One of the secret lies of liberal democracy is the dogma of free speech. The word ‘propaganda’ has obtained over the last six decades a nasty flavor; hence the need to use the word ‘communication.’ However, as much as everybody in modern society craves to communicate, traditional community ties, or in-group ties, are more than ever before subject to the process of disintegration. It is worth recalling that etymologically the terms “community” and “communication” are of the same origin. But how can one communicate if community no longer exists?
To provide a make-believe image of absolute freedom of speech, the media and the modern Prince resort to a hyperbolic language filled with hyperreal metaphors and qualifiers. This is especially true regarding the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’. These terms have assumed the emotional role in rallying political allegiance formerly reserved for terms evoking nationhood and patriotism. Opinion makers in Europe and America are not so much concerned with the content of their language, but rather with the appropriate packaging of the language and its emotional impact on the masses.
For effective communication a modern politician (or the modern Prince?) is required to use images with a cheerful setting and a happy ending scenario. His looks are important too. An aspiring presidential candidate must be concerned more with his dentures than with his deontology. A well-fitting Armani suit and polished Gucci shoes are far more important than his IQ. The image is essential since it does not encourage reflection, but obliterates all reflection. The hyperreal image on TV screens with all the trappings of wealth, power, and personal appeal is ideal for propagating new political lies and, by extension, for instituting horrendous political censorship.
For a European or American politician who aspires to high office, the ritual of repentance has become de rigueur.
Presidential Candidate John McCain visits Jerusalem’s Yad VaShem Holocaust Memorial
The exception, of course, is President Obama who capitalizes on his Black identity to induce guilt in his audience.
Not long ago Europeans were proud of their colonial exploits. Not long ago the exclusion of the Other (Blacks, Jews, Arabs) was perceived as a normal thing — typical of human societies from time immemorial. Today the exclusion of the Other is replaced by the hatred of oneself. Ceaseless national-masochistic sermons about Euro-American real or surreal crimes bear witness to a quasi-pathological desire to cleanse oneself of a past that evokes guilt rather than pride.
President Obama Speaks at a Slave Depot in Ghana
Public language must be “soft” and didactic — conveying a self-deprecating message and requiring the modern Prince to formulate his statements in the conditional tense — or by using evasive sentences starting with adverbs such as “admittedly,” “considerably,” “presumably,” etc. No politician wishes to stick out his neck by using affirmative sentences that would clearly enunciate his value judgments or depict his potential foe. After reading mainstream newspaper editorials, a student of political semiotics is struck with convoluted locutions such as ‘one could say, ‘one might say,’ ‘one should consider bombing Iran,’ or ‘help democracy become transparent in East Timor.’ Such vague locutions provide a safe retreat for the liberal ruling class, as they signify nothing and everything at the same time.
Political language must be neutral or neutered; it must reflect the desire for a world of stasis — not of global liberal metastasis. The only exceptions are modern heretics who must endure the most violent epithets. Thus the $PLC, a principal architect and enforcer of modern discourse on race and immigration, likes to use expressions preceded by the noun ‘hate,’ or followed by the adjective ‘extremist’: ‘hate groups’, ‘hate speech’, ‘hate crimes’; ‘White extremists,’ ‘political extremism’, etc. Contemporary politicians and their media watchdogs love to compare absolute Evil to absolute Good, using words that are loaded with emotional significance, such as “fascism” vs. “antiracism”: the horrors of the Auschwitz on the one hand versus the Hollywood-like fantasy of multicultural conviviality.
Nothing new under the sun, as the old Latins used to say. This idea is well captured by the late Christopher Lasch, the best American visionary and the theorist of narcissistic democracy. He noted a long time ago in his book The True and Only Heaven that “Liberals’ obsession with fascism … leads them to see fascist tendencies or ‘proto-fascism’ in all opinions unsympathetic to liberalism.”
As much as Lasch was right he was also wrong. Today he would be accused of “fascist, revisionist tendencies” by the masters of political discourse — thus giving further credit and credence to the paranoid liberal mind. Historically, both the fascist and communist temptations did not drop from the moon. They were logical responses to the failures of liberalism — to the “democratic deficit” of the liberal experiment. Therefore one must not rule out the revival of the fascist temptation, albeit in a new garb, as a third option in our late postmodenity: If a good man in a village is constantly and publicly called a crook, he will eventually embody those accusations. White nationalism, which is on the rise in the US and the EU, is the logical response to the chaotic policies of the liberal class and its promotion of all ethnic prides world-wide — except for white Europeans.
In postmodernity, political messages are transmitted by visual images and the sound bite — not the written word. Regis Debray, the ex-leftist guerrilla who ascended to high office in the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs — and probably the best observer of the perverse nature of liberal democracy, notes that the traditional ‘graphosphere’ has been completely devoured by the “videosphere.” Books and prose are relics; the virtual video message has become omnipresent. It is no accident that a dissident or a violent radical no longer dreams of storming the Prince’s palace, but rather contemplates the seizure of the TV tower.
Postmodern political imagery does not reflect the lack of reality, but rather mirrors the excess of reality. Henceforth any political debate on a TV screen is not designed to hide the truth, but ironically, to hide the absence of all truth. Everywhere the media and the modern Prince simulate fictitious events such as terrorist attacks as if they wish to have them happen, while at the same time they try to prevent them from happening. The bogeymen of the left —”hate groups” and “extremists” — appear to be nowhere near the horizon. Yet, as was the case in the ex-Soviet Union, they must be reinvented over and over again in order to provide legitimacy and solid funding to groups like the $PLC who love to dress up in the apparel of “tolerance” and “humanity.” Everything is stage-managed as if everything were true.
What we are witnessing today in the West, in all spheres of official political discourse, is a gigantic display of lies — far worse than in the notorious totalitarian despotisms of the 20th century which the postmodern liberal pretends to abhor.
In his recent editorial in the quarterly Elements (summer 2009), under the title “Une époque de basses eaux” — literally translated as “An epoch of low tide,” or loosely and metaphorically as “Stalemate Times” — Alain de Benoist gives us a bleak picture of the forthcoming darkness:
In the catalogue of the ephemeral and the superficial, images and noise are following one after the other. Their goal is to capture attention and distract, and to make us think about other things, or more precisely, to make us cease to think altogether. The insignificant becomes a general rule. What comes to mind is the world depicted by the Wachowski brothers in the movie,Matrix(1999). In the movie everybody takes for real what is actually inauthentic; everybody is manipulated from the very moment he imagines himself to be free. Never have people thought to be able to do what they wish, yet never ever have they been subject to so many regulations. In fact they do not really know what they desire because it is the system that formulates their desires.
The biggest victory of the system is to have persuaded everybody not of its qualities, but of its fatal character. The system does not claim to be perfect; it claims that there are no other alternatives. Hence, if one cannot dream of a better world, then there is nothing that can be done.
High politics follows the same hyperreal lead. There is no longer any need to await disasters or the proclamation of a state of emergency, since they are constantly evoked and artificially provoked —creating thereby the genuine feeling of a state of emergency and impending disasters andsetting the stage perfectly for a judicial or police clamp down. The security checks that one must endure at all airports in the West inevitably give the feeling of a creeping state of emergency. Depictions of catastrophic images on fictional television drama shows inevitably influence people’s perceptions of real catastrophic events. The image no longer follows reality; it precedes reality. Modern politics is the show of hyper-reality — as witnessed for the first time during the recent ex-Yugoslav and Iraqi wars, which were getting bloodier and bloodier the more they were shown on TV.
The Books of the Dead
The same applies to modern historiography and to the sudden surge among Third World nations for the resurrection and beatification of their dead. The more dead they manage to hold up as icons of Western evil the better able they are to affirm their own ethnic identity. One of the best theoreticians of political hyper-reality, the late Jean Baudrillard, describes Auschwitz “not as a site of annihilation, but the site of dissuasion” (The Evil Demons of Images, 1988, p. 24). It is no longer a site of suffering; it is a site of deterrence and didactics, designed to be the ultimate symbol of postmodern Western culture as psychotherapy for Europeans.
The Jewish narrative regarding the “singular” and “unique” historical event of the Holocaust has already given birth to similar “singular” and “unique” narratives among other peoples, notably Armenians and (ironically) the Palestinians, with dozens more nations waiting in the wings.
Diversity obliges. Soon our postmodernity will be forced to open up post-graduate studies on political necrology or (more precisely) political necrophilia, as more and more groups clamor for their forgotten real or hyperreal dead. However, political necrophilia carries its own dangers for groups that see themselves solely through the lens of victimhood. In attempting to avoid the repetition of disaster, the Jewish narrative of “never again” does exactly the opposite: By focusing solely on a decontextualized event of persecution, it runs the risk of failing to rationally comprehend Jewish history — with unforeseen consequences.
