All posts by Tanstaafl

Blog

Doublethink as a Group Strategy

12 Comments

To beat anti-Semitism, ‘we must pull together’, New Jersey Jewish News, 13 Dec 2010:

NJJN: Are there ways the Jewish community can address the problem that it has not been doing?

[Director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Eastern Pennsylvania-Delaware region, Barry] Morrison: The Jewish community has been pretty good about addressing it, to its credit. It needs to do more of the same. It needs to have a sense about what the community is, what its interests are, and how to preserve and protect them. It is not as simple at it once might have been. Jews’ identity has been changing with the generation that was raised on the birth of Israel and the Holocaust. Young people today don’t identify in the same way older folks do, and we’ve seen many Jews in the forefront of the other side regarding Israel.

Secondly, having the ability to pool our resources is another way of fighting the problem. We are a small community, and we have many different points of view. Sometimes there are competing organizations. It is important to pull together. Thirdly, it is important to maintain our identity as citizens in the larger world in which we live and work for the betterment of the broader community. We can’t be isolated, we can’t be insular, we can’t think about it as ‘what’s good for the Jews?’ That is not what needs to guide us.

Translation: The jewish community needs to have a sense about who they are, what their interests are, how to preserve and protect them, pooling its resources to fight problems. But it would look better to use the broader community to advance and protect jewish interests than to so self-consciously keep blurting out “what’s good for the jews?”

Blog

Gamer Excuses “The Jews”, Blames “Whitey”

54 Comments

Mangan’s Ferd Throws Whites Under the Bus provides the link and some context on Ferdinand Bardamu’s Whites Are Their Own Worst Enemies, posted at his anti-feminist/manosphere/gamer blog called In Mala Fide. Bardamu writes:

The reason why the beauty of the white Aryan woman may perish from the earth before this century is up is not because of the Jews, or the blacks, but because of white people themselves. It was whites who let third-worlders swarm into their lands, forever altering the demographic makeup of their nations. It was whites who gutted protections for workers and transformed the economy into a scam designed to bleed the middle-class dry and make the richer even richer. It was whites who conjured up feminism, driving a wedge between men and women, driving down the birth rate and leaving immigrants and illegals to pick up the slack. Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted.

The small subset of race conscious, jew-saavy Whites vex him especially:

“But but but it was the Joooooooos! The Jews are the ones who’ve destroyed the white race, and everyone knows the Jews aren’t white! Durrrrrr…”

First off, the only people who claim Jews aren’t white are you folks, but let’s take your thesis at face value – the Jews are the cause of all our woes. But guess what? Even if they are, it’s STILL your fault! Why? Because last I checked, the Jooooooos didn’t forcibly send armies to capture our cities, destroy our governments and enslave us. Whites were the ones who LET Jews settle in their countries and gave them equal rights, allowing them to ascend to the highest rungs of politics, education and finance. Ever wonder why Jews were few and far between in European history prior to the 19th century? It’s because they had zero rights and were forcibly segregated from gentile society, like the Gypsies. When revolutionary France emanicipated its Jews in 1791, that opened the floodgates. So whining about the Joooooos doesn’t let you off the hook, whitey.

The logic here is so twisted I find it difficult to take seriously. Bardamu mocks it himself. Just take his thesis at face value. He’s one of “you folk” who doesn’t consider jews to be White. He thinks the Whiiiiiiites are the cause of all our woes. But whining about Whitey doesn’t get him off the hook.

Bardamu deserves praise for providing, unwittingly or not, the clearest, most extreme example of the suicide meme I’ve yet run across. Usually it occurs in a less complete, less direct form. Briefly stated, the suicide meme is the slanderous suggestion that Whites are destroying ourselves. It is an expression of the “politically correct” zeitgeist and the judaized, anti-White regime which promulgates it. It is the final touch in the epitaph our despisers wish to carve in our headstone: “Here lies the stupid, evil White race. They stole our land, enslaved us, gassed us, and then they killed themselves.”

Calling what’s happening suicide is a way of preempting a more accurate diagnosis, namely genocide, as part of a stealthy, long-term ethnic war perpetrated by a hostile overclass, “a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home” and “are increasingly a nation unto themselves”. Calling it suicide implicitly excuses this overclass by not mentioning them, never mind “the jews” who are in it up to their eyeballs. At worst “the jews” get lumped in with the imaginary “we” who are supposedly doing this to “ourselves”.

