The Definitive Source For News On Jews

The Rise of Neo-Conservatism

So many negative consequences arose from the Civil Rights Movement that the Democratic Party won few subsequent elections. Its reputation as the anti-white party that idealized black criminals and sought America’s destruction was only briefly overcome when it nominated southerners like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.[81] America’s Jewish Establishment, now thoroughly coordinated by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, recognized, however, that the country’s complete destruction would prevent its defense of Israel.

To conserve America as a viable host, neo-conservatism was created in the pages of Commentary, an official publication of the American Jewish Committee, whose editor Norman Podhoretz mixed predictable Frankfurt School ideology with laissez-faire economics, bellicose advocacy of Israel, and devaluation of nature through anti-environmentalism, his other innovation.[82]

The nascent neo-conservative movement’s first significant candidate was Ronald Reagan, who had been front man for the successful efforts of Hollywood’s two most powerful Jews, super mogul Lew Wasserman and super mobster Sidney Korshak, to control organized labor in the film industry.[83] Reagan soon became the perfect American president for the Jewish Establishment, since he opened the borders, increasing Mexican immigration by 54 percent,[84] broke labor unions, and freed corporations from government oversight and regulation. Consequently income inequality began to rise for the first time since the New Deal, eventually reaching levels unseen since the Gilded Age, creating a new era of excess that lacked the previous one’s mitigating good taste.[85]

A defining feature of Reagan’s new economy was the replacement of manufacturing with financialization.[86] Instead of a broad-based industrial economy benefiting the many Americans who once made things the world needed, a far narrower group was now enriched by financial control of the world’s economy through multinational corporations and other vehicles that, though often based in the United States, had little affinity with or allegiance to its people.

Since financialization involves symbol manipulation, at which Jews excel, they were its disproportionate beneficiaries. Names like like Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, Andrew Fastow, and Jack Abramoff became notorious despite less attention to their ethnicity than the Jewish Establishment expected.[87] These Luftmenschen, those who create money out of air—the stuff that inflates bubbles, before they pop—are a phenomenon with a long history in the Jewish community.[88]

Their exploits paled before what was to come, however. In 2008 the financialized American economy was exposed to all as a gigantic Ponzi scheme that sucked money out of the world economy by selling subprime mortgage-based securities until their worthlessness was exposed.

Like all such pyramid schemes, more and more bodies were needed to postpone inevitable collapse. The marginally employed blacks and Hispanics of America’s crime-ridden ghettoes provided them, and the American Dream Downpayment Act and similar measures facilitated their movement into new homes. Suburban sprawl continued destroying the biologically rich landscapes of Florida, Arizona, and California until it could no longer be sustained. By 2006 it became evident that something had gone terribly wrong. Stores surrounded by expensive new homes needed security guards to prevent constant vandalism, a ghetto-bred habit of newly-minted suburbanites. Now those homes are empty, vandalized, and foreclosed.

None of this was seen or anticipated by investors around the world who once trusted securities backed by American mortgages. As a consequence the world economy faces its worst crisis since the great depression.[89] Before the full dimensions of the crisis were apparent, Alan Greenspan, America’s Federal Reserve chairman from 1987 to 2006, published a memoir celebrating both his Jewish roots and his responsibility for policies that caused the crisis. In Greenspan’s words:

The gains were especially significant among Hispanics and blacks, as increasing affluence as well as government encouragement of subprime mortgage programs enabled many members of minority groups to become first-time home buyers. The expansion of home ownership gave more people a stake in the future of our country and boded well for the cohesion of the nation, I thought. . . . I was aware that the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increased financial risk, and that subsidized home ownership initiatives distort market outcomes. But I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk. Protection of property rights, so critical to a market economy, requires a critical mass of owners to sustain political support.[90]

Greenspan undoubtedly didn’t intend to create the financial black hole now sucking the world economy dry, but he was the primary architect of the hyper-financialization that made it possible.[91] His willful blindness to the impact of race on economics shows he learned no lessons from bad loans to African and other Third World countries that weakened America’s banks and left them vulnerable to the financial crisis of 1990, which contributed to George H. W. Bush’s defeat in 1992.[92] Bush’s son, who learned nothing either, went on to preside over a far worse economic meltdown.[93]

The Scots-Irish are finally united behind the Republican Party as they haven’t been with any party since before the Civil War, but it has done them no good. They’ve become increasingly impoverished relative to other groups under the Republicans,[94] and even when southern Democrats like Bill Clinton won elections, the financialized economic policy begun by Reagan and fully implemented by Greenspan changed little.[95] Their chief function now is cannon fodder in wars for Israel, which George W. Bush, a servile supporter of the Jewish Establishment despite his studied Scots-Irish manner, fully implemented in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. John Hagee and other Christian Zionists even pervert their traditional Protestantism into literal worship of Jews resembling cargo cults of primitive people that sacralize their rulers’ culture and anticipate the world’s end.[96]

The Jewish Establishment’s total control of both major American parties by 2008 was evident in their servile fidelity to its core values of unlimited non-white immigration and wars for Israel. The establishment’s wide geographic dispersal, affluence, and tight focus on collective interests enabled it to dominate campaign finance throughout the country.[97] Consequently the 2008 presidential campaign was a caricature of both parties’ worst features symbolized by the dance between them by Senator Joseph Lieberman, who represents the establishment far more reliably than Connecticut. Lieberman, the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate in 2000, campaigned for the Republicans in 2008 but was welcomed back by the Democrats following the election.

The ethnicity of the John McCain-Sarah Palin Republican ticket appealed to America’s Scots-Irish and southern English, but their campaign’s focus on fighting for Israel became so comically slavish it was eventually lampooned on television’s Saturday Night Live. In contrast, much of the initial appeal of Barack Obama to many Democrats, despite the slimmest of resumes, was a family background almost caricaturing rootless cosmopolitanism: Obama’s mother, a Kansas girl, sought out first a Kenyan and then an Indonesian to father her children.[98] Obama eventually sought roots his mother failed to provide in Chicago’s black community and proved to be a smart campaigner. He defeated John McCain, who was only able to carry Scots-Irish, southern white, and some German-American regions. Obama won everywhere else. The future course of his presidency is still unknown, but a hint came when his first significant appointment, that of his chief of staff, was the powerful Israeli-American congressman Rahm Emanuel.[99]

The End of Jewish Hegemony

It is evident that the Jewish hegemony has two pillars. One is the destruction of the ethnic consciousness and demographic viability of America’s white majority. The other is unconditional support for extreme ethnonationalism among the Jewish majority in Israel, a Herrenvolk democracy attaching no value to the rights and lives of Palestinians under its control.[100] In simple terms, it is for minorities and against the majority where it’s a permanent minority, and the reverse where it can be a majority. This seeming paradox is no contradiction for the current establishment. It is simply the current version of their traditional litmus test: is it good for the Jews?[101] In this case, however, what is good for the Jews threatens the welfare and very existence of America’s people in general and its white majority in particular.

Rule of large nations by small ethnic groups is unsustainable and must eventually end, but that can take a long time. Manchus ruled China for 250 years until they were essentially absorbed and nearly extinct by the time they were overthrown in the nationalist revolution of 1911.[102] The vast demographic strength of the Chinese permitted them to readily outlast the Manchus, but white America, a valuable and distinctive part of earth’s human biodiversity, lacks that advantage.[103] Its population share of the nation it founded has fallen from 83 percent to 69 percent in just 20 years, a spiral of demographic disaster that continues to accelerate.[104] Such reduction of an ethnic group’s population resulting from overt acts by a hegemonic group constitutes genocide and must be stopped by any means necessary.

White survival requires a movement of national liberation that must begin now. It can come by force of arms, like Hezbollah’s liberation of Lebanon from the Israelis, or peacefully, like Gandhi’s defeat of the British Raj,[105] but it must come. Demonization of those fighting oppression indicates their effectiveness and is cause for honor rather than reproach.[106] Victory in this struggle may seem impossible now, but surprise is history’s nature. Help may even come from surprising places. Both Jewish[107] and gentile[108] authors discuss the phenomenon of Jewish revolutionary spirit, which helped create Establishment hegemony. It threatens established orders, but recent works by Jewish authors like Finkelstein[109] and Shamir[110] suggest that may include the present one.

Most importantly, white America must gain a sense of collective identity to survive. Otherwise it is just an unorganized mob of individuals vulnerable to any group like the current Establishment that has such an identity. American whites once had such identity in embryonic form, but that was weakened by regional divisions and finally destroyed by Frankfurt School propaganda in the 1960s. Even that identity was a folk development never supported by Anglo-American academic political philosophy, which was dominated by the Anglo-French Enlightenment and consequently universalist rather than particularist.[111]

Universalism permitted just two alternatives: world humanity consisting of either isolated individuals or a collective mass. So-called conservatives of the right favored the former and so-called liberals of the left favored the latter, but neither left room for ethnic identity. Alternatives celebrating particularity did develop in Europe to the east of France in reaction to Napoleon’s attempt to spread the Enlightenment by force, but their particularity focused on relatively recent epiphenomena of language and religion tending to divide Europeans rather than the biological fundamentals uniting them.[112] That philosophical turn, proscribed after 1945 for being on the losing side of the Second World War, is now reemerging in Europe as an antidote to the malaise of globalism.[113]

Some see this as a model for America, but there are problems despite much of value. The European new right tends to be hierarchical, anti-modern, anti-rationalist, and non-biological at a time when these would be fatal to white Americans. An acceptance of hierarchy[114] is the last message needed by white Americans crushed beneath a hostile hegemony’s iron heel, especially since proto-neo-conservative Leo Strauss used similar arguments to justify hegemony.[115] The new right’s anti-modern, anti-rationalist, and non-biological tendencies are equally problematic, since they reject not only modernity’s universalism but also the ultimate achievement of white European culture, modern science.

C. P. Snow identified these two sides of modernity in his Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,[116] but for too long the universalistic one has dominated academia and public affairs.[117] That began to change when E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology demonstrated clearly that humans are not exempt from the great advances being made in evolutionary biology and ecology.[118] In this model there are no longer biological universals, and therefore no human ones as well. Everything is particular, from the earth’s infinitely variable environments to its equally diverse biological groups, including human groups. In such groups individuals are important, but their well-being ultimately depends on that of their group and the barriers protecting its integrity.[119] Wilson subsequently called for respecting the full measure of earth’s biodiversity as God’s Creation, a model embracing rather than excluding religion.[120]

* * *

Architectural critic Charles Jencks dates the end of the modern age to 3:32 PM on July 15, 1972, when the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis was deliberately dynamited because its black tenants had rendered it uninhabitable after just 17 years.[121] Its architectural award-winning high rises surrounded by gardens were similar to designs that helped Europeans reduce their human footprint, but they didn’t work for another race. Modernity is ultimately European culture, which other races often rightly reject and resist. Its zenith was 1969, when Neal Armstrong walked on the moon. White Americans still believed then that modernity could embrace and improve the lives of all human populations.[122] So 1972 is as good a date as any for when they lost that hope. Political philosophy fails to explain the subsequent postmodern age’s pervasive confusion. Only renewed appreciation of our planet’s great biodiversity, including human biodiversity, can do that. To paraphrase Patrick Henry: “If this be racism, make the most of it.”

Part 4 of 4

____________________________________________________________________

[81] Thomas Edsall and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics (New York: Norton, 1991); Matthew Lassiter, The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).

[82] Gary Dorrien, The Neo-Conservative Mind: Politics, Culture, and the War of Ideology (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993).

[83] Connie Bruck, When Hollywood had a King: The Reign of Lew Wasserman, who Leveraged Talent into Power and Influence (New York: Random House, 2003); Gus Russo, Supermob: How Sidney Korshak and His Criminal Associates Became America’s Hidden Power Brokers (New York: Bloomsbury, 2006)

[84] World Almanac, The World Almanac and Book of Facts (Mahwah, N.J.: World Almanac Books, 2001).

[85] Philips, Wealth and Democracy; Reich, Supercapitalism.

[86] Phillips American Theocracy.

[87] Sachar, A History of the Jews in America; Frank Partnoy, Infectious Greed: How Deceit and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets (New York: Times Books, 2003); Lou Dubose and Jan Reid, The Hammer: Tom Delay; God, Money, and the Rise of the Republican Congress (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).

[88] Nathan Ausubel, Pictorial History of the Jewish People: From Bible Times to Our Own Day throughout the World (New York: Crown, 1953).

[89] Kevin Philips, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism (New York: Viking, 2008); Mark Zandi, Financial Shock: A 360 degree Look at the Subprime Mortgage Implosion and How to Avoid the Next Financial Crisis (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: F. T. Press, 2009).

[90] Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (New York: Penguin, 2007).

[91] Phillips American Theocracy.

[92] Steven Beckner, Back from the Brink: The Greenspan Years (New York: Wiley, 1996); Roy Smith, Comeback: The Restoration of American Banking Power in the New World Economy (Cambridge: Harvard Business School, 1993); Phillip Zweig, Wriston: Walter Wriston, Citibank, and the Rise and Fall of American Financial Supremacy (New York: Crown, 1995).

[93] Zandi, Financial Shock.

[94] Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives won the Heart of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004).

[95] Philips, Wealth and Democracy; American Theocracy.

[96] Phillips American Theocracy; Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby; Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal; Jonathan Smith and William Green, eds., The Harper Collins Dictionary of Religion (New York: Harper Collins, 1995).

[97] Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby.

[98] Franklin Foer, Election 2008: A Voter’s Guide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); Shelby Steele, A Bound Man: Why We are Excited about Barack Obama and Why He Can’t Win (New York: The Free Press, 2008).

[99] Michael Barone and Richard Cohen, The Almanac of American Politics: 2008 (Washington, D.C.: National Journal, 2007).

