advocate other non-white massive immigration.

Steinlight, for example, only wants to restrict Muslim immigration because it’s “bad for the Jews” but otherwise doesn’t care much about immigration restriction.

“Clearly the idea that 2% of the population did this on its own would entail that the other 98% of the population of whites and non-whites are very easily manipulated.”

How does 2% of the population own nearly ALL of the mass media? They run Hollywood, MTV and all the other popular networks that SHAPES OUR CULTURE!

Jason asked… “How does 2% of the population own nearly ALL of the mass media? They run Hollywood, MTV and all the other popular networks that SHAPES OUR CULTURE!”

1. Allies. Any anti-nationalist group has the natural political army of the state’s other minorities. It’s doubtful that the social Marxism initiatives would have had the same traction without America’s large (and growing) dissatisfied minority contingency.

2. IQ. Charles Murrey and other IQ statisticians emphasize that a relatively minor change in the average IQ has a profound impact on the “tail” (the most gifted). They are, on average, more intelligent than us. As the world gets more complicated, the world will increasingly belong to those capable of running it.

3. Motivation. The “Andy Griffith”-style White America until recently had very little idea this was happening. The vast majority of the decline and decay was going on in America’s cities. We rural folks always knew the cities were corrupt, but didn’t realize (due to media massaging) how pervasive the invasion and decline of our cities was. The most recent wave of illegal immigrants has went directly into small town America - offering the first taste of diversity to tens of millions of White Americans who beforehand had no reason to care about the multicult madness. You’re seeing that group mobilize now.

4. Affirmative Action. In academia, there are subjects where you can BS and there are subjects where you cannot. Since Affirmative Action and diversity depend on this BS factor, White and East Asian males go to safe ground - the hard sciences and engineering career paths. Those pay well, but their peers are being trained as social engineers, journalists, media types, attorneys, “political scientists”, and others who wield a disproportionate social and political influence.

Jews are only peripherally affected by Affirmative Action as Whites. Their merit means that they can crowd out less meritorious Whites within that Affirmative Action category. Imagine if Affirmative Action were extended to “protect” Jews from discrimination and guarantee they were represented as about 3% of professions. All of the “future leaders of the world” are disproportionately those who benefit from multiculturalism, diversity, and the present Affirmative Action status quo.

1. Teamwork. Even the secular Jews Adam Sandler and Jon Stewart giggle to each other about the rabbi and laugh heartily about their eccentric Jewish relatives and friends. Jews don’t have to be Zionist or conspiratorial for their interrelatedness to have a synergistic effect. Fraternities are empowering. White Americans are hopelessly fractured along political, religious, and class lines. Besides, we’ve reached a point where we feel that merely creating a group to protect our interests is tantamount to firing up the gas chambers.

“Clearly the idea that 2% of the population did this on its own would entail that the other 98% of the population of whites and non-whites are very easily manipulated.”

To paraphrase Plato, He said: The masses of people are incurably ignorant.”

Jason asks: “How does 2% of the population own nearly ALL of the mass media? They run Hollywood, MTV and all the other popular networks that SHAPES OUR CULTURE!”

Actually it’s only a tiny fraction of that 2% that shape our culture. I believe there is coordination/collaboration—or a consensus if you will—between super rich elite Gentiles and Jews in deciding which direction our culture should be headed. For instance, just look at the amnesty issue for illegal aleins . The majority of American citizens unequivocally rejected it, but the power elite are going to—one way or another—ram it down our throats anyway. This last failed attempt to get the “Comprehensive immigration reform bill” passed in the Senate was a victory for our side, but it was only a symbolic victory. The fact of the matter is: non-White third-worlders are still invading our country by the thousands each day. This process will not stop until the NAU comes to fruition.

True, many Jewish lawyers are working to craft legal arguments in order to grant citizenship to the illegal invaders. Most Jews may be applauding the demographic change in our once White country, but it is mostly rapacious wealthy Gentile businesses that are the main facilitators and economic beneficiaries of the illegal alien invation.

From my point of view, we as White preservationists are fighting both a class and a race war.

“““““““““““““““““““““`

ironic jihad wrote:”If I may be permitted to descend to the level of the anecdotal, I have had Islamic social acquintances—fashionably dressed, superfically socially adjusted, trained to laugh at SNL sketches—seriously urge the literal impalement of Danish cartoonists (and their defenders). These were not radicals, they were as assimilated as Muslims get. Am I more troubled by that kind of insane atavistic hatred or by Norman Lear?

Sorry, I don’t think that one is even close.”

Not only do we have 1.1 billion potential Islamists wanting to convert or kill all the Infidels, we now have 1.3 billion Chinese openly, beligerantly, challenging our military hegemony in the Asian Rim. Pray tell, what will happen if China makes a military move on Taiwan?

Between the Islamists and the Communist Chinese, it makes the Jewish issue look puny by comparison?

Dennis W, Islam is the bigger threat, as there are 1 billion of them. But the US can help solve it by keeping the Muslims out, sealing both borders and bolstering defense. The Jews are the more insidious threat in that they seem to advocate on behalf of the general white population. Take the original neoconservatism as one of many examples

Very sad and incorrect commentary Ajo. Islam is coming after you baby. How will you and your descendents feel living in a world where Europe is Muslim controlled 50-70 years from now. Europe is the homeland of the white people you speak about.