Bardamu is apparently familiar with the argument but wanted to change it up. In the process he lost the plot, clumsily and spectacularly highlighting “the jews”.

Though the title and a large chunk of Bardamu’s point are classic suicide slander (“Every problem whites suffer from is self-inflicted”) he offers this only as a corollary, after setting “the jews” apart from Whites and excusing them right up front (“not because of the Jews”). He cites three problems – immigration, finance, feminism – which jews are deeply complicit in. He acknowledges that jews are in “the highest rungs of politics, education and finance”. He even traces the cause back as far as the emancipation of jews – tarring “France” and “Whitey” for the unpopular actions of a Rothschild-backed Napoleon.

Bardamu helpfully offers all this and more in support of his unshakable premise that jews are not to blame, perfectly encapsulated in this little gem: “Even if they are, it’s STILL your fault!”

Bardamu doth protest too much. His logic is tautology, his argument unintentional self-parody.

“This has nothing to do with the joooooos. To demonstrate I’ll explain all about the jews.”

“Durrrrrr.”

– – –

About In Mala Fide:

an online magazine dedicated to publishing heretical and unpopular ideas. Ideas that polite society considers “racist,” “misogynistic,” “homophobic,” “bigoted” or other slurs used to shut down critical thinking and maintain the web of delusions that keep our world broken and dying. We’re here to put their myths to rest

Malafide:

with or in bad faith.

Blog

Napoleon, the House of Rothschild, and Jewish Emancipation

10 Comments

The Rothschild story: A golden era ends for a secretive dynasty, by Paul Vallely, The Independent, 16 April 2004 (my emphasis):

More significant, however, was that in the process the Rothschilds created the world of banking as we know it today. Nathan operated principally as an underwriter and speculator in the early 19th-century bond market. He and his brothers invented, or at any rate popularised, the government bond, which allowed investors, big and small, to buy bits of the debts of sovereign states by purchasing fixed-interest bearer bonds.

Governments liked this because they could use them to raise colossal sums of money. Investors liked them because they could be traded – at prices that fluctuated in relation to the performance of the issuing government – and shrewd investors could make big sums. It brought investment in railways, the industrial revolution and ventures like the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds got a cut of everything.

It was a new kind of power. “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply,” Nathan said. The family developed a lack of awe for the powerful and important. A pompous aristocrat one day called on Nathan who was head down at his desk. Without looking up, the banker said: “Take a chair.” His caller, affronted, said: “You are speaking to the Prince of Thurn and Taxis.” To which Rothschild replied: “Take two chairs.” At one point he even rescued the Bank of England after a run on gold caused the collapse of 145 banks. In 1885 he was given the hereditary title of Baron Rothschild.

Many of the distinct characteristics of the family can be traced back to the will of the founder Mayer Rothschild. It stipulated that no public inventory should be made of his estate; that key positions in the House of Rothschild were to be held by family members; that the eldest son should inherit unless the rest agreed otherwise; that the family was to intermarry with first and second cousins to keep the fortune together; that anyone disputing these terms would be struck from the will. And that all this should apply in perpetuity.

In part this was about preserving not just their Jewish identity but a self-conscious position as role models for their poorer co-religionists. The Rothschilds expended much effort and money pressing for Jewish emancipation and equality across the continent.

Their Jewish solidarity was not heterogeneous. In 1938 Nathan’s great-great-grandson, Victor, shocked an audience by saying that in spite of “the slow murder of 600,000 people” on the continent “we probably all agree that there is something unsatisfactory in refugees encroaching on the privacy of our country, even for relatively short periods of time.” And the family split over the question of the dream of a Jewish homeland, with some members supporting the first Zionist settlement in Palestine and the Balfour declaration and others opposing it on the grounds that it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world. None of which has allayed the wild fears of anti-Semites who throughout the 20th century branded the Rothschilds as part of a Jewish plot to take over the world.

The world has changed around the Rothschilds. At one point Nathan Rothschild was the richest man in Britain and probably in the world. In today’s terms he was wealthier than Bill Gates. But they never gained the foothold in America they needed. The world became corporate. Private banking got left behind.