[100] Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).

[101] Elliot Rosenberg, But Were They Good for the Jews: Over 150 Historical Figures Viewed from a Jewish Perspective (Secaucus, N.J.: Birch Lane Press, 1997).

[102] Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: Norton, 1990).

[103] George McDaniel, ed., A Race against Time (Oakton, Va.: New Century Books, 2003).

[104] Barone and Cohen, The Almanac of American Politics: 2008; World Almanac 2001.

[105] Shamir, Masters of Discourse (Tel Aviv: Surge Books 2008).

[106] Douglas Rose, ed., The Emergence of David Duke and the Politics of Race (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992).

[107] Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Jews, Christians, and the New Left (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).

[108] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend, Ind.: Fidelity Press, 2008).

[109] Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

[110] Shamir, Masters of Discourse.

[111] Frederickson, Racism.

[112] George Mosse, The Culture of Western Europe (New York: Rand McNally, 1961); Oppenheimer, The Real Eve.

[113] Michael O’Meara, New Culture, New Right: Anti-liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1st Books, 2004).

[114] Tomislav Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right (Newport Beach, Cal.: The Noontide Press, 2004).

[115] Ted McAllister, Revolt Against Modernity: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and the Search for a Postliberal Order (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996).

[116] C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1962).

[117] Gross and Levitt, Higher Superstition.

[118] Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1975).

[119] Rhymer and Simberloff, “Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression.”

[120] Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life (New York: Knopf, 2002) and The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth (New York: Norton, 2006).

[121] David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).

[122] Fred Siegel, The Future Once Happened Here: New York, D.C., L.A., and the Fate of America’s Big Cities (New York: The Free Press, 1997).

An OD correspondent in South Africa has been sending me regular bulletins from Nelson Mandela’s “Rainbow Nation.” White Nationalists in North America have always followed the news out of South Africa, but I am getting the impression that we have underestimated how awful life is there for the average White person. The typical White American hasn’t heard anything about South Africa since Mandela was inaugurated as president. He assumes everything must be hunky dory over there.

Here is a brief snapshot of life is really like in the world’s first “post-racial society.” The material compiled here are all stories that have come out of South Africa over the past two weeks. Most of them are taken from the local press. This is the indispensable background to the Eugene Terre’blanche farm murder and the “racial tension” the MSM is wailing about.

1.) Potholes and Healthcare – A traveling salesman is driving through the North West where he dodges a metre-wide pothole, overturns his car, and gets flung out of the window. George Struwig lands on the tar road where he suffers a shoulder injury.

Struwig gets shuffled around to three hospitals before appropriately landing in the Steve Biko Academic Hospital (named after a famous terrorist), a state hospital, near Pretoria. After three days without medical assistance, Struwig’s wound begins to putrify. His brother transfers him to a private hospital where surgery saves his limb from amputation.

While at the private hospital, Struwig notices there are patients there who have gone weeks without treatment. A guy in his ward couldn’t feed himself and the medical personnel would leave the food by his bed and where he can starve as he watches it.

Under black rule, the incompetent South African government has proven unable to maintain the transportation infrastructure and the White healthcare system they inherited.

2.) Terror in Mozambique – A South African tourist and his girlfriend visit Maputo, the capital of nearby Mozambique, to set up a procurement business. The beautiful countryside of Mozambique, which the tourist describes as “nearly untouched by man,” exists in stark contrast to Maputo which has been destroyed by feral negroes. Under black rule, Mozambique (formerly a prosperous Portuguese colony) is ranked among the lowest nations on the U.N. Human Development Index.

Upon arrival at a border post, the tourists are accosted by locals. They are harassed by the local police who carry AK-47s. The black soldiers intimidate the tourists into giving them R500. After checking into their hotel, the tourists are again intimidated by black soldiers with AK-47s who rob them of all their money. Somehow the tourists procure more funds and visit the most reputable restaurant in Mozambique where the staff runs their credit cards twice.

The South African couple returns home determined never to visit Mozambique again. This is what life is like for Whites marooned in Sub-Saharan Africa in the aftermath of triumphant anti-racism.

3.) More Terror in Mozambique – In Mozambique, sixteen South African tourists are robbed and a White woman is raped by blacks. The blacks attempted to rape another Afrikaner woman unsuccessfully. They left the gas on in the room (attempted mass murder) where the men were gagged and bound. Mozambique officials will be “discussing” the safety of tourists.

4.) The World’s Most Expensive Banana – A negro shoots a black teenager in the head on the suspicion that he was eating a stolen banana.

5.) Abortion South African Style – A couple wraps their newborn baby in a plastic bag and throw it out the window of their accelerating vehicle. Try guessing the race of the suspects.

6.) A Casual Stroll – Three negroes assault a pedestrian and fight for “their turns” to rape her. The woman was forced to perform fellatio on one suspect while the other raped her. The trio are in court facing 14 counts of rape. During the violent attack, one of the suspects casually alluded to another gang rape they had performed previously. Justice works in mysterious ways in the “Rainbow Nation.”

7.) Your Life Savings – Four armed negroes break into the home of a black man and rob him of his life savings. They shoot him in the stomach. The robbers invade the home of the neighbors and threaten to shoot a 10-year-old boy.

8.) Free Enterprise in “Azania” – A White butcher is murdered by two negroes on his way to work.

9.) Thriving Small Business Sector – In the middle of the night, back thieves attempt to liberate the safes of two businesses with explosives. Two more black thieves rob a business in a shopping center.

10.) Women in the Workplace – A White woman is attacked by a vicious negro slasher at the gate of her workplace who repeatedly stabs her in the head, arm, and neck. Her boss finds her covered in blood.

11.) Don’t Trust the Police – In Durban, four black police officers abduct a White female attorney. They rough her up, slap her across the face, and call her a “racist bitch.” She felt “defenceless.” In Johannesburg, three senior black police officers engage in drug smuggling, theft, and fraud. A black female police officer sells pot to keep her children in school.

12.) Government Corruption – An ex-ANC Youth League official is arrested for stealing credentials.

13.) Measles Returns – 3.1 million babies in South Africa are being immunized to stop outbreaks of measles from ravaging the country. Under White rule, measles, polio, and malaria were all but eradicated, but have returned under black rule.

14.) Babies Aren’t Safe – A negro is lynched by a mob after he is caught raping a 3 month old baby.

15.) Children Aren’t Safe – A negro is arrested for raping a five-year-old. Negroes murder a White 15-year-old boy, break his neck, beat him until he is unrecognizable, and get off scot free.

16.) Adults Aren’t Safe – A homeowner is stabbed to death by negroes who insist on passing through his yard. Negroes hijack several buildings and force property owners to pay them rent.

17.) So Much For School – Public schools are being closed down in Johannesburg left and right as they are abandoned by negro students.

18.) Don’t Use The ATM – It cost this White man his life.

19.) Vigilante Justice – A mob of negroes lynch a negro for killing an elderly man. Give credit where it is due: this rapist got what he deserved.

20.) Congo Craziness – Meanwhile, up north in the DRC, Congolese rebels kidnapped a Spanish doctor and shaved off all his body hair in the hope that it would give them magical powers in battle.

21.) Nationalization – South Africa takes the first steps toward the nationalization of its mining industry. Julius Malema is determined to follow Zambia off the cliff.

22.) The Elderly Aren’t Safe – An elderly White man with Alzheimers is beaten to death by a mob of negroes for stealing a candy bar. A security camera video shows he did not resist arrest. He later died in police custody.

23.) So Much for Democracy – Malema’s supporters scrap the secret ballot and use a show of hands to steal elections.

24.) Public Utilities Falling Apart – The ANC is doubling its stake in the drive to build new power stations as blackouts continue to plague South Africa. Blacks are literally tearing down the power lines to sell copper on the black market.

25.) Viva Malema! – A White farm family is attacked by feral negroes shouting “Viva Malema”; Nelson Mandela’s former White bodyguard goes missing; a 19 year old White girl is sadistically tortured and burned with cigarettes by black home invaders.

26.) Animals Aren’t Safe – Pets haven’t fared any better in Nelson Mandela’s new and improved South Africa.

27.) Family Friends Aren’t Safe – A domestic servant of Terre’blanche was herself murdered after discovering the murder plot. Some “wage dispute.”

28.) Prisoners Aren’t Safe – You don’t want to end up in a South African prison.

Now back to Eugene Terre’blanche. As previously noted, the above is the context in which all of this is happening.

A vicious and baseless rumor has circulated in recent days that Eugene Terre’blanche was murdered after sodomizing his farm workers. A tabloid reported over the weekend that police had found a condom at the crime scene. Jeffrey Imm of R.E.A.L. delightfully ran the story. The South African police have denied recovering any evidence of sexual impropriety. The lawyer of the accused has dropped the sodomy charge after saying his own client’s story made no sense.

Last week, Terre’blanche was peacefully laid to rest by friends and family. As Kievsky pointed out, 1 in every 1,000 South African Whites attended the funeral, an extraordinary turnout for “washed up has been” and “relic of Apartheid.” AWB members wore uniforms and sieg heiled as their leader was lowered into the ground. White children waved the AWB’s three pronged swastika flag. Other supporters waved the flags of the former independent Boer republics. In his gruesome death, Eugene Terre’blanche did more to advance the cause of Afrikaner secession than he ever did in life.

The South African Institute of Race Relations is concerned about the escalating racial tension in the country. It notes that White farmers are being viciously murdered and the ANC has used affirmative action and “black empowerment programs” to create a corrupt patronage network. The so-called “progress” in race relations of the past fifteen years is being undone. The ANC has enriched itself and failed to alleviate the plight of the impoverished negro underclass. They have responded by stirring up race hatred against Whites.

Interestingly, the South African Institute of Race Relations notes that the ANC is entirely dependent on White farmers to feed the country. The flight of Whites abroad will drain South Africa of its tax base and technical expertise. Whites are crudely seen as a sort of cattle that produce the milk which keeps the whole rotten system float. If they bail, secede, or lose faith in the doubleplusgood experiment in “multiracial democracy,” the result would be disastrous for blacks, who are the only people “human rights organizations” are concerned with. The government must “live up” to this challenge.

That seems increasingly unlikely.

Julius Malema recently kicked a BBC reporter out a news conference and announced “this is the building of a revolutionary party and you know nothing about the revolution.” ”Don’t come here with that white tendency, go out bastard, bloody agent.” He gleefully noted that the reporter was “a small man” who was in no position to put up a fight. In recent days, Malema has bucked the leadership of his own party.

The ANC has cynically told the foreign press that it aims to reduce racial tension. Meanwhile, it is fighting the ban on the “Kill the Boer” song and is even paying for the legal defense of Eugene Terre’blanche’s murderers. Julius Malema has described Zimbabwe’s land reform measures as “courageous and militant.” “Land reform in Zimbabwe has been very successful,” Malema said, adding that Mugabe’s programme was a “very correct method”.

As hard as it is to believe, Julius Malema is a “moderate” compared to some factions in South Africa.  The Pan African Congress is encouraging its supporters to sing the “Kill the Boer” song in open defiance of the South African Supreme Court. “We call on our people to sing the songs Shoot the boer and Zuma’s Umshini wam (Bring me my machine-gun). This is part of their struggle,” PAC general secretary Mfanelo Skwatsha said on Tuesday to mark April 6 as the date on which the PAC was launched. The PAC wants South Africa to be renamed Azania after the complete Africanization of the country.

I haven’t seen the Western media decrying all these extremists. Black supremacists have the wrong skin color. They don’t fit into the standard PC narrative of evil Whites and noble blacks. Azania is treated as a legitimate aspiration of oppressed “people of color.” A White ethnostate in South Africa is demonized as the second coming of the Third Reich. What loathsome hypocrisy.

The Whites of South Africa face a stark choice: submission or secession. The first option has resulted in the ethnic cleansing of Whites in every other African country. 1/4th of South African Whites have already fled the country. More will flee when Julius Malema becomes president and implements Zimbabwe-style land reforms. The epidemic of violent crime in South Africa is already arguably a stealth genocide.

The second option is to fight back and secede from a failed state whose corrupt government no self respecting White man would ever swear fealty to. The list of causes that American colonials felt justified their secession from the British Empire – taxes on tea and stamps – are trivial compared to the horrors endured on a daily basis by Whites in South Africa.

Negro savages have raped your wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters. They have slashed the throats of your aunts, uncles, grandparents, and kin folk. They openly sing about your extermination as a race. They gleefully brag on the internet about reducing your women to chattel sex slaves. This inept government has stolen your wealth, demonized your history, disrespected your most cherished cultural symbols, instituted racial discrimination against your posterity, violated your property rights, allowed the most basic of public services – justice, security, health, education, infrastructure – to fall into disrepair. It is your natural right to abolish this Third World monstrosity.

Occidental Dissent, April 14, 2010

Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia, has stirred up a national controversy by having the audacity to declare the month of April “Confederate History Month” in the Old Dominion. Jews, White liberals, parasites, and negroes across America quickly began to shriek in horror about the Confederacy’s horrible legacy of racism and slavery. As everyone knows by now, McDonnell folded under pressure and issued a wimpy apology in which he decried slavery as the cause of the War Between the States.

White Virginians know the history of their state better than anyone. In 1860, Virginia was carried by John Bell, the Constitutional Union candidate. Virginia rejected secession after the Cotton States left the Union. The majority of Virginians didn’t believe Lincoln’s election warranted secession and favored a compromise solution like those of the past. The only reason Virginia seceded from the United States is because Lincoln decided to resort to force to coerce the Confederacy.

