An analysis.
I would like to analyze selected excerpts (emphasis added) from KMacD’s excellent concluding chapter from CofC. Go to the link above to read the whole thing (recommended).
Lipset and Raab (1995) note that Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in the United States, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and one-fourth of Republican contributions.
These facts are an effective riposte to apologia that asserts that “Jews are only 2% of the American population, therefore it is impossible for them to exert the widescale pernicious influence that critics ascribe to them. What is more important than numbers is power and influence – exactly those characteristics overrepresented for Jews. An analysis can estimate this overrepresentation. Thus:
Salter (1998b) provides a theoretically based assessment of Jewish influence relative to African Americans and gentile European Americans based on Blalock’s (1967, 1989) model of group power as a function of resources multiplied by mobilization.
I would be great if this work was finally published in book form, or even just a publicly accessible journal article or website article.
Jews are far more mobilized than these other ethnic populations (one hesitates calling gentile European Americans a “group”). For example, while specifically ethnic organizations devoted to the ethnic interests of gentile European Americans are essentially political fringe groups with meager funding and little influence on the mainstream political process, Salter notes that the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee ranked second out the 120 most powerful lobbies as rated by members of Congress and professional lobbyists, with no other ethnic organization rated in the top 25.
Power and influence. Masses of dimwits do not influence policy; highly mobilized and intelligent minorities are fully capable of dong do…and have done so.
Furthermore, AIPAC is one of the few lobbies that relies heavily on campaign contributions to win allies. As indicated above, Jews contribute between one-third and one-half of all campaign money in federal elections, the donations motivated by “Israel and the broader Jewish agenda” (Goldberg 1996, 275). Jews are thus overrepresented in campaign contributions by a factor of at least 13 based on their percentage of the population and are overrepresented by a factor of approximately 6.5 if adjustment is made for their higher average income.
This, with respect to campaign contributions, the influence of Jews is equivalent to a group constituting between one-third and two-fifths of the US population.
In overseas donations, the Jewish lead is even greater…Salter has adopted a preliminary conservative estimate of Jewish ethnic mobilization as four times that of white gentiles, based on comparison of per capita donations to non-religious ethnic causes.
Four times greater mobilization! That is consistent with findings that “elites and organized groups” control the US political system. What group is more elite and organized than the “American” Jewish community?
In the Blalock equation influence is affected not only by mobilization but also by the resources held by the group. Salter estimates that Jews control approximately 26 percent of the “cybernetic resources” of the United States (i.e., resources as measured by representation in key areas such as government, media, finance, academia, corporations, and entertainment)…Substitution of these resource and mobilization values into the Blalock equation yields an estimate that Jewish influence on ethnic policy (immigration, race policy, foreign policy) is approximately three times the influence of gentile European Americans.
Thus, that “2% of the population” has a three-fold higher effect on public policy than does the majority group. Anyone who indulges in the standards “numbers” apologia is misleading you; the mendacity is at the level of gaslighting.
All of the major Jewish organizations were intensively involved in the battle over restrictive immigration for a period lasting an entire century despite what must have seemed devastating setbacks. This effort continues into the contemporary era. As discussed in Chapter 7, opposition to large-scale immigration of all racial and ethnic groups by large majorities of the European-derived population as well as the relative apathy of other groups—even groups such as Italian Americans and Polish Americans that might be expected to support the immigration of their own peoples—were prominent features of the history of immigration policy.
It was the Jews. White ethnic groups were relatively unconcerned with the Reed Johnson Act and continued on the road to assimilation. It were the non-European Jews, ethnocentric and hostile, who were hell-bent on utilizing their influence to overturn America’s ethnic and racial status quo.
This “rise of the Jews”—to use Albert Lindemann’s (1997) phrase—has undoubtedly had important effects on contemporary Western societies. A major theme of the previous chapter is that high levels of immigration into Western societies conforms to a perceived Jewish interest in developing nonhomogeneous, culturally and ethnically pluralistic societies. It is of interest to consider the possible consequences of such a policy in the long term.
That summarizes the key difference of interest between Jews and White Gentiles – while the White Gentiles would have an interest in homogeneity, the Jews – as a minority group that has a distinct biocultural identity that differs from that of Europeans have an “interest in developing nonhomogeneous, culturally and ethnically pluralistic societies.” In such societies they are no longer the sole major minority group (and thus potentially targeted as such); further, they fragment the demographic, political, social, cultural, and economic power of the hated Euro-American majority, which they see as strengthening their own Jewish position.
Indeed, my review of the research on contact between more or less impermeable groups in historical societies strongly suggests a general rule that between-group competition and monitoring of ingroup and outgroup success are the norm. These results are highly consistent with psychological research on social identity processes reviewed in SAID (Ch. 1). From an evolutionary perspective, these results confirm the expectation that ethnic self-interest is indeed important in human affairs, and obviously ethnicity remains a common source of group identity in the contemporary world. People appear to be aware of group membership and have a general tendency to devalue and compete with outgroups. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own group in terms of resource control and relative reproductive success. They are also willing to take extraordinary steps to achieve and retain economic and political power in defense of these group imperatives.