Napoleon and the Jews, Wikipedia:

Napoleon’s indirect influence on the fate of the Jews was even more powerful than any of the decrees recorded in his name. By breaking up the feudal trammels of mid-Europe and introducing the equality of the French Revolution he effected more for Jewish emancipation than had been accomplished during the three preceding centuries. The consistory of Westphalia became a model for other German provinces until after the fall of Napoleon, and the condition of the Jews in the Rhine provinces was permanently improved as a consequence of their subjection to Napoleon or his representatives. Heine and Börne both record their sense of obligation to the liberality of Napoleon’s principles of action, and the German Jews in particular have always regarded Napoleon as one of the chief forerunners of emancipation in Germany.

(Image from Jews and French Grand Opera.)

Blog

Criticism of The Culture of Critique

2 Comments

Below are some excerpts from a review by PLEASUREMAN, The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career (original emphasis):

When I started reading Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique, I didn’t quite know what I was getting into. John Derbyshire was warned about people who get “the Jew thing”, and as I mentioned in Who’s Afraid of Kevin MacDonald? his own review of MacDonald’s work more or less pretends that the last 40 years of major Jewish influence on conservative politics never happened. It’s one thing to find this influence an overall positive thing, but to forget to mention that it happened strikes one as careless, especially when reviewing a work that discusses just this influence.

If conservatives are not introspective it follows that they are not closely focused on the permutations of conservatism that go beyond policy debate, including the permutations that lead to conservatism’s dark side. This dark side includes a tendency towards authoritarianism, close-mindedness, and paranoia. Liberalism has its extremism, conservatism has its dark side. It would be naive to fail to acknowledge this dark side when approaching controversial work like MacDonald’s. Unlike Herrnstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve, The Culture of Critique is not anchored in decades of irrefutable science, it is a more at a theory that attempts to explain Jewish dominance in Western academia, politics, and business. Moreover it is a theory tied to an already controversial idea, that ethnic groups can have an unconscious or subconscious group evolutionary strategy which benefits not merely the individual but the group itself. This goes beyond the normal attachment one feels for one’s nationality or ethnicity, and suggests that genetics and culture can interact in such a way that the result is justifiably called an evolutionary strategy.

But more than that, MacDonald’s scholarship is in what contemporary culture defines as forbidden territory. It must stand in the shadow of a malevolent lunatic fringe that has always followed conservative thought–a fringe that finds Jewish (and other) conspiracies everywhere, lives in fear of sinister forces, and rages impotently about everything it sees as a potential threat. There is no way to approach the question of Jewish influence without both conjuring this fringe and finding oneself accused of sympathy with it.

In my view, MacDonald’s incisive work is worth reading whether you are prepared to believe in a group evolutionary strategy or not, whether you believe Jewish influence has been pronounced or not. Even if MacDonald is completely wrong, his approach to groups deserves attention, particularly with regard to the ongoing transformation of American political life from a culture formed and guided by Northern Europeans to one that is approaching complete ethnic pluralism. I think it is likely that Jewish culture, as it has been shaped over the millenia, has worked to reinforce a set of behaviors, beliefs, and strategies with regard to other groups (and particularly with the universalist-minded West), and whether it is driven by evolutionary forces is beside the point–it nevertheless is, and has been strikingly influential upon the events of the 20th century. Indeed, it has changed the course of American history.

My initial goal here is to summarize MacDonald’s arguments and evidence, by chapter. This post is an introduction, and subsequent posts will take the chapters in sequence.

As Henry Ford remarked about Charles Lindbergh, “When Charles comes out here, we only talk about the Jews.” Get ready to talk about the Jews.

MacDonald next mentions Stephen Jay Gould, whose long record of intellectual prevarication on the subject of genetic differences (and human biodiversity in particular) speaks for itself. Gould has been an incredibly important figure in the demonization of psychometrics and his book The Mismeasure of Man is virtually a bible for what one might term the anti-intelligence clergy (intelligence doesn’t exist, cannot be measured, is not variable, etc). According to MacDonald, Gould’s views were influenced by his Jewish-Leftist identity and fear of anti-Semitism.

Gould made exaggerated and provably false claims about the congressional debates of the period. The immigration debate was largely about preserving America’s Nordic-derived identity and culture, and IQ testing did not play a significant role in any part of it. Gould’s response to such criticism was to ignore it, a response that has become a tradition among Gould’s worshipful and ill-informed followers. (Similarly, Gould ignored all modern IQ research on the ludicrous grounds that it was “ephemeral”.) A revised edition of The Mismeasure of Man essentially ignored all critical response to Gould’s book.