Virginians refused to take up arms for a Northern despot to spill the blood of their co-ethnics. That was the real issue. Lincoln’s own policy was that slavery could flourish in the states where it already existed. He didn’t foresee the final extinction of slavery happening until the twentieth century. Most Virginians thought South Carolinians and Alabamians were misguided to leave the Union, but acknowledged their right to do so. The states had created the federal government, not the other way around.

Lincoln’s attack on the Confederacy was seen as the destruction of republican government in America. Virginians clung to the old notion that the legitimacy of any government rested on the consent of the governed; coercing the Southern states back into the Union at bayonet point made a farce out of America’s own vaunted principles. It was a states’ rights issue, plain and simple. A tyrannical precedent was being set.

This is how the conflict was seen around the world at the time. Europeans wondered why the 13 American colonies had the right to unlawfully rebel against the British Empire, but the 13 Confederate states didn’t have the right to withdraw from the Union. It didn’t make any sense. Wasn’t George Washington a rebel? Weren’t the Founding Fathers of America openly committing treason by throwing down the gauntlet of the Declaration of Independence before the world? The Confederates were only taking America’s republican principles to their logical conclusion.

But this is a digression into history. The present and future is what should concern us. Bob McDonnell naming April as “Confederate History Month” is only a small victory for us. February, for example, is “Black History Month.” The month of April already honors financial literacy, crime victims, organ donors, and child abuse prevention. May is simultaneously “Jewish American Heritage Month” and “Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month.” Mid-September to Mid-October is “Hispanic Heritage Month.” The descendants of Confederate veterans, the majority of White Virginians, are only asking to be honored alongside all the other groups in the multicultural pantheon.

Yet this is controverial. ”Confederate History Month” was even rescinded when Mark Warner and Tim Kaine were Governor of Virginia. America’s ruling class (and its underclass of racial grievance groups) look down on White Southerners. In their eyes, White Southerners are synonymous with white trash, racists, white supremacists, nativists, rednecks, bigots, hicks, hillbillies, etc. They do not believe in lowering themselves from their lofty perches of moral superiority to acknowledge that White Southerners are their equals. At the New York Times, we are openly described as an “anachronism” destined to fade into history. Unlike every other group, White Southerners are not allowed to celebrate our culture and heritage, or have a positive sense of ethnic identity and self worth.

In my mind, this raises a fundamental question: as a White Southerner, one of the millions of American natives loathed by our hostile elites in Washington and New York City, why should I desire to be a part of the same Union as these people? We literally have nothing in common: racially, ethnically, culturally, or politically. These people salivate over their dream of the future in which my descendants will become a degraded, oppressed minority in the land of their ancestors. I have come to dream about the glorious day when White Southerners wake up and sever our ties with these loathsome hypocrites forever.

Just think about it: in a society where children are aborted by the millions, where the institution of marriage is redefined, where young women aspire to careers as porn stars, where young men look up to Lil’ Wayne instead of Robert E. Lee,  why should the Union of all things be sacred? Individual couples get divorced all the time. The Left considers this an inviolable right. The people of the United States now have less in common than some of the most bitterly separated partners. It would be better for all parties involved to go our separate ways.

Frankly, I realized long ago that America is lost. The Confederacy had the right idea in striking out on its own. Too bad we lost. I passionately despise our national government for similar reasons. My loyalty has devolved back to my local community, state, and co-ethnics in the American South. It certainly doesn’t belong to the alien regime in Washington, DC with its genocidal policy of White dispossession.

Occidental Dissent, April 9, 2010

Now I’ve got more reason to like Steve Sailer. He recently showed again on his VDARE blog why I’ve recommended him so strongly. Recall my two columns last year recommending his work—see here and here. I really think he does a great job at quantitatively showing how Jews have become the new elite in our society. And he does a pretty good job at pointing to some Jewish behavior that the MSM doesn’t always want to acknowledge.

His blog here paints a pretty clear picture again. His column is a comment David Brooks NYTimes column extolling the virtues of the new meritocracy compared to the bad old days when the WASPs ran the country. Brooks claims that “we have opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of many other groups.”

In reality, however, the big winners from this “meritocracy” are Jews. Sailer points out that

In 2009, 35% of the Forbes 400 are from one ethnic group that makes up only 2% of the population. So, is “The Power Elite” really that much more diverse today?

If you break down Brooks’ list — “African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics”– by membership in the 2009 Forbes 400, you come up with:

African-Americans: 1 (Oprah)
, Jews: 141, 
Italians: 14
, Poles (and all other Eastern Europeans): 6, 
Hispanics: 2

Similarly, if you look at the 2009 Atlantic 50 ranking of most influential pundits, it’s half Jewish, versus 2% black and 0.5% Hispanic.

In other words, this increased “meritocratic diversity” among the elites that Brooks is writing about essentially consists of the rise of Jews over the last century.

The fact is that the new order is reasonably seen as less of a meritocracy than a new form of clubbishness where ethnic ties among Jews ease the way into top positions. Ethnic cohesion is certainly the main story of the Jewish academic and intellectual elite that constructed the Culture of Critique in the academic world, and the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the media elite mentioned by Sailer suggests it’s the same story there. Indeed, Jews are vastly overrepresented as students in elite academic institutions even controlling for IQ.

This new elite based on ethnic networking is at least as corrupt as the old WASP elite and its family ties. The new elite reacts with angry aggression and charges of “anti-Semitism” if one even mentions that they are in fact an elite.

The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest. As Sailer notes, the new elite seems to care nothing about the long term success of the society as a whole:

The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analysis is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.

But the terrifying reality is that the Jewish ascendancy remains hostile to the traditional people and culture of America. Jews continue to earn like Episcopalians (actually more than Episcopalians) and vote like Puerto Ricans. They are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party and its coalition of non-White ethnic groups. (83% voted for Obama.) The organized Jewish community is a major pillar of support for massive, non-White immigration that will add 100 million non-Whites to the US in the next few decades.

The new elite is definitely not about conserving America for the long term success of the society as a whole. It’s about ethnic paranoia, ancient hatreds, and the desire to completely transform the society at the expense of its traditional people–elite and non-elite alike—at whatever the cost to the society as a whole. Hey, when it falls apart, just take the money and run to Israel.

Sailer makes it pretty clear that Brooks was not connecting the obvious dots: Since Jews took over America, things have definitely changed for the worse for White Americans.

The Occidental Observer Blog, February 23, 2010

A response to Jeffrey Imm and R.E.A.L.

Growing up in the 1990s, I found myself pondering all sorts of mysteries as a teenager: why did my black classmates consistently receive lower test scores; why were black students always in the lower track courses; why did people on television claim that blacks were as smart as Whites; why did blacks act in such a peculiar way; why were the smart White kids herded into the same schools with black thugs and drug dealers. I didn’t get it. Something didn’t feel right.

The inclusion of blacks at my school always bothered me. It struck me as an obstacle to my education. Blacks often assaulted the White kids in the school cafeteria. They sold drugs in school. They disrupted the classroom. They didn’t show any interest in their studies. Their sordid underclass culture rubbed off on the poorer Whites. My teachers were constantly forced to waste their time catering to the lowest common denominator. It was one long farce from kindergarten to graduation.

When I arrived at college, I was catapulted into a whole different world. Suddenly, there were lots of bright people around me with similar interests. A magic filter whisked away all the troublesome blacks who took up space in high school. In their place, I had an enormous college library to mine with thousands of books that interested me. I had a slew of courses that I could take to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. There was no comparison between my new segregated environment and my old integrated one.

I plunged in head first. When I emerged five years later, I was a different person. I had come to realize that my generation was the subject of a cruel liberal experiment in social engineering. In the name of “equality,” a small group of federal judges and ideologues had overthrown Alabama’s segregated school system and forced raw negroes into the White schools. This was done solely to uplift the negro, not to improve the White schools. Integration was based on the flawed premise that segregated schools were the cause of black academic underperformance.

Fifty years later, the segregationists have yet to be vindicated. The racial gap in average test scores failed to disappear in the integrated schools. It has stubbornly persisted into the Obama presidency. The traditional social problems of the black underclass (illegitimacy, vulgarity, drug abuse, violence, indolence, teen pregnancy) were imported into the White schools where they became a common problem. America’s public schools once inspired envy throughout the Western world. Thanks to our growing black and mestizo population, they now rank near the bottom.

The segregationists were right about other things. Theodore Bilbo had predicted that the end of segregation would unleash a tidal wave of black-on-white violent crime. Even Bilbo though couldn’t imagine that the day would come when negroes would rape over 35,000 white women per year in the United States. This was unknown in the Jim Crow South. Interracial crime is a one way street. Whites are overwhelmingly the victims of murders, thefts, rapes, and assaults by negroes, not the other way around. Even when blacks murder, rape, and steal from other blacks, White taxpayers incur the costs of their incarceration. This is another unsavory aspect of Martin Luther King’s so-called “dream” that is deliberately ignored in the mainstream.

Why do Whites accept inferior schools? Why do they endure unbearable levels of interracial violent crime? Why do they put up with racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action? Why do Whites accept an immigration policy which displaces them from their neighborhoods and reduces their political power? Why do Whites accept the redistribution of their wealth to non-Whites?

Let’s travel further in this vein: Why do Whites accept the degeneration of their culture? Why do Whites accept the spread of poverty, disease, filth, and ignorance in their midst? Why do Whites accept economic underdevelopment? Why do Whites accept the surrender of their culture and identity to placate hostile minorities? Why do Whites think their displacement in their native lands is a good thing? Why do Whites confuse decline with progress?

From a perspective of self interest, White racial suicide doesn’t make any sense. It becomes explicable though in the light of ideology and altruism. Our enemies have twisted Christianity and republicanism to justify our demise as a people. The intellectual fraud they have perpetrated doesn’t stand up to close historical scrutiny. The real impulse to annihilate Whites comes from outside both of these traditions.

Two centuries ago, Whites didn’t have these debates. Republicanism and Christianity flourished alongside a vigorous racial nationalism. Slavery was a contentious issue, but Whiteness itself wasn’t attacked by even the most radical egalitarians. No one believed that “liberty” and “equality” mandated or required the demographic submersion of America’s White majority. If a Christian minister or priest had invoked “love” to justify the racial displacement of his flock, they would have laughed him out of church. They probably would have tarred and feathered him to boot.

The attack on Whiteness began in the twentieth century. It came from three primary sources: Jewish academics, black intellectuals, and Marxists. More often that not, blacks and Jews mingled in the same radical fringe. It was an extremely secular milieu. Collectively, they dreamed of overthrowing the bourgeoisie republican order and replacing it with a classless Marxist utopia in which all racial and social distinctions would be abolished.

The Soviet Union was the first European nation to permanently incorporate this revolutionary ideal into law. In the 1920s, the USSR became a mecca for radical black intellectuals alienated from America. In the United States, the Communist Party USA was the only political party that fully championed the colorblind ideal that gradually triumphed after the Second World War. It was instructed to unfurl the banner of racial equality by the Comintern. Within the CPUSA, the Moscow party line was controversial, as it tended to alienate White working class voters.

This is a rich story that no one has completely told. The term “racism” made its debut on the Marxist fringe in the 1920s, entered American public discourse in the 1930s, and penetrated the mainstream in the 1940s. The Civil Rights Movement had close ties to communism in its earliest years. The U.S. dismantled Jim Crow largely because of the appeal of communism in the Third World. The ruling class neutralized the racial threat of Soviet communism (the possibility of a black fifth column) by mainstreaming the Soviet racial ideal here in America.

The spearhead of anti-racism hasn’t changed in our own times. It is still composed of Jewish academics, black intellectuals, and Marxists. The common thread uniting them is communism, atheism, and hatred of Whites. They have since moved on to creating a new radical discourse about “white privilege” and new forms of subversion like “critical race theory.” These ideals are then smuggled into the mainstream through left-wing front groups as the newest form of Christianity and republicanism.

This is where Comrade Jeffrey enters the picture. His apparent role is to put words into the mouth of Jesus Christ or Thomas Jefferson that were never spoken. The true progenitors of his ideal can trace their footsteps back to Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. He doesn’t want you to find that out though.

Occidental Dissent, February 3, 2010

Kevin MacDonald: Casting pearls before swine?

On January 26, 2010, a new campaign of intellectual and political persecution was launched against Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach. The express goal of this campaign is to get Professor MacDonald fired from his job because of his research and political convictions.

Professor MacDonald’s research threatens the cultural and political hegemony of the organized Jewish community by exposing their ongoing subversion of Western civilization. This research has made Professor MacDonald a target of persecution by Jewish individuals, organizations, front groups, and their dupes for nearly a decade.

This persecution has intensified of late because of Professor MacDonald’s affiliation with the newly-formed American Third Position political party, which threatens Jewish hegemony by explicitly representing the interests of white Americans, who are being culturally and politically dispossessed by Jews and their non-white allies.

Student agitators affiliated with Jewish front groups called “Students Fight Back” and the “Party for Socialism and Liberation” entered Professor MacDonald’s classrooms on the first day of the Spring semester and passed out propaganda to induce students to drop his classes. The agitators also threatened to circulate a petition calling for Professor MacDonald’s dismissal.

See Douglas Kauffman, “Long Beach students boycott fascist professor Kevin MacDonald,” on the website of the Party for Socialism and Libertation and Sonia Scherr’s “Student Activists Confront Anti-Semitic California Prof” on the website of Professor MacDonald’s long-time persecutors the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Professor MacDonald has commented on the latest round of harassment on The Occidental Observer Blog: “The multi-cultural left’s broad definitions of ‘racism’ — and aggressive tactics” and “The academic left’s involvement in politics.”

Professor MacDonald’s enemies try to cloak their radical agenda in standard liberal pieties, but whether from cynicism or mere stupidity, their attempts are so clumsy that any child can see through them.