Almost thirty years ago, Baudrillard wrote memorable words to illustrate the metastasis of liberal democracy:
The energy of the public sphere, the energy that creates social myths and dogmas is gradually disappearing. The social arena turns obese and monstrous. It grows like a mammal and glandular corpse. Once it was illustrated by its heroes but today it refers to its handicapped, its weirdos, its degenerates, its asocial persons — and all of this in a gigantic effort of therapeutic maternity. (Les strategies fatales, 1983) (Fatal Strategies.)
The system puts forward the transparency of evil by parading images of evil in the form of maladaptive individuals. The ruling class and its mediacracy need to display the proof of their power by showing that those who transgress the most basic values of the multicultural zeitgeist are psychologically deranged — literally insane. Proverbial ‘revisionists, ‘bigoted anti-Semites,’ and ‘Nazi pseudo-scholars,’ are cherished demon images of liberal democracy. They need to be constantly put on exhibition in public places — like wayward Puritans of old — in order to lend further credibility to the eroding system.
17th-Century Puritan in the Stocks
Americans and Europeans are constantly put on false alerts by the media about pending terrorist threats. The invocation of terrorism is often fictitious, yet it engages the media machinery in a gigantic show of lies and mendacity. The purpose of the negative imagery is to scare the masses into submission. In a world that encourages narcissism and extreme individualism, one is not only the victim of the image. One becomes the image himself at the price of deforming his own tragic reality.
Two stubborn individuals have done more than anyone to slow the Obama political juggernaut over the last month– Frank Ricci and James Crowley.
Ricci, of course, is the New Haven, CT fireman whose June 29th Supreme Court victory, overturning Sonia Sotomayor’s decision in favor of cheating him out of his hard-earned promotion, put the damper on her Senate hearings. Her rebuke by the Supreme Court in Ricci transformed her hearings from a celebration of the first Latina nominee into a dismal, hunkered-down exercise in dissimulation and damage control.
And Crowley is the Cambridge, MA policeman who showed the character and courage that past targets of Two Minute Hates like geneticist James D. Watson and Harvard President Larry Summers fatally lacked when Henry Louis Gates Jr., the Harvard African-American Studies impresario, threw an unprovoked temper tantrum and falsely accused Crowley of racism.
At Thursday’s press conference, Barack Obama, in a textbook example of racial prejudice, essentially prejudged the Gates-Crowley confrontation based only on Gates’ side of the story–plus the President’s own abundant (but generally better-concealed) personal resentments about race.
Any white bigshot would have wilted under this double-barreled attack. But Crowley simply stood his ground. On Friday, Obama blinked first.
The Bush Administration systematically worked to alienate men like Ricci and Crowley, who had worked hard to pass civil service exams.
For example, on May 21, 2007, the Department of Justice filed suit in the name of Bush crony/Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales charging the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) with violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
“… the United States alleges that defendant City of New York’s use of two written examinations on a pass-fail basis, as well as its rank-order processing of applicants, in the screening and selection of applicants for appointment to the rank of entry-level firefighter, has resulted in disparate impact upon black and Hispanic applicants, is not “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity” and does not otherwise meet the requirements of Title VII.[USDOJ Offical complaint, PDF]
In other words, blacks and Hispanics did worse than whites on the blind-graded written tests about firefighting given in 1999 and 2002.
That’s it. That’s the extent of the Bush Administration’s evidence for discrimination by the FDNY.
Now, it is true that the Fire Department of New York is mostly white. Judging from their pictures, I would estimate that ten African-American firemen died at the World Trade Center on 9/11, along with perhaps twelve Hispanics, zero Asians, and 321 white firemen.
Recently, Peter Brimelow has been bugging me a lot about updating my “Sailer Strategy” analysis of how the Republican Party can cope with the worsening demographic balance caused in large measure by the lax immigration policies favored by GOP leaders such as Karl Rove and John McCain.
Well, Ricci and Crowley are part of the answer. The release of the 2008 Census survey of voters confirmed that Barack Obama motivated minorities to go to the polls, but that, in contrast, McCain turned off whites. The Associated Press reported on July 20, 2009:
“For all the attention generated by President Obama’s candidacy, the share of eligible voters who actually cast ballots in November declined for the first time in a dozen years. The reason: Older whites with little interest in backing either Barack Obama or Republican Sen. John McCain stayed home. … Ohio and Pennsylvania were among those showing declines in white voters, helping Obama carry those battleground states. “[U.S. vote rate dips in '08, older whites sit out]
McCain’s teaming up with Ted Kennedy to write the failed 2006 amnesty bill, and his refusal to mention Obama’s obvious weak points, such as his support for racial preferences and the $53,770 he donated to Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. from 2005-2007, were disastrous.
I’ll write up my Grand Plan to keep America from turning into a one-party Greater Chicago soon. (I promise!).
But may I suggest, though, that as a tiny first step in forming a potentially winning coalition, Republicans stop and rethink whether their President should have attacked the Fire Department of New York as racist?
Sure, these firemen are highly paid civil servants with a pushy union, and they’re New Yorkers to boot. But … 343 of them gave their lives on 9/11.
Last Wednesday, July 22, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, a Clinton appointee, gave Bush a belated going-away present by swallowing the Gonzales Department of Justice allegations wholesale and deeming FDNY’s 1999 and 2002 paper-and-pencil employment exams discriminatory against minorities solely on the grounds of Disparate Impact.
The judge found the tests discriminatory despite being unable to find any evidence of actual discrimination. Even John Coombs, the head of the plaintiff, the black firefighter’s Vulcan Society, couldn’t identify specific problems. Newsday reported:
Judge Garaufis allowed Coombs’ Vulcans to join the case midway through. Yet, he banned the main union, the Uniformed Firefighters Association, from participating even though they argued that New York’s Bloomberg Administration was too politically ambivalent to adequately defend firemen’s interests.
“Basic intelligence is an important asset for firefighters, and ignoring that fact will imperil the safety of the firefighting force. … The job requires not only physical strength, but also an alert and keen mind. … Firefighters are now extensively trained to deal with hazardous materials, possible terrorism and environmental issues unknown years ago. …There is no doubt that intelligence and ability to read and understand are important traits for firefighters.”
The predictive validity of written tests for performance on jobs much like firefighting has been documented by many decades of study by the U.S. military. But the Judge mentions none of this overwhelming evidence.
Garaufis’s decision in Vulcan may seem bizarre in the wake of Ricci. But as I’ve pointed out, it’s much easier for the government to discriminate against whites before they have been hired and get union and civil service protections.
The Bush Administration’s claim that the test “is not job related for the position in question” was laughable. Each question is flagrantly job related. (You can see the 1999 and 2002 tests here.)
“… firefighter entrance exams have tended to favor applicants already steeped in the ways of the job, like ‘people whose dads and uncles are firefighters,’ said Richard Primus, [Email him]a professor of constitutional law at the University of Michigan. … Besides, Professor Primus added, some of that knowledge is not needed to become a good firefighter. ”… some of it tends to be knowledge that “firefighting junkies have, even though it is not really necessary for fighting fires.’”
Cardwell’s explanation in the NYT of what’s wrong with the test can most charitably be read as heavy sarcasm:
“Each exam consists of 85 multiple-choice questions about firefighting practices: the order in which a firefighter should don gear in an alarm; what the rear of a building would look like, based on its facade; the right situations in which to say ‘mayday’ rather than ‘urgent’ over the walkie-talkie.
“Nevertheless, a closer look shows that the exams also required applicants to readand understand longpassages, often containing technicalterms, and then answerquestions about them.” [Italics mine.]
“One question, for instance, follows a 250-word description of the use and maintenance of portable power saws …”
I’m sorry, but portable power saws, especially the hellacious ones used by firemen to cut through steel and concrete, come with massive instruction manuals much longer than 250 words (owing to decades of product liability lawsuits, as the judge should know).
If an applicant can’t make sense of a 250-word text about power saw maintenance, he might well wind up on lifetime disability.
Let me explain how the FDNY hiring process worked in 1999 and 2002. (For 2007, even before the Bush Administration sued, the written test was dumbed down to increase diversity.)
A lengthy, intensive system produced quality firefighters with high esprit de corps. (John Derbyshire once told me that in his Long Island neighborhood, blue-collar women consider FDNY guys the most desirable catches as husbands; they tend to be more stable than the similarly well-paid NYPD.)