Gould further claimed that the 1924 immigration law was in some sense responsible for the deaths of Jews unable to emigrate from German-held territories before World War II, a hyperbolic and frankly hysterical conclusion that has become typical of Jewish anti-intellectualism. This rhetorical behavior is readily found in much Jewish political output, and MacDonald catalogues the varieties of it found in Gould’s work, including use of denigrating labels, oversimplified straw men, gilded writing, and perhaps the most popular technique, claiming moral superiority over one’s debate opponents. Nevertheless, Gould maintains a high level of posthumous prestige.

The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career – Page 2:

A response to The Culture of Critique

I was going to canvass some of the responses to MacDonald’s book, but why not just quote from the SLPC’s considered, measured review:

SPLC:

Kevin MacDonald is the neo-Nazi movement’s favorite academic. A psychology professor at California State University, Long Beach, MacDonald, who also is a board member of the white supremacist Charles Martel Society, published a trilogy that supposedly “proves” that Jews are genetically driven to destroy Western societies. MacDonald also argues that anti-Semitism, far from being an irrational hatred for Jews, is a logical reaction to Jewish success in societies controlled by other ethnic or racial groups. After the publication of a 2007 Intelligence Report exposé detailing MacDonald’s anti-Semitism, his teaching duties were reduced and many of his colleagues publicly condemned his racist research.

This is, as you have seen in my summary of MacDonald’s book, wholly malicious, tendentious, and dishonest. But we expect nothing less from the SPLC, a Jewish dominated organization that carefully manages its Wikipedia page to remove any hint of criticism. The SPLC is fixated on white supremacist groups but has of late broadened its scope to include any right-wing rhetoric that is more arousing than David Brooks after a bong hit. It doesn’t have any serious charter to pursue hatred as such, or else it would have to monitor itself for its flamboyant belligerance and crude bullying and coercion.

It may as well be said that this type of aggressive, moralistic posturing is a signature of Jewish rhetoric. It has such a long tradition that it must be recognized by everyone today as the sort of thing Jews often do–it is a hallmark, for example, of arguments in favor of Israel’s right to do everything, and was used extensively by neocons to justify the Iraq War.

This manner of argument is in keeping with Judaism’s aggressive competitive tendencies, high Jewish IQ, and legalistic morality. I add the last item because legalistic moral systems must of necessity be rigid. They are based on the idea that goodness is not arrived at by communal judgement (favored in altruistic societies), but by command of authority–and here the difference with Christianity could not be more striking. As I have noted in another context, much of the behavior we see today is premised on the notion that what is legally permissable is morally permissable–a statement very pregnant with meaning, and very much an inheritance from Jewish thinking, whether we realize it or not.

And what about The Culture of Critique? MacDonald chose his title well–Jewish culture is very tied up in the idea that argument, even tendentious argument, is good. I am not sure I follow him in his belief that Jewish behavior is an evolutionary adaptation–but let me qualify this. The idea of group evolutionary behavior remains controversial. There is some question as to how it operates through natural selection; I am not expert enough to present either side of this question. But then I suspect that the interaction between culture and natural selection is rather murky and difficult to quantify, much as most mixed nature-nurture traits are.

It is quite possible that characteristic Jewish culture was formed by happenstance–that is, it was shaped by the unique series of events and struggles it found itself in due to its place and time of origin and adjacent cultures. As a firm believer in the role that randomness plays in all life, I am not convinced that an explanation of cultural thinking must be any less arbitrary than this.

This remains an academic question because we can never develop a rigorous and falsifiable theory–we are left to believe what we will. But however it came to be, Jewish culture as it is today is a compelling force that has dramatically changed Western culture.

Perhaps a more interesting line of argument is that Jewish culture is a byproduct of high IQ. The pursuit of pluralism, for example, can be seen as Jewish defensiveness given its competitive nature–but it is also the mark of high IQ novelty seekers. Similarly, many of the ideological movements that MacDonald surveys had little trouble attracting gentiles of a certain type, however dominated their upper ranks may have been by Jews. And by “certain type” I am referring to the cognitive elite–the class of person who is readily won over to abstract theories and is disdainful of traditional practices. That Jews dominate may have less to do with Jewish culture and more to do with Jewish IQ. One omission MacDonald makes is in comparing Jewish achievement and wealth without controlling for IQ.