For instance, one of the agitators, Marylou Cabral, is concerned that Professor MacDonald’s research and political commitments might color his teaching. The fact that she does not apply the same standards to politically engaged leftist professors, indeed to entire politically engaged disciplines — women’s studies, black studies, gay and lesbian studies, etc. — shows that her objection is not to academic political engagement per se, but merely to Professor MacDonald’s views.

Another agitator, Douglas Kauffman, said: “Our campus is one of the most diverse in the country, and that really flies in the face of having a Nazi as a professor.” Student Shavanda Williams echoed these sentiments, asking: “Why is he here if he has these white supremacist ideas?”

Genuine liberals should find such statements dismaying. After all, “liberal education” is not supposed to mean education by a bunch of dogmatic liberals who all think alike. Liberal education is an education that expands the horizons of students by exposing them to a variety of different viewpoints.

Thus, although it really is not fair to characterize Professor MacDonald as a Nazi or a white supremacist, even if he were, the presence of a faculty member with such unusual viewpoints would make CSLB more intellectually diverse

Of course Kauffman, Cabral, & co. are not liberals. They are left-wing totalitarians. For them, “diversity” is merely a euphemism for the stigmatization and dispossession of whites by Jews and non-whites.

“Diversity” does not mean diversity of opinion. It means black leftists, lesbian leftists, Asian leftists, mestizo leftists, feminist leftists, etc. all working under the tutelage of Jewish leftists to root out every possible form of white racial consciousness.

“Diversity” does not mean that all races and ethnic groups should take pride in themselves and watch out for their interests. No, when whites do that, it is not “diversity,” it is “hate.” And the fanatical persecution of “hate” is what leftists call “tolerance” — and, presumably, “love” (they are all just snarling and sputtering with love).

Before Kevin MacDonald is nailed to the cross of tolerance, I hope we will hear some voices of protest from the genuine liberals — faculty, administrators, and students — at his university and in academia at large. Academia being what it is, we can’t expect anything much better than sincere liberals. But genuine liberalism should be enough to protect Kevin MacDonald’s freedom to think, write, teach, and exercise his political rights as he sees fit.

We will be watching.

Perhaps they should adopt a sassy black child.

“No, We Can’t: The Impossibility of a Black British Head of State”
Peter Tatchell
The Huffington Post, January 20, 2010

As President Barack Obama celebrates his first year in the Oval Office, it is clear that the vast majority of the US public are relaxed and comfortable about having an African American head of state. Many dispute his policies but his race is no longer really an issue — which is how it should be.

In Britain, however, we can only dream of a black head of state. It isn’t going to happen any time soon because the UK system is rigged against a black leader. Black and Asian Britons are effectively barred by the system of hereditary monarchy.

For the foreseeable future, as in centuries past, no African, Asian, Arab, Caribbean or Latino Briton is eligible to assume role of British head of state.

Under Britain’s constitutional system, the head of state is the monarch – at present Queen Elizabeth II, head of the House of Windsor. The position of monarch and head of state is inherited through the Windsor family line. The Windsors are white and only their descendants are eligible to be monarch and British head of state. The result is a de facto race bar. . . . For more swill, click here.

Lyndon B. Johnson proved to be the most ardent proponent of racial equality to occupy the White House. He put civil rights at the top of his domestic agenda and went out of way to cultivate relationships with mainstream civil rights leaders.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both of which he shepherded through Congress, would eliminate the remaining legal barriers to racial equality and commit the federal government to its insurance.

His State Department also put its entire weight behind these acts, warning members of Congress that the failure to embrace this legislation would severely hamper America’s Cold War effort.

Johnson then appointed numerous blacks to executive positions in his administration — more than all former presidents combined — and, worse, announced a “War on Poverty” to address black economic grievances.

In October 1965, he pushed through an immigration reform bill to eliminate the “discriminatory” national origins system created in 1924. For once segregation had been outlawed, the old immigration law appeared as an embarrassment to a nation now committed to multiracialism and anti-Communism.

Johnson’s radical reforms were the dramatic climax of the complicated relationship that had existed between race relations and foreign policy since 1945, for it was plainly evident after their passage that the US government was now fully committed to racial equality.

When Johnson left office in 1968, overwhelmed by the social-racial chaos his administration had caused, the series of factors that had earlier promoted the “Cold War on whites” also shifted.

Both decolonization and desegregation had, in effect, been achieved by 1968.

Nixon’s administration would then establish diplomatic relations with China and detente with the Soviet Union, demoting the significance of the Cold War (even though the Soviets continued to link imperialism and the “oppression of American blacks” in their anti-Vietnam rhetoric).

The nature of race relations and the problems associated with them also changed. No sooner had Johnson’s landmark bills been passed than a black rebellion broke out in Watts, leaving thirty-four dead and causing millions of dollars in property damage.

Here was the unwelcome shape of things to come, for racial conflict, it was now clear, was not a purely Southern problem, but no less a national one.

Throughout the remainder of the decade, virtually every major American city would be scared and seared by similar riots/rebellions, as the black masses, signaling their rejection of white liberalism and its gradualist approach to racism and discrimination, took to rioting and looting to promote the “Black Liberation” advocated by “the angry children of Malcolm X.”

Other sorts of protests also emerged — against poverty and war — further overshadowing the struggle against discrimination.

At the same time, increased urban violence and the revolutionary demands of the Black Power movement alienated much of the Establishment and set off a white “backlash” in the electorate, which demanded “law and order” and eventually brought Richard Nixon to power.

Though racial conflict would continue after 1968s and in some cases became more violent and vocal, its effect on US foreign policy seemed to wane.

Part of this was due to the ensuing white backlash, part to the fact that the legal basis of Jim Crow had been dismantled, and part to the Vietnam war, which re-focused international attention away from American race relations and toward American militarism.

Then, as Vietnam eclipsed civil rights as a defining issue of US prestige abroad and as the government continued to introduce domestic programs designed to promote not just black rights, but black employment, housing, and welfare, the linkage between race and foreign relations snapped.

Once it did, a different order of forces — associated with the rise of Jewish influence, the Cultural Revolution, and the new anti-white system of race relations — was mobilized against white interests.

The story of race and equality also became more complicated after 1968, for, internationally, it was now obvious that the US government was committed to eliminating the remaining racial barriers and, domestically, that economic and class problems were as integral to black failure as were legal barriers — economic and class problems that lacked the international resonance of legal segregation.

In such a situation, critics found it increasingly difficult to charge that things hadn’t changed and weren’t continuing to change — as we on the other side well know.

***

The Second World War had thrust the United States into a position of world leadership.

Though race played no part in determining US relations to the Soviet Union or shaping its global capitalist system, it did affect the way they were approached.

The crusade against Europe and the subsequent emergence of various nationalist movements in the Third World after 1945 changed the dynamic of the international arena and compelled the United States to reconsider its traditional system of race relations. This put the US civil rights movement and anti-Communism on parallel tracks.

At the same time, the international projection of US power brought new scrutiny to the character of American society. Racial incidents in the South ceased, thus, to be local events and became potential international headlines, detrimental to US global concerns.

As the boundaries between domestic and foreign affairs blurred, US officials, as was made clear to every president from Truman to Johnson, realized that they would not be able to maintain their world leadership, if American domestic affairs alienated the overwhelming majority of the world’s nonwhite population. Race relations at home were here again linked to US prestige and influence abroad.

The great changes that have reshaped America’s racial hierarchy in the last half-century, especially in subordinating white interests to blacks, are, I would argue, virtually incomprehensible apart from the international context of the Cold War.

One might even argue that, in world historical terms, the destruction of America’s former white-centric racial hierarchy represents a more consequential outcome than the collapse of Soviet Communism. For by the end of the Cold War, European-America had been transformed into a multiracial nation and the very idea of “white supremacy” exiled to the US equivalent of the Gulag.

The result is the present prospect of extinction — not unrelated, of course, to American-Jewish machinations, yet hardly dependent on them.

The two administrations of Dwight D. Eisenhower would be qualitatively less sympathetic to civil rights than was Truman’s.

Nevertheless, the logic of Cold War civil rights had already taken hold of the government, propelling it ever closer toward the racial chaos we know today.

Though no racist, Eisenhower wasn’t keen on civil rights. Under his administration, blacks lost the easy access to the White House that they had acquired under Truman; only once, late in his presidency did he ever meet with civil rights leaders. Moreover, as a former soldier who had spent a good part of his career in the South, he had developed a real sympathy for Southern life (as “open-minded” Yankees do).

If civil rights were to be introduced (and he felt that some symbolic changes ought, perhaps, to be made for the sake of “national security”), he was convinced that it should be done slowly and moderately.

A few weeks before the Supreme Court’s Brown decision, which put the Constitution on the side of desegregation, he is reputed to have told Earl Warren that “segregationists are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside big overgrown Negroes.”

His was a generational attitude that was less and less shared by New Class elites. Thus, even though introduced by the Truman administration, the Republican National Committee was quick to take credit for Brown, portraying it as “the Eisenhower administration’s many-frontal attack on global Communism” — however unenthusiastic Eisenhower may have actually been.

Brown, indeed, provided the US government with a powerful counter to Soviet propaganda. The USIF went into overdrive to publicize it throughout the world, where it got largely favorable reviews.

Brown’s radical judicial assault on American race relations would, in fact, signal the beginning of the end for Jim Crow.

Buoyed up on the court’s decision, as well as the escalating struggle for decolonization in Africa and the Third World, the NAACP at this point sensed that the tide had at last turned in its favor.

In December 1955 it waged a year-long bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, which would mark the advent of mass civil rights organizing. M.L. King described the boycott as part of a global process in which “the oppressed peoples of the world” had risen up against colonialism, imperialism, and racism.

This new stage in the civil movement can hardly be understood without the backdrop of the Cold War and the type of world it was creating.

Many, though, wanted no part of this world.

Unlike their counterparts today, Southern whites refused to passively accept this assault on their traditional way of life.

This was especially evident in September 1957 at Little Rock’s Central High School, where the first major challenge to Brown was made, as thousands of belligerent whites, supported by their governor, Orval Faubus, and the state National Guard, prepared to resist the court-mandated admission of nine Negroes to their all-white institution.

Not merely the Jewish controlled media in the United States, but the media worldwide carried vivid images of jeering white crowds threatening the nine neatly dressed and apparently well-mannered black teens, who, in braving the “mobs,” sought, simply, “to sit in the same classroom with white boys and girls.”

The Soviets, who would humiliate the US during the crisis by putting the first man-made satellite into orbit, offered the world numerous commentaries on this “racist” form of “American barbarism” — commentaries that were reprinted and circulated throughout the Third World.

At the same time, US embassies abroad deluged Washington with information on Little Rock’s unfavorable international impact and John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, warned that both the UN and the nonaligned Third World was watching to see if the US was really committed to civil rights.

With the impending threat of violence in the streets and the plummeting of US prestige aboard, Eisenhower finally acted, sending in the 101st Airborne Division in order to stop, among other things, “the disservice . . . that has been done to the nation in the eyes of the world” — as “our enemies . . . gloat over the incident and use it everywhere to misrepresent our nation.”

As the first president since Reconstruction to mobilize the army in defense of black civil rights, Eisenhower had not wanted to intervene, but the breakdown of law and the continuing Soviet propaganda binge about US “racial terror” had forced his hand.

He acted, revealingly, more to uphold federal authority and repair the country’s international image than he did to promote racial equality. In a national televised address, he said “it would be difficult to exaggerate the harm that is being done to the prestige and influence, and indeed to the safety, of our nation and the world.” In a word, Little Rock’s resistance to desegregation was a threat to national security.

At this point, the Cold War logic of civil rights became nearly irreversible.

***

The ensuing Kennedy and Johnson administrations would finalize Jim Crow’s demise.

Unlike the Democratic presidents preceding and succeeding him, John F. Kennedy entered the White House without strong feelings about civil rights.

The only Negro he had actually ever encountered up to then was his valet.

While in the Senate, he did, admittedly, take up the cause of African independence, but this was mainly a gentrified gesture of his Irish heritage rather than any genuine commitment to Negro nationalism.

Kennedy’s defining identity as a politician (if an American politician can be said to have an identity unrelated to electoral considerations) was anti-Communism (this wretched liberal ideology dear to both the American right and left, as well as to not a few WN), which he had inherited from the great Joseph McCarthy. Indeed, his fierce anti-Communism made his administration the most dangerous in the history of the Cold War.

Like other Democrats of the period, he paid formal lip service to a moderate version of civil rights, though he had a poor record of support for it in the Senate. His main concern was that both segregationists and desegregationalists seemed almost indifferent to the issue of Communism.

For the first two and a half years of his administration he accordingly refused to offer any real leadership on the issue of civil rights.

The accelerating conflict in the South, however, would not long allow this inaction.

There was something ironic in this.

Kennedy’s election had signalled not only a generational turn in American politics, it was widely felt as if it had ushered in a new spirit in American life. His “youth and charisma,” combined with the fact that he was the first Catholic to hold the office, seemed to herald the advent of a new era. Though the “Sixties,” as a distinct political-cultural period, did not actually begin until about 1964 or 1965, his election was its prelude.

This was especially evident in the gathering momentum of the civil rights movement, which was beginning to move out of the courts and into the streets.

In Eisenhower’s last year in office, civil rights organizations had staged sit-ins, with great fanfare, at segregated lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina, inaugurating the age of mass civil disobedience. By August 1961, over 70,000 people are estimated to have participated in these sit-ins, which were expanded to include various other segregated public facilities.

Then in May 1961, “Freedom Riders” started challenging discrimination in interstate transit, which the courts had earlier rule to be unconstitutional. Given the violence, demonstrations, and TV coverage that accompanied the Freedom Riders, they proved to be a distinct embarrassment to the new administration.