All applicants took the intensive 50+ page written test. (Study guides were provided beforehand.)
Why start with a written test? They provide a cheap and fair way for the city to drop the deadwood early in the hiring process. Also, rank-order hiring based on test scores speeds up the training of the smart guys who would make good supervisors later in their careers.
For applicants of middling intelligence, those who study firefighting hardest do best. This weeds out those who are either lazy or not committed to firefighting as a career. Moreover, encouraging applicants to study on their own before taking the test gets the winners through the expensive Fire Academy faster.
Everybody who attained the passing score (which was a large majority of test-takers) was invited back for a more expensive physical performance test (sort of like the one that Kevin James failed in his attempt to become a New Jersey state trooper in the opening scene of last winter’s hit movie Paul Blart, Mall Cop).
Scores on the written and physical tests were then averaged and the best performers were called in for medical, psychological, and background checks. The survivors were invited to enroll in rank order at New York City’s 27-acre Fire Academy on Randall’s Island.
In 1999, 90 percent of whites, 77 percent of Hispanics, and 60 percent of blacks scored high enough on the written test to qualify for the physical test. If you use Excel’s Normdist function, you’ll see that the white-black gap is a (very standard) one standard deviation. The pseudonymous statistical analysis La Griffe du Lion has dubbed this one standard deviation white-black gap the Fundamental Constant of Sociology. The white-Hispanic gap was 0.54 standard deviations, which is about normal, too.
In 2002, the passing score was lowered from 85% to 70%, presumably to get around the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notoriously innumerate Four-Fifths Rule. This says that burden of proof is on the employer to disprove illegal discrimination if the lowest scoring group doesn’t pass at a rate at least 80 percent as good as the highest group. That incentivizes employers to lower standards.
Sure enough, the white passing rate to 97 percent, the Hispanic rate to 93 percent, and the black rate to 85 percent. (Hey, EEOC, 85 percent divided by 97 percent is over Four-Fifths!) Yet the racial gaps in standard deviations were only a little narrower (white-black 0.85 and white-Hispanic 0.45).
Obviously, a test that only three percent of whites flunked is not a very hard test. Still, the good news about the FDNY was that it continued to hire in rank order, so that it got the cream of the crop. In contrast, Chicago, in its efforts to avoid being charged with Disparate Impact, has made the fireman’s hiring test so easy that 96 percent of whites pass; and then hiring is done by lottery. (Or, as cynics have suggested, hiring might be done in order of the applicant’s number of dead relatives who voted for Mayor Daley in the last election.)
Disparate Impact theory is a cover story for corruption, incompetence, and innocent people burning to death.
Last week on NPR, a professor in the Sloan School of Management at MIT explained that what is really at stake in the health-care bill is the U.S. government’s ability to borrow. In other words, the bill is about cutting health-care costs, not about providing hard-pressed Americans with health care.
The professor said that if we didn’t get health-care costs under control, in 30 years the U.S. government would not be able to sell Treasury bonds.
It is not at all clear that the Treasury will be able to sell its debt instruments in 30 months, and it has nothing to do with health-care costs. The Treasury debt-marketing problem has to do with two back-to-back U.S. fiscal year budgets each with a $2 trillion deficit. The size of the U.S. deficit exceeds in these troubled times the supply of world savings available to fund the U.S. government’s wars, bailouts and stimulus plans. If the Federal Reserve has to monetize the Treasury’s new borrowings by creating demand deposits for the Treasury (printing money), America’s foreign creditors might flee the dollar.
The professor didn’t seem to know anything about this and gave Washington 30 more years before the proverbial you-know-what hits the fan.
One looks in vain to the U.S. financial media for accurate economic information. Currently, Wall Street, the White House and the media are hyping a new sign of economic recovery—“surging” June home sales. John Williams at shadowstats.com predicted this latest reporting deception.
Here is the way Williams explains how statistics can produce false signs of recovery. The economy has been contracting for so long that a plateauing of the falloff in home sales compared to the previous time period’s more rapid contraction can appear like a gain.
The Census Bureau itself notes that the reported 11 percent increase in June home sales might be illusory. The reporting agency says that the gain is not statistically meaningful at a 90 percent confidence interval and that “the Census Bureau does not have sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that the actual change is different from zero.”
Williams explains other data distortions likely to create false hopes and lead to investment losses. Financial stresses from the current state of the economy have changed behavior. This means that normal seasonal adjustments to statistical data can result in misleading information.
For example, the recent decline that was reported in seasonally adjusted new unemployment claims was a result of the normal adjustments for the retooling of auto lines that did not, in fact, take place to the normal extent due to the bankruptcies and uncertainties. Adding in seasonal adjustments that did not in fact take place artificially reduced the unemployment claims.
Williams warns that after a period of contraction, new monthly or quarterly figures are being compared to prior periods of collapsing activity. “Improvements” are thus artifacts of the prior collapse and not signs of economic rebound.
The “Birth-Death Model” is used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate the net of the non-reported jobs lost by failed businesses (deaths) and new jobs created by start-up companies (births). Williams explains why the model understates job loss during periods of contraction. The modeling on which the birth-death adjustment is based consists primarily of periods of economic growth when there are more non-reported start-up jobs than non-reported job losses from business failures.
The BLS model came up with a monthly adjustment of 75,000 new jobs added to the reported number. That means an adjustment factor of 900,000 new jobs added to the reported payroll jobs number each year.
During economic contraction such as the current one, however, it is wrong to assume that new start-ups are creating 75,000 jobs each month more than are being lost to business failures. Thus the job losses are understated by the 900,000 upside birth-death adjustment and by the absence of a downside adjustment to estimate the jobs lost as a result of failed companies that cease to report.
The reported unemployment rate is itself deceptive, as it no longer includes discouraged workers who have been unemployed for more than a year. These long-term discouraged workers are simply erased from the rolls of the unemployed.
The Consumer Price Index no longer measures a constant standard of living and is not comparable to pre-Clinton periods. During the 1990s, the CPI ceased to be based on a weighted fixed assortment. The principle of substitution was introduced.
For example, under the old measure, if the price of steak rose, the CPI rose. Under the new measure, if the price of steak rises, the index switches to hamburger on the assumption that consumers substitute hamburger for steak.
Consumer confidence typically is swayed by “good news” hype. The drops in the Conference Board’s and the University of Michigan’s measures of consumer confidence in July suggest that Americans are becoming inured to recovery hype and are realizing that the government and the media lie about the economy just as they lie about everything else.
Dr. Tom Sunic and Dr. Kevin MacDonald discuss the crucial issues of evolutionary theory vs Judeo-Christianity, the Meaning of Paganism vs Polytheism, and the role of ‘white nationalists’ in these declining hours of the West. Please tune in! This is an indispensable radio show hosted by two prominent academics. Inform your friends and colleagues!
Edit:Here is a related link to a column on religion written by Dr. Sunic in 1994.
The mayors of three New Jersey cities, two state legislators and several rabbis were among more than 40 people arrested Thursday in a sweeping corruption investigation that began as a probe into an international money laundering ring that trafficked in goods as diverse as human organs and fake designer handbags.
. . .
In separate money laundering complaints, several individuals from Brooklyn and New Jersey were charged with offenses ranging from the trafficking of kidneys from Israeli donors to laundering proceeds from selling fake Gucci and Prada bags.
Sarah Palin emerged in the presidential campaign of 2008 as the candidate of the Republican base — the people the globalist elites in the party pander to every four years so that if everything breaks right, they may have a chance of winning. Palin is the very image of White fertility and small town Americana — all that the globalist Republican elite despises. ‘Despises’ is much too mild a word for how the Democrats see her.
Palin resigned her position as governor of Alaska, so the media indulged itself with yet another hate-fest. Frank Rich’s op-ed in the New York Times was more interesting than most because he sees the big picture. And he is very happy with what he sees:
[Sarah Palin] is not just the party’s biggest star and most charismatic television performer; she is its only star and charismatic performer. Most important, she stands for a genuine movement: a dwindling white nonurban America that is aflame with grievances and awash in self-pity as the country hurtles into the 21st century and leaves it behind. …
[Nonurban Whites are] a constituency that feels disenfranchised — by the powerful and the well-educated who gamed the housing bubble, by a news media it keeps being told is hateful, by the immigrants who have taken some of their jobs, by the African-American who has ended a white monopoly on the White House. Palin is their born avatar. She puts a happy, sexy face on ugly emotions, and she can solidify her followers’ hold on a G.O.P. that has no leaders with the guts or alternative vision to stand up to them or to her.