Unfortunately, this imperative for the defense of ethnic self-interest seems to fail when put to the test for European-derived peoples; as MacDonald writes above: one hesitates calling gentile European Americans a “group”…
Assuming that ethnic differences in talents and abilities exist, the supposition that ethnic separatism could be a stable situation without ethnic animosity requires either a balance of power situation maintained with intense social controls, as described above, or it requires that at least some ethnic groups be unconcerned that they are losing in the competition.
The past part currently accurately describes European-derive peoples: feckless, atomized, and evolutionarily maladaptive.
I regard this last possibility as unlikely in the long run. That an ethnic group would be unconcerned with its own eclipse and domination is certainly not expected by an evolutionist or, indeed, by advocates of social justice whatever their ideology.
The expectation is that Whites as a group – a majority – will wake up? When?
Nevertheless, this is in fact the implicit morality of the criticism by several historians of the behavior of the Spanish toward the Jews and Marranos during the Inquisition and the Expulsion, as, for example, in the writings of Benzion Netanyahu (1995), who at times seems openly contemptuous of the inability of the Spaniards to compete with the New Christians without resorting to the violence of the Inquisition. From this perspective, the Spaniards should have realized their inferiority and acquiesced in being economically, socially, and politically dominated by another ethnic group. Such a “morality” is unlikely to appeal to the group losing the competition, and from an evolutionary perspective, this is not in the least surprising. Gold-win Smith (1894/1972, 261) made a similar point a century ago:
A community has a right to defend its territory and its national integrity against an invader whether his weapon be the sword or foreclosure. In the territories of the Italian Republics the Jews might so far as we see, have bought land and taken to farming had they pleased. But before this they had thoroughly taken to trade. Under the falling Empire they were the great slave-traders, buying captives from barbarian invaders and probably acting as general brokers of spoils at the same time. They entered England in the train of the Norman conqueror. There was, no doubt, a perpetual struggle between their craft and the brute force of the feudal populations. But what moral prerogative has craft over force? Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mould the modern world.
Let’s review this again:
But what moral prerogative has craft over force? Mr. Arnold White tells the Russians that, if they would let Jewish intelligence have free course, Jews would soon fill all high employments and places of power to the exclusion of the natives, who now hold them. Russians are bidden to acquiesce and rather to rejoice in this by philosophers, who would perhaps not relish the cup if it were commended to their own lips. The law of evolution, it is said, prescribes the survival of the fittest. To which the Russian boor may reply, that if his force beats the fine intelligence of the Jew the fittest will survive and the law of evolution will be fulfilled. It was force rather than fine intelligence which decided on the field of Zama that the Latin, not the Semite, should rule the ancient and mould the modern world.
Very well. Ultimately, ethnoracial survival will come down to force, some of it (likely most of it) physical, some of it mental and memetic.
Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs…
John Derbyshire pretending that he doesn’t know what group evolutionary strategies are? HBDers rejecting “Salterism.”
…also favor policies that are rather obviously self-interestedly ethnocentric…
HBDers, including Derbyshire, promoting ethnocentric policies in favor of Jews and Asians. In Derbyshire’s case, his personal individual and familial genetic interests are intertwined with that of East Asian; hence, he has projected ethnocentrism to favor Asian interests.
…and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority in the United States is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the group strategies of others.
Isn’t that exactly what the HBDers do? Hello, GNXP! Hello, Jayman!
There is thus a significant possibility that individualistic societies are unlikely to survive the intra-societal group-based competition that has become increasingly common and intellectually respectable in the United States. I believe that in the United States we are presently heading down a volatile path—a path that leads to ethnic warfare and to the development of collectivist, authoritarian, and racialist enclaves. Although ethnocentric beliefs and behavior are viewed as morally and intellectually legitimate only among ethnic minorities in the United States, the theory and the data presented in SAID indicate that the development of greater ethnocentrism among European-derived peoples is a likely result of present trends.
We can only hope. So, MacDonald believes that Euro-Americans will eventually exhibit “the development of greater ethnocentrism” despite the fact that a majority of them derives from “high trust northern hunter gatherers?” Yes. After all, Germans exhibited “the development of greater ethnocentrism” in between the two World Wars; given sufficient stimulus, one can invoke ethnocentrism even in peoples predisposed to universalism. The election of Trump may be viewed as the beginning of stirring in that direction. But it all seems too little, too late. Hard reality. Johnson and McCulloch are delusional.
One way of analyzing the Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis is that they have attempted with some success to erect, in the terminology of Paul Gottfried (1998) and Christopher Lasch (1991), a “therapeutic state” that pathologizes the ethnocentrism of European-derived peoples as well as their attempts to retain cultural and demographic dominance.
This is true and interestingly enough, becoming even more true in the age of the “God Emperor” Trump. But there’s another complication here, a very ironic one. The same “movement” that complains about having their views pathologized by the System engages in exactly the same Frankfurt School-like rent-seeking pathology-mongering against those who have the temerity to critique Der Movement, Inc. Just look how my criticisms have been met over the years, most recently by Greg Johnson. In a real sense, how does the Der Movement’s reaction to criticism from the Far Right differ from that of the System? Der Movement and the System are mirror images of reach other, distorted funhouse mirror images. Neither can honestly engage with criticism. Dissidents are all “crazy.” Just like the Soviet Union as well.