Defense is not good enough against the Islamic Jihad. Left to it’s own devices Iran will control Mid East Arab oil. Russia and China will back them up militarily. When Iran gets into this position it will charge Europe and USA 30$ per barrel above spot price for oil. And favored 3rd world nations will get a substantial discount. Iran and Venezuela already sell oil cut rate to friendly countries

So is Islam the larger threat when you think it through a bit? Yes! Islam is your prime enemy, not Jews within the United States

My caution to you is don’t stay on automatic with these Jews of yours. Think it through. Chart new territory

Steinlight, for example, only wants to restrict Muslim immigration because it’s “bad for the Jews” but otherwise doesn’t care much about immigration restriction.

<a href=”http://www.vdare.com/misc/epsteinsteinlight.htm”>http://www.vdare.com/misc/epsteinsteinlight.htm</a>

Incorrect Ajo. From the above URL:

Besides, Steinlight did not think that Latino immigration was desirable either.  The reason is that, while most white Americans are very sensitive to Jewish concerns, immigrants from Latin and Central America are

Also at that VDARE page Steinlight is forthright about the history of Jewish influence on American immigration policies. Steinlight is saying Muslim and mass immigration is “bad for the Jews” but I’m sure if he would say it is bad for America as a whole, if he was asked. Would you bet against that? As an American Jew I always think about what is good for America at the same time as what is good for my tribe

Wikitopian wrote,

“Jews are only peripherally affected by Affirmative Action as Whites. Their merit means that they can crowd out less meritorious Whites within that Affirmative Action category.”

I have to disagree, for the following reasons:

1) In the public sector minorities are given such an advantage that they beat out candidates whom they don’t even come near to challenging according to merit. The disparity is incredible — Jews are hardly immune.

2) You are contrasting quotas set according to population than compared to a true meritocracy. Clearly, Jews benefit better now than they would if there were a quota set according to their percentage of the population. But they would do better if there were pure meritocracy. I read an article in Commentary that claimed that Jews would receive one out of affirmative action slots engineered though affirmative action for minorities if it were a pure merit system. If this is even remotely true (he didn’t reference the study, so I don’t know if I but it) this is a tremendous amount.

3) Everyone, including minorities, pays a social price when someone less qualified has a sensitive position.

Wikitopian wrote,

“Besides, we’ve reached a point where we feel that merely creating a group to protect our interests is tantamount to firing up the gas chambers.”

This has to change. No doubt.

dennisw,

Nothing will stop Islam’s march as long as we (and others) are addicted to oil. Nothing. We are fueling our own demise.

http://www.setamericafree.org/

dennisw,

“I’m sure if he would say it is bad for America as a whole, if he was asked. Would you bet against that?”

I noticed that as well, and think Steinlight may, in fact, be most concerned with what a massive Hispanic immigration may do to the U.S. generally, and that his point in arguing that it is bad for Jews specifically is to allow Jews to hear that. On a core sensitive, knee-jerk issue like immigration, Jewish orgs often need to see why it is bad for them before they can justify revisiting their policy, or they get 1925 slammed in their faces, and that’s the end of the discussion. Steinlight knows this — he worked for the AJC for years. This was a sound strategy. Remember, his goal is to get Jewish groups to shift policy, not endear himself to paleo-Conservatives generally.

Between the Islamists and the Communist Chinese, it makes the Jewish issue look puny by comparison?

AKA fighting the last war all over again. The real war against whites come from the two that you mention plus the mestizo battering ram used by the Spanish oligarchy of Mexico/Central America. The pale face Spanish elites of Mexico are warring against the nominatively Anglo United States same as Spain and England contended for centuries.

Indians want revenge so Chavez the mestizo is messing with us big time. Prior to Hugo Chavez the Spanish elites always ruled Venezuela, they sold us oil without all these complications

The “Jewish Question” is a diversion. I’m objectively right on this one even though I’m Jewish, have been transparent about this, thus gifting you ammunition to claim I write only in my Jewish self interest

Thanks to all who have commented on my main point here.

Here is one of my fellow Jews who is dangerous to America, who is suitable grist for KevMac’s mill.

Schumer: ‘No more confirmations of Bush high court nominees’

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

This was your best work yet Realist!

“Resuscitating white identity will not be achieved by returning to a pre-modern outlook, but by progressing through and past modernity.”

This was my favorite statement and reflects the biggest difference I have with most pro-white people. Most want to return to the past. I guess so they can go through it all again.

“Such is my current broad, hazy, intuitive, hand-waving perception of the crucial issue.”

LOL!

This is one of the best articles on Arutz Sheva yet: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7323 I usually don’t agree with the station’s religious fundamentalism and nuke Iran campaigns, but this one gets at the heart of the matter plaguing western civilization in a way that few other mainstream publications are willing to express. Instead of obsessing over attacking Israel, whites and Jews should unite to fight common menaces.