My Translation: The elites in the financial sector with the blessings (or at least the naiveté of the political class) created this wonderful housing bubble that created a lot of illusory wealth. The collapse after the bubble burst has cost the US trillions of dollars, has cost millions of people their jobs, and has resulted in a deep recession. Nonurban Whites — the people who support Palin — were so stupid and uneducated that they actually trusted these elites, and now they are paying the price while the folks who got us into this mess are still collecting their bonuses — often with the help of government bailout money. These rubes should have been smart enough to game the system, but they weren’t.
These country bumpkins are also upset because they are losing political power and are being pushed aside by millions of non-White immigrants. They hate the media even though the mainstream media — as personified by Frank Rich — is a fount of wisdom and rationality — immune to the ugly emotions of the losers.
The end game in the long campaign against nonurban Whites is near. Rich writes that “The Palinist ‘real America’ is demographically doomed to keep shrinking.”
And of course that’s the bottom line. Never before in American history has it seemed so obvious that demography is destiny. Whites were 77% of the electorate in 2004, but slipped to 74% in 2008, and the percentage will continue to decline. If Whites are 71% of the electorate in 2012, then the Republicans would have to attract around 63% of Whites to get a majority (assuming Whites continue to represent 90% of the Republican vote). This is quite a bit higher than Bush in 2004 (58%) or McCain in 2008 (55%).
I recently heard Rush Limbaugh say confidently and soothingly to his listeners that politics is cyclical and the Republicans will be back in power soon. But the reality is that they won’t come back without some dramatic changes in voting patterns. And if the dramatic change is an increase in Black or Latino votes — as quite a few influential Republicans advocate, the result certainly won’t be good for nonurban Whites.
This in turn means that a great many White voters will feel that they are in a permanent position of powerlessness if present trends continue, and that will lead to anger and a sense of political desperation.
Rich’s comments are partially fueled by an article in Politico describing the rage of a lot of ordinary White people — a rage that has led to a surge in conservative media: “The emotions fueling this media boomlet sometimes border on a barely suppressed rage.” This hostility is driven by “a sense of frustration and anger among the Republican Party’s core conservative base — and a power vacuum at the top of the party that lacks a national leader to set its course.”
“I CANT SLEEP SEEING this country being destroyed DAMM IT OVER my dead body i will let this happen/THESE BASTARDS HAVE GOT TO BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.”
“Bottomline, do you know of any way we can remove these idiots before this country goes down the crapper? I WILL HELP!!! Should I buy a gun? Should I store produce, etc?”
“Another American revolution will have to be fought — there will be blood.”
Some of the commentary on the Sonia Sotomayor hearings also brought up charges that the real subtext was angry White people — in this case Republican senators:
The GOP senators “were playing to the angry white male voter. Some of the remarks were clearly about saying that ‘you’ can say things that ‘we’ can’t,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
“These kinds of comments attacking ethnic pride and the benefits of diversity in any institution — which is really what her remark was about — combined with the Ricci case looked like backlash politics, pure and simple.”
Such ugly emotions! Or at least that’s what Rich labels them. For intellectuals like Rich and Zelizer, the value of diversity trumps the legitimate interests of Whites every time. Any protest is “backlash politics” or mindless emoting by angry White males.
But of course such emotions are absolutely normal for people who are seeing their country taken away from them. The fact that only certain people are allowed to have ethnic pride or a sense of ethnic interests makes no logical sense and clearly tramples on legitimate interests of Whites. Bloody revolutions have been motivated by far less grievance — legitimate and well-founded grievance — than ordinary Whites have right now. Certainly the behavior of the British government prior to the Revolutionary War was far less dispossessive of the colonists than the behavior of the contemporary American elites is to ordinary White Americans.
The fact is that elites in politics, the media, and the financial sector have completely abandoned ordinary White folks in America, and particularly the “nonurban Whites” who are the focus of Rich’s article. The only thing that’s surprising and perhaps depressing is that the main outlet for this anger is to purchase mainstream conservative media, the vast majority of which does little more than redirect this anger into harmless and ineffective sideshows like libertarianism or small government. If it doesn’t talk about stopping and reversing the effects of immigration and developing an explicit sense of White identity and interests, it’s not worth talking about.
The Republicans seem bent on committing suicide rather than abandoning their principled hostility to ethnic identity politics for Whites. But, as Peter Brimelow notes, if that is the policy of the Republican Party, another party must and will be formed that do exactly that.
So how did normal anger about being dispossessed come to be an “ugly” emotion to the point that a third-rate mind like Frank Rich can confidently describe it that way in a prestigious publication like the New York Times? The paper trail can be traced to the Frankfurt School and their allies and publicists among the New York Intellectuals. These intellectuals developed theories based ultimately on psychoanalysis in which hostility about being displaced by other groups was attributed to all sorts of repressions and anxieties. People who opposed their own displacement were described as irrational and as suffering from psychopathology. (Tell that to the Palestinians.)
And if professors connected to Harvard and the University of Chicago can call such emotions “ugly,” certainly Frank Rich can. It’s all about controlling the moral high ground via control of the most prestigious academic and media institutions. Intellectually insecure Whites, including a great many who are well-educated, will silently nod their heads in agreement and think that they are very moral indeed for having the same attitudes as Frank Rich.
The only difference is that Frank Rich’s attitudes are entirely congruent with his ethnic interests, while the silently nodding, morally uplifted White folks are agreeing with attitudes that are entirely opposed to their ethnic interests.
An interesting feature of the literature produced by the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals is hostility toward lower middle class Whites. Historically, this was motivated by the realization among many Jewish intellectuals that the lower middle class in Germany in the end opted for National Socialism instead of communism at a time when sympathetic views of communism dominated the mainstream among Jewish intellectuals. The behavior of the German lower middle class violates Marxist dogma because Marxists believe that class interest should be stronger than racial allegiances. The response of these intellectuals was to develop theories in which the lower middle class was the root of all evil.
Translated to America, these intellectuals were quite wary of American populism because of its tendency to be responsive to the demands of ordinary Americans rather than elites on issues such as immigration policy. Throughout the 20th century non-urban Whites —”the common people of the South and West,” as John Higham called them — were steadfastly against liberal immigration policies and they remain opposed to such policies today.
This intellectual elite represented by Frank Rich despises these people. As Chrisopher Laschnoted some time ago, from the perspective of these intellectuals, this class
clung to outworn folkways—conventional religiosity, hearth and home, the sentimental cult of motherhood—and obsolete modes of production. It looked back to a mythical golden age in the past. … Lacking liberal culture, it fell easy prey to all sorts of nostrums and political fads.
Frank Rich is happy because he thinks these people are in irreversible demographic decline brought on by massive non-White immigration. He may be right. But by the looks of things, they are pretty upset about the way things are going, and that is bound to have political repercussions.
Ahem! Can the ThinkProgress.org people be sure the banner wasn’t constructed with immigrant labor? If so, their complaints are automatically racist. And bilingual conferences would provide twice as many opportunities for spelling errors/faltas de ortografia.
Instead, we got Dubya—George W Bush—who turned out to be the worst president in American history, even worse than Franklin D. Roosevelt. At least Roosevelt was a good party leader—he led the Democrats to a whole series of victories.
But as Pat just said, and as Phyllis Schlafly said earlier, we’ve been here before.
I’m old enough—though I still think I can read my notes here—I’m old enough to remember being here in the 1970s after the disaster of Watergate, after the fall of Vietnam. I was up in Canada then, and I went down as a Canadian journalist to interview Bill Rusher, then the publisher of National Review. (So you know he was a squish at heart!)
At that time, Rusher was trying to start a new party, a Third Party, because he thought it was impossible for conservatives to get control of the Republican Party after Ford had defeated Reagan in 1976. We exchanged cabalistic signs and established that we were on the same side of the debate. And he said to me, in confidence, “You know the problem we’ve got here is insoluble, we’ve left it too late, and the Red Flag will one day wave over the world—the Soviet Union will one day conquer the world.”
But, he said, “We persevere. Because, for one thing, you never know what is going to happen next. And for another thing, there are theological injunctions against despair!”
So I agree with what some people have said here already. American politics are very volatile. I’m not worried about a leader showing up—a leader will show up. Or leaders. Maybe there’s one here today. We can rebound much more quickly than people anticipate.
At a similar moment in British history in the 19th century, the Conservative Party was in complete disarray and despair. And its then-principal ideologist and eventual leader, Benjamin Disraeli, promulgated, came up with the idea that the way the Conservative Party, which was seen as an aristocratic and feudal party could win elections was to appeal to the working class—on the basis of nationalism, on the basis of patriotism.
