Tag Archives: jewish influence


Usurp This

Kevin MacDonald is a White advocate who has been condemned for expressing politically incorrect thoughts:

I am morally certain that Jewish involvement in the radical left in the early to middle part of the last century was a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for many of the horrific events in the Soviet Union and elsewhere. (About this, of course, one can disagree. I am simply saying that I find the evidence compelling.) But the main point is that I came to see Jewish groups as competitors with the European majority of the U.S., as powerful facilitators of the enormous changes that have been unleashed in this country, particularly via the successful advocacy of massive non-European immigration into the U.S. I found that I was being transformed in this process from a semi-conservative academic who had little or no identification with his own people into an ethnically conscious person — exactly as predicted by the theory of social identity processes that forms the basis of my theory of anti-Semitism (see MacDonald 1998a). In fact, if one wants to date when I dared cross the line into what some see as proof that I am an ‘anti-Semite,’ the best guess would probably be when I started reading on the involvement of all the powerful Jewish organizations in advocating massive non-European immigration. My awareness began with my reading a short section in a standard history of American Jews well after the first book was published. The other influences that I attributed to Jewish activities were either benign (psychoanalysis?) or reversible — even radical leftism, so they didn’t much bother me. I could perhaps even ignore the towering hypocrisy of Jewish ethnocentrism coinciding as it does with Jewish activism against the ethnocentrism of non-Jewish Europeans. But the long-term effects of immigration will be essentially irreversible barring some enormous cataclysm.

The immigration invasion clearly enriches and delights a small number of people even as it produces disastrous consequences for most natives and our progeny.

For a long while it puzzled me why the ruling class would tax, prosecute, and demonize citizens while they simultaneously excuse, forgive, and sanctify immigrants. Why do they not sympathize with their own people?

Polite society has no answers. If you ask the only answer you get is, “shut up racist”. Why? Because it is all about race.

The rulers consider themselves distinct and superior. They are outsiders and natives blinded by greed who have thrown in with the outsiders – adopting their rootless cosmopolitan values, fraudulent tactics, and totalitarian goals.

As their power has increased they have grown ever more explicitly and viciously anti-White. Nowadays they openly mock “flyover country” and the “rednecks” who inhabit it. They no longer feel constrained by the votes, laws, traditions, or heros of the “xenophobic” “hill-billies”. They’re importing new citizens. For the deracinated native collaborators it’s just business. The labor is cheap, the profit great. For the true outsiders it’s more than business. It’s also hypocritical hyper-racist payback for what they see as millenia of unrelenting and undeserved persecution at the hands of an ungrateful European “host”. The non-white hordes will end that most horrible jewish nightmare, White nationalism, and present a final solution to the White cancer – by destroying the White race.

Is it clear now why the shysters at the SPLC hound MacDonald but have precious little to say about Sontag or Ignatiev? They are anti-White. With every victory in the culture war the scapegoating and dehumanization of powerless Whites as “neo-Nazis” and “White supremacists” becomes ever more absurd. Does Kevin MacDonald or any of the other people that anti-anti-semites demonize wield anywhere near the social, economic, or political power they do?

Since when has a pro-White leader had any influence on public policy?

It was before our military became the world’s police. Before forced integration. Before our women and college kids freaked out. Before our borders were erased. Before our government sold its citizens to Wall Street, who sold them to the Arabs and Chinese. Before it became a requirement for US politicians to don a yarmulke and pray at the Wailing Wall. Before scatology became prime time humor and perversion became the norm. Before pro-White speech became hate speech, and pro-White thoughts became thought crimes.

Everything went to hell when the parasitical, traitorous usurpers took over. They profit from and celebrate the disowning, disenfranchisement, and displacement of my people. For the moment they still fear having to answer for it. This is why anything but celebration is very strictly discouraged.

Our rulers do not believe in civil rights or free speech. That is but cud for their cattle. In their minds they are our superiors and we have no right to indict them. I think otherwise. I support men like Kevin MacDonald who dig up evidence and supply the indictment.


Irony Thy Name is Auster

Lawrence Auster, in a post inaptly titled Are racial differences in IQ explained by cultural stereotypes?, writes:

Has anyone noticed the irony that most of the people who argue that there are no inherent differences in intelligence between the races are left-wing Jews, who use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence?