The Realist says that we should not blame the transformation of the west on “Jewish subversion”:

“Gentile America was converted to modernism through rational persuasion, not through demonic trickery. Traditionalism, and along with it white racial identity, was abandoned simply because there were very good reasons to prefer the Mencken/John Dewey worldview over “Ku Kluxery.””

This is extremely tendentious.  Are there very good reasons to believe in Freudianism, Marxism, Boasian anthropology?  Let alone the “pragmatic” tradition to which Dewey belongs, one central theme of which is a rejection of any notion of objective truth.  And is it reasonable to accept Darwinism, which you cite as one aspect of the “modernist” view, while ALSO accepting racial egalitarianism, multiculturalism, “cultural” anthropology, etc.? 

You allow that the theories of Boas and the Frankfurt School are “empirically unfounded” and bizarre.  You also allow that, as MacDonald has shown, these Jewish theorists were motivated by ethnic interests and animus.  How likely is it, then, that despite these facts, the “modernist” world view of egalitarian race blindness (combined with evolutionism) was supported by “very good reasons” by the time it reached the general population?  If I cook up some bizarre, baseless theory for purposes that have nothing to do with finding out the truth, it would astronomically unlikely that there are, coincidentally, good reasons to believe the theory. 

But in any case, if you allow that

(a) these kinds of theories were in fact very influential, indirectly, in shaping the views of ordinary people, and

(b) they were devised by Jews who hoped that these theories would help to dismantle features of gentile society that Jews find threatening or otherwise inimical to Jewish interests,

you’ve already accepted premises that imply that one very important cause of the societal changes you’re concerned about is precisely “Jewish subversion”.  To do things that weaken and disorder a society, for the purpose of weakening and disordering it, just is to subvert that society.  And if one does those things because one is Jewish and in the pursuit of what one takes to be Jewish interests, one is involved in Jewish subversion of that society.

Now Jewish subversion is not the only cause, and maybe it’s not the most important.  And of course it isn’t “demonic”, just plain old human nastiness and ethnocentrism on the part of a very powerful and self absorbed minority.  So MacDonald is wrong, if he says any of those things (although you haven’t shown that he does say that).  But you can hardly say, as you seem to, that Jewish subversion is not an important part of the explanation.

I don’t think anyone, including MacDonald, believes Jews “cooked up” worldviews like Freudianism and Marxism for the purposes of subverting the West. Rather Jewish intellectuals were attracted to these ideas mostly because of their inherent interest, although the ethnic factor did also played some role.

These modernist worldviews contain much that is interesting, although also much that is false. Consequently, not only Jews, but other Westerners were attracted to them. Certainly, they were more interesting than “Ku Kluxery.”

It’s crazy to believe that major intellectual trends are the products of conspiracies. Why would people believe them if they weren’t genuinely illuminating in certain respects? While I’m not a Freudian or a Marxist, I do believe there is an unconscious and class conflict and that Freud and Marx were important thinkers for having illuminated them.

The more I read about these issues, the more convinced I become that MacDonald’s obsession with Jews causes him to misunderstand the reasons for the emergence of multiculturalism. I’m less inclined to find value in his work now than when I wrote this article. Eric Kaffmann in the wonderful book The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America has traced multicultural ideas in the American Protestant establishment since the 19th century. In the post-World War I period already, anti-nationalism was dominant among the Protestant elite, including opposition to immigration restrictions. Multiculturalism was a natural development of this position. I think multiculturalism would probably have arisen in America even if there were no Jews here at all.

Realist,

I don’t think that you’ve responded to my main point.  I was not denying that such things as psychoanalysis or Marxism are “interesting”.  Sure, those things are interesting, but so are numerology and voodoo.  What I deny is your claim that the “modernist” world view gained widespread acceptance because there were “very good reasons” to believe it, better reasons than could be found to support the traditionalist world view it replaced.

You yourself admit that Boasian anthropology, for example, is “empirically baseless”.  But if so, the replacement of physical anthropology and the spread of dogmatic egalitarianism in the social sciences (for example) can’t be explained by the rational superiority of these views. 

Maybe the problem is that you assume that if some view is widely accepted, that must be because it’s at least partly true and somewhat reasonable.  You ask, rhetorically, “Why would people believe [these theories] if they weren’t genuinely illuminating in certain respects?”

Well, there are countless reasons why people might believe things that have nothing to do with the rational merits of those beliefs:  ignorance, stupidity, social pressures to conform, vanity, bigotry, whatever.  If you’re at all sympathetic to Freud, you should agree with that!  (In fact, I think this is just common sense:  most people, even most intellectuals, are not only or even primarily rational beings.  They’re also motivated by all kinds of complicated desires, fears, insecurities, loyalties, etc.) But in any case, it is a fact that people do often believe things that are totally irrational or incoherent.  Surely you don’t want to say that Scientology or voodoo are “genuinely illuminating” just because large numbers of people believe in that stuff? 