A famous British historian whose name I forget, but Pat will remember, said that Disraeli discerned in the working class “the Conservative working man as the sculptor perceives the angel prisoned in a block of marble.” [This originally appeared in the Times of London, May 18th, 1883—the historian Peter was thinking of was Sir Robert Ensor, who quoted it in his history of the period.] Andthat is exactly what real political leadership is—to see the issues that you can build new coalitions around.
And in America today, these issues have already in fact emerged. Let me give you an example.
A good issue, a really strong issue, can leap sectional divisions between Americans. It can leap racial divisions, if it is strong enough. Up in northern Michigan, there is a man called Dr. John Tanton who has really single-handedly built the immigration reform movement in the U.S., because no political party would take it on. He’s founded a number of organizations including FAIR—Federation for Immigration Reform—and US English which was in favor of an official English policy. [Subsequently succeeded by ProEnglish].
Tanton is not a conservative. He’s sort of a Northern Progressive. He’s an environmentalist. The reason he got interested in immigration reform—this is actually true!—is that he really likes trees, he’s fascinated by trees. He prefers trees to people. And his view is the more people you have, the fewer trees. So, therefore, you don’t want mass immigration because that is what is driving American population growth.
Now, something else about Tanton: you’re all going to have to pray for him. He’s on the wrong side of the abortion issue. So much that he and his wife were leaders in an attempt to get abortion legal is Michigan, way back when, before the Supreme Court decided to do it for them.
Needless to say, this initiative lost. But nevertheless John Tanton and his wife voted for Pat in the 1992 Michigan primary—because of the immigration issue. That was more important to them than anything else, more important than social liberalism and abortion issue.
So that’s how a strong issue can jump over the conventional wisdom on what motivates people to vote one way or the other.
They all carried overwhelmingly, despite being in California, which we’re not supposed to be able to win any more, and despite being opposed by overwhelming weight of the California Establishment and even substantial parts of the California Republican Party. But they still carried.
The response of the Californian Republican Party has been to dive under the bed and hide. Which is why it’s not won any statewide elections since Proposition 187 carried California in 1994.
But the issues are still there. And they can be developed.
They’ve all been gone into today, so I won’t say very much more about them, except to add this about Affirmative Action: People ask, how do we appeal to younger people? The only section of the white vote that Obama carried was people below 30—he narrowly carried them. But the fact is that it was suicidal for any white male to vote for Obama because affirmative action quotas are a zero sum game. The more quotas there are, the more white males will be squeezed out of everything—as also will be the families that depend on them. That’s the issue that should have been used to appeal to the young.
By the way, on the immigration issue, I think it’s important that we start thinking about legal immigration too. Legal immigration is as much out of control as illegal immigration, because of the “family unification”policy, which basically means that foreigners who have relatives in America have a sort of civil right to come here, and ultimately it has the same effect. The tremendous cross-subsidization from the American taxpayer to illegal and legal immigrants in this country just makes no sense from an economic point of view.
I really do recommend the language issue, because that polls even better than immigration and Affirmative Action. Eighty-odd percent [actually 84%] of Americans say they are in favor of an official English policy. The wonderful thing about this is that, if you look at what is actually going to happen here, you find that the Obama administration is going to gradually institute institutional bilingualism in the country—is going to require people to speak Spanish in key positions in the police force and so on. This is a direct attack on the American working class because they are not going to be bilingual.
Then there’s the trade question. It has always irritates me as a financial journalist when Pat talks about trade. For one thing, I think that he ought to be talking about immigration. That’s a far more important issue. I mean, no one throws bricks at you when you talk about tariffs. It’s immigration that provokes the riots—it’s much more exciting. Fundamentally, economics is a boring issue, you know. I have to write about it for a living, but it is fundamentally boring.
But Pat is unquestionably right—regardless of minor technical disagreements we might have—that there is a tremendous redistribution effect from free trade. It costs some people income and it directs income towards other people, and they’re not the same people. I might also say by the way that econometrics show that the aggregate gains from free trade are quite small. I think they’re there, but they are quite small, so I don’t think it’s worth arguing about.
What I do recommend to Pat, again, not for that first time, is that he talk about exchange rates. You know, people go around saying that Pat is a terrible fellow because he wants tariffs. But in fact what we’ve had in this country, really since the Clinton years, is a policy of effective negative tariffs—inverse protectionism. Because Washington for some reason has allowed the Chinese to peg their yuan, their currency, to the dollar. The Chinese currency is massively undervalued. Nobody has raised a peep about this, really, for nearly twenty years.
The Chinese are doing this because it makes their exports cheaper to the US and it makes American imports dearer in China. And they want to do that, although it is not necessarily in the aggregate economic interest of China, because they believe in concentrating manufacturing capacity in their hands. They’re exchange-rate mercantilists.
But what’s the Americans’ excuse? What’s the excuse of the Clinton administration and the Bush administration for this?
I don’t think there is a very nice explanation. I think what we see here is a conspiracy by Peking, Washington and Wall Street against Main Street. (Applause).
(My word, Pat—I guess people are interested in economics.)
What happened was that the Federal government in Washington decided it wanted to fund these enormous budget deficits, it wanted to borrow the money from the Chinese. Wall Street wanted to sell the paper, the bonds, to the Federal government, to be the middle man between the Federal government and the Chinese. And the Chinese wanted, as I said, manufacturing capacity.
So, talking of popular issues, I think someone should stick a pitchfork in Wall Street. Pat? When you’ve got the time?
I call these questions —Affirmative Action, immigration, language, America versus trade and finance—I call them “The National Question”. They all go to the issue of whether or not America is a nation, a political community that looks after its own people, or whether it has become a sort of global supermarket. And I think that people who are interested in these questions are what I call Nationalists—National Conservatives.
The National Question is the common thread that runs through all of these issues. And there will be more coming.
Another thing we monitor is what we call “Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome”. For some reason immigrants, quite often Asian males, have a habit of going amuck and killing lots of people. The most famous case, of course, is the Virginia Tech killings in 2007. But just recently a Vietnamese immigrant killed about thirty people in a Binghamton, New York immigration center. There have been at least 20 cases of these things in the last seven or eight years, and more than 200 deaths. Nobody in the Main Stream Media seems to want to put this together and ask why is this happening? If this were anything else in the world, the MSM would be saying this is a Trend, with a capital T, and we have to look at it. But as it is, you can’t find even the facts unless you go to our site.
If this man who shot up those people in Binghamton had been a white male, I’m sure that people in this room would be under arrest—because that’s what Obama wants to see happen. So we only have a short time to get a grip on this situation. And that Hate Crimes Bill is something that the Republican Party should really be focusing on.
But then what’s unemployment going to get to eleven—twelve percent? Why isn’t the Republican Party calling for an immigration moratorium? It makes no sense.
Sometime I think Bill Rusher was right, Bay, we have to go to a new party. Bay’s flinching she doesn’t like to hear that after experiencing 2000! But I still think it’s going to happen.
I will end on an optimistic note. I’ve concluded that nobody knows what’s politically possible, least of all professional politicians. (I’m sorry Lou [Barletta!]. They’re like shrews, they have very sensitive noses, they can sense exactly what is in front of them, but they’re blind—they don’t need to see more than a week out as long as they can do a 360 degree turn and come out facing the right way.
Do you remember inflation? That was thought of in the 1970s as irreversible. One amazing thing Reagan did was he stopped inflation—again, for the time being.
Above all, think about the Soviet Union. Nobody expected the Soviet Union to collapse. I was talking to Phyllis about it this morning. Not only those of us who were anticommunists didn’t expect it to collapse—because we were constantly being told how powerful it was and we actually began to believe it—but the other side, the Sovietologists, didn’t expect it. I interviewed one of the leading Sovietologists in 1987 for Forbes magazine, and he categorically said that the Soviet Union was going to go on from strength to strength.
Dr. Tom Sunic and Dr. Kevin MacDonald discuss the crucial issues of evolutionary theory vs Judeo-Christianity, the Meaning of Paganism vs Polytheism, and the role of ‘white nationalists’ in these declining hours of the West. Please tune in! This is an indispensable radio show hosted by two prominent academics. Inform your friends and colleagues!
Edit:Here is a related link to a column on religion written by Dr. Sunic in 1994.
The term ‘nationalism’ has become obsolete. And it should remain so: both in America and Europe. It was promising, modern, revolutionary, and it went hand in hand with the liberal and socialist revolutions in 1848. Later on, due to semantic shifts in the aftermath of WWII, it became a monster word in Europe, squarely equated with the term ‘Nazism’. And since Nazism stands in modern discourse as a synonym for absolute evil, no wonder that its milder etymological derivative, such as the adjective ‘national’ is avoided.