However, ethnocentrism on the part of the European-derived majority in the United States is a likely outcome of the increasingly group-structured contemporary social and political landscape—likely because evolved psychological mechanisms in humans appear to function by making ingroup and outgroup membership more salient in situations of group-based resource competition (see SAID, Ch. 1).
How can we accelerate this process since it is glacially slow given the enormity of the problem and the massive stimulus being applied that should in theory have provoked a massive White ethnocentric response already?
The effort to overcome these inclinations thus necessitates applying to Western societies a massive “therapeutic” intervention in which manifestations of majoritarian ethnocentrism are combated at several levels, but first and foremost by promoting the ideology that such manifestations are an indication of psychopathology and a cause for ostracism, shame, psychiatric intervention, and counseling.
And as we know, this has been occurring, leftist psychologists want to classify Whites – and only Whites – defending their group interests as a form of “mental illness,” and we’ve long had to contend directly (e.g., Europe) and indirectly (USA) with the criminalization of White identity politics. But, again, how is Der Movement better than the System in this regard? Far Right critics of “movement” dogma and “leadership” are shamed, ostracized, called “crazy,” etc. Same dishonesty. Same difference.
One may expect that as ethnic conflict continues to escalate in the United States, increasingly desperate attempts will be made to prop up the ideology of multiculturalism with sophisticated theories of the psychopathology of majority group ethnocentrism, as well as with the erection of police state controls on nonconforming thought and behavior.
As noted this is exactly what is happening. And the same, on a smaller sale, is happening within the ranks of racial nationalism.
Jews thus come into conflict with other ethnically identified minority groups who use multiculturalism for their own purposes. (Nevertheless, because of their competitive advantage within the white, European-derived group with which they are currently classified, Jews may perceive themselves as benefiting from policies designed to dilute the power of the European-derived group as a whole on the assumption that they would not suffer any appreciable effect. Indeed, despite the official opposition to group-based preferences among Jewish organizations, Jews voted for an anti-affirmative action ballot measure in California in markedly lower percentages than did other European-derived groups.)
This has been one of MacDonald’s most profound insights. Jews promote policies that – on the surface – would seem to harm Jewish interests as well as those of Whites (e.g., affirmative action, and the overall decay of the culture and of the major cities in which most “American” Jews dwell). That leads apologists for the Jews to use that behavior as “evidence” that Jews are not promoting a group-serving strategy; instead, they claim (as if it is that much better) that Jews are just hysterically leftist and will promote policies that harm even themselves. MacDonald’s insight is that Jews are to a large degree “immunized” against the effects of these polices, so that the policies end up harming Whites, who are the main rivals of the Jews. Thus, the position of Jews in positions of power the top of the humane energy pyramid makes them immune to many of the ravages of affirmative action, which typically effect people on the lower rungs (even White collar rungs) of the economic ladder. Jewish culture, Jewish organizations, Jewish segregation, high investment parenting, etc. allow Jews to survive and thrive in the conditions of cultural decay they produce, and allow them to form communities that survive and thrive even in crime-ridden cities. Previously on this blog we examined the story of Jewish-led desegregation of a school system in which there was a Jewish school with no Blacks and an Italian-American school with a few Blacks. The Jews “desegregated” the local school system by busing in more Blacks specifically for the Italian school, leaving the Jewish school unscathed. That’s a more direct and crude manifestation of this concept, as were the shenanigans of Leonard Sand. But in it is most full application, MacDonald’s concept is much more subtle than this. The Jews simply unleash social and cultural chaos on a nation – memes that apparently would equally harm Jew s- but emerge unharmed by the chaos because of peculiarities of Jewish family and social structures, and Jewish mental modules. It’s sort of like the paradigm of Whites who were mostly resistant to smallpox (most of them already having had it earlier in life) giving infested blankets to Amerindians.
There has been a powerful Western tendency to develop such societies, beginning at least in the Middle Ages, but also present, I believe, in the classical Roman civilization of the Republic. The ideal of hierarchic harmony is central to the social program of the Catholic Church beginning during the late Roman Empire and reaching its pinnacle during the High Middle Ages (MacDonald 1995c; SAID, Ch. 5). This ideal is apparent also in a powerful strand of German intellectual history beginning with Herder in the eighteenth century. A very central feature of this prototypical Western hierarchical harmony has been the social imposition of monogamy as a form of reproductive leveling that dampens the association between wealth and reproductive success. From an evolutionary perspective, Western societies achieve their cohesion because hierarchical social relationships are significantly divorced from reproductive consequences.
Such a world is threatened from above by the domination of an individualistic elite without commitment to responsible lower-status individuals who may have lesser intellectual ability, talent, or financial resources. It is threatened from within by the development of a society constituted by a set of ethnically divided, chronically competing, highly impermeable groups as represented historically by Judaism and currently envisioned as the model for society by the proponents of multiculturalism.
What we have today, for both counts.
And it is threatened from below by an increasing underclass of people with the attributes described by Herrnstein and Murray: intellectually incompetent and insufficiently conscientious to hold most kinds of job; irresponsible and incompetent as parents; prone to requiring public assistance; prone to criminal behavior, psychiatric disorders, and substance abuse; and prone to rapid demographic increase. Such people are incapable of contributing economically, socially, or culturally to a late-twentieth-century society or, indeed, to any human civilization characterized by a substantial degree of reciprocity, voluntarism and democracy.