Of course, the phrase “genuinely illuminating in certain respects” is pretty vague.  I guess one might find something “illuminating” in voodoo given enough time and effort, but that kind of “illuminating” isn’t going to be sufficient for your claim that modernism is rational, or more rational than traditionalism.  In any case, the point is that the explanatory options are not restricted to (1) “Modernism is the most rational world view” and (2) “Modernism was invented by the Elders of Zion, who made people believe in it by sending subliminal messages in Coke commercials”.  Major intellectual trends can be explained in all kinds of ways, not just by appeal to reason or conspiracy theories.

I take this to show that the attraction of Jewish intellectuals to the “modernist” world view is not to be explained by its superior rationality.  First, we know that there just are no particularly good reasons to believe in that world view.  Second, we know that the mere fact that people (even intellectuals) believe something is not enough to establish that it’s rational or “illuminating” in any important sense. 

What did motivate these Jewish intellectuals, then?  You yourself admit that “the ethnic factor” played some role here.  That is, as MacDonald has documented in such extensive detail, a great many of these influential thinkers were very conscious of their Jewish identity, and consequently hostile toward the gentile majority.  And they saw their intellectual work as playing some role in making the west safer for Jews.  Whether or to what extent they were consciously and deliberately working towards this goal is not what we’re arguing about - let alone the question of whether they “conspired” with other Jews.  That isn’t any part of what I’ve suggested.  Maybe you disagree with MacDonald about the importance of the “ethnic factor”.  But that’s not to say that it wasn’t important.  And it certainly doesn’t get you to your actual position, which seems to be that Jewish subversion is no important part of the explanation.

So let me ask again:  How can you deny that Jewish subversion played an important role in the decline of the west?  You allow that these modernist ideas have subverted the west.  You allow that many of these ideas originate in the Jewish community, and that they were promoted by Jews who were very aware of their Jewish identity and hostile towards the gentile majority.  Finally, you allow that, to some extent, their Jewish identification and hostility towards the majority influenced their intellectual attitudes (i.e., that “the ethnic factor” played some role). So their interest in and promotion of these ideas was, to some important extent, something that they did as Jews acting on behalf of what they thought were Jewish interests.  What are we supposed to call this phenomenon, if not “Jewish subversion”?

Anti-realist,

It wasn’t just Jewish intellectuals who were attracted to anti-nationalist modernist ideologies. In fact, the large majority of white liberals on race have been Gentiles:

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/class/

Since Gentiles have no ethnic interest in racial liberalism, I don’t think ethnic interests played a dominant role in the emergence of racial liberalism. Furthermore, since most racial liberals have been Gentiles, it’s common sense hold Gentiles and not Jews responsible for it.

People were attracted to modernist ideologies because they conveyed essential truths that had not yet been addressed. Freud was right to point out that we have an unconscious mind, Marx that class conflict exists, and Boas that culture plays a major influence on our beliefs and behavior. These modernist ideologies were part of the Western tradition of self-criticism that I have discussed here:

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/humilityandthe_west/

There is no comparison whatsoever between these ideas and voodoo and numerology, since these latter have no relation to reality at all, whereas modernist ideologies do indisputably get at aspects of reality. Of course, modernism’s critique of the West has been pushed to unhealthy extremes today. But as far as I can see, there is no reason to think Jewish influence was a major cause of this development.

I still think you’re not addressing what I’ve said (or what MacDonald says).  I never said that Jews or Jewish intellectuals were the only racial liberals or “modernists” (and MacDonald doesn’t say this either).  The fact that many or most racial liberals are not Jews does not rule out the possibility that Jewish subversion is a major part of the explanation of why such views became dominant in the west.  Non-Jews may be attracted to such views for their own reasons.  The full explanation would concern the interaction of Jewish interests, promoted by influential Jewish intellectuals for ethnic reasons, and traits of the gentile majority that made them susceptible to these kinds of views, such as, perhaps, the western tradition of self-criticism that you describe. 

You say that you think there is some truth in Freudianism and Marxism.  If so, you shouldn’t find it so hard to imagine that people often act against their own best interests (ethnic or otherwise).  Marx told us that the masses subscribe to an ideology that actually serves the class interests of their rulers, that they have a “false consciousness”.  Of course, the ordinary proletarian thinks that his political views are just common sense, that he is acting in his best interests when he votes for the social democrats, etc.  But these facts about his beliefs and motivations don’t rule out the possibility that his view of the world is an ideological fantasy invented by others to further their own aims.  (Again, it doesn’t matter whether those others consciously or deliberately “conspired” to promote that fantasy.)

So why couldn’t something like this be true of gentile acceptance of racial liberalism?  Maybe gentiles believe something that in fact serves the ethnic interests of Jews, and works against their own interests, but mistakenly think that it’s just a matter of common sense, or simple fairness, etc.  Just as class interests would be a key part of the explanation of false consciousness or ideology, in a Marxist analysis, Jewish ethnic interests are a key part of the explanation of liberalism in MacDonald’s analysis.

Perhaps I should emphasize that whether or not Marx was right on this point, his view seems to be coherent; so that kind of situation is possible.  Since it is possible, your argument is invalid:  the fact that most liberals are non-Jews does not imply that Jewish ethnic interests and Jewish power are not an important part of the explanation of liberalism’s dominance.