Of course, there are respectable nationalist parties in Europe such as the BNP in the United Kingdom, Le Front National in France, L’Alleanza Nazionale in Italy, or the NPD in Germany, with all of them sporting the adjective “national” in their party logos or in their letterheads. But this is a far cry from the noun ‘nationalist’ — which they all prudently avoid. Neither Nick Griffin, nor Jean Marie le Pen, nor Udo Voigt, will ever publicly exclaim: “I am proud of being a French, or British, or German nationalist!” However, even with their toned down rhetoric aimed at hiding the pesky qualifier “national,” there is no way they can dodge the smear campaign by the European media, which depicts them all as closet crypto- Nazis.
Such a lexical malaise only causes further semantic confusions in view of the fact that the word ‘Nazi’ was never in official use in the Third Reich. It has always been a derogatory word in the arsenal of former or current opponents of National Socialism. How for instance would neocon luminaries such as Irving Kristol or Norman Podhoretz like being tagged as “former commie” sympathizers? No serious scholar would ever resort the pejorative word ‘commie’ when describing past communist terror. The only exception is the pejorative word ‘Nazi’.
As a German legal scholar Josef Schüsselburner in his much acclaimed recent book points out, it is no wonder that contemporary leftist and liberal scholars avoid the German compound noun “National Socialism” (Nationalsozialismus), given that the noun “Sozialismus” (and not the preceding adjective “National” ) is conspicuously reminiscent of humane, socialist do-good theories which liberals and communists like to brag about. It’s hard for modern liberal and leftist opinion makers to swallow the fact that in the mid-1930s, National Socialist Germany tapped into the socialist heritage, which resulted in the first modern welfare state in Europe — a state that achieved an awesome economic miracle. Germany had lifted its currency off the gold standard and began using a mixture of command and free market economy.
Politically and ideologically, Hitler made a visible effort to co-opt the SPD (Social Democratic Party) electorate and integrate it in his regime, an effort that was largely successful with his “social-state-socialist” economic policies. Even the exiled SPD observed in 1934 that the Hitler regime was labor-oriented and therefore could lean much on former SPD voters. … What appears obvious is the deliberate classification in the socialist tradition, because otherwise National Socialism would have not named itself “national-socialist,” but possibly “social-nationalist.” …
The main acknowledgment of the chief NS propagandist, Joseph Goebbels was: “When I think in terms of socialism, I must be an anti-Semite, because the Jew is the incarnation of capitalism.” (Josef Schüsselburner, Roter, brauner und grüner Sozialismus (Red, Brown, and Green Socialism), 2008).
America: The White Revival?
The term “White nationalist” that is so common in America is a misnomer. Often it is used as a code word for White racialists, although the term “patriot” would be more digestible because it is less value-loaded. Nor can American nationalism be historically or sociologically the equivalent of European nationalism. Despite its evident verbal shortcoming, the expression “White nationalism” in America has conceptually, but also in terms of its political feasibility, a distinct advantage over a multitude of European nationalisms which are often at odds which each other. The North American continent represents a unique land mass in the world in which over 200 million citizens of European ancestry live side by side without being embroiled in linguistic disputes or other quarrels among White subgroups. as is common in Europe. America, or at least some part of it, is, therefore, geopolitically and racially better positioned in the near future to be in the forefront of the European cultural revival than any other aspiring nation state in Europe.
Moreover, unlike in Europe, American White nationalists do not have to justify their nationalism by resorting to “negative identity” — that is, by seeking political legitimacy through the exclusion or demonization of other neighboring White nationalisms.
The major flaw of contemporary American nationalists, racialists, or (crudely put) “right-wingers” is that they often define their national awareness by harping on one single issue while neglecting the broader picture of cultural hegemony. Pat Buchanan is one of the rare American patriots who understands the vital point of culture warfare as a tool in obtaining political power. Many American nationalists and self-proclaimed racialists, including even some cultivated racialists, cannot help but framing their nationalism in terms of race discourse only. Some, on the other hand seem to be solely obsessed with Jews. Some will rave and rant eternally against illegal Mexicans.
These types of one-issue conservatism are repellant to the broad American masses and they definitely cripple the credibility of American White nationalists. As laudable as any of these single-issue approaches may be, when taken separately they are non-starters for obtaining cultural hegemony. A single-issue approach makes American nationalists appear in the eyes of European nationalists as too reductionistic, to put it academically — or as a laughing stock, to put it non-academically.
Many American sociobiologists and race theoreticians of staggering erudition have made path-breaking inroads in the study of human behavior and particularly in the role of IQ in politics. But there is a common tendency of overspecialization and the neglect of a sense of the sacred, the role of myths, the role of art, or the social and political factor of European sagas. Such a purely mechanistic attitude can never elicit a positive response among White American masses at large, who in their vast majority have a poor sense of racial consciousness and are badly in need of a true role model. Whoever visited MENSA gatherings knows that these meetings can be incredibly boring.
In fact many American ‘classy’ racialists fall in the same trap as Marxist intellectuals when they replace economic determinism with genetic determinism. The reality is that man, or for that matter White man, is more than his IQ or his genetic endowment. The spirit of the Parthenon in Greece or the spiritual modesty of General Lee amply demonstrates that there are also other venues that need to be explored.
A blue collar worker nationalist in the United Kingdom knows very well the meaning of the name Geoffrey Chaucer or William Shakespeare — although he may have never read them. A German farmer knows perfectly well the transcendental meaning of the names Richard Wagner or Goethe. Not so in America, where White nationalists look for role models in fleeting creatures of often dubious morality and often semi-criminal record — and who usually last only a short time. In hindsight it appears that on the political front, ever since Huey Long or George Wallace American nationalists, whether on the political front or on the intellectual front, have had zero success.
By neglecting the broader picture that would include other related fields, stretching from philosophy to literature and linguistics, American nationalists and racialists provide a perfect target for leftist and Jewish watchdog groups who know deadly well the crucial role of cultural hegemony in wielding political power.
American self- proclaimed “Nazis” are a case in point, presenting the grotesque picture of what historically National Socialism had never been in Germany. With their caricatured imagery and posted insignia harkening back to National Socialist Germany, American Nazis fit perfectly into the preconceived monster picture of their zealous detractors, such as the $PLC or the ADL.
The Main Foe of Nationalism: Capitalism
Many American right wingers are deeply concerned about out-of-ocontrol non-European immigration while at the same time having a quasi-religious veneration of the free market. As I wrote a long time ago in a well annotated piece, the free market, or capitalism, is by definition “raceless.” Unless it is controlled by a racially conscious political class, it is bound to destroy America’s White racial stock faster than all illegals from all parts of the world combined. Capitalism rejects the race factor and despises any form or ethnocentrism. A merchant does not like borders and could not care less whether his customer is black, brown, or yellow. All European nationalists, despite being virulent anti-Marxists, and in contrast to American nationalists, are without exception highly critical of the free market and capitalism.
On a more intimate level, it would be interesting to carry out a study as to the percentage of “proud White” Americans who resort furtively to illegal cheap labor from across the Rio Grande. By extension, this equation could also apply to boisterous “proud White males” from Australia, who in search of cheap flesh and dope travel to Thailand for a quick out-group sexual escapade.
While it is more than commendable to mate within the same in-group, there is always a cultural element that needs to be factored in. Over the last twenty years many American nationalist men seem to have found a treasure trove among East European and Russian women — whose sense of tradition and womanhood is unquestionably better preserved than among American women. American nationalist men also look to these areas for wives because American women are likely to view their nationalist beliefs as toxic. By contrast, the legacy of communist barbarism has turned many of Eastern European nationalist males into a crass and uncouth flock — hardly appealing to women.
What is to be done?
Among post-communist East European and Russian nationalists, despite animosity towards American individualism, there is a dose of hidden awe and servility toward all things American. This inferiority complex works on both sides of the Atlantic, and if not bridged by aggressive cultural and linguistic exchange, it won’t solidify White peoples around the globe.
It remains a puzzle why American nationalists do not use an interdisciplinary culture-bound approach in their activism or in their self-promotion. But first and foremost they need to make a sharp distinction between political activism and intellectual proselytizing. The latter must always precede the former — something that Western European nationalists grasped a long time ago. The left — from the early Bolsheviks to the 1960s countercultural protestors — have been well aware of this over the last century.
