The problem with intellectually insecure whites
By Kevin MacDonald
January 19, 2009

America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of 
affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public 
opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues — at least in the long 
run. After all, it’s difficult to come up with an historical example of a 
nation with a solid ethnic majority (90%
white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural 
power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, 
great battles, and untold suffering.

And it’s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own 
demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted 
previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at 
the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the 
organized Jewish
community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white 
America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second 
most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs 
from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the 
leading pioneer of racial
Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu — 
another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister 
Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after 
a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to 
provoke Palestinian retaliation — which then becomes the cover for claims that 
Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was 
approved by
overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush 
administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the 
US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime 
Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they 
would rather not have
discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does 
dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only 
entertained by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media 
is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan  (“For the media, the less 
whites think about their coming minority status, the better”) has noted that 
the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in 
doing stories that
discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.

It’s not surprising that the New York Times — the Jewish-owned flagship of 
anti-white, pro-multicultural media — ignores the issue. The issue is also 
missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that 
conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. 
Certainly, their audiences
would find it interesting.

Now we have an article “The End of White America” written by Hua Hsu, an 
Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather 
depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most 
important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby in 
which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: “Have you read The Rise of the Colored 
Empires by this man Goddard?” … Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to 
read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be 
utterly submerged.
It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”

Buchanan’s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard’s The 
Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as “rationalized hatred” presented in 
a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will 
certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a 
doctorate from Harvard
and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a 
major publisher. It was therefore “precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man 
of Buchanan’s profile — wealthy, Ivy League–educated, at once pretentious and 
intellectually insecure — might have been expected to bring up in casual 
conversation.”

Let’s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy 
League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure,"  
would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American 
culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995’s White Man’s Burden, an 
awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an 
upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black 
oppressors. There will
be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of 
the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over 
everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to 
treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or 
identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without 
a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for 
claims like “the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce 
the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture 
that’s more likely than any before
to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or 
identity group.”

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind 
future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing 
in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a 
non-white soon-to-be majority.

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it 
will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary 
concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a 
colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities 
are certainly not treated as
individuals. And it means that whites — especially white males — are losing out 
on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the 
massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for 
success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of 
affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. 
Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial 
injustices, and from 2002
–2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile 
perpetrators increased 43%. Hence,  the reasonable outlook is for a continuing 
need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after 
whites become a minority.

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively 
talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The 
United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic 
elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite."

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the 
future. An advertizing executive says, “I think white people feel like they’re 
under siege right now — like it’s not okay to be white right now, especially if 
you’re a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. ‘We used to be in 
control! We’re losing
control’” Another says, "There’s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."

It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural 
confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I 
get it: as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth." A professor 
comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The 
classic thing white students say when
you ask them to talk about who they are is, ‘I don’t have a culture.’ They 
might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel 
bankrupt when it comes to culture … They feel disadvantaged, and they feel 
marginalized."

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites 
have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most 
prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most 
vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop—a product 
of the African American
urban culture.

The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers 
itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional 
white America. For this group of whites — and only this group — there is  "a 
racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through 
cultural cues instead—a
suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness 
and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a 
working-class white minority with 'the real America.'”

This is what I term implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions 
of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our 
politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its 
name."

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class 
and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are 
imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that 
facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is 
certainly not the natural
outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In 
my opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of 
critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days 
are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in 
hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.

It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who 
mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from 
the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence 
in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. 
As I noted elsewhere,

A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it 
achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the 
West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. 
Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely 
accepted among people of very
different levels of education and among people of different social classes.

Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know 
that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times 
and the Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh 
and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. 
This is a
formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent 
from this consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to 
believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make 
unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, 
stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these 
adjectives designate low status.

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of 
its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in 
America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic 
left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and 
ethnicity are intellectually
bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the 
scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's 
Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are 
respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives 
them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the 
idea that the world
will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes 
the pathetic Christian Lander: "“Like, I’m aware of all the horrible crimes 
that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there’s a bunch of white 
people who are desperate — desperate — to say, ‘You know what? My skin’s white, 
but I’m not one
of the white people who’s destroying the world.’”

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of 
desperation is like — what it's like to be a self-hating white. We must get to 
the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are 
white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay 
activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture 
because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an 
important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have 
been deprived of their
confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being 
openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their 
family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and 
believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept 
the consequences
when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such 
beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for 
congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest 
of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and 
attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles 
reversed. No revolution was ever
accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy 
of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is 
foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic 
identifications will disappear and that they won’t continue to influence public 
policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority 
groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already 
see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to 
influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of 
the whites. Placing
ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the 
deep sense of historical grievance harbored by many ethnic activists and 
organized ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous 
in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past 
crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African 
Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these 
groups. The
“God damn America” sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent 
notorious example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to 
anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The 
Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, 
Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous
consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to 
become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this 
power structure — as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were 
“Stalin’s willing executioners.”

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem 
particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many 
American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for causes of leftist versions of 
social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support 
racial Zionism and the mass
murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinians. Such people may be very 
different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the “transformation” of 
Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, 
G. A. Landau, “cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so 
far removed from physical activity.” And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. 
Bromberg, noted
that:

the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of  
“unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness”…. The convinced and unconditional opponent 
of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous 
offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been 
transformed outwardly into a
leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...

After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the 
older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and 
nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously 
existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor 
noted, “in all the
institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the 
intelligentsia is very hard” (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to 
the Russification that accompanied World War II, “the Russian Federation…was 
still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of 
an ethnicity-free society” (p. 276).
While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to 
keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian 
movement.

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America 
it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and 
Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia 
imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible 
that they are entering into a
racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically 
excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. 
It's happened before.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State 
University–Long Beach.