As for the rational superiority of Freudianism or Marxism to voodoo or Scientology, of course you’re right, up to a point.  Those examples were only meant to underline the difference between views that are “interesting” or “illuminating in certain respects” and views that are rationally compelling.  You may be right that the “modernist” world view “gets at reality” in some ways.  But that’s also true of Catholicism, Buddhism or Naziism.  All of those world views contain elements of truth.  Or, at least, they may satisfy some real needs that people have.  But that still is not enough to explain how such beliefs came to be dominant in certain times and places.  That is, it doesn’t show that they became dominant because they contained elements of truth or were (somewhat) rational.  In order to show that, you’d need to show that they were rationally superior to the alternatives that people had at the time.  And I think this is very hard to believe with regard to any of these examples.

Anti-realist,

Basically all you say above is that it is possible that Jewish influence was the major cause of the transition to racial liberalism. Of course, it’s possible, but that’s no reason to believe it’s true. It’s also possible that the moon is made of cheese and that the earth is flat.

To prove your theory, you would need to find some rigorous way of testing it against alternatives, and that’s something neither you nor MacDonald ever does.

I tested the “the Jews did it” theory against a class conflict explanation of the emergence of multiculturalism in the article I linked to in my last comment and found stronger evidence that the class conflict theory is true. It was not a rigorous test, admittedly, but even so I’ve done more to test my theory than MacDonald has ever done to test his. I find it ironic when MacDonald says that Jewish intellectual movements are based on charismatic authority rather than the evidence of testing. The same could be said of the little movement that MacDonald has started.

In the absence of any strong evidence that Jews are the cause of liberalism, sensible people will fall back on the commonsensical explanation that the cause was the thoughts and actions of the American majority, as the majority would be normally expected to have greater capacity to effect cultural change than a small minority would.

Realist,

Surely you don’t think I was trying to prove that MacDonald is right by showing that it’s possible that he is right.  That is a pretty uncharitable interpretation of what I’ve been saying.  The point about possibility was supposed to show that the argument you made in your last post fails to show that he’s wrong.  You seemed to be arguing that because the majority of liberals/modernists are not Jewish, and have no ethnic interest in advancing those ideas, Jewish ethnic interests are not any important part of the explanation.  My point was that there are easily imaginable scenarios in which that premise is true and your conclusion false. 

And these scenarios are not just possible, but quite plausible given the facts that you and MacDonald seem to agree on.  Namely, that many of these influential ideas were shaped and promoted by a Jewish minority with a strong ethnic identity and consequent mistrust and hostility towards the gentile majority.  MacDonald has given massive evidence for this latter claim, evidence that you don’t seem to dispute.  But then how are we supposed to avoid the conclusion that Jewish ethnic interests played some important role in the rise of liberalism and modernism?

This is just my original question, which, it seems to me, you still haven’t answered:  how can you concede the facts that MacDonald establishes while denying that Jewish ethnic interests or “Jewish subversion” are any part of the explanation?

Anti-realist,

I’ve given several reasons why I think MacDonald’s argument is weak both in the article and in my comments to you. Since you seem intent on ignoring everything I say, I don’t see the usefulness of continuing this discussion.

Another fly in the CofC ointment as I see it, is that the very radical jews that MacDonald focuses on are also the most likely to intermarry. As far as Freud is concerned, I once met his great-great grandson Jack at a club in New York. He is a proper Episcopalian Englishman and he looks it.

Just to follow up on my last post with a more personal example. A good friend of mine here in New York, I’ll call her Debra, has a father who was a civil rights activist in the 60’s and later a prominent civil rights attorney. Her mother, however, is a WASP (they are still happily married after over 30 years). Debra herself has never dated a Jewish man and her two brothers are married to non-Jews. To what extent then was Debra’s father following a group evolutionary strategy in his crusade for civil rights for blacks? Clearly, this is not a man who is concerned with maintaining the Jewish bloodline. His grandchildren will all essentially be white gentiles. Perhaps than, he is what he, and many Jews like him, claim to be - idealistic defenders of the oppressed.

The simple case of jewish dominance in so many liberal and progressive areas might simply be a case of certain personality traits. No, not because of an ethnocentric personality, but the opposite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opennesstoexperience

“There are social and political implications to this personality trait. People who are highly open to experience tend to be politically liberal and tolerant of diversity. As a consequence, they are generally more open to different cultures and lifestyles. They are lower in ethnocentrism and Right Wing Authoritarianism (Butler, 2000).”

To put it simply, a lack of ethnocentrism is frequently a prerequisete for the support of these sorts of politics- though it’s not that straightforward. These personality dimensions are broad, they don’t cover everything, and they’re very complex- one person can be high in one personality dimension overall, yet be low in other areas that go in line with such a dimension. Thus, you can still be rather ethnocentric yet still be high in O.

But the case of the Ashkenazi is too broad. I’ve always gotten the impression from those who drum up a jewish conspiracy here is that jews are just lying about what they really believe. I’m not too sure of the underlying dynamics of how this whole thing works, but it would be interesting if maybe you could look into this? I disagree profoundly with your views on race, but I’m definitely interested in your views on the jews.