American nationalists have enough cultural firepower for reasonable intellectual debates. Although important, the race factor cannot be the only carrier of national identity. Numerous gatherings of American nationalists could for a change address topics of literature and politics and discuss authors like Jack London, Ambrose Bierce, HL Mencken and the meaning of American prometheanism. The great telluric and symbolist poems by a great postmodern American poet, Joseph D. Pryce, could attract many potential fellow Euro-American patriots and greatly dissipate the ambiance of fear, suspicion and “guilt by association.”
The South has its intellectual heavyweights too. One only needs to bring up the name of the great antebellum thinker George Fitzhugh in order to grasp the mendacity of liberals. In many ways his prose is far more revealing than that of the Brit George Orwell writing a hundred years later. John Calhoun’s views on race are as refreshing today as they were two centuries ago.
In many ways the intellectual heritage of the American nationalists is on par with the European nationalist tradition and sometimes even surpasses it, as demonstrated by the Southern agrarians, who early on demolished the liberal myth of economic progress and whose intellectual diversity spreads out from literature to poetry and linguistics.
Modern American nationalists are still privileged by the First Amendment and have the means of communicating from Alabama to Alaska in one vernacular. If better organized and with folks of impeccable modesty and sincerity at the helm, they could resuscitate the impressive Euro-American cultural heritage and use it as a tool against liberal and leftist smear campaigners.
Mike Conner takes a stab at broadcasting! His guest is Tyler Robbins, the chairman and a spokesperson for the Golden State Party (GSP), a newly registered political party in California . Mike & Tyler discuss:
The origins of the GSP and the activities of its members
The political platform of the GSP
Third parties in the U.S. and their value
The pros and cons of pro-White vs. race-neutral terminology in politics
Dr. Sunic examines the redundancy and anarchronism of words and concepts such as ‘nationalism’ and ‘racialism’; a brief contrast of nationalism in Europe and nationalism in the USA; nationalism vs. racialism.
Comments on Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, by Aviva Weingarten (2008).
Beginning in the 19th century, liberal/leftist politics has been a hallmark of the Jewish community in America and elsewhere. The attraction of Jews to the success of the Bolshevik Revolution was an entirely mainstream movement among large numbers of Jews in America and led to one of several anti-Jewish stereotypes during the 1920s and 1930s — stereotypes that were aided and abetted by people like Henry Ford and Father Charles Coughlin. Into the 1930s the American Communist Party (CPUSA) had a Yiddish-speaking Jewish section. and Jews around the world had positive attitudes toward the USSR, at least partly because Jews had achieved elite status there.
After World War II, however, anti-Semitism declined precipitously in the US, and Jewish organizations were poised to spearhead the transformations in civil rights and immigration legislation that would come to fruition in the 1960s. By 1950 the Jewish community was part of the establishment — well connected to the power centers in the media, politics, the academic world and the construction of culture generally.
But there was a major problem that the organized Jewish community was forced to confront—a problem stemming from the long involvement of the mainstream Jewish community in communism and the far left, at least until the end of World War II, and among a substantial number of Jews even after this period. In Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy,Aviva Weingarten points to a “hard core of Jews” (p. 6) who continued to support the Communist Party into the 1950s and continued to have a “decisive role” in shaping the policies of the American Communist Party (CPUSA) (p. 9).
Weingarten notes that unlike other communists, Jewish communists continued to have a Jewish identity (p. 10) and often participated in the wider Jewish community. This is a refreshing change from a long history of Jewish apologetics over this issue. The standard line, not only among Jewish activist organizations but by academic authors such as Yuri Slezkine, has been that Jews ceased being Jews when they joined the Communist Party or participated in other far left causes. As a result, the focus of Chapter 3 of The Culture of Critiqueis to demonstrate that Jewish radicals retained a strong Jewish identity and a sense of pursuing specifically Jewish interests. Most egregiously, the American Jewish Congress — by far the largest Jewish organization in terms of membership — continued to be associated with the far left and was formally affiliated with organizations listed as subversive by the US Attorney General. The CPUSA viewed members of the AJCongress as “democratic forces” in their attempt to create “democratic and anti-fascist” policies in the World Jewish Congress (p. 25).
This history of Jewish involvement in communism and sympathy toward communism was now combined with the new situation of the Cold War in which the Soviet Union had become the mortal enemy of the United States.
I suppose that in the ideal Jewish world of 1950, Jewish organizations and the great majority of Jews would have smoothly transitioned to a world of what became mainstream liberal politics: the movements for civil rights, for non-European immigration, and for removing any sense that the United States had a European, Christian identity. But, as Weingarten’s book makes clear, Senator Joseph McCarthy made this transition a delicate matter because McCarthy’s investigations into communist infiltration of the government often targeted Jews — not because they were Jews but because Jews were highly overrepresented among communists. And Jewish defendants accused of communist affiliations were typically represented by Jewish attorneys (p. 30). The result was that Jewish organizations were terrified that the public would be reinforced with the stereotype of Jewish communism.
Such fears were well-founded. A survey by the American Jewish Committee in 1948 found that 21% answered affirmatively the question “Do you think most Jews are Communists?” And an informal survey showed that more than half the people mentioned Jews in responding to the question “What do you think of the atom [spy] stories in the newspapers?,” even though the question didn’t mention Jews (p. 34).
The matter was compounded by the fact that many of the causes championed by the Jewish organizations in the area of civil rights, immigration, and globalist internationalism were also championed by the CPUSA. And throughout the period, the CPUSA viewed Jews as a group that was particularly susceptible to communist messages and recruitment and therefore actively courted them.
In particular, the CPUSA and pro-communist sympathizers continually tried to paint as anti-Semitism any targeting of Jews as communists, no matter how well founded. A paradigmatic case was the spy trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. The CPUSA-inspired National Committee to Secure Justice in the Rosenberg Trial held meetings defending the Rosenbergs in Jewish community buildings. “Headlines in the Daily Worker in the form of ‘Anti-Semitism and the Rosenbergs’ were an inseparable part of this campaign” (p. 32) — a view that the Rosenbergs themselves promoted. Indeed, as Stuart Svonkin points out, the Rosenbergs saw themselves as Jewish martyrs and viewed their political radicalism as intimately bound up with their Jewish identification.
The strategy pursued by the organized Jewish community under these circumstances had several facets:
Education within the Jewish community aimed at decreasing sympathy for communism. The main organizations here were the ADL and the AJCommittee, with the AJCongress conspicuous by its absence due to its far-left proclivities. A main tactic was to point out the anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union after World War II — a tactic that assumed (correctly) that Jewish communists had a Jewish identity and would be motivated by it. The ADL and the AJCommittee also fought against Jews who cooperated with high-profile communist campaigns, such as the defense of the Rosenbergs. In 1954 the ADL advocated continuing old programs begun in 1950 and established new programs, indicating that they saw a continuing need for anti-communist work within the Jewish community. For example, there was great embarrassment in 1953 when a person who invoked the Fifth Amendment when questioned by HUAC turned out to be a member of the Council for Jewish Community Centers in Cleveland.
Public condemnations of communism by Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders, such as Senator Herbert Lehman (D, NY). However, the established Jewish organizations rejected the American Jewish League Against Communism, a Jewish organization that supported McCarthy and took a strong stand in favor of ridding the Jewish community of communism. They were worried that the AJLAC would bring too much attention to the Jews-as-communists concerns of the mainstream Jewish organizations.
Intellectual work rationalizing the political goals of Jewish organizations in the areas of civil rights and immigration as fulfilling American ideals rather than communist ideals. Here Weingarten credits the “mostly Jewish” New York Intellectuals as developing a left/liberal ant-communist perspective that left an “indelible mark” on American intellectual life. (In The Culture of Critique, the New York Intellectuals are discussed as a Jewish intellectual movement.) Weingarten highlights the role of Commentary (published by the AJCommittee) as publicizing anti-Semitism in the USSR and Eastern European countries. Commentary also published articles on the incompatibility of Judaism and communism. Throughout the entire period the organized Jewish community continued to engage in propaganda campaigns designed to re-educate the American public along liberal lines. Both the ADL and the AJCommittee supported academic research by the Frankfurt Schooland the New York Intellectuals designed to promote civil rights, end the European bias of US immigration laws, and promote the idea of the United States as a proposition nation with no ethnic or cultural core.
It bears emphasizing that although all of these intellectuals began their careers as Marxists and continued to promote anti-White policies in areas such as immigration reform, they framed their ideas in language that was more acceptable to an American audience and often appealed to American ideals of democracy and freedom. For example, Sidney Hook, a leader among the New York Intellectuals, argued that democracy required multiculturalism. An influential paradigm of this approach is The Authoritarian Personality, a product of the Frankfurt School that was funded by the AJCommittee — and the subject of Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique.