We have this as well. So, in summary: free-riding White globalist elite traitors, “high-IQ” Jews and Asian sat the top of the human energy pyramid, and a Black-Brown underclass.
Given that the continued existence of Judaism implies that the society will be composed of competing, more or less impermeable groups, the neoconservative condemnation of multiculturalism must be viewed as lacking in intellectual consistency. The neoconservative prescription for society embraces a particular brand of multiculturalism in which the society as a whole will be culturally fragmented and socially atomistic. These social attributes not only allow Jewish upward mobility, but also are incompatible with the development of highly cohesive, anti-Semitic groups of gentiles; they are also incompatible with group-based entitlements and affirmative action programs that would necessarily discriminate against Jews. As Horowitz (1993, 86) notes, “High levels of cultural fragmentation coupled with religious options are likely to find relatively benign forms of anti-Semitism coupled with a stable Jewish condition. Presumed Jewish cleverness or brilliance readily emerges under such pluralistic conditions, and such cleverness readily dissolves with equal suddenness under politically monistic or totalitarian conditions.”
So, the Jewish-Neocon prescription for society combines what was just described above – Jews promoting ideas corrosive of Gentile sociality but infectious memes that the Jews are relatively immune to – but that also directly target “social attributes” that would be directly harmful to Jews while promoting those directly beneficial. Ethnic rent-seeking behavior in a societal scale.
From the standpoint of these leftist critics, the Western ideal of hierarchic harmony and assimilation is perceived as an irrational, romantic, and mystical ideal. Western civility is nothing more than a thin veneer masking a reality of exploitation and conflict…Historically, this conflict conception of social structure has typically been combined with the idea that the inevitable struggle between social classes can be remedied only by the complete leveling of economic and social outcomes. This latter ideal can then be attained only by adopting a radical environmentalist perspective on the origins of individual differences in economic success and other cultural attainments and by blaming any individual shortcomings on unequal environments. Because this radical environmentalism is scientifically unfounded, the social policies based on this ideology tend to result in high levels of social conflict as well as an increase in the prevalence of intellectual incompetence and social pathology.
“…the prevalence of intellectual incompetence and social pathology.” Does any of the sound familiar to keen observers of the current scene?
From an evolutionary perspective, the prototypical Western social organization of hierarchic harmony and muted individualism is inherently unstable, a situation that undoubtedly contributes to the intensely dynamic nature of Western history. It has often been remarked that in the history of China nothing ever really changed. Dynasties characterized by intensive polygyny and moderate to extreme political despotism came and went, but there were no fundamental social changes over a very long period of historical time. The data reviewed by Betzig (1986) indicate that much the same can be said about the history of political organization in other stratified human societies.
In the West, however, the prototypical state of social harmony described above is chronically unstable. The unique initiating conditions involving a significant degree of reproductive leveling have resulted in a highly dynamic historical record (see MacDonald 1995c).
This is a very interesting analysis that deserves further evaluation. One could imagine MacDonald and Duchesne productively collaborating to further develop these ideas. That would be a lot better than the current direction of TOO.
Getting back to the main point – the thesis here is that there is something inherent about Western civilization, a combination of hierarchy and moderate individualism not observed in other cultures that creates sufficient chaos, ferment, and instability to produce the creativity and Faustian impulses historically characteristic of Western man. This would seem to be an emergent property of the crosstalk between genetic and cultural/historical factors, as well as the ethnic/cultural diversity within Europe. It would therefore seem that any future High Culture would need to contain within it some inherent “cognitive dissonance” to create the contractions that promote creativity and inhibit Asian-line passivity and stagnation.
It would be useful to have an analysis that focuses on the mechanisms whereby the inherent contradictions of Western civilization results in cultural dynamism, historical examples of this, and suggestions of how this can be leveraged in the future to promote such dynamism.
The most common threat to hierarchic harmony has been the individualistic behavior of elites—a tendency that hardly surprises an evolutionist. Thus the early phases of industrialization were characterized by the unraveling of the social fabric and high levels of exploitation and conflict among the social classes. As another example, the slavery of Africans was a short-term benefit to an individualistic elite of southern aristocrats in the United States, but it also resulted in exploitation of the slaves and has been a long-term calamity for the society as a whole.
That latter point cannot be forgotten. It’s easy – as some in Der Movement like to do – to blame everything on “the Jews” – or if not solely the Jews then to throw in blame to the “White ethnics”- but these groups (despite lots of talk about the Jewish role in the slave trade that may have some factual basis but folks don’t have to buy what others are selling) cannot ultimately be blamed for the "long-term calamity” of having Negroes in America. What were the “individualistic elite of southern aristocrats” and their northern co-ethnics who either also benefited or acquiesced, thinking? One constant in history is that slavery is never permanent; slaves are always, inevitably, freed. The “individualistic elite of southern aristocrats” were for the most part reasonably well-educated (for that time) men; this could not have been unknown to them. Even if it was not known, just plain common sense and logistics, combined with reasonable and prudent foresight, would make one wonder how a large Negro slave population would be kept under control in perpetuity. But they just didn’t care. Just like they sold out their patrimony by allowing mass immigration (including of that of the micks, wops, hunkies, krauts, and squareheads) and, even worse, unleashing the Jewish plague on America by allowing that group to immigrate to America. There has to be accountability for such world-historical errors.