Though the implications for that sort of thesis on openness to experience is that a lack of ethnocentric, ethnically nepotistic feelings, whatever, is completely normal- contrary to how many people of your stripe seem to treat those who aren’t ethnically nepotistic are either mentally ill or politically brainwashed. Not to mention how a highly ethnocentric personality is stifling to creativity and progress.

I mean, you can even see it cutting across other viewpoints: http://books.google.com/books?id=UWQswuE1t4C&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=eysenck+heritability+white+superiority&source=web&ots=GFiNjNAR_&sig=n—4h5XIelNBqbnCH9u0VZ2C2eg

See the conservative scale. Han Eysenck and others also did a large australian twin study using this scale, and found strong heritabilities for views on things like multi-racial immigration, racial superiority, apartheid, and even mixed-race marriage.

So who knows? You also have the case of the staggering levels of outmarriage among the US ashkenazi.

Really, where would these personality traits among the Ashkenazi come from if judaism really is some ethnocentric evolutionary mechanism? Might this all reflect the religious ideals of judaism itself? Of course, some people like to paint judaism as being some horrific, racial supremacist religion, with things like the Talmud as reading worse than the Qu’ran.

But how many jews go in line with this? Likewisw do so many jewish CT’s treat their over-representation in… anything as being an indicator of a conspiracy or dominance. Though rarely upholding this for other groups. In the case of the Bolshevik Revolution, although jews were over-represented, guess who were the most over-represented? Latvians. But nobody thinks this was a Latvian conspiracy.

And many of the lines of thought used to support ideas of jewish dominance are just insanely contradictory- like the idea of jewish dominance in pornography and LGBT rights, even though all abrahamic religions are opposed to these things, and how gays have no interests in females.

Or how much power they have over these outside of the US.

Really, I’ve seen the case of pornography and LGBT (hate that term) rights all too often for jews. Where do their genetic interests come in when pretty much none of those jews in porn are going to be religious? What about jewish pornstars who are committing sexual acts frequently with non-jews? Or how jews are at very, very small numbers outside of north america, and how their influence on that would be typically non-existant?

Those who wave that around seem to act like pornography and non-marital sexual gratification are some abominations that were completely absent prior to jewish meddlings.

Or in the case of LGBT, when judaism is opposed to homosexuality? Or how homosexuals have little to no interest in the opposite sex, and could only reproduce via test tube inseminations? Unless all of those gay jews are digging at that too?

….Or how homosexuality has been accepted, and even encouraged in numerous cultures across the globe, even Greece and Rome?

It’s endless with those examples. It wouldn’t mean a thing if they really were dominating those fields, as those are completely opposed to ideas of jewish ethnocentrism.

“There is a simple, but, I believe, devastating counter-argument to MacDonald’s theory. If the Jewish/Gentile dynamic that MacDonald outlines is rooted in these groups’ biological natures, and Jews have extensive powers to convert Gentiles to multiculturalism, why didn’t anything like multiculturalism emerge before the 20th century?”

There is a simple counter-counter argument to your devastating counter argument: Before the 20th Century, the mass media wern’t almost all Jewish-owned. Before the 20th Century the media Jews did control was limited to newspapers, books and posters. The 20th Century media have been unbelievably effective for them.

We should look at creating our own, both the counter the onslaught and possibly even to malignantly encourage them (I’d laugh my ass off at parody Falasha-Ashkenazi love story set in Israel, for example).

Although they were certainly not the only ones, it’s true that Jews have produced a lot of movies, TV shows and so forth that promote liberalism. But these could never have succeeded if Gentiles had not patronized them. So ultimately I continue to believe that Gentile liberalism is the main problem. Of course, the large majority of white liberals have been Gentiles.

As for Israeli-Palestian romance, the Israelis have already beat you to it. Jewish liberals are highly critical of Israeli nationalism, as well as Gentile nationalism.

Correct. The best proof that Jews are, if not white, then so much like us as to make little difference, is that they, like us, are the only people with such a poisonously suicidal lack of group identity. Contrary to MacDonald, many Israelis are, like modern whites, especially those outside Europe, wracked with self-doubt, bitterly critical of their own nation’s history and founding narrative, and ultimately believe they are uniquely evil oppressors. Israeli universities, like ours, are subversive institutions pumping out an alienated, hostile generation intent on undermining its own civilization. A full one-fifth of the country is of Arabic origin, and Arabic is heard on the floor of the Knesset. (In what Arab country is the reverse true?)

John is correct that diversity was introduced in small amounts. Even before America was introducing non-whites, it was still breaking down diversity by introducing different types of whites. Jews are just a reflection of this unfortunate American “ideal,” they are not the cause of it.

The realist is correct that if jews (2% of population) say one thing and gentiles follow, then gentiles are chiefly to blame.

And to Irish, call it white or non-white, Jews are of Caucasoid Mediterranean/Armenoid descent. I think the idea that the middle east is non-white is incorrect biologically.

Sorry, misread John’s comment, but my original comment then is a counterargument to it.

Looking for factors other than the Jews, who are small in number in many of the most pc countries, it’s interesting how multiculturalism took off about the same time that the integration of the European sub-races occured in North America, Britain and Australasia.