R. Davis writes:

The fact that left-wing Jews “use their high intelligence to argue that everyone has the same intelligence” raises two questions: 1. Are they doing so simply for cultural/political reasons, i.e., to subvert the majority non-Jewish culture by undermining its ethnic-racial foundations, while subtly affirming a Jewish intellectual superiority? or 2. Does their superior intelligence afford them insights the rest of us aren’t capable of? Given their own ethnic/racial makeup, they would seem to be the best refutation of their own thesis, but perhaps at that intellectual elevation the forest is a bit far off.

This question does touch on a facet of racialist politics (highlighted by the Wright affair) that no one dares discuss–namely, if in fact intellectual differences do exist between blacks and whites/Asians, whether genetically or culturally induced (what does it matter?), why should those at the low end of the bell curve be granted almost exclusive control over the national dialogue on race or on any other issue? Look where that is taking us. Rev. Wright is not an iconoclast. The majority of blacks believe the US government is using AIDS genocidally against them. Our schools dumb down deliberately to accommodate racial differences (which dare not be mentioned). On the other hand, those at the high end of the intellectual spectrum have done much to mire us in this racial quagmire. How does one make sense of this?

LA replies:

There’s truth to this. The people at the high end ally with the people at the low end to destroy the vast silent majority in the middle–the actual society.

What I’ve just described (and this goes beyond the question of the specifically Jewish role, though it includes it) in fact represents the essential structure of liberalism as it actually operates in society. Liberalism requires three groups in order to function. First, there is the liberal elite itself, the people who make liberalism happen. They demonstrate liberalism by preaching and practicing non-discrimination toward the Other, the minority, the less capable. Second, there are the Other and the less capable, upon whom the liberal elite practices its liberal virtue of non-discrimination. Without the Other, toward whom one practices non-discrimination, liberalism would die. Therefore liberalism requires an ever-renewed population of non-assimilated and unassimilable people. But a third group is also needed for liberalism to function, and that is the vast unenlightened majority whose backward morality is needed as a foil against which the elite demonstrates its morality and establishes its legitimacy and right to rule.

James M. writes from England:

During the Watson controversy a high-IQ British Jew called Steven Rose tried to peddle the “all equal” line at the Guardian, attacking the “long-exploded racist claim that “Africans” are inherently less intelligent than “us”‘.

Well yes Larry, since you asked, some people have noticed. A hardy few, like Luke O’Farrell, have written more coherently than you have concerning both the who and why:

The late Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist who labored long and hard to deny the truth about race and IQ. The living Steven Rose, Richard Lewontin and Leon Kamin continue his work. The paradox is that the leading race-deniers prove the importance of race, because they all belong to that tiny minority known as Jews. So did Marx, Freud and Boas. Jews are very good at duping and deceiving, at creating seductive ideologies to fool naïve whites into acting against their own interests. Jews fool and rule; whites swallow and follow. And there are genetic reasons for this. Tiny differences in DNA don’t account just for a highly significant Jewish advantage in verbal IQ, but also for a highly significant Jewish advantage in arrogance, ethnocentrism and disregard for objective truth. Jews preach equality and universalism while ruthlessly pursuing their own advantage and enrichment. That’s how they’ve come to dominate white societies and that’s why they’ve led the race-denial crusade.

Gould insisted that human equality was a “contingent fact of history”. It could have been different, inequality could have evolved instead in a hundred different ways, but somehow that just didn’t happen. And reader, I confess it: I was one of Gould’s gullible goyim. He and his Mismeasure of Man (1981) took me in for a time and I remember with shame how I once argued that even if blacks were less intelligent than whites for genetic reasons, we shouldn’t say so, because that kind of thinking was dangerous. You see, if we admit that race exists, we may end up in Auschwitz. I didn’t think back then that if we deny that race exists, we may end up in the Gulag. Nor did I think about other consequences of race denial: for example, its use to justify mass immigration, which has flooded white homelands with non-whites from a rich variety of violent and corrupt Third World nations. And surprise, surprise, they’ve brought their violence and corruption with them.

Race denial has also justified the steady loss of freedom in white homelands. Express the wrong opinions about race in the UK or Europe and you’re in for a dawn raid from the thought police. And how Jews like Abraham Foxman would love the same thing to start happening in the US! Free speech was born in white societies and is dying with those societies, as Jews re-create the Marxist police states they feel safest in. If we let a paranoid, self-obsessed minority continue to write our laws and buy our politicians, we’ll soon see that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall to let freedom into the East, but to let tyranny into the West.

To write such things you have to be hardy because you will inevitably be swarmed by anti-anti-semites who will deny there is any merit whatsoever to anything you say. They will consign you to hell, ridicule you as a mindless robot, question your sanity, misrepresent your position, then call for you to be fired from your job, banned from the web, and shunned by anyone who doesn’t want to be similarly abused.