Of course, the French, Spanish, and Portuguese were also guilty of the world-historical error of bringing the Negro to the New World; although for the specific case of the USA, MacDonald’s point holds. Breaking the quarantine of Africa, and letting the other “Black Plague” spread to other continents was indeed a calamity for all humanity, made worse today by mass migration of African overpopulation. What should have been done is simply exploit the natural resources of Africa while leaving the Negro alone to stew in its mindless savagery.
We have also seen that Western elites in traditional societies have often actively encouraged Jewish economic interests to the detriment of other sectors of the native population, and in several historical eras Jews have been the instruments of individualistic behavior among gentile elites thus facilitating such individualistic behavior.
That includes Jewish “pro-White” HBDers and their calls for a multiracial “White separatist state” that would not only include Jews but also “Asians and others” – a free trade, individualistic dystopian nightmare. Or how about GNXP South Asians, as well as triracial HBD bloggers with their attacks on White ethnic nepotism?
I have suggested that there is a fundamental and irresolvable friction be-tween Judaism and prototypical Western political and social structure. The present political situation in the United States (and several other Western countries) is so dangerous because of the very real possibility that the Western European tendency toward hierarchic harmony has a biological basis. The greatest mistake of the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements described in this volume is that they have attempted to establish the moral superiority of societies that embody a preconceived moral ideal (compatible with the continuation of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy) rather than advocate social structures based on the ethical possibilities of naturally occurring types.
Hence, the gross instability of what passes for the “West” today, and attempts at race replacement. However, the new racial class of the dead West will not necessarily be pro-Jewish. In that case, the parasite will flee the dead host and attempt to re-attach elsewhere.
As an evolutionist, one must ask what the likely genetic consequences of this sea change in American culture are likely to be. An important consequence—and one likely to have been an underlying motivating factor in the countercultural revolution—may well be to facilitate the continued genetic distinctiveness of the Jewish gene pool in the United States.
While European racial distinctiveness is lost.
The ideology of multiculturalism may be expected to increasingly compartmentalize groups in American society, with long-term beneficial consequences on continuation of the essential features of traditional Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. There is increasing consensus among Jewish activists that traditional forms of Judaism are far more effective in ensuring long-term group continuity than semi-assimilationist, semi-cryptic strategies such as Reform Judaism or secular Judaism. Reform Judaism is becoming steadily more conservative, and there is a major effort within all segments of the Jewish community to prevent intermarriage (e.g., Abrams 1997; Dershowitz 1997; see pp. 244–245). Moreover, as discussed in several parts of this book, Jews typically perceive them-selves to benefit from a nonhomogeneous culture in which they appear as only one among many ethnic groups where there is no possibility of the development of a homogeneous national culture that might exclude Jews.
That last point is essential to the whole Jewish project that is destroying America and the West – besides just plain animus, they also want to destroy a homogeneity that they perceive as threatening.
In addition, there may well be negative genetic consequences for the European-derived peoples of the United States and especially for the “common people of the South and West” (Higham 1984, 49)—that is, for lower-middle-class Caucasians derived from Northern and Western Europe—whose representatives desperately battled against the present immigration policy.
Err…excuse me, Southern and Eastern Europeans are threatened as well. And it has been the Upper-class Caucasians derived from Northern and Western Europe who have been collaborating with the Jews to undermine their own nation.
Indeed, we have seen that a prominent theme of the New York Intellectuals as well as the Authoritarian Personality studies was the intellectual and moral inferiority of traditional American culture, particularly rural American culture. James Webb (1995) notes that it is the descendants of the WASPS who settled the West and South who “by and large did the most to lay out the infrastructure of this country, quite often suffering educational and professional regression as they tamed the wilderness, built the towns, roads and schools, and initiated a democratic way of life that later white cultures were able to take advantage of without paying the price of pioneering. Today they have the least, socio-economically, to show for these contributions. And if one would care to check a map, they are from the areas now evincing the greatest resistance to government practices.” The war goes on, but it is easy to see who is losing.
That is true.
The demographic rise of the underclass resulting from the triumph of the 1960s counter-cultural revolution implies that European-derived genes and gene frequencies will become less common compared to those derived from the African and the Latin American gene pools. On the other end of the IQ-reproductive strategy distribution, immigrants from East Asian countries are outcompeting whites in gaining admission to universities and in prestigious, high-income jobs. The long-term result will be that the entire white population (not including Jews) is likely to suffer a social status decline as these new immigrants become more numerous. (Jews are unlikely to suffer a decline in social status not only because their mean IQ is well above that of the East Asians but, more importantly, because Jewish IQ is skewed toward excelling in verbal skills. The high IQ of East Asians is skewed toward performance IQ, which makes them powerful competitors in engineering and technology. See PTSDA, [Ch. 7] and Lynn [1987]. Jews and East Asians are thus likely to occupy different niches in contemporary societies.) Presently white gentiles are the most underrepresented group at Harvard, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the students, while Asians and Jews constitute at least half of the student body while constituting no more than five percent of the population (Unz 1998). The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.