However this book is an impressive survey of Jewish involvement in the great changes of the 20th century. Wherever one comes down on this subject, it deserves better than the SPLC’s malicious and disingenuous treatment, or the cool oblviousness of most of the rest of Western society. It opens the door to many fascinating questions, not only to Jewish culture but to the whole nature of Western civlization and its potential downfall, to the study of group interaction, to the contrast between impermeable and assimilationist societies. It is a serious and manifestly well-intentioned academic work.

And for that reason, the reception of MacDonald’s work should be considered scandalous. We do not live in a freely thinking society if this careful and conscientious exploration of group behavior is beyond the pale. But then, looking around, one can readily see that we in fact live in a society governed by frivolity, snark, and clownishness–clownishness much like the SPLC’s ridiculous summary of MacDonald’s study of Jewish culture. Such is our intellectual world.

I do not agree with MacDonald that ethnic separatism offers European-derived culture anything more than devolution. I think ethnic separatism within a diverse nation will alter what we think of as Western culture and turn it into something no better than the self-interested ethnic enclaves that have exploited it. Universalism is simply a hallmark of the West; if it loses this trait, it loses itself.

The question of what to do is far too complicated to explore briefly, but a return to assimilationism and a renewal of Western values must be the only plausible course. All of our politics should be subordinate to this issue.

The Culture of Critique – My Posting Career – Page 3:

It’s sometimes used as an excuse that Jews even criticize themselves, without acknowledging that Jewish self-criticism is aimed at increasing cohesion by punishing deviation (such as intermarriage), while Jewish criticism of other cultures is aimed at undermining cohesion. It is silly to equate the two.

Kevin MacDonald:

I do think that the social tensions resulting from this assault on our people and culture will eventually get to the point that there will perforce be an audience for my work. It may seem odd to phrase it this way, but in a real sense all of us writing from a pro-White, pro-European perspective should be desperately trying to break through into the wider culture — to become famous and respected. If it doesn’t happen for any of us, then we have surely lost.

Referring to an interview with Kevin MacDonald by Alex Kurtagic:

http://www.wermodand…0220110000.html

The treatment of MacDonald shows the ugliest side of Jewish culture, particularly because the venue is academia. For me it is a reason I can never feel sympathetic toward Jewish concerns or Jewish claims of injustice; their culture is very hospitable to injustice and quite glibly so.

Blog

What Laura Wood Thinks

157 Comments

Two sensible questions may come to mind as you contemplate wading through the following text: Who is Laura Wood and why should I care what she thinks?

Beyond the blog posts linked below I don’t know who Laura Wood is or why she thinks what she thinks. I understand that Wood and Lawrence Auster regard each other highly. I suspect that, as with Auster, Wood’s readers include more than a few Whites who are more or less displeased with the anti-White regime but have yet to understand it in such terms.

Like Auster, Wood is a social critic who strikes a faux-White pose. Like Auster, Wood hosts earnest-sounding, carefully managed discussions of “liberalism”. Jews are mentioned in these discussions, but only to ultimately minimize their role and excuse them. The most serious condemnations are directed at Whites.

A few days ago Wood made a series of blog posts along these lines. She began the first post, titled Rejecting the “White Nationalist” Label, by quoting Lawrence Auster:

White nationalists are material-racial reductionists who, like Nazis, treat race as the single all-determining factor of human existence, so that human beings are in effect automata controlled by their race. I treat race as one very important determining factor in human existence, along with many other factors. And I am not a material reductionist. Material/racial factors can be the controlling factors; for example, if you change a formerly all-white city into a half black city, certain effects will inevitably ensue. At the same time, material/racial factors are not the only factors, especially at the individual level. But the material/racial force of sheer numbers will overwhelm any individual exceptions.

Auster regards his most hated enemies as automata controlled by a spontaneous hate for jews and projects his own materialist, racialist, reductionist thinking onto them. He started off by commenting on the “asians in the library” controversy, quickly shifted into a critique of White nationalism, and then broadened the bashing to Whites in general, blaming us for imposing genocidal open borders and diversity on ourselves (his emphasis):

Once a white country through its immigration policy makes itself conspicuously nonwhite, the former, white identity of the country is seen as something wicked and disgusting, and the former white majority is seen as racist, particularly by members of that former majority. The very act of the country becoming conspicuously nonwhite and diverse results in the psychological imperative that everything must conform to the new, diverse identity of the country. If diversity is what we are and is good, then whiteness is bad. Thus any remnant, and any remaining expression, of the former white majority is seen as suspect and threatening. That’s one of the ways in which mass nonwhite immigration is the path to national suicide. It turns the white population against itself.