It is possible to elicit this kind of belligerent treatment by simply noting how typical it is, as Auster’s hostile reactions to his correspondents George R. and Tom M. illustrate.

I’ve thought and written more than a little about Auster. It started with an assertion about his oft-repeated and ever-mutating Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society, which he once succinctly stated as:

The worse any designated minority or alien group behaves in a liberal society, the bigger become the lies of Political Correctess in covering up for that group.

What I asserted is that this law of liberalism obviously applies to jews. PC protects them above all others.

Silly me. Auster set aside his anti-liberalism and dismissed my assertion as anti-semitic. When I fleshed out the argument he whined I was attacking him for not being an anti-semite. When I quoted him he claimed I was calling him a lousy anti-semite hypocrite.

Auster’s intellectual dishonesty runs deep. He is incapable of confronting what I actually say, which is this: He is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a bigoted pro-jewish racist. He is a hypocrite because he regularly exhibits all the irrational symptoms he sees and self-righteously denounces in others. He is not pro-White, as he at times may appear, he simply believes Whites are better for jews than the invading immigrants favored by most other jews. Jews, in the mind of an anti-anti-semite like Auster, are entitled to special treatment. To criticize jews you must, like him, have their best interests foremost in mind. Otherwise you are a special type of racist, worthy of a special label. This magic label makes you subhuman, eligible for all the dehumanization he assumes you wish on jews. Jews who openly denigrate Whites are also special. Auster does not demonize them or call for them to be shunned.

Someone who reasons this way should be able to see that someone else might instead have the best interests of Whites foremost in their mind. But Auster repeatedly and ever-so-intelligently demonstrates he is incapable of doing so:

Lately more and more commenters have been capitalizing the words white and black, e.g., “White people,” “Black people,” which I have changed to lower case prior to posting. It has never been standard usage to capitalize these adjectives when they are used to denote race, and it is not VFR’s usage. While race matters, to make it matter so much that we capitalize the mere names of colors is to take race consciousness too far. I ask commenters to conform their spelling to standard English usage. Thank you.

All kinds of racists do this, to magnify their own group and dehumanize the group they hate. For example, many white nationalists capitalize “white,” a color which should not be capitalized, and put “Jew,” a proper name which should be capitalized, in lower case.

White, when used to identify a group of people, is not a color or an adjective. It is a proper noun. Thus I capitalize White. I no longer capitalize jew specifically to draw attention to the inconsistent norm that Auster so staunchly supports. His reason is so clouded that this simple rationale of reversal does not compute. For him “jew” is a sure sign of racist anti-semitic dehumanization, but “white” is a completely innocent convention.

So now Auster wonders if he is the first to notice that “left-wing jews” ally with “non-assimilated and unassimilable people” against the “vast unenlightened majority”. If he were to state his position in less weaselly language from a pro-White point of view he might find himself saying something anti-semitic. He might admit his MMRILS applies to jews. That would be ironic, but we can be sure it won’t happen. Auster does not have the best interests of Whites foremost in his mind. If he did he wouldn’t pretend we are a vast majority, and he wouldn’t so quickly and hypocritically dehumanize the few who seek unblinkered enlightenment.

UPDATE 31 Mar 2008: More snippets from Auster’s post:

Mark Jaws writes:

Of course, I, the quintessentially politically astute New York Jew (albeit with Slavic blood to taint my Yiddish pedigree), long ago noticed it was primarily left-wing Jews such as Jay Gould, who were the most ardent opponents to Shockley, Jensen, Herrnstein and Murray. I attributed it in part to Jews having been the main victims of the Nazi eugenics movement, so even though these smart Jews probably knew deep down inside that there were IQ differences, it would be best to nullify and pervert the movement which they perceived to be Nazi-like.

Whatever good the name calling and lies has done for jews it has only come at the expense of Whites. Auster does not point this out because he is not pro-White.

Bert R. writes:

The comments of yourself and others here regarding Jewish intellectuals remind me of Kevin MacDonald’s. Is there now a broader range of agreement between you both than before? I ask as I recall that you wrote a somewhat critical article or comment about him some time ago.

LA replies:

Comments like this make me want to throw up my hands.

Kevin MacDonald’s central idea is that the Jewish people are driven by an instinct created by Darwinian evolution to destroy European peoples. He is the most influential anti-Semitic thinker and inspirer of exterminationist anti-Semites of our time. I wonder on what basis you would construct a similarity between my ideas and his based on what was said in this thread.