Thus: HBD. Jews and Asians are natural allies in the War against Whites, as they full different niche spaces at the top of the human energy pyramid. Both groups are high-IQ Asiatic populations that have an intense hatred of European-derived peoples, and the burgeoning relationships of Israel to both China and India demonstrate that the Jewish-Asian alliance exists not only in the USA, but in international relations. HBD is simply race treason for White HBDers.
Moreover, the shift to multiculturalism has coincided with an enormous growth of immigration from non-European-derived peoples beginning with the Immigration Act of 1965, which favored immigrants from non-European countries (see Auster 1990; Brimelow 1995). Many of these immigrants come from non-Western countries where cultural and genetic segregation are the norm, and within the context of multicultural America, they are encouraged to retain their own languages and religions and encouraged to marry within the group. As indicated above, the expected result will be between-group resource and reproductive competition and increased vulnerability of democratic and republican political institutions in a context in which long-term projections indicate that European-derived peoples will no longer be a majority of the United States by the middle of the next century.
True.
The result has been a remarkable degree of ethnic assimilation in the United States among those whose ancestry derives from Europe (Alba 1985). This is particularly noteworthy because ethnic conflict and violence are on the rise in Eastern Europe, yet European-derived groups in the United States have an overwhelming sense of commonality. The long-term result of such processes is genetic homogenization, a sense of common interest, and the absence of a powerful source of intrasocietal division.
All the fetishists and other dividers should re-read the preceding paragraph. A Euro-American community has been formed in America and this can be, and should be, a source of fundamental strength. This should be treasured, not criticized and deconstructed.
At present the interests of non-European-derived peoples to expand demographically and politically in the United States are widely perceived as a moral imperative, whereas the attempts of the European-derived peoples to retain demographic, political, and cultural control is represented as “racist,” immoral, and an indication of psychiatric disorder. From the perspective of these European-derived peoples, the prevailing ethnic morality is altruistic and self-sacrificial. It is unlikely to be viable in the long run, even in an individualistic society. As we have seen, the viability of a morality of self-sacrifice is especially problematic in the context of a multicultural society in which everyone is conscious of group membership and there is between-group competition for resources.
So, here we see why critics of Salterism who invoke “free riding” are so hypocritical. They always complain about free riding and the maladaptiveness of altruism with respect to intra-ethny relations, but never have a problem with inter-ethny relations. So, self-sacrificial behavior and altruism of Whites for other Whites is “bad,” while the same for genetically more distant non-Whites is, of course, good (or no problem). One wonders if this is just special pleading for Whites to be self-sacrificial to the person making the argument (if they are non-White, which they often are) or for the argument-makers preferred out-group (e.g., White HBDers whose entire worldview revolves around their enslavement to Jews and Asians).
Consider from an evolutionary perspective the status of the argument that all peoples should be allowed to immigrate to the United States. One might assert that any opposition to such a principle should not interest an evolutionist because human group genetic differences are trivial, so any psychological adaptations that make one resist such a principle are anachronisms without function in the contemporary world (much like one’s appendix). A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person should also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process in the United States in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.
Indeed, if this chain of logic is pursued to its conclusion, it is irrational for anyone to claim any group interests at all.
Indeed. But as we know, the rejection of group interests is supposed to apply only to Whites. Others are very cognizant of, and solicitous of, their own group interests. If this inconsistently is pointed put, they’ll call you a “racist” and defend the difference by asserting that Whites have “all the power and privilege” (except of course that of being allowed to defend their own group interests, eh?) or some other self-serving rationale to explain why Whites do not require, ordo not deserve, the same rights of group defense as others. Or, perhaps, they’ll pull out the “who is White?” card, that question never being a problem when Whites are targeted for attack.
And if one also rejects the notion of individual genetic differences, it is also irrational to attempt to further individual interests, for example, by seeking to immigrate as an individual. Indeed, if one accepts these assumptions, the notion of genetic consequences and thus of the possibility of human evolution past and present becomes irrational; the idea that it is rational is merely an illusion produced perhaps by psychological adaptations that are without any meaningful evolutionary function in the contemporary world. One might note that this ideology is the final conclusion of the anti-evolutionary ideologies reviewed in this volume. These intellectual movements have asserted that scientific research shows that any important ethnic differences or individual differences are the result of environmental variation, and that genetic differences are trivial.
Of course, they really don’t believe that. It is for White consumption only – pure memetic poison.
But there is an enormous irony in all of this: If life is truly without any evolutionary meaning, why have advocates propagated these ideologies so intensely and with such self-consciously political methods? Why have many of these same people strongly identified with their own ethnic group and its interests, and why have many of them insisted on cultural pluralism and its validation of minority group ethnocentrism as moral absolutes? By their own assumptions, it is just a meaningless game. Nobody should care who wins or loses. Of course, deception and self-deception may be involved. I have noted (p. 195) that a fundamental agenda has been to make the European-derived peoples of the United States view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology.