Kennedy, who was planning to meet Khrushchev in Vienna, also feared they were making him look weak and vulnerable in the international media. He condemned the Freedom Riders as “unpatriotic,” tarnishing the nation’s image at the very moment when he was about to make an entrance on the world stage.

His problems with the burgeoning civil rights movement were, however, just beginning.

In September 1962 he faced another major racial crisis, this time at the University of Mississippi, where large crowds of angry whites sought to prevent the court-ordered admission of the Negro James Meredith.

With the campus beset with riots, violence, death, and gun fire, Kennedy, like Eisenhower before him, was forced to intervene. He sent in several hundred federal marshals and then federalized the Mississippi National Guard — ultimately, to stop the TV images and the unfavorable international coverage.

Then, in May 1963, the impact of race on US international politics came to a head in Birmingham, Alabama, where Bull Connor (who would inspire Hollywood’s image of the pudgy, brutal Southern sheriff) turned high-pressure fire hoses and police dogs on a thousand black civil rights’ marchers.

The vivid images of “peaceful blacks” being assaulted by “Nazi-like” police made for spectacular television. The Soviets had a field day and global opinion turned hostile.

A few weeks later, George Wallace — whose earlier campaign slogan was “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!” — also defied the federal government, preventing the integration of the University of Alabama, creating, in the process, another worldwide TV spectacle.

Kennedy again sent in federal marshals, but at this point he decided that something needed to be done to get these embarrassing protests out of the streets and back into the courts, where they could be controlled. The result was his decision in June 1963 to submit a comprehensive civil rights bill to Congress that would outlaw all public forms of segregation.

Passed after his assassination, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would mark the impending demise of Jim Crow.

However phony, the conflicts and tensions of the Cold War were very real — for the “war” was turned into a titanic ideological battle between Communism and liberalism over which system would shape the coming postwar order.

In this struggle, racial equality and civil rights inevitably became an integral facet of the larger ideological struggle.

This was due to the fact that “the world [was] no longer white.”

Once Europe had been reduced to rubble, its prestige in, as well as its hold on its overseas empire was everywhere weakened. The nonwhites of these former European governed lands became, as such, a “constituency” to be won by rival liberal or Communist cold warriors.

In 1947, India, the world’s second largest “nation,” achieved independence, soon followed Indonesia. By the end of Truman’s administration (March 1953), most of Asia and the Middle East had freed itself of European domination. Africa would follow in the late 1950s and early ’60s.

In this new era, to maintain America’s leadership of the non-Communist “free world,” Americans could no longer ignore (or control) the world’s nonwhite majority.

The Cold War, as a consequence, would be fought largely for the hearts and minds of the former colonial world (what a French journalist in 1955 called the “Third World”).

Truman, like most of the early cold warriors, was not exactly a racial egalitarian. As a Missourian, whose heritage was more Southern than Midwestern, he was not without racial “prejudice,” though in the course of his Senate career, he came to support anti-lynching legislation and the abolition of poll taxes. It was Cold War imperatives, however, that made him into a forthright proponent of “civil rights.”

Most of Truman’s top advisers, including the “Wise Men” who helped him create the Cold War state, came from the old WASP elite and tended to be racial conservatives (contemptuous not only of Negroes, but of Jews). Though at times sympathetic to Southern concerns and with no particular affection for “the poor Negro” of liberal imagination, they too would be forced to embrace the cause of civil rights — linked, as it was, to the Cold War.

In this anti-Communist war it waged, the United States was now obliged to demonstrate that historic white racism was not part of its international anti-Communist coalition.

Anti-racism, as a result, became almost as important to US international interests as anti-Communism.

This was especially the case since the Soviets were adept at making hay out of American racial practices. In 1946, for example, when Truman’s Secretary of State, James Byrnes, denounced Communists for denying certain East Europeans voting rights, they retorted that Negroes in Byrnes’ home state of South Carolina, as well as throughout the rest of the American South, were similarly and less justifiably denied voting rights.

This would not be the only time that Byrnes was made to look like a fool.

Then, as the machinery of the Cold War was put in place, the Soviets’ anti-US rhetoric increasingly made American racial practice the centerpiece of their propaganda, which put the US on the defensive.

This would again be the case, when later, as US bombing runs over North Korea and then North Vietnam killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, the Soviets linked “the American way of waging war” to the “oppression of colored people in the US,” (which, of course, ignored the fact that Anglo-American bombers had earlier killed 900,000 German civilians, as well as many tens of thousands of French, Belgium, Dutch, Italian, and other European civilians — often doing so intentionally, striving to kill the largest possible number of innocents).

Given US claims to the mantle of the “Free World’s” leadership and the nonwhite world’s new definition of itself in terms hostile to the white man’s former attitude to it, the American color bar would henceforth be subject to unprecedented international scrutiny. Every headline reporting a lynching or another Southern effort to shore up Jim Crow took, as a consequence, a toll on America’s international standing.

One US ambassador described the country’s race problem as its “Achilles’ heel,” another called it “the greatest propaganda gift that could be given to the Kremlin,” and a third asked: “How can we persuade these Africans and Asians . . . that we believe in human dignity when we deny our own citizens the right to this basic dignity on the basis of skin color?”

In this struggle between the “Communist East” and the “liberal West,” Truman’s cold warriors had now to keep the nonwhite “South” allied with the white “North.”

US foreign relations, it followed, would no longer be insulated from the nation’s race relations.

Numerous propaganda agencies were specifically created to counter Soviet propaganda and to tell a “story” not of racial equality (which evidently didn’t exist), but of on-going racial progress. The United States Information Agency (USIF) — with its vast array of radio stations, printed materials, and foreign-based “America Houses” — endeavored, thus, to put a different spin on US race relations.

Propaganda, however, was not enough.

***

All the major US Cold War initiatives of the late 1940s — the Truman Doctrine (1947), the Marshall Plan (1948), NATO (1949), NSC 68 (1950) — emerged against mounting demands for racial equality, in the US and abroad.

Truman, accordingly, would be the first president to make civil rights a concern of his administration.

In 1946, he formed a President’s Committee on Civil Rights, staffed with liberals, which reported that a major reform in race relations was needed to fight the Cold War, that on-going discrimination was undermining US diplomacy, and that the US had to take account of what “the world thinks of us and our record.”

He also urged Congress to enact civil rights laws to establish a permanent committee on civil rights, to outlaw lynching, and to protect the right to vote.

Because Southerners stymied him in Congress, he turned to executive orders to promote reforms and, at the same time, involved his Justice Department in various desegregation litigations.

His most important civil rights’ “accomplishment” was, unquestionably, his executive order of June 1948 to desegregate the army and the civil service.

It wasn’t until the Korea War, however, when manpower shortages compelled commanders to actively implement it, that the army actually began to desegregate and not until 1955 that the process was completed. It was nevertheless the most consequential step toward racial equality yet taken.

As a politician sensitive to the negative electoral implications of civil rights, he, of course, didn’t want to alienate the Southern base of the Democratic Party. But here he failed. Rather naively, he thought the introduction of a pro-civil rights plank in the Democratic Party program wouldn’t upset the party’s Southern wing (given that party programs are usually forgotten the moment the votes are counted). He was wrong: The Dixiecrats bolted and formed a States’ Rights Party (the first step toward the South’s eventual abandonment of the Democratic Party).

But once he was free of the Dixiecrats, he could openly court the black northern vote. During the campaign, he was not particularly outspoken on civil rights, knowing that northern whites weren’t much different than Southerners in this respect.

But he did become the first president to address a national convention of the NAACP and the first to campaign in Harlem, where he said: “Democracy’s answer to the challenges of [Communist] totalitarianism is its promise of equal rights and equal opportunities for all mankind” (not mentioning, of course, that such rights and opportunities were meaningful only among peoples of similar natural endowment).

In November 1948, in winning the vast majority of the black vote, he captured the White House with the narrowest of margins.

Given Congress’ on-going resistance to civil rights reform, Truman increasingly looked to the courts, especially the Supreme Court, which had already ruled against segregated interstate transportation (1946) and showed a willingness to play a role in the Cold War of ideas.

In 1948 Truman’s Justice Department filed amicus curiae briefs in the Shelley v. Kraemer case that struck down housing covenants. In 1949 it intervened in Henderson v. United States to prohibit segregation in railroad transportation. In the same year it participated in cases challenging school desegregation — McLaurin v. Oklahoma and Sweatt v. Painter. Finally, in December 1952, it intervened in the Brown v. Board of Education case (resolved in 1954).

In each of these cases, Truman’s State Department stressed their national security implications, an argument for which the court had already shown sympathy.

By the time the little cold warrior left office, Jim Crow’s days were numbered: The military had been desegregated, the Democratic Party had gone on record for racial equality, and judicial interventions had begun to lower the legal barriers to discrimination.

Selling the Cold War: A Racially-Integrated America Menaced by White Russian Communists

“The world is white no longer.”
– James Baldwin

For white nationalists — whose cyber-based “movement” is still in its infancy — simple explanations tend to be the rule.

The reductionist “anti-Semitism” that dominates WN ranks and serves as a catch-all explanation for the predicament white people find themselves in today, to cite the most prominent example, is wont to attribute every assault on white life to Jewish perfidy.

There is, certainly, no disputing the existence of this “perfidy,” for no other group — not the browns or blacks, not the former powers of international Communism, not anyone or anything — is or has been so disposed to breaching the color line, undermining America’s traditional racial hierarchy, or propelling the processes responsible for the present dispossession of the country’s white majority.

To think, however, that Organized Jewry has been the alpha and omega of this dispossession is not just simple-minded, it’s dishonorable.

It’s simple-minded because it understands complex historical processes in Kindergarten terms. It ignores other, no less culpable factors.

More fundamentally, it ignores or conflates the differences between structural imperatives and conspiratorial designs, between concrete objective forces and the subjective influences of interest and conscience.

History, as such, offers few cases where monocausal explanations suffice, for the confluence of fortune, structure, and subject (fortuna, necessita, virtu) undergirding the historical process means that significant historical changes are almost always the consequence of a combination of forces unique to their specific time and place.

By the same reasoning, monocausal explanations focusing exclusively on a demonized “other” are dishonorable because they spare whites all responsibility for their misfortunes, refuse to acknowledge the dysgenic and self-destructive forces indigenous to modern society, and ignore the numerous, inherently Jewish facets of the American project.

In criticizing this, I do so not to absolve the Jews, but to preface the subject of this essay — the anti-white consequences of the Cold War — which offers a somewhat broader explanation of white dispossession (though there are at least a couple of others that can also be made).

***

The Second World War was a watershed event in both American and world history.

It changed not only America’s relationship with the rest of the world, it fundamentally changed America.

Thomas Hart Benton, "Negro Soldier," 1942

The struggle against National Socialist Germany (despite the racial character of the Pacific War against the “Japs”) was ideologically waged as a war against fascism and racism.

As the unadmirable Gunnar Myrdal wrote in 1944, “In fighting fascism and racism, America had to stand before the whole world in favor of racial tolerance and . . . racial equality.”

Its international crusade for liberal ideals stood, though, in obvious contradiction to the exclusion of various colored peoples, blacks particularly, who were denied a place in the country’s political and social firmament — denied because whites wanted a white nation, like other Europeans.

Myrdal called this supposed contradiction between its ideals and practices the “American Dilemma.”

It would become especially conspicuous after 1945, when America’s newly assumed international role left it with numerous, new obligations that drew attention to its so-called “dilemma” (which, in actuality, was a dilemma of American liberalism).

The war, moreover, changed not just the prevailing Zeitgeist.

The colossal undertaking to put 13 million men in uniform, to arm them (and the allies), and to fight on several different fronts in distant parts of the world required a national mobilization of unprecedented scope.

The war, it followed, brought great dislocations, disrupting traditional social relations and forcing the alteration of many traditional attitudes.

America’s democratic crusade against “German racism” also brought millions of blacks north to work in defense plants. This had a major impact on housing and employment. It also heightened black self-confidence, freed them from the older Southern forms of race relations, and emboldened their challenge to white supremacy. This became especially evident in 1943, when 200 race riots flared up in more than forty-five American cities, anticipating the contentious racial battles of the postwar era, especially those of the 1960s and ’70s.

At the same time, a million negroes were drafted into the military.

Though the army remained segregated, it quickly discovered the inefficiency and expense of maintaining separate facilities. It was even forced, whenever the exhausted, ill-supplied, and depleted forces of the Wehrmacht beat back the unheroic GIs, to bypass its segregated practices and throw in blacks troops to support decimated or beleaguered white units.

Black veterans, relatedly, provided many of the shock troops that would assault Jim Crow after 1945.

These developments — combined with the retreat of “scientific racism” in the 1930s, the wartime expansion of the New Deal state, the defeat and demonization of German anti-liberalism, and the Cold War’s ensuing crusade for democracy and equality — would together undermine much of the legitimacy of traditional American racial practices.

As one Alabama governor (Frank Dixon) rather tendentiously put it (and only a Southerner could make this argument with a straight face), “The Huns have wrecked the theory of the master race.”

***

Following the war, American power in the world was supreme, unchallenged, except by the Soviet Union, which, after having lost 27 million Russians in the course of the war (compared to 250,000 US combat deaths), was not actually in a position to defy the new superpower, though its unwillingness to submit to Washington’s tutelage would automatically cast it as a potential rival.

At this pivotal historical moment, when the whole world lay prostrate before them, American leaders felt as if they had been granted the Mandate of Heaven.

Inspired by the biblical Zionism of their Puritan heritage and encouraged by the economic self-interests of the great corporations, these leaders would reshape the international arena to reflect and serve the interests of American democracy and capitalism (each the economic or ideological mirror of the other).