Strong opposition to McCarthy himself.
But why exactly were these Jewish organizations and the vast majority of individual Jews so opposed to McCarthy? One might think that the Jewish organizations could simply cooperate with McCarthy to rid the Jewish community of hard-core communists. One reason was that the atmosphere created by McCarthy was not conducive to the liberal/left political agenda that the Jewish organizations were actively pursuing in the areas of civil rights and immigration policy. The McCarthy era produced an upsurge of patriotism in the US at a time when patriotism had strong overtones of supporting the traditional people and culture of America. Everything linked to communism came under suspicion. And since the CPUSA supported the domestic political agenda of Jewish organizations — an agenda entirely at odds with traditional conceptions of America, the Jewish organizations had an obvious motive to end McCarthyism as soon as possible.
Moreover, McCarthy fanned the passions of anti-communism and, because of the strong association of Jews and communism, these passions often had anti-Jewish overtones. A well-known example was the so-called Peekskill riots of 1949 in which demonstrators yelled out anti-communist and anti-Jewish epithets at people attending a scheduled performance by Black baritone and political radical Paul Robeson. Most of the concertgoers were Jewish radicals from New York City.
Jews were also vastly overrepresented in high-profile cases among those invoking the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, so that public hearings like McCarthy’s inevitably highlighted the Jewish role in communism. For example, in 1952, of 124 people questioned by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Weingarten identifies 79 Jews, 32 non-Jews and 13 with unknown ethnicity. All invoked the Fifth.
Even more remarkably, of the 42 people who were dismissed from their positions at the Fort Monmouth Laboratories in New Jersey on suspicion of constituting a spy ring (the same one that Julius Rosenberg belonged to), 39 were Jews and one other was married to a Jewish woman. M. Stanton Evans has an excellent chapter on the Monmouth case in his Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies— by far the best and most exhaustive survey of McCarthy’s battles.Evans shows how many of the Fort Monmouth accused invoked the 5th Amendment under questioning by McCarthy and he exposes the incredibly lax security procedures at the facility. For example, one employee “signed out at one time or another for more than 2700 documents (not a typo)” (p. 510). Two-thirds were still missing after an investigation, but when the employee was brought up on security charges, all of this was omitted from the record on orders from above.
Evans also quotes the post-McCarthy testimony of a Soviet scientist that “in the 1940s secret U.S. material involving radar had turned up in Russia in vast amounts, and that literally ‘thousands’ of these had been identified on their face as having come from Monmouth” (p. 510). Other evidence indicated that the Monmouth spying continued into the 1950s at the time of McCarthy’s hearings. In the end, the Fort Monmouth battle proved pivotal for McCarthy, “provoking a showdown of epic nature between McCarthy and the executive branch” (p. 513).
I also suspect there was a visceral gut solidarity with the Jewish left which made it very difficult to simply cooperate with McCarthy. Again, the AJCongress was the by far largest Jewish organization during this period and its membership was sympathetic to the left even when not explicitly pro-communist. Particularly salient was the 50,000-member Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order, an affiliate of the AJCongress listed as a subversive organization by the U. S. Attorney General. The JPFO was the financial and organizational “bulwark” of the CPUSA after World War II and also funded the Daily Worker and the Morning Freiheit. Although the AJCongress severed its ties with the JPFO and stated that communism was a threat, according to Stuart Svonkin, it was “at best a reluctant and unenthusiastic participant” in the Jewish effort to develop a public image of anti-communism—a position reflecting the sympathies of many among its predominantly second- and third-generation Eastern European immigrant membership.
The organized Jewish community consistently opposed measures intended to make it more difficult for communists to operate within the American system even as it officially opposed communism. For example, Jewish organizations objected to any infringements of civil liberties or academic freedom enacted to firm up national security. Weingarten attributes this stand to a principled Jewish respect for human rights (e.g., p. 66), particularly on the part of the AJCongress, the Jewish organization most closely identified with the far left.
But it can be easily seen that Jews and Jewish organizations have not consistently been on the side of civil liberties and academic freedom. During the 1920s and 1930s mainstream Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals rationalized Soviet despotism and turned a blind eye to Soviet mass murder during a period when Jews were an elite within the Soviet Union. And in the present era, Jewish organizations, most notably the ADL, have been prime advocates of “hate crime” legislation aimed at penalizing beliefs and ideas. Jewish organizations have also attacked the academic freedom of professors who have been critical of Israel. The ADL has also been critical of my writing and, along with the $PLC, engaged in public denunciations of my writing and associations at the university where I work. In general, perceived interests are a much better predictor of Jewish behavior than principles.
Finally, another reason the organized Jewish community opposed McCarthy was that even though Joe McCarthy surrounded himself with Jews and did his best to ingratiate himself with the Jewish community, some of his supporters and associates were well known to be anti-Jewish. Most of these people are little known now, with the exception of Gerald L. K. Smith. Weingarten interprets these associations as McCarthy using these people for his own ends, not as indicating that McCarthy was anti-Jewish.
Indeed, some of McCarthy’s closest associates were Jews, including Roy Cohn, chief counsel of McCarthy’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Cohn’s protégé David Schine. Cohn is portrayed as a strongly identified Jew who felt that Jewish organizations did not do enough to support Jews who were in the front lines opposing communism. Cohn was remembered by college friends as “reacting almost violently to any Jew suspected of pro-communist leanings” (p. 92); a TV producer claimed that Cohn had said that “although not all Jews are Communists, but all Communists are Jews” (p. 92).
Another Jew close to McCarthy was George Sokolsky who was a journalist for the Hearst newspapers and was associated with the “China Lobby,” a group devoted to Chiang Kai-Shek and a non-communist China. Sokolsky was the Hearst newspapers’ liaison with McCarthy and set up McCarthy’s relationship with Cohn. Sokolsky also set up a meeting of McCarthy with the ADL. There are varying accounts of this meeting, but nothing positive came of it. One observer claimed that a drunken McCarthy stated “you just write what my credo ought to be and I’ll sign it” (p. 108), but the offer was turned down by the ADL representatives.
As Weingarten notes, “the fact of their being Jews and anti-communists was made full use of by McCarthy, who wanted to expand his circle of support, while doing his best to free himself of any hint of anti-Semitism” (p. 100). McCarthy also attempted to get Cohn appointed to a position on the ADL executive council, presumably, as Weingarten suggests, in order to dampen the animosity of these organizations toward him.
Indeed, McCarthy seems to have done everything he could to curry favor with Jews. Lucy Dawidowitz wrote that in the early 1950s “for anyone in public life [anti-Semitism] is the sign of Cain. So overwhelming is the disrepute of anti-Semitism that an unrestrained demagogue like McCarthy has studiously avoided the Communist provocation and has, as a matter of fact, tried to establish himself as a philo-Semite” (p. 128).
The fact that McCarthy attempted to gain Jewish allies and did his best not to offend the Jews shows quite clearly that Jews were very powerful in 1950s America. In retrospect, the campaign of the organized Jewish community and their allies in the media and the intellectual world was quite successful in containing the threat posed by McCarthy to the general public policy positions pursued by the organized Jewish community during this period: civil rights, non-white immigration, and the idea that America is a proposition nation with no ethnic or religious identity. All these campaigns were carried on in the teeth of McCarthyism and despite the fact that these same ideas were promulgated by communists.
In the long run, these public policy positions were far more important than the national security threat posed by pro-Soviet Jewish leftists. The general climate created by McCarthy delayed the triumph of these policies but could not ultimately hold them back. At least part of the problem was that McCarthy was not concerned with challenging the policy positions of the Jewish organizations related to civil rights, immigration, and the proposition nation, but focused exclusively on containing the internal security threat. The nexus among elites in politics, the intellectual world and the media was not threatened by McCarthy or his allies in the moribund conservative movement of the period, and indeed this elite ultimately caused his downfall.
This hostile elite — hostile to the traditional people and culture of America — is still in place. But unlike McCarthy (and with the benefit of 50 years of hindsight), we now realize that the Jewish involvement in the transformations of recent decades must be discussed openly and honestly — even if mainstream conservatives are still terrified at the prospect.
Indeed, one might ask these conservatives, “What do you have to show for decades of not openly discussing Jewish influence?” The answer, quite clearly, is that by not discussing Jewish issues openly and honestly, mainstream conservatives are cooperating in the displacement of White America and are forfeiting any sense that conservatism ought to defend the traditional people and culture of America. As they say, with friends like these, who needs enemies?