Following WW II economies were booming and the potential of integration seemed to have no boundaries. If Irish and English, Poles and Germans could all get along nicely in the US or Australia, then maybe Africans, Asians, and Arabs could all successfully join the party.

Overconfidence most have played a part in the selling multicultural idelology.

Another thing which perhaps needs looking at more is Protestant culture.

I’ve noticed that the most politically correct countries in the world, such as Sweden , Canada and New Zealand are Protestant, and Protestants are very big on conspicuous altruism.

Protestant countries also tend to be more conformist and have conspiciously low levels of corruption and lower levels of petty crime.

Hence, once an elite-driven trend, like pro-diversity, takes hold in a Protestant country, it becomes more ingrained than it would in a Catholic country, and people feel more guilty about opposing it.

By contrast, people in Catholic countries are somewhat more cynical about views pushed by elites and won’t commit themselves to them as strongly.

Daryl / Iceman, there is a very large “Caucasoid” over-group, to which both Indo-Europeans, Semites, and others belong. I posit that whites, as most normal people understand the term, are a further sub-group, of the Indo-Europeans. Most normal whites would not see an Iranian or even an upper-caste Indian as white like them, in the way a Dane would see a Pole, Frenchman, or Romanian as being in the same race.

Jews are therefore, being in the Semitic branch of Caucasoids, relatively distantly related to us in theory, and apparently genetically. But given centuries of living among us in Europe, which has apparently caused some interbreeding and/or convergent evolution, as well as our longstanding cultural/historic ties and similarities, qualifies them in my book as being, if not white, then honorary whites.

It’s wrong to blame the Jews for everything, like some do. It’s equally wrong, however, to suggest that historical anti-Semitism has never been a backlash against Jewish behavior.

“It’s equally wrong, however, to suggest that historical anti-Semitism has never been a backlash against Jewish behavior.”

Provide an example where it has.

JRC,

Have you read the article you’re commenting on? There are plenty of reasons to be critical of Jewish influence on America. The natural resentment bred in Gentile whites by Jewish promotion of open borders, racial egalitarianism, Marxism, and Freudianism sometimes takes the extreme form of anti-Semititic hatred. One can be critical of Jewsish influence without being anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism consists of a one-sided, paranoid demonization of Jews in the manner of David Duke.

Ian Jobling wrote:

“Have you read the article you’re commenting on?”

Yes. Race equality, Freudianism, Marxism, and the advocacy of open borders have not been vehicles of Jewish “ethnic interests”.

Modern egalitarianism has its origins in J.S. Mill’s associationism; the behaviourism of Watson, Pavlov, and Skinner; Freud’s psychoanalysis; Boasian anthropology; Locke’s Blank Slate theory; and Rousseau’s Noble Savage myth.

Of these, only Freudianism and Boasian anthropology have Jewish origins. But so does the criminology of Cesar Lombroso, who believed that mankind may dysgenically evolve into the lower races, and stated that “Only we white people have reached the ultimate symmetry of bodily form.” Marx Nordau, who developed the theory of art degeneracy, later promoted by the Nazis, was also Jewish. Arthur Jensen, the most prominent racialist alive today, is 1/4 Jewish according to Frank Miele’s Conversations with Arthur Jensen. Hans Eysenck, Richard Hernstein, Michael Levin, and Michael Hart are also Jewish.

As for Marxism, it is merely a synthesis of German philosophy, French socialism, and English political economy. The chief components of Marx’s philosophy were independently developed by non-Jews. Dialectical materialism, which is the philosophical basis of Marxism, was independently created by the German socialist Dietzgen, historical materialism was developed by the English socialist Thomson, and ‘scientific’ socialism was developed by Marx’s Gentile collaborator, Engels. How can Marxism be regarded as a vehicle of Jewish “ethnic interests”, when its chief components were independently developed by non-Jews?

(It’s been well documented that Jews were actually underrepresented among the Russian Bolsheviks.)

“The natural resentment bred in Gentile whites by Jewish promotion of open borders, racial egalitarianism, Marxism, and Freudianism sometimes takes the extreme form of anti-Semititic hatred.”

Scott said that “historical anti-Semitism” has sometimes been a backlash against Jewish behaviour. When, prior to the 20th Century, have Jews pursued an ethnic agenda at the expense of Gentiles?

JRC,

Since you ask me about anti-Semitism prior to the 20th century, you seem to concede that there is some justification in seeing contemporary anti-Semitism as a reaction to Jewish liberalism, although to be sure an exaggerated and largely irrational one. Is it true that you are conceding this? The 20th century is now history, so it can be called “historical,” as Scott said.

Marxism, as you point out, was constructed out of many strands of Western thought. However, I think we have to concede that MacDonald and his followers are right when they say that Jews were hugely dominant among 20th-century American Marxists.

As for pre-20th century manifestations of anti-Semitism, I do not have the expertise to respond to you. Also, I don’t want discussion of questions like this here, as it is irrelevant to IW’s subject matter and tends to attract Stormfront-type Judeo-obsessives. If you want to discuss this question further, please do so elsewhere. This policy satisfies no one, I know, but it is far better than having Judeo-obsessives take over the site, which they will if you let them.