Auster’s analysis conveniently overlooks jewish culpability in opening the borders, changing the identity of the country, and making White identity something wicked and disgusting. Auster is aware of this jewish culpability. Roughly two years ago he wrote in response to a correspondent Boris S. in The BNP versus the rulers of the Dead Island:

You write:

“On the other hand, one may claim that Jewish leftists are seeking to harm non-Jews in order to advance an ethnocentric agenda. [This] view is anti-Semitic and false…”

But there’s much evidence that it is true. Numerous Jewish spokesman have said, not just in recent times, but in past decades, that America’s white Anglo-Saxon Christian majority is oppressive to Jews and other minorities, and even that it poses a potential threat of much worse oppression, and that the only way for the Jews to be safe in America is to reduce the percentage and power of the white Christian majority by means of diverse immigration. To seek to turn the historic non-Jewish white Christian majority of this country into a minority, out of the conviction that that majority is oppressive and malign, is certainly to seek to harm non-Jews.

In his current critique Auster also neglects to mention the jewish origins of the “diversity” template “minorities” use – loudly pathologizing and demonizing the White enemy for being insensitive to non-White interests. Auster attributes this template to “liberalism”, and for it he blames Whites alone:

This radically changed national consciousness inaugurates the three character liberal “script” I’ve often spoken of. The first character in the script is the liberal white, who embodies the non-discriminatory virtue of the liberal regime. The second character is any white who is seen as non-liberal or merely insufficiently liberal. He represents the principle of evil which must be suppressed. The third character is the nonwhite Other, who is not a moral actor in the script but only a sacred object. His role is to be either “included” by the good, liberal white or “excluded” by the bad, non-liberal white. The moral conflict in the story is not between the whites and the nonwhite, it’s between the “good,” non-discriminatory white and the “evil,” discriminatory white, fighting over how to treat the nonwhite Other.

As is often the case Auster’s critique of “liberalism” sheds much light on his own motives and methods. In this case he starts by declaring White nationalists bad because they wish to exclude the jewish Other, and then later in the same conversation reveals that some part of his brain understands this behavior of his is a “script” which “liberal whites” act out.

In a comment at Laura Wood’s blog Auster makes the jewish terms of his “liberal white script” objection to White nationalists more plain:

While I never described myself as one, I didn’t mind it when others called me one. But in more recent years I became aware that literally every blogger who identifies as a white nationalist is (a) a material racial reductionist who thinks that race determines everything; and (b) a serious anti-Semite or a fellow traveler with serious anti-Semites.

Setting aside the initial strawman portion, Wood emphatically agrees with Auster about the portion putting jewish interests first:

If it came down to choosing between citizenship in a white ethnostate which identified itself as proudly ”Jew-free” in its constitution and a nation that was suicidally multicultural, I would choose the latter.

When it comes down to choosing, Auster and Wood choose to oppose the rest of us who want a choice.

Like Auster, Wood laboriously selects and publishes only the comments she wishes to appear. After she truncated and mischaracterized my first comment at her blog (see the comments here) we had a brief exchange via email in which she confided that: “the reason why I dropped your comment was that we do not have enough in common”. Fair enough. It’s also fair then to say that the remarks Wood does publish do have enough in common with her thinking.

Wood continues her moderated discussion in The Problem with White Nationalism, cont., beginning with a lengthy comment from Boris S. (who may very well be the same person Auster responded to on his own blog two years ago):

The essential difference between the so-called “white nationalist” tribalism and the organization of Jews, which the “white nationalists” seek to emulate, is that the Jews point to a common four-thousand-year-old religion, with a shared culture, historical memory, and transcendental hopes. The “white nationalists,” on the other hand, want to impose a totally new tribal organization, invented out of thin air, on a group that has never constituted–that is, never saw itself as–a single nation, people, or tribe. “Whites” are not, and never have been, a people, in the sense that one speaks of the “Jewish people.”