Before even the war’s end, New Deal planners had developed the programs and trained the personnel who would occupy Germany, Italy, and (they thought) France and integrate them into the new American-led Atlantic “coalition”; Britain had earlier been deprived of its sovereignty and integrated. At the same time, a host of American-created international organizations — especially the United Nations, whose 1945 Charter committed its members to opposing racial discrimination — were designed to ensure the American governance of this new international order.

It was left, thought, to the administration of Harry S. Truman, the architect of the Cold War, to mould the exact contours of this order.

***

Russian-Americans relations had soured in the closing phase of the war, as political differences became more important than strategic ones. By 1946 they were engaged in a war of words, with the Soviets countering American claims of tyranny by pointing to lynchings, poll taxes, and other facets of Jim Crow to expose the fraudulence of America’s democratic-egalitarian ideology.

By 1947, with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine to fight the international forces of Communist subversion, a Cold War, which would last until 1989, was implicitly declared.

In many respects, this was a phony war.

A severely exhausted and crippled Soviet Union posed no threat to the US.

But this phony war had become a political necessity for US leaders.

The New Deal, which arose in response to the breakdown of liberal capitalism in 1929, had failed (unlike Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany) to fix the depressed economy. It was only with the advent of “Defense Preparations” in 1939 and the war economy after 1941 that the American economy began to rebound.

The most pressing concern of liberal democrats after 1945 was thus avoiding another economic collapse — which meant on-going defense preparations and continued government intervention in the economy.

To justify this New-Deal created “Pentagon capitalism,” as well as a National Security State to oversee it, it was necessary, however, “to scare the hell out of the American people.”

Hence the ensuing transformation of good old “Uncle Joe” (Stalin) into the great bogeyman bent on enslaving the world.

To be continued . . .

Selling the Cold War: A Racially-Integrated America Menaced by White Russian Communists

“The world is white no longer.”
– James Baldwin

For white nationalists — whose cyber-based “movement” is still in its infancy — simple explanations tend to be the rule.

The reductionist “anti-Semitism” that dominates WN ranks and serves as a catch-all explanation for the predicament white people find themselves in today, to cite the most prominent example, is wont to attribute every assault on white life to Jewish perfidy.

There is, certainly, no disputing the existence of this “perfidy,” for no other group — not the browns or blacks, not the former powers of international Communism, not anyone or anything — is or has been so disposed to breaching the color line, undermining America’s traditional racial hierarchy, or propelling the processes responsible for the present dispossession of the country’s white majority.

To think, however, that Organized Jewry has been the alpha and omega of this dispossession is not just simple-minded, it’s dishonorable.

It’s simple-minded because it understands complex historical processes in Kindergarten terms. It ignores other, no less culpable factors.

More fundamentally, it ignores or conflates the differences between structural imperatives and conspiratorial designs, between concrete objective forces and the subjective influences of interest and conscience.

History, as such, offers few cases where monocausal explanations suffice, for the confluence of fortune, structure, and subject (fortuna, necessita, virtu) undergirding the historical process means that significant historical changes are almost always the consequence of a combination of forces unique to their specific time and place.

By the same reasoning, monocausal explanations focusing exclusively on a demonized “other” are dishonorable because they spare whites all responsibility for their misfortunes, refuse to acknowledge the dysgenic and self-destructive forces indigenous to modern society, and ignore the numerous, inherently Jewish facets of the American project.

In criticizing this, I do so not to absolve the Jews, but to preface the subject of this essay — the anti-white consequences of the Cold War — which offers a somewhat broader explanation of white dispossession (though there are at least a couple of others that can also be made).

***

The Second World War was a watershed event in both American and world history.

It changed not only America’s relationship with the rest of the world, it fundamentally changed America.

Thomas Hart Benton, "Negro Soldier," 1942

The struggle against National Socialist Germany (despite the racial character of the Pacific War against the “Japs”) was ideologically waged as a war against fascism and racism.

As the unadmirable Gunnar Myrdal wrote in 1944, “In fighting fascism and racism, America had to stand before the whole world in favor of racial tolerance and . . . racial equality.”

Its international crusade for liberal ideals stood, though, in obvious contradiction to the exclusion of various colored peoples, blacks particularly, who were denied a place in the country’s political and social firmament — denied because whites wanted a white nation, like other Europeans.

Myrdal called this supposed contradiction between its ideals and practices the “American Dilemma.”

It would become especially conspicuous after 1945, when America’s newly assumed international role left it with numerous, new obligations that drew attention to its so-called “dilemma” (which, in actuality, was a dilemma of American liberalism).

The war, moreover, changed not just the prevailing Zeitgeist.

The colossal undertaking to put 13 million men in uniform, to arm them (and the allies), and to fight on several different fronts in distant parts of the world required a national mobilization of unprecedented scope.

The war, it followed, brought great dislocations, disrupting traditional social relations and forcing the alteration of many traditional attitudes.

America’s democratic crusade against “German racism” also brought millions of blacks north to work in defense plants. This had a major impact on housing and employment. It also heightened black self-confidence, freed them from the older Southern forms of race relations, and emboldened their challenge to white supremacy. This became especially evident in 1943, when 200 race riots flared up in more than forty-five American cities, anticipating the contentious racial battles of the postwar era, especially those of the 1960s and ’70s.

At the same time, a million negroes were drafted into the military.

Though the army remained segregated, it quickly discovered the inefficiency and expense of maintaining separate facilities. It was even forced, whenever the exhausted, ill-supplied, and depleted forces of the Wehrmacht beat back the unheroic GIs, to bypass its segregated practices and throw in blacks troops to support decimated or beleaguered white units.

Black veterans, relatedly, provided many of the shock troops that would assault Jim Crow after 1945.

These developments — combined with the retreat of “scientific racism” in the 1930s, the wartime expansion of the New Deal state, the defeat and demonization of German anti-liberalism, and the Cold War’s ensuing crusade for democracy and equality — would together undermine much of the legitimacy of traditional American racial practices.

As one Alabama governor (Frank Dixon) rather tendentiously put it (and only a Southerner could make this argument with a straight face), “The Huns have wrecked the theory of the master race.”

***

Following the war, American power in the world was supreme, unchallenged, except by the Soviet Union, which, after having lost 27 million Russians in the course of the war (compared to 250,000 US combat deaths), was not actually in a position to defy the new superpower, though its unwillingness to submit to Washington’s tutelage would automatically cast it as a potential rival.

At this pivotal historical moment, when the whole world lay prostrate before them, American leaders felt as if they had been granted the Mandate of Heaven.

Inspired by the biblical Zionism of their Puritan heritage and encouraged by the economic self-interests of the great corporations, these leaders would reshape the international arena to reflect and serve the interests of American democracy and capitalism (each the economic or ideological mirror of the other).

Before even the war’s end, New Deal planners had developed the programs and trained the personnel who would occupy Germany, Italy, and (they thought) France and integrate them into the new American-led Atlantic “coalition”; Britain had earlier been deprived of its sovereignty and integrated. At the same time, a host of American-created international organizations — especially the United Nations, whose 1945 Charter committed its members to opposing racial discrimination — were designed to ensure the American governance of this new international order.

It was left, thought, to the administration of Harry S. Truman, the architect of the Cold War, to mould the exact contours of this order.

***

Russian-Americans relations had soured in the closing phase of the war, as political differences became more important than strategic ones. By 1946 they were engaged in a war of words, with the Soviets countering American claims of tyranny by pointing to lynchings, poll taxes, and other facets of Jim Crow to expose the fraudulence of America’s democratic-egalitarian ideology.

By 1947, with the announcement of the Truman Doctrine to fight the international forces of Communist subversion, a Cold War, which would last until 1989, was implicitly declared.

In many respects, this was a phony war.

A severely exhausted and crippled Soviet Union posed no threat to the US.

But this phony war had become a political necessity for US leaders.

The New Deal, which arose in response to the breakdown of liberal capitalism in 1929, had failed (unlike Fascist Italy and National Socialist Germany) to fix the depressed economy. It was only with the advent of “Defense Preparations” in 1939 and the war economy after 1941 that the American economy began to rebound.

The most pressing concern of liberal democrats after 1945 was thus avoiding another economic collapse — which meant on-going defense preparations and continued government intervention in the economy.

To justify this New-Deal created “Pentagon capitalism,” as well as a National Security State to oversee it, it was necessary, however, “to scare the hell out of the American people.”

Hence the ensuing transformation of good old “Uncle Joe” (Stalin) into the great bogeyman bent on enslaving the world.

To be continued . . .

From Global Guerrillas, January 3, 2010

Casey Johnson

Lesbian heiress, socialite, and Hollywood celeb Casey Johnson, 30, was found dead in the bedroom of her West Hollywood home on January 4, 2010. Jewish gossip website TMZ reported that Johnson, last heard from on December 29, 2009, had been dead for several days before her body was discovered by a maid. A coroner’s toxicology report has yet to be issued, but foul play is not suspected. Johnson suffered from diabetes and had a history of drug abuse.

Casey Johnson’s death provides a convenient window into the seamy underbelly of the contemporary WASP “elite.”

A Squalid Life

According to the Daily Mail (UK):

Yesterday it was revealed that Ms Johnson lived her final days in squalor in a rubbish-strewn slum with no electricity, water or gas, and rats in her swimming pool. Cut off from her family fortune, the 30-year-old Johnson & Johnson heiress’s privileged life spiralled out of control into a drug-fuelled hell. She reportedly lived without basic utilities at her rented home because she couldn’t afford to pay the bills and kept her Porsche hidden in the garage to prevent it from being repossessed. “There are dirty dishes everywhere and rotting food. There is graffiti on the walls. The pool looks like a swamp,” the source told the New York Post. Ms Johnson is thought to have been dead for up to seven days before her body was found.

Photo captions read “Squalid: Conditions were said to be ’slumlike’ inside Casey Johnson’s LA home” and “Infested: The grounds of the home, which was crawling with rats.”

A Hollywood socialite, Johnson appeared as herself on the cable television programs E! True Hollywood Story and The Fabulous Life of . . . Her friends included Hilton sisters Paris and Nicky (Hilton Hotels), Nicole Richie, and Susan (Penn) Gutfreund, a former beauty queen and flight attendant who married the Jewish “King of Wall Street,” John Gutfreund. The Gutfreunds are believed to be the model for the Bavardages in Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities. They live at 834 Park Avenue in the same building as Casey’s father Woody Johnson and Rupert Murdoch and his Chinese wife—the building where Casey grew up.

Father Robert Wood “Woody” Johnson IV (1947-   ) is best known as the owner of the New York Jets football franchise, which he purchased for more than half a billion dollars in 2000 from the estate of Jewish oil tycoon Leon Hess (Amerada Hess Corp.).

According to Vanity Fair (note the explicit racism casually directed even at white members of the social “elite”):

Casey went to the Chapin School, the tony Manhattan private school, then to Marymount, a Catholic girls’ school, and finally to high school with Paris Hilton at Dwight. Hilton never graduated from the school known to some New York preppies as Dumb White Idiots Getting High Together, but Casey did, and she went on to Brown University.

She dropped out during her freshman year.

For three years Casey dated Jewish “nightclub promoter-turned-marketer” Mike Heller, and worked for and remained life-long friends with Lizzie Grubman, the daughter of wealthy entertainment attorney Allen Grubman.

Lizzie Grubman, a publicist with a celebrity clientele, is a woman of some interest. In 2001, after being asked by a security guard to remove her Mercedes SUV from a fire lane outside a busy nightclub in the Hamptons, Grubman notoriously smashed the vehicle into a crowd, badly injuring 16 people. She was charged with multiple felonies and faced up to eight years in prison. However, she served only 37 days in jail. She allegedly also received special treatment from the cops, who did not conduct a breathalyzer test.

Multiple accounts of the incident report that Grubman, prior to plowing into the crowd, yelled at the security guard, “Fuck you, white trash!” Grubman’s career and social standing have not suffered permanent damage from the affair.

In a 2006 interview with Johnson, Vanity Fair reported:

“The stupidest mistake of my life,” was to turn down [Paris] Hilton’s invitation to be her co-star on The Simple Life. Nicole Richie—Paris’s third choice, some say, after her sister, Nicky, and Casey—got the job instead and has parlayed it into a promising career. Casey’s ‘dream’ was to be an actress, but a serious one. “I kick myself in the butt every day,” she says of the lost opportunity to jump-start an acting career.

Casey Johnson will primarily be remembered for hard partying, adolescent-style feuds, and numerous lesbian affairs. One flame was Jewish film executive and former Yahoo! CEO Terry Semel’s daughter Courtenay Semel (formerly the girlfriend of Lindsay Lohan), who set Casey’s hair on fire during a fight.

In November 2009 Casey was charged with grand theft for stealing $200,000 worth of jewelry and clothing from another ex-lover, model Jasmine Lennard, leaving a used vibrator on the bed. Immediately prior to her death Casey and “reality TV”/skin magazine celebrity Tila Tequila announced their engagement to be married. Tequila was born Tila Nguyen in Singapore to Vietnamese parents who subsequently moved to Houston.

Casey Johnson also lavished time and money on non-white children’s charities including

the sherp Orphanage, in Kenya, and the Malawi Project, a group that Madonna helped establish to support children who have lost their families to aids. Casey says the work has helped give her focus. “It’s so boring to do nothing. Believe me, I’ve tried it. It’s, like, how many days a week can you actually go shopping? You get burned out. And you feel like shit. You think, What have I ever done to alter this world? What will people say?

A Distinguished Legacy

Casey’s great-great-grandfather, Robert Wood Johnson (1845-1910), with brothers James Wood and Edward Mead Johnson, co-founded pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson in 1885-86. Edward left the company in 1897 to found drug company Mead Johnson. (This Johnson family should not to be confused with the similarly-named heirs of the privately-owned S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., a home care products company [Pledge, Windex] headquartered in Racine, Wisconsin, founded the same year, who remain active in their family firm.)