URL with hyperlink sources:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html


-------

 Jewish Involvement in Black American Affairs

Reflections on Martin Luther King Jr’s Birthday

By Paul Grubach

Just about every year on the eve of the national holiday honoring Martin Luther 
King Jr.’s birthday, the mainstream media in the United States put forth 
numerous articles about the large Jewish involvement with Dr. King and the 
equally large Jewish involvement with the Black American Civil Rights movement. 
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media’s description of this phenomenon is seen 
through rose-colored glasses. Jewish influence in Black American affairs is 
portrayed as overwhelmingly selfless, altruistic, charitable and humane. But is 
this really true? Let’s take a look.

In 1991, The Nation of Islam, a Black religious group, published a very 
important study of Jewish involvement with the Black slave trade. Entitled The 
Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews (SRBBJ), it is a well documented 
and well argued book, and the authors make this clear from the very beginning:

“The information contained herein has been compiled primarily from Jewish 
historical literature. Every effort has been made to present evidence from the 
most respected of the Jewish authorities and whose works appear in established 
historical journals or are published by authoritative Jewish publishing houses.”

The Black American expert on the slave trade, Dr. Tony Martin, has endorsed the 
book, as he has made it assigned reading in his courses. I have investigated at 
least some of the sources and they do indeed check out.

In the book’s introduction we read:

“Deep within the recesses of the Jewish historical record is the irrefutable 
evidence that the most prominent of the Jewish pilgrim fathers used kidnapped 
Black Africans disproportionately more than any other ethnic or religious group 
in New World history and participated in every aspect of the international 
slave trade.”

Further on it is written:

“Most have always assumed that the relationship between Blacks and Jews has 
been mutually supportive, friendly and fruitful – two suffering people bonding 
to overcome hatred and bigotry to achieve success. But history tells an 
altogether different story.”

Not surprisingly, Jewish-Zionist groups, and those allied with them, have 
attempted to blacken the book’s reputation. Unable to refute its thesis, they 
resort to smear tactics. But Black Americans would do well to heed SRBBJ’s 
advice. The relationship between Blacks and Jews, they write, “is a 
relationship that needs further analysis. […] Hidden and misunderstood, it is 
indeed time to reopen the files and reconsider The Secret Relationship Between 
Blacks and Jews.”

Furthermore, the irrational attacks upon SRBBJ highlight the hypocritical 
double standard that pervades the study of the sordid and evil business of the 
Black slave trade. It is socially and morally acceptable for Jewish scholars 
like Bernard Lewis to write books (Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An 
Historical Inquiry) that discuss Arab involvement in the Black slave trade, and 
it is socially and morally acceptable to discuss Black and European involvement 
in the Black Slave trade. But it is positively ‘wrong, evil, and immoral’ for 
any non-Jewish scholar to openly discuss Jewish involvement in the Black slave 
trade.

Indeed, consider the case of the brave Black scholar Tony Martin, who did try 
to tell the world about the large Jewish involvement in the Black slave trade. 
Readers of The Revisionist should check out his book The Jewish Onslaught: 
Despatches from the Wellesley Battlefront. For attempting to tell the truth 
about the large Jewish involvement in the Black slave trade he was harassed, 
persecuted, and Jewish-Zionist forces tried to damage his career. Indeed, any 
non-Jewish intellectual that attempts to bring to light the large Jewish 
involvement in the Black slave trade will almost certainly be attacked and 
maligned by Jewish-Zionist groups.

Black American intellectual Harold Cruse and California psychology professor 
Kevin MacDonald have also fearlessly scrutinized Jewish involvement in Black 
affairs. Both have written some very insightful analyses of the question: Why 
were Jews so disproportionately involved in the Black Civil Rights movement? In 
their books, Cruse’s The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual and MacDonald,’s The 
Culture of Critique, they have noted that many Jews want a racially integrated 
society because it provides a hospitable environment for their long term policy 
of non-assimilation and group solidarity. Many Jews view white/Euro-American 
nationalism as their greatest potential threat, and they promote racial 
integration precisely because this presumably dilutes Euro-American power and 
lessens the possibility that a powerful and cohesive Euro-American standing in 
opposition to Jewish interests will develop.

There is evidence that supports their viewpoints. If the primary motive of the 
Jewish groups that were involved in the Black American Civil Rights movement 
was to promote racial equality and racial integration, then we should expect 
that they would promote racial equality and ethnic integration in Israel just 
as ardently as they promoted it in the United States. But this is not the case. 
For the most part, the Jewish groups that were and are working to create a 
racially integrated society in the US are the same Jewish groups that were and 
are ardent supporters of the ethnically segregated apartheid state of Israel 
where racial segregation and Jewish supremacism are enshrined in law. Jewish 
scholar Uri Davis has written a book, the title of which says it all: Israel: 
An Apartheid State.

If there is ever to be harmony between the races in the United States, then we 
are all going to have to literally lay “all of the cards on the table.” That is 
to say, Blacks and whites, Jews and non-Jews, are going to have to discuss 
these racial problems in an open, honest and forthright manner, free of 
name-calling and emotional outbursts. The history of Jewish involvement in 
Black affairs has been, for the most part, surrounded by taboos and 
“off-limits” for discussion. It is about time that Black Americans – and all 
other Americans for that matter – break down these taboos and reconsider Jewish 
involvement in Black American affairs.


Source :
 
http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-suppressed-history-between-blacks-and-jews_7214.html
 
Jewish Involvement in Black American Affairs Part 2
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1444

 

---------------------------------------------


Lawrence Auster,
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY 10025
Contact: lawrence.aus...@att.net

_______________________________________________
Pkg-john-commits mailing list
Pkg-john-commits@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-john-commits

Reply via email to