Furthermore, no matter how much “white nationalists” deny their ideological affinity with Hitlerian National Socialism, the latter remains the only movement to have tried to reorganize the European nations into a single race-tribe, itself differentiated according to an internal racial hierarchy. The crippling blow to Western civilization, that may yet turn out to be a deathblow, which has been wrought by Nazism, does not seem to give much pause to the soi-disant “white nationalists” who claim to “defend Western civilization.” One would like to know what that oft-invoked “Western civilization” means to such people. Does it refer to the individual freedoms granted by the Western democracies? Does it mean Western music, art, literature? The Western philosophical tradition? The Christian religion? One suspects it is merely a suitably noble-sounding call to arms, perhaps to be replaced by some other catch-phrase when its use has run out. To this, “white nationalists” would protest that, unlike Nazism, their movement does not promote violence and war. This objection cannot be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because the movement seeks to overturn the present political and social order, it is by nature revolutionary, and, like all revolutionary movements, it will one day face the necessity of the use of violence if it seriously hopes to achieve its goals. Second, because Western societies are not “racially homogenous” according to the understanding of the “white nationalists” themselves, their desired order will inevitably create classes of “racial aliens” who would resent their sudden status as outsiders and would have to be dealt with somehow. It is amusing to note that many “white nationalists” deny the revolutionary nature of their movement as they try to claim what they take to be the “prestigious” mantle of “true conservatism” or “reaction.”

These are some of the nasty consequences of the “white nationalist” program. It is important to add that the ideology does not withstand theoretical criticism, because many of its claims about human history and human societies are basically incorrect. Racial tribalism as a mode of thought is alien to Western tradition, and has become widespread only in the late 19th century, when it could be based upon Darwinism and its naturalistic (or “zoological”) view of man, and when masses of men disoriented by the fall of the feudal order and the havoc of industrial capitalism sought a new identity to give them meaning and a sense of belonging. It is true that the demographic changes now sweeping the Western world are in part made possible by what could be called “anti-racism” or “reverse racism,” an essentially revolutionary attitude that denies to those nation-states it sees as “white” any right to defense against “non-white” invaders (and is also responsible for affirmative action). This attitude, which does not rise to the level of ideology (with the possible exception of a few revolutionary socialist groups that have attempted to articulate it), is a diseased reaction to the likewise diseased fit of racism which took hold of the West approximately from 1880 to 1950. But the demographic changes are also made possible by the shrinking of the world due to modern technology, and receive their impetus from technological and economic forces. In other words, what the racialists see as the preserved “racial purity” of Europe until the second half of the 20th century, is not the result of a nonexistent tradition of racial tribalism, but simply the expected absence of rapid change in the pre-industrial era. This brings us to another problem with the “white nationalist” ideology: what today we would call “ethnic mixing” has happened continuously for millennia between peoples who lived within accessible geographic distances. Thus, unless we deny the common origin of mankind (at which point we could no longer claim scientific backing or any connection with Western tradition) we cannot treat “the white race” as an objectively fixed entity.

The only good thing that can be said of “white nationalism” is that it gives comfort to some individuals who, in having been deprived of any adequate outlet for their creative energies and a stable community, have been among the unfortunate victims of modernity. But apart from the theoretical problems and the necessary violence and immorality that would flow from any attempt to implement “white nationalism” in America, the ideology, in its obsession with race and its beside-the-point pursuit of scientific justification, seems to have no answer to the problems any serious political thinker today would have to deal with, including the overwhelming role of technological and economic forces in constraining the freedom of modern man, the prevailing antihumanist ethos of Enlightened or bourgeois utilitarianism which holds human beings to be valuable only insofar as they happen to be “useful” (however this is to be defined, whether by the state or the “free market”), the related contempt for philosophy, religion, and contemplation, or the superficial scientism and “secular humanism” (a sort of cheap tribalism from which “white nationalism” differs only in the scope of the designated tribe) that dominate respectable discourse. Considering either the silence or the incredible shallowness of “white nationalism” on such matters, the movement seems to be rather one more symptom of the pathology.

As with Auster and Wood, Boris’ argument is based on a personal conviction that White nationalism is bad for jews. As I tried to point out in the comment Wood truncated, this argument is beside the point. Whites are distinct from jews. White nationalism is premised on what is good for Whites, not what is good for jews. Auster and Wood both dodge this argument by treating jews and Whites as one inseparable “white”, and do so even as they distinguish jews for special treatment.

Unlike Auster and Wood Boris doesn’t pretend to sympathize with Whites. He doesn’t pretend Whites and jews are one inseparable “white”. He belittles White attempts to organize politically to debate and pursue our interests, and does so specifically in contrast with jews.