This is a point I’ve raised in my defense of Salterism, particularly in response to the “who cares?” argument – the absurd idea that EGI is only an individual preference and that the anti-Salterian is completely uninterested in racial group considerations. Very well. But if they really don’t care one way or another, and I do care, intensely care in fact, then their indifference should make way for, and accommodate, my strongly held preferences. Why not? They don’t care one way or the other and I do care to promote one way and not the other – so why not just let me have my way? Why the strong opposition if you really don’t care? The same people who say they don’t care if Whites become extinct suddenly become hysterical when Whites defend group interests. Why? What’s the problem? You see, they “don’t care” just as long as Whites are losing and becoming displaced and replaced. If Whites start winning, then they suddenly care enough to oppose it. If race doesn’t matter to them, they should have no objection if, say, Whites outcompete all other groups, and the entire Earth becomes populated only with White people. Who cares, right? But for some reason if such a scenario was in the works, they’d suddenly care enough to do everything in their power to prevent it. Simply put – they are anti-White. All else is just a pose.
If one accepts that both within-group and between-group genetic variation remains and is non-trivial (i.e., if evolution is an ongoing process), then the principle of relatively unrestricted immigration, at least under the conditions obtaining in late twentieth-century Western societies, clearly involves altruism by some individuals and established groups. Nevertheless, although the success of the intellectual movements reviewed in this volume is an indication that people can be induced to be altruistic toward other groups, I rather doubt such altruism will continue if there are obvious signs that the status and political power of European-derived groups is decreasing while the power of other groups increases.
Perhaps. But Whites seem to have an almost unlimited capacity for abuse and humiliation.
The prediction, both on theoretical grounds and on the basis of social identity research, is that as other groups become increasingly powerful and salient in a multicultural society, the European-derived peoples of the United States will become increasingly unified; among these peoples, contemporary divisive influences, such as issues related to gender and sexual orientation, social class differences, or religious differences, will be increasingly perceived as unimportant.
Would this hold for Der Movement as well?
Eventually these groups will develop a united front and a collectivist political orientation vis-à-vis the other ethnic groups. Other groups will be expelled if possible or partitions will be created, and Western societies will undergo another period of medievalism.
If survival requires this, so be it.
From the present perspective no fundamental conflict exists between the latter two sources of American identity; social homogeneity and hierarchic harmony may well be best and most easily achieved with an ethnically homogeneous society of peoples derived from the European cultural area. Indeed, in upholding Chinese exclusion in the nineteenth century, Justice Stephen A. Field noted that the Chinese were unassimilable and would destroy the republican ideal of social homogeneity. As indicated above, the incorporation of non-European peoples, and especially peoples derived from Africa, into peculiarly Western cultural forms is profoundly problematic.
Chinese (and other Asians)…Africans – same thing. Colored is as colored does.
…the United States represents a non-Western form of social organization that conforms to Jewish interests and compromises the interests of the European-derived peoples of the United States. It is a social form that guarantees the continued existence of Judaism as a social category and as a cohesive ethnic group while at the same time, given the characteristics of Jews, guarantees Jews economic and cultural preeminence.
This is what HBD is all about.
Public policy based on this conceptualization is having the predictable long-term effect of marginalizing both culturally and demographically the European-derived peoples of the United States. Because the European-derived groups are less organized and less cohesive than Jews and because a therapeutic state has been erected to counter expressions of European-American ethnocentrism, it raises the distinct possibility that in the long run European Americans will be fragmented, politically powerless, and without an effective group identity at all.
This contradicts the earlier statements that unified European-Americans will come together and defend group interests. I myself am pessimistic and see this latter outcome as more likely. Whites – the race of pathetic losers.
The conflict of interest between Jews and gentiles in the construction of culture goes well beyond advocacy of the multicultural ideal. Because they are much more genetically inclined to a high-investment reproductive strategy than are gentiles, Jews are able to maintain their high-investment reproductive strategy even in the absence of traditional Western cultural supports for high-investment parenting (Ch. 4). Compared to gentiles, Jews are therefore much better able to expand their economic and cultural success without these traditional Western cultural supports. As Higham (1984, 173) notes, the cultural idealization of an essentially Jewish personal ethic of hedonism, anxiety, and intellectuality came at the expense of the older rural ethic of asceticism and sexual restraint.
Again, we see what was mentioned above – Jews are more resistant to the cultural pathogens they unleash. Thus, Jewish-promoted cultural and societal degeneration mostly affects White gentiles.
Indeed, there is considerable reason to suppose that Western tendencies toward individualism are unique and based on evolved psychological adaptations (see PTSDA, Ch. 8). This genetic perspective proposes that individualism, like many other phenotypes of interest to evolutionists (MacDonald 1991), shows genetic variation. In PTSDA (Ch. 8) I speculated that the progenitors of Western populations evolved in isolated groups with low population density. Such groups would have been common in northern areas characterized by harsh ecological conditions, such as those that occurred during the ice age (see Lenz 1931, 657).
Back to the “northern hunter gatherer” meme.
We have seen that Western individualism is intimately entwined with scientific thinking and social structures based on hierarchic harmony, sexual egalitarianism, and democratic and republican forms of government. These uniquely Western tendencies suggest that reciprocity is a deeply ingrained Western tendency. Western political forms from the democratic and republican traditions of ancient Greece and Rome to the hierarchic harmony of the Western Middle Ages and to modern democratic and republican governments assume the legitimacy of a pluralism of individual interests. Within these social forms is a tendency to assume the legitimacy of others’ interests and perspectives in a manner that is foreign to collectivist, despotic social structures characteristic of much of the rest of the world.