Today New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson, maker of prescription pharmaceuticals, medical devices, Band-Aids, Tylenol, Baby Shampoo, and Acuvue disposable contact lenses, is one of the world’s largest corporations. The company’s major innovations include antiseptic individually-wrapped surgical dressings, the first aid kit, and duct tape.  An early investor in China, the company opened its second production facility there in 1993.

Casey’s great-grandfather, thrice-married Robert Wood Johnson, Jr. (called “the General” due to his administrative service as a brigadier general during WWII) (1893-1968), headed the company from 1932 to 1963, building it into the international powerhouse it is today.

Though slight of build, because of his intensely competitive spirit he became a swimmer, horseman, and tennis player. He flew all the early types of airplanes, including the original single-motor biplane, the monoplane, and the Autogiro, as helicopters were first called. He also liked to race his oceangoing sloop and won a case full of cups. (Waldemar Neilsen, The Golden Donors [1985], 117)

Johnson established a Sound Government Program within Johnson & Johnson that encouraged dozens of employees to serve in elective and appointive offices in state and local government. His passion for corporate decentralization meant that purchased subsidiaries operated under virtually autonomous bosses, and his conviction that if you “make your top managers rich, they will make you even richer” created many millionaires.

The General died in 1968, leaving the bulk of his $400 million fortune to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, today the fifth largest foundation in the country and eighth largest in the world.

Father Robert Wood “Woody” Johnson IV

Casey was the daughter of New York Jets owner Woody Johnson and his first wife Nancy Sale (Frey) Johnson (known as Sale), a model from St. Louis. The couple had three daughters: Casey, Jamie and Daisy.

Robert Johnson’s second wife is former actress Suzanne Ircha Johnson, by whom he has two sons, Robert Wood Johnson V (2006-  ) and Jack Johnson (2008-  ). Both boys were born before the couple was married. Woody Johnson also has at least one other former mistress (excuse me—”girlfriend”), Erika Mariani.

Woody has been described by a sportswriter as “a slender, bespectacled man who reveres Galileo, yet occasionally goes heli-skiing in the Canadian Rockies. He is more knowledgeable about the complexities of the Human Genome Project than the nickel defense. He knows actors and celebrities better than he knows his fellow NFL owners.”

He worked for the family corporation as a young man with the expectation that he would one day join the firm as an executive. However, in 1965 his grandfather, “the General,” ousted his father, president of domestic operations Robert Wood Johnson III (1920-1970) (Casey’s grandfather), from the firm following a family quarrel. Subsequently, Johnson III, an alcoholic, died of cancer at the age of 50 and his son Woody no longer had a future with the corporation. Today Johnson & Johnson is not family owned or run.

Woody had five brothers and sisters (Robert III’s children—Casey’s uncles and aunt). Two brothers died in 1975—one in a motorcycle accident and one from a cocaine overdose. Sister Elizabeth Ross “Libet” Johnson has been married and divorced five times and also had a string of boyfriends. In 2003 she established an orphanage for Cambodian children in Phnom Penh for $10 to $15 million. Libet also cares for a Cambodian boy she moved to the United States.

As a philanthropist, “[Woody] Johnson, whose wealth comes from a combination of inheritance and investments, remains active in the push for diabetes research, but his big push in recent years has been finding a cure for lupus, which strikes black men and women far more often than whites”—a cause to which he has donated millions of dollars.

Mother Nancy Sale (Frey) Johnson Rashad

Casey’s stepfather was Negro ex-football star, television sportscaster, and convert-to-Islam Ahmad Rashad (born Robert Earl Moore), whom Sale Johnson married after her divorce from Woody. Sale is Rashad’s fourth wife. By this marriage Casey acquired five black step brothers and sisters, four born (by various wives) in, and one out of, wedlock.

In 2007, after a failed attempt to adopt a Cambodian girl, Casey Johnson adopted a white-looking daughter from Kazakhstan, Ava-Monroe. Hotel heiress Nicky Hilton was the child’s godmother. In early 2009, in the words of one website, “Sale Johnson took custody of Casey’s young adopted daughter Ava, because Casey was living with the child, in squalor, and under the influence of drugs in her L.A. home.  Woody Johnson and Sale ceased all financial assistance to Casey at that time, and Casey became estranged from both of her parents.”

Cousin Jamie Johnson

James Wittenborn “Jamie” Johnson (1979-   ) has previously been profiled on this site.

Suzanna Andrews noted in Vanity Fair, “Next to Casey, the best-known Johnson of her generation is Jamie, whose documentary Born Rich probed the psyches of the young and set-for-life. Jamie comes from the scandalous side of the family—the one descended from the General’s brother, Seward, whose marriage to his Polish chambermaid, Barbara “Basia” Piasecka, sparked an embarrassing three-year inheritance battle.”

Older readers may remember the case, which garnered enormous publicity and was the subject of books by two Jewish authors, Barbara Goldsmith’s Johnson v. Johnson (1987) and David Margolick’s Undue Influence: The Epic Battle for the Johnson & Johnson Fortune (1993).

“Seward,” the son of company founder Robert Wood Johnson and brother of the General (Robert Wood Johnson, Jr.), was J(ohn) Seward Johnson (1895-1983). He had six children by two wives before marrying his Polish maid in 1971. Forty-two years his junior, she wound up with the bulk of his fortune.

One of Seward’s children was Jamie’s father, James Loring Johnson, who once funded a documentary attacking white rule in South Africa. Another child (Jamie’s aunt) was Mary Lea Johnson Richards (d. 1990), the wife of Jewish producer Marty Richards. They produced the homosexual Broadway play La Cage Aux Folles and the anti-white movie The Boys from Brazil (1978).

Jamie Johnson’s first documentary, Born Rich (HBO 2003), described by the New York Times as “biting the hand that feeds him, on film,” splattered mud on his father and grandfather. “Mr. Johnson, who grew up with his older sisters and brother on a luxurious New Jersey estate with servants and horses, said he didn’t find out he was rich until he was 10 years old and a friend at school found his father listed in Forbes magazine as one of the 400 wealthiest men in America. In the film, Mr. Johnson portrays his family as almost comically out of touch with reality.”

After his second film on the same subject, The One Per Cent (2006), was broadcast on Cinemax, a Jewish reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Robert Frank, described Jamie as “the rich man’s Michael Moore.” “Jamie follows his father from the croquet court to family meetings asking about the film and his family’s wealth. His father tries to answer his questions on several occasions, but eventually gives up, walking out of one interview with his head in his hands saying, ‘I can’t take any more. It’s too much for me.’” Jewish Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, in one of his last interviews before his death, accused Johnson of advocating socialism and abruptly walked out.

But, Frank notes, “Mr. Johnson insists he’s not opposed to wealth—including his own.”

The author of a regular column about the rich in Vanity Fair, Jamie Johnson will presumably analyze his cousin’s life and death in an upcoming issue.

Conclusion

The Establishment pretends that non-Jewish whites constitute a cohesive elite that controls the United States. As a Mexican employee of Village Voice Media sneered while denigrating factual statements about white dispossession, “You know, because all those white men and women in Congress, the Senate, and 95-some percent of American legislative bodies just don’t cut it!”

An examination of the Johnson family reveals that whites in the Jewish Establishment are white in name only. They symbolize the downfall and subjugation of the race to which their ancestors belonged.

The public “influence” of Casey’s father, or her cousin Jamie Johnson, for example, exists only as long as it promotes the goals of the dominant anti-white elite. Woody Johnson’s two most notable public roles have been membership in the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and serving as the fourth largest contributor to the presidential campaigns of Zionist George W. Bush. This is not “leadership,” but irresponsible followership.

Contrast the Johnsons’ aimless hedonism, conformism, and unseemly desperation to be socially accepted with the coldly calculated, tightly coordinated behavior of their Jewish counterparts who ruthlessly shoved the U.S. into the Middle East to serve Zionist interests. Jews are a purposive, cohesive ethnic elite; aimless, directionless whites are raceless. Indeed, if they were not, they would be unceremoniously and pitilessly destroyed—as everyone knows.

Casey’s adopted Kazakhstani daughter, Ava-Monroe, was named after her idol, half-Norwegian strumpet Marilyn Monroe, who degradingly served the same alien racial and social groups in her day as the Johnsons do today.

I see a lot of similarities between us. Her life makes me sad. I don’t think she was very happy. She was just very, very complicated and sort of a deep person, and nobody realized that. They thought she was some dumb blonde, and she wasn’t. She was a smart, smart broad. And I think that sometimes people look at me and think, Oh, Casey Johnson, she’s stupid, she’s blonde, she’s an heiress.

And now she’s dead, her short, unhappy life over forever.

There has been some discussion on the Internet about the book Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides are Wrong in the Race Debate by South Asian intellectual Kenan Malik, a book in which the work of Frank Salter is sharply critiqued. Now, the person best suited to answer Malik is Salter himself; further, I don’t see Malik introducing any novel arguments beyond that already presented by other anti-Salterian critics, arguments that I have answered in the past. Nevertheless, it is worth briefly looking at Malik’s remarkable suggestion that humans (and life itself!) do not have an interest in genetic continuity; only our “wants, needs, and desires” constitute real human interests.

However, there are really two types of human interests. With respect to the present discussion, these can be defined as follows. As the name suggests, preference interests describe a concern for objects or activities that a person or group has a conscious preference for; e.g., “my friend Joe has an interest in baseball.” This is the type of interest most people are familiar with, and Malik exploits this familiarity by framing his “argument” in these terms. However, such a narrow definition of “interest” as our “wants, needs, and desires” leads us to conclude that non-sentient organisms have no interests and that, for example, a recent heart attack victim can have an interest in smoking, eating deep fried Twinkies, and drinking melted lard – if he so “wants” and “desires.”

Therefore, we must consider welfare interests – which describes those objects and activities that contribute to the well being (defined in very broad terms, including the evolutionary) of any organism, independent of their “wants or desires” (if they are even capable of having “wants and desires”). Therefore, although a bacterium does not have preference interests, it does indeed have welfare interests in its survival and reproduction – reproduction contributing to genetic continuity, which is the core measure of “success” or “fitness” from an evolutionary perspective. And it should also be noted that Salter refers to the interests of evolved organisms (individual organisms and groups thereof), not the “interests” of genes per se. If Malik or anyone else wants to critique the “genes have interests” paradigm, I refer them to Richard Dawkins.

One of the defining characteristics of life on Earth is reproduction; indeed, as stated above, genetic continuity is so fundamental to evolutionary theory that biological “fitness” itself is defined in terms of reproductive success and genetic representation in future generations. It is therefore a quite unusual definition of “interests” that excludes as a fundamental concern the central tendency of all evolved organisms. It is more reasonable to see genetic continuity as one of – if not the – most important aspect of welfare interests for all life on Earth. After all, “welfare” presupposes existence; a group that does not exist cannot have “welfare” for any of its non-existent members to have an interest in. Thus, in a real sense, life does have a welfare interest in genetic continuity. All life on Earth reproduces using genetic material; therefore, genetic continuity of life equals the existence of life itself.

It is clear that evolved organisms have interests – welfare interests – in genetic continuity. The idea of kin selection recognizes that it doesn’t matter from an objective standpoint whether the genetic information to be continued is yours or identical, or relatively more similar, information in “kin.” “Kin” is a relative term, so that co-ethnics who share more of your genetic information in a relative sense compared to non-ethnics are also “kin” from the standpoint of genetic continuity. It therefore stands to reason that if genetic continuity constitutes a welfare interest for evolved organisms, and if the continuity of “kin” (including co-ethnics) is part of this continuity, then organisms have a welfare interest in the genetic continuity of their “kin,” relative to others. The word “relative” must be stressed. One does not say that an organism has a greater interest in a random “kin” member compared to self, but it does have an interest in “kin” compared to others of the same (or different) species who are genetically more dissimilar. And, the greater the numbers of co-ethnic kin vs. non-ethnics involved, the greater the welfare interests in the (genetic) continuity of kin over non-kin.

If we accept welfare interests as legitimately encompassing genetic continuity – and, after all, for life on Earth, genetic continuity is continuity itself, and existence must be an interest, is it not? – then the next line of “argument” against Salter involves the “naturalistic fallacy” (see note). In other words, the accusation is that Salter derives a preference interest for genetic continuity directly from welfare interests in that continuity, and one cannot directly derive an “ought” from an “is.” In other words, one cannot directly derive preferred human action from natural laws and biological facts.

However, Salter repeatedly makes clear that he does not do this – he intersperses “values” in between nature and human action. After all, why can’t humans “want” and “need” and “desire” genetic continuity? Why can’t they “want” and “need” and “desire” ethnic/racial continuity? Why is this an invalid value? Why can’t people value biological fitness? We are not saying they are obligated to do so from the reality of biological fitness; however, we are saying that if people choose to behave adaptively, then valuing genetic continuity is the way to achieve that objective.

Therefore:

Preference Interests in Genetic Continuity = Welfare Interests in Genetic Continuity + Values Favoring Fitness

If Malik believes that the values favoring fitness are morally or aesthetically or rationally wrong (at least for whites) then he needs to explicitly say so. He should go on the BBC and tell native Britons that a concern for their own continuity is bad and stupid – in the context of honestly and completely explaining evolutionary theory and biological fitness. He needs to openly express the opinion that native Britons should be unconcerned with their own survival as a (biological) group and that they should be unconcerned with displacement by others. It is clear that any group that takes Malik’s advice and eschews genetic continuity as a value will be replaced by groups that do hold such a value as a fundamental interest. Indeed, a lack of interest in group continuity is not evolutionarily stable – any groups that lack such an interest will replaced by those groups that value that interest, and if all groups lack this interest then the entire species may become extinct.