Wood published Boris’s boorish comment and followed it with another:

Robert Gray writes:

It’s ironic that the Jew-mongers would describe Auster as a “Jewish fifth columnist” when they themselves drive white Americans away from the cause with their incessant talk of Jews and Jewish influence. The typical white nationalist site, in its content, comments, and links, repels whites because we are not utterly obsessed with Jews and have no sympathy with neo-Nazism, Fascism, and Holocaust denial. I’ve tried to reason with those afflicted with Jew-mania, but reason and logic have no effect. They cannot see the damage they do. Indeed, I don’t think they care. For their concern is proving that Jews are evil, rather than securing the interests of white people.

Auster describes himself a jewish fifth columnist, and Gray’s demonizing of “jew-mongers” “afflicted with jew-mania” echoes Auster’s “liberal white script”. It is a blunt attempt to pathologize Whites who identify jewish sources of anti-White hostility. Gray’s 17-point position statement, offered as advocacy of ostensibly “white ethnic interests”, comprises four points distinguishing and advocating anti-“nazi”/jewish ethnic interests:

12. Nazi Germany was not good for the white race. It made war on European states and killed millions of white people. To claim that Hitler or the Nazis were “pro-white” is utterly absurd.

13. In World War II, the Nazi leadership deliberately attempted to kill all the Jews in Europe. They did this by the use of shootings, confinement, forced labor, random murder, death camps, and gas chambers. The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was on the order of millions. Had Nazi Germany won the war, they would probably have succeeded in killing all the Jews in the world.

14. White ethno-states should be democratic and libertarian. They should not be fascist or totalitarian states as, for example, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

15. Jews are not the root of all evil. Jews do not force white people to act against their own self-interests. Whites undermine their ethnic interests of their own free will. In general, we should avoid talking about Jews and Jewish influence. Ultimately, it is counter-productive. And in any case, we should not advocate for the harm of Jews or the destruction of Israel.

Later in the exchange Wood permits Van Wijk to play down the danger posed by jews to Whites while playing up the danger posed by Whites who don’t:

It is no secret that the majority of American Jews are leftists; so are a great many whites. Since leftist Jews are in most cases racially and culturally white, and since they are too few and pacifistic to pose a physical threat, they can be lumped in with white leftists as a whole and dealt with in the same manner. The problem with the Jew-haters is that they tend to ignore or play down the danger posed by demonstrably violent peoples. Solve the problem of Jewish influence, they say, and all other problems will solve themselves. Every time I’ve asked a Jew-hater what to do about Mestizos or Muslims, the response has been that they can be dealt with “in a straightforward manner.” No one but the Jews are on the Jew-hater’s radar, and Jews are (naturally) responsible for most of the evil in the world. For this reason, the proper response to the likes of Cesar “Himmler is my friend” Tort is to delete his emails and otherwise ignore him. Since Jewish influence looms large in the mind of the Jew-hater and can never be resolved while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage them is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Wood’s campaign against Whites who distinguish ourselves from jews continues in The Jew-Hater’s Radar, where she takes special note of Van Wijk’s comment and permits Auster to perfect the last sentence:

Since in the minds of the Jew-haters the Jews are the ultimate cause of all the evils facing society, and since, therefore, none of those evils can be solved or even dealt with while there is a single Jew in the land, to engage the Jew-haters is to be drawn into what Mark Richardson calls an “intellectual cul-de-sac.”

Auster, Wood, Boris, Van Wijk, Gray and others who think and speak as they do, like Mark Richardson, make sweeping negative pronouncements about Whites just as easily as they do about “jew-haters”. Behind their double-talk about “whites” and “liberalism” is an underlying hyper-awareness of jewish interests and a primal, uncompromising drive to defend them.

Amidst the other posts linked above Wood also wrote A Recommendation Retracted:

EARLIER THIS week, I recommended a new website Faith and Heritage. I regret my hasty enthusiasm for a new venture. Disappointingly, Faith and Heritage is beset with the same viral tendency that afflicts many sites that defend white heritage: anti-Semitism.

The passage Wood objected to was contained in a review of The Social Network from a Christian point of view:

Lacking the Christian sense of fair play and good sportsmanship (that even nominal, cultural Christians like the Winklevoss still largely possess, and reinforced through athletics), nursing resentments against our culture and people, the temptation to cheat is almost impossible for them to overcome. The lesson for Christians is simple: avoid dealings with Jews, for they are too risky.

Wood demonstrates here her willingness to condemn even a nominally White spiritual defense as pathological. Her “script”, as Auster so helpfully described it, is that Whites (in this case Christians) who exclude the jewish Other are “bad”.