My only motive in writing this article was to demonstrate that the “the Jews did it” explanation of our current racial insanity was pathetically inadequate. I never intended for this site to take on the question of Jews’ place in history. However, criticisms of MacDonald’s contentions in CofC are relevant to this thread, so you can make them if you wish.

I entirely agree with your observation that race denial and leukophobia have complex and diverse origins and cannot be pinned solely or even primarily on Jews. Indeed, my purpose in the article was to make that point, after conceding that MacDonald seemed to accurately describe some aspects of 20th-century Jewish intellectual and political movements. That’s why I called the “covert thesis” of CofC “emotional, extravagant, and unsubstantiated.”

JRC,

Just think about the narrative for a moment (I don’t have time to get into each and every Jewish-Gentile conflict throughout history): All throughout history where Jews have been disliked, it was always the fault of the Gentiles and never the fault of Jews. That sounds pretty absurd, even arrogant, no? (Maybe that could be called the “Gentiles Did It” theory.) Notice I said disliked and not persecuted. Persecution, at least in it’s extreme forms, is almost always wrong.

The only way to get beyond the historical grievances, and to form a broad coalition of Whites, is to essentially stop focusing so much on past discretions, to stop talking about them, so it’s out of our conscious memory, as hard as that may be. (Note that this does not mean we have to let our ethnic groups be absorbed, culturally or genetically, however.) The history will always be there for us to reference but it can get in the way of progress. The English and the Irish have a long history of hating and killing each other, but they just don’t talk about it a whole lot in America, and as a result, both groups just seem to get along fine. And we get along just great with the Germans, and ethnic Germans in America, because we don’t demonize them as a group. As soon as there’s too much guilt being heaped upon a group of people, or a country for the matter, you’re going to breed massive resentment, be it against a minority or a majority.

Scott wrote:

“All throughout history where Jews have been disliked, it was always the fault of the Gentiles and never the fault of Jews.”

Christians were intolerant of all non-Christian groups - Jews, atheists, pagans, etc. Although a persecuted minority, Jews were the most tolerated non-Christian group. But Jews differed from other non-Christians in Europe in that they were also a distinct ethnic group. And because Jews were excluded from most occupations, political offices, and honours, they were forced to engage in one of the few businesses from which they were not excluded, i.e. moneylending, causing them to be identified with that hated trade. In answer, therefore, to your question, historical antisemitism was not so much a backlash against Jewish behaviour, as it was a manifestation of Christian intolerance towards non-Christians in general. But because Jews were also a distinct ethnic group, it inevitably acquired a racial tinge, a sentiment strengthened by 19th Century race theories, and leading to the Holocaust.

Several more comments on this thread came in today. The two comments just before this one adequately state both sides of this question. As I said last night, I don’t want discussion of this topic on this site, so I won’t be posting any more of the comments that came in.

JFK was not a fan of the immigration quota system and the act was part of the whole Civil Rights movement.

Jews get a lot of attention for the role they allegedly played in the civil rights movement, even though it can easily be demonstrated that Northern Jews and Southern Jews had divergent opinion.

Let’s lay it strait out, the Irish played a bigger role in the civil rights movement than the Jews, and JFK was also a supporter of open borders. John Kennedy and Ted Kennedy held important authority positions (obviously there was no Jewish president), and JFK is admired and respected by Irish people in Ireland and America. In addition membership to the Catholic Church is membership in a Church that supports open borders and civil rights, and most Irish people are Catholic. Of course wn’s blatantly ignore this, because they want to court friendship with Irish people, but they want to be divisive when it comes to Jews.

I believe in introspective criticism for every group, but this means white gentile ethnic groups (notice the plurality) too. Therefore these kinds of criticisms should be made of every white ethnic group when valid, not only of Jews.

Yet if we ask most wns for an explanation of civil rights and open borders, the answer is : “duhhhhh the Jews!”

I found this article essay on American Lighthouse. It critiques Kevin MacDonald’s essay: What Makes Western Culture Unique (which severely exaggerates differences between White Gentiles and Jews.)

Sorry; I forgot to provide the hyperlink.

http://americanlighthouse.blogspot.com/2008/12/critique-of-what-makes-western-culture.html

Dear WA

Well done !!

You are smart enough to know that “The Jews” are not the real problem here..

I once wrote to Kevin Macdonald and asked him if he participates in or helps to perpetuate things like St Pats Day or Octoberfest or The Highland Games any white ethnic events - he said - emphatically - NO !!

This is his problem - he wastes alot of time penning screeds - and spends no time actually doing things that will help perpetuate white culture. Last I saw - the Bag Pipers were a very happy lot

This is where you start and end - everything that is positive - white ethnic - and can be perpetuated

It was, is and always will be just fine, good, and right to do positive things for the community

Repackage the “White” movement into what is actually is - a movement of pride in community, culture, history etc..

Most of the drive of whites toward multiculturalism - was out of their christian goodness - to accept the other - to be open and fair etc ect. It just got out of control. Extreme liberal whites must be used to your ends as well - keep it positive - and they will happily join you

Hope this helps

Andrew