In addition, issues of preference interests and welfare interests begin to overlap – to declare that people have children only because of “desires and wants” for parenthood misses the point that most prospective parents want their own biological children, sometimes going to extreme lengths to achieve that objective. Isn’t then the preference interest for parenthood – manifested as a “need” and “desire” for one’s own children – an evolved instinct for personal genetic continuity? Can one continue to insist that genetic continuity is not an interest when so much of the “striving” of life is toward that goal?

Further, the idea that ethnocentrism is no longer adaptive today, although it may have been in the past, is ludicrous, since ethnocentrism is most adaptive in the context of ethnic/racial competition – a competition most salient in today’s globalist world, and in multiracial “western” nations. Indeed, ethnocentrism is likely more adaptive (at least for Westerners) today than in any other time in human history. The stakes have never been higher.

While genetic interests, like all ideas, should certainly be subjected to rational critique, the absurd assertion that human groups have no interest in their own continuity – which goes against evolutionary theory – is way beyond the limits of rationality. Why would Malik promote such an idea? Perhaps the first sentence of this abstract holds a clue (emphasis added):

The term Darwinian fitness refers to the capacity of a variant type to invade and displace the resident population in competition for available resources.

Indeed.  Given that Salterism can be viewed as a tool that the “resident population” can use to resist displacement by an invading “variant type,” is it surprising that a representative of a quite variant type wishes to delegitimize that tool so as to facilitate the invasion? Isn’t it in the genetic interests of the variant to deny the very existence of those same genetic interests when addressing the resident population, to disarm that population in the competition for “available resources” (e.g., territory)?

Note:

I in fact have become skeptical of this, and a number of other, commonly cited “fallacies.”  It is too easy for people to dismiss unwelcome ideas by stating that the promoter of those ideas has “committed the XYZ fallacy,” thus ending debate on the topic. It may be useful to, at some point in the future, revisit the idea of whether the “naturalistic” and/or “is/ought” fallacy is indeed a fallacy in the light of modern evolutionary theory.

(10) “I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers” (Fmr. Sec. of Labor Robert Reich, Jan. 7, 2009, on how the stimulus money should be spent).

(9) “I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home” (Barack Hussein Obama, July 16, 2009, on the arrest of Harvard University racist Negro professor Henry Louis Gates).

(8) A tie: anything said or written by the $PLC and the ADL.

(7) The MIAC Report, The Modern Militia Movement, Feb. 20, 2009 (pretty much written by the $PLC and the ADL).

(6) “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here” (Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey, Nov. 8, 2009, “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on the Ft. Hood massacre).

(5) “Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right” (Racist Negro Reverend Joseph Lowery, Jan. 20, 2009, at the inauguration of Obama).

(4) “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards” (Attorney General Eric Holder, Feb. 18, 2009).

(3) “It was a very unfortunate event” (Columbia University racist Negro professor Lionel McIntyre, Nov. 10, 2009, on his punching the face of university employee Camille Davis, a White woman, during a discussion about “White privilege”).

(2) “Let’s be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don’t know their history at all. It’s about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that” (Marxist activist and lousy actress Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” Apr. 16, 2009, referring to Tea party attendees).

(1) “It’s horrifying to imagine kids being proud to be white” (Newsweek, Sept. 14, 2009. This will probably be in the top 10 most hateful quotes EVER).

From The Political Cesspool, December 28, 2009

“White Americans’ Majority To End By Mid-Century”
Projection Pushed Back 8 Years Due To Recession, Immigration Policies
HOPE YEN, December 16, 2009

WASHINGTON — The estimated time when whites will no longer make up the majority of Americans has been pushed back eight years — to 2050 — because the recession and stricter immigration policies have slowed the flow of foreigners into the U.S. Census Bureau projections released Wednesday update last year’s prediction that white children would become a minority in 2023 and the overall white population would follow in 2042. The earlier estimate did not take into account a drop in the number of people moving into the U.S. because of the economic crisis and the immigration policies imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The United States has 308 million people today; two-thirds are non-Hispanic whites. The total population should climb to 399 million by 2050, under the new projections, with whites making up 49.9 percent of the population. Blacks will make up 12.2 percent, virtually unchanged from today. Hispanics, currently 15 percent of the population, will rise to 28 percent in 2050. Asians are expected to increase from 4.4 percent of the population to 6 percent. The projections are based on rates for births and deaths and a scenario in which immigration continues its more recent, slower pace of adding nearly 1 million new foreigners each year. The point when minority children become the majority is expected to have a similar delay of roughly eight years, moving from 2023 to 2031. The population 85 and older is projected to more than triple by 2050, to 18.6 million. The actual shift in demographics will be influenced by a host of factors that can’t be accurately forecast — the pace of the economic recovery, cultural changes, natural or manmade disasters, as well as an overhaul of immigration law, which may be debated in Congress as early as next year. As a result, the Census Bureau said the projections should used mostly as a guide. The agency also released numbers showing projections based on “high” rates of immigration — more likely if more-flexible government policies and a booming U.S. economy attract large numbers of foreigners — as well as “low” immigration, a possible scenario if U.S. policies don’t change much while the economy substantially improves. –With high immigration, the minority “tipping point” is moved up to 2040, two years earlier than the previous estimate. At that time, Asians would have a much larger share, at 8 percent, since their population growth is more dependent on immigration than birth rates. –With low immigration, the “tipping point” arrives by 2045. Under a purely theoretical “zero immigration” scenario in which the U.S. effectively does not take in any immigrants, whites would remain the majority in 2050, making up a solid 58 percent of the U.S. population. In such a case, the share of Hispanics would increase to 21 percent because of high fertility rates and a younger population.

In our previous installment, we looked at a particular fitness signaling failure for food consumption, as prehistoric drives for fat accumulation are causing permanent obesity for many individuals in our world of agricultural plenty. In this installment we will explore perhaps the most caustic false signal set in our world, pornography.

First it would be helpful to examine the nature of sexuality itself, particularly male sexuality. I think it best approached by analogy to electricity. All of the wonderful electronic wonders of our age are driven by a very simply physical law: the insatiable desire for electrons to move from a cathode to an anode. They always choose the path of least resistance, and electrical engineers exploit this physical property of matter to produce everything from a basic ceiling fan to the computer I’m using to type this article.

It is undeniable that the Caucasian male sex drive is the engine of history. The genius of white men is a result of testosterone’s drive-enabling mental state combined with a reasonably high average population IQ and a higher capacity to produce geniuses through greater population variability. It could be that white males occupy a genetic “sweet spot” of reasonably high testosterone (as compared with Asian males) and reasonably high IQ, and this golden balance is what gives Western societies their advantage over Eastern civilizations, despite the latter’s higher average IQ. We have both the capacity and the drive to achieve great things.

One must wonder, then, what would happen to a society (and this affects all societies, not just Western ones), where men can have sexual gratification of the most graphic sort on-demand, continuously, effortlessly. Compare this to the numerous accounts of the medieval period of unconsummated love between a married lady and a knight, relationships more than Platonic but less than overtly romantic, and the great deeds such ladies inspired in gallant knights. Like an iPhone, the flow of current (i.e. sexual gratification) in such a relationship is strictly economized to optimize the real objective of the whole enterprise: the accomplishment of great deeds.

Historical Western limitations concerning sex are practically more of a testament to the power of sex than any sort of prudishness. As Solomon said (Proverbs 6:27), if a man takes fire into his bosom, can he expect his clothes to not be burned?

What would happen if I disassembled my iPhone and connected a small copper wire from the anode of the battery to the cathode? The current would choose that least path of resistance and all of the good produced by its journey by more tortuous paths would be lost. To what extent is the temptation of on-demand unlimited pornography, which is the situation every Internet-connected male is in, sapping the energy needed to grow families and push further into the technological frontier?

As a adherent of human microevolution, I know that incentives matter, and sexual incentives particularly so. Some creatures survive, and a subset of those reproduce. Sex is the signaling system that is supposed to reward procreation, and it is because of procreation’s singular evolutionary importance that the sexual signaling system is so powerful and pleasurable. It also implies that any twisting of wires in this system is going to have huge negative implications.

Pornography provides a payoff of sexual pleasure with nothing accomplished. There is no procreation, no love or devotion between husband and wife prerequisite for the healthy psychological development of children.

Pornography, through infinite variety, can even offer greater pleasure than monogamous sex, hitting the rewind button on our evolutionary development.

White men sit at a precipice evolutionarily. We are capable of the high-investment parenting (i.e. monogamy) necessary to sustain our civilizations, but still feel the pull of our lower evolutionary forebears. We are neither here nor there, and this tension between r and K strategies is omnipresent. To resist the dark forces of r was hard enough in our traditional medieval villages, where temptation was tempered by the threat of social ostracism for non-conformance, a sort of self-enforcing social contract that kept the village on the straight and narrow K path. Now the r haunts our every waking, solitary moment, always tempting with genetic specimens caricatured by technology to exploit our sexual preferences beyond the norm of real life. Pornography offers infinite variety, a key pleasure payoff for r strategies. This “variety” is of a much different sort than the medieval village. Let me explain.

Porn is an industry uniquely suited to the strengths of Jews. For its efficient production, it requires a level of exploitation and cruelty to women that most white males (in sufficient quantities to dominate a given industry) simply lack. It takes a cruel, Middle Eastern, woman-hating religion and culture to produce the stuff. This Jewish dominance leads to other consequences.

A friend of mine once pointed out that the degeneracy of Broadway plays and musicals, now almost obsessed with various sexual perversions and paraphilias (particularly homosexuality), cannot be attributed merely to a primarily homosexual market, a mere 10% at most of the Jewish population. He pointed out that the main market for Broadway productions actually consists of heterosexual Jews, and in this we see a key difference between Jews and non-Jews. Many Jewish heterosexual men enjoy watching homosexuals, transvestites, and other assorted freaks prance around a stage singing and dancing in mock irony. That which disgusts heterosexual European men entertains Jewish men.

So the variety which the porn market demands will inevitably be a Jewish variety. Some anti-pornography crusaders have claimed that the process of orgasm, with its intense chemical payload in the brain, causes a permanent imprinting of the sexual stimulus into the brain. If this is true, droves of Western men are having their minds imprinted with sexual stimuli produced from Jewish sexual deviancy.

The infinite appetite of the r strategy thus fed, it is easy for the K strategy to be discarded. From the reptilian brain’s point of view, sex is frequent and with high quality partners. Why bother with trying to please a wife, a real woman with stretch marks, needs, opinions and perhaps a little cellulite?

Sadly, not even the fantasy partners are as they appear. The advent of voice shifting technology (hardware where “talent” with other “assets” other than world-class singing ability — think Britney Spears — can be made to sound perfectly on pitch) has revolutionized pop music. Similarly, new filters and algorithms in video processing are coming online to make human bodies appear firmer, smooth and more “alive” and desirable than real life.

But what of the K strategy? Simply put, few men will now pursue it successfully, compromised internally by r temptations through pornography and externally through a hostile, feminist society and legal environment, as our own F. Roger Devlin has demonstrated. Part of pornography’s psychological appeal is its provision to males of a fantasy woman interested in selflessly providing sexual pleasure.

Feminism, and I think Devlin would agree, as one of its effects has caused women to become more self-focused sexually and has probably resulted in fewer normal sexually satisfying relationships between men and women. This contrast between the willing women of porn and the often cold and cruel behavior of the top 75% of women spurning the lower 75% of men in the modern sexual dystopia makes pornography all the more desirable to the average man. Men with their r-bias take it too far the other way into the unachievable sexual fantasies of pornography, but nevertheless there exists a population of men out there who would be more satisfied with a flesh-and-blood wife if she were not out whoring herself to the nearest alpha male.

All of this paints a dark picture, and it gets darker still. One might imagine that an obese, porn-addicted white male might at times reflect on his reality and become a little discouraged, perhaps enough to inspire him to a sort of Stoicism to make life the best it can be among the ruins. Yet with another click of the mouse he can enter the self-referential world of video games, and receive yet another set of false fitness signals to quell his discontent.

In the next installment we will cover this and my thoughts on how to live a life resisting these temptations in the late, great dystopic American empire.

The Occidental Observer Blog, December 12, 2009

Ronald Brownstein’s recent column points once again to the emerging racial chasm in the US. Obama won 80% of the non-White vote in 2008, and his approval rating among minorities continues to be around 75%. Among Whites, it’s a different story. 44% of college-educated Whites approve of Obama, and only 38% of non-college-educated Whites. If, as Brownstein suggests, these approval ratings reflect future voting patterns, it would mean a landslide against the Democrats by Whites — quite possibly more than the official 58% White turnout for Bush in 2004.

But he also points to the possibility that support for Obama will slip even further among college-educated Whites:

Since 2007, median incomes have plunged more for white families headed by men with a college degree than those headed by men with only high school educations, the Economic Policy Institute reports.

That widening distress changes the political equation. A possible Republican surge next year in blue-collar “beer track” districts remains the biggest threat to the Democrats’ House majority. The Democrats’ vulnerability will deepen, however, if they cannot hold the line in “wine track” districts whose education levels exceed the national average. That’s one way a difficult 2010 election for Democrats could turn catastrophic.

If less than 40% of Whites voted Democrat while twice that percentage are voting Republican, it would indeed indicate a widening racial chasm. Of course, the downside is that there is no evidence that this is anything more than implicit Whiteness. And the Republicans are certainly not going to nominate candidates that would do anything to change this.

Still, it’s only a matter of time — and a fairly short time at that — before everyone realizes that the political landscape is fast becoming a racial landscape. And at that point, explicit assertions of White identity are inevitable.