The implication is that Western societies are subject to invasion by non-Western cultures able to manipulate Western tendencies toward reciprocity, egalitarianism, and close affectional relationships in a manner that results in maladaptive behavior for the European-derived peoples who remain at the core of all Western societies. Because others’ interests and perspectives are viewed as legitimate, Western societies have uniquely developed a highly principled moral and religious discourse, as in the arguments against slavery characteristic of the nineteenth-century abolitionists and in the contemporary discourse on animal rights. Such discourse is directed toward universal moral principles—that is, principles that would be viewed as fair for any rational, disinterested observer. Thus in his highly influential volume, Theory of Justice, John Rawls (1971) argues that justice as objective morality can only occur behind a “veil of ignorance” in which the ethnic status of the contending parties is irrelevant to considerations of justice or morality.
Remember Jobling wanted to build a pro-Jewish “pro-White” “movement” around Rawlsian ethics. It is interesting that “ignorance” is at the heart of Rawls’ thesis because it is indeed ignorance to abrogate your genetic interest during decision making, especially since this will be in effect unilateral disarmament in the light of extreme non-White ethnocentrism. The ever-so-enlightened (and ignorant) Universalist individualists will always get out-competed by ethnocentric collectivists.
Indeed, one might note that despite the fact that a prominent theme of anti-Semitism has been to stress negative personality traits of Jews and their willingness to exploit gentiles (SAID, Ch. 2), a consistent theme of Jewish intellectual activity since the Enlightenment has been to cast Jewish ethnic interests and Judaism itself as embodying a unique and irreplaceable moral vision (SAID, Chs. 6–8)—terms that emphasize the unique appeal of the rhetoric of the morality of the disinterested observer among Western audiences.
The result is that whether Western individualistic societies are able to defend the legitimate interests of the European-derived peoples remains questionable. A prominent theme appearing in several places in this volume and in PTSDA (Ch. 8) and SAID (Chs. 3–5) is that individualistic societies are uniquely vulnerable to invasion by cohesive groups such as has been historically represented by Judaism.
Again, this contradicts the assertions made above about the “inevitability” of a European and European-American reaction, leading to a new Western “medievalism.” In my first reading of this book I never realized the internal contradictions of this chapter, which are now apparent during the current analysis.
Significantly, the problem of immigration of non-European peoples is not at all confined to the United States but represents a severe and increasingly contentious problem in the entire Western world and nowhere else: Only European-derived peoples have opened their doors to the other peoples of the world and now stand in danger of losing control of territory occupied for hundreds of years.
Because only European-derived peoples listen to flim-flam artists like Rawls.
Western societies have traditions of individualistic humanism, which make immigration restriction difficult. In the nineteenth century, for example, the Supreme Court twice turned down Chinese exclusion acts on the basis that they legislated against a group, not an individual (Petersen 1955, 78).
That’s sick. The Chinese need to be excluded. All of them. Attention, Derbyshire.
The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the multicultural minorities (who have been encouraged to pursue their group interests by a generation of American intellectuals) but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of resistance by a significant segment of the population. As indicated above, European-derived peoples are expected to ultimately exhibit some of the great flexibility that Jews have shown throughout the ages in advocating particular political forms that best suit their current interests.
“Are expected…?” We are back to this again. Which is it? Are Europeans doomed to passive acceptance of their fate or will they rebel?
The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of de-ethnicized individualism.
Back and forth in this chapter. At one turn, Europeans will realize what is happening and react, at another turn, Europeans are too Universalist and easily-manipulated to survive. This chapter requires careful editing for intellectual consistency.
If the analysis of anti-Semitism presented in SAID is correct, the expected reaction will emulate aspects of Judaism by adopting group-serving, collectivist ideologies and social organizations.
If the “expected reaction” actually occurs, which this chapter is apparently on two minds about.
The theoretically underdetermined nature of human group processes (PTSDA, Ch. 1; MacDonald 1995b) disallows detailed prediction of whether the reactive strategy will be sufficient to stabilize or reverse the present decline of European peoples in the New World and, indeed, in their ancestral homelands; whether the process will degenerate into a self-destructive reactionary movement as occurred with the Spanish Inquisition…
Instead of blaming the degeneration of Spanish culture on some inherent racial blemish, as the fetishists like to do, it may have been a runaway autoimmune reaction to the Jewish presence. Is the USA doing better? Right now we are not even fighting the infection. The Spaniards have us beat on that.
…or whether it will initiate a moderate and permanent turning away from radical individualism toward a sustainable group strategy. What is certain is that the ancient dialectic between Judaism and the West will continue into the foreseeable future. It will be ironic that, whatever anti-Semitic rhetoric may be adopted by the leaders of these defensive movements, they will be constrained to emulate key elements of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Such strategic mimicry will, once again, lead to a “Judaization” of Western societies not only in the sense that their social organization will become more group-oriented but also in the sense that they will be more aware of themselves as a positively evaluated ingroup and more aware of other human groups as competing, negatively evaluated outgroups. In this sense, whether the decline of the European peoples continues unabated or is arrested, it will constitute a profound impact of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy on the development of Western societies.
Survival is paramount. If we have to alter certain aspects of the West, then so be it…I view the West as in the Winter phase anyway, and it is time for a new High Culture. We must survive first before we can actualize that.