See my article where I lay out the differences between what MacDonald says about the Jews and what I say.

Inspirer of exterminationists? Such deranged hyperbole is the hallmark of anti-anti-semitism.

I wrote a little about this in White Self-Determination and Totalitarian Liberals.

It isn’t difficult to differentiate the two men.

MacDonald is a scholar who focuses on analyzing the conflicts between White and jewish interests, a subject Auster only occasionally touches. MacDonald writes in plain language remarkable for its contrast with the obfuscatory postmodern academic norm. Auster prefers misleading euphemisms like “the majority” and “liberals”. MacDonald is more circumspect and consistent than Auster, who constantly and explicitly advises “the majority” what they must do, who they must keep out or deport, and who the anti-semites are that must be slandered and ostracized in order to appease the “liberals” he is supposedly resisting.

In short MacDonald is pro-White and Auster is pro-jew. Perhaps Auster can only throw up his hands because he cannot imagine simply telling the truth.


Questions Questions

Under the title Whiteness and the Jewish Question Prozium writes:

Jews are a Semitic ethnic group like the Syrians or the Palestinians. “Ethnicity” is also a muddle of kinship and cultural factors. Jews have defined themselves as a distinct people for thousands of years. Until very recently, European Christians treated Jews as an alien element within their societies. Jews remain to this day painfully aware of their history and distinctiveness and do not identify with the American majority like other groups.

The debate over the “whiteness” of the Jews is unique to America. With few exceptions, Europeans have never cared much about “whiteness” because they have traditionally lived in racially homogeneous societies. Even in America, “whiteness” has never been synonymous with Caucasian. “White” was originally a synonym of “English” and was later refined into “Nordic” by the early twentieth century. The Italians were finally accepted as “white,” but are still thought of (accurately, in my view) as being less “white” than Scandinavians. The whiteness of Levantines like the Jews is even more suspect.

Most racialists find the “whiteness” debate interesting but consider it less important than other questions. Even if the Jews were “white” by some genetic proxy, it would not absolve them of the unique role they have played in undermining white racial consciousness in the United States. The fact remains that the organized Jewish community has treated white racialists as “the enemy” ever since the end of the Second World War.

They are the ones who started to antagonize us, not the other way around. Up until the 1960s, American racialism wasn’t associated with anti-Semitism. This changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when it became clear that Jews had played a vanguard role in pushing the racial and cultural changes in America that we dislike. Their actions are what generate “anti-Semitism” and sympathy for the Third Reich.

It is completely rational to exclude a hostile, antagonistic minority from your living space. One can easily imagine an alternative timeline in which Jews showed respect for the customs and traditions of their host and presented themselves as defenders and admirers of Western civilization. I doubt there would be any resentment against Jews if their behavior was of this sort. No one spends their time fretting over the “Mongolian Question.”

In reality, Jewish behavior confirms many of worst stereotypes about their race. They are avaricious, inconsiderate, duplicitous, condescending, materialistic, and aggressive. They cry foul when they endure the slightest criticism, even when they are in the process of destroying others like in their recent attack on Lebanon, or egging on Bush/Cheney to attack Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

Not all Jews are of this sort. The Jewish community is divided on all sorts of issues. Aside from the neocons, American Jews are more concerned with domestic policy than foreign policy. Jewish wealth and the disproportionate representation of Jewish voices in academia, government, business, and the news and entertainment media has created a pro-Jewish bias in American culture and public policy that would otherwise not exist. This has come at the expense of other groups like the Palestinians and racially conscious white Americans whom Jews count amongst their ethnic enemies.

It doesn’t suit us as Whites for Jews to continue to enjoy privileges like their immunity from criticism or their vast fortunes. This is the gist of the Jewish Question.

To which I responded:

The US has the Latino Question, and Europe has the Muslim Question. Both are really the Immigration Invasion Question, which is: whose interests are served by permitting millions of impoverished, uneducated, hostile aliens to flood any nation? These questions trace back and are in fact subordinate to the Jewish Question. Which is how I became aware of it.

The question “are jews White” is exactly what you need to consider to understand why there is a JQ to begin with, and to contemplate answers. That these questions are taboo, while the anti-racist questioning of Whiteness is not, reveals at least two prongs of anti-White aggression. So I cannot agree that there are more important questions to consider.

Excellent analysis otherwise.

The question “are jews White” was new to me and still fresh in mind when I wrote Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin. I was exposed to it by an article written by E. Michael Jones called Francis’s Legacy:

The last time I saw Sam Francis, it was at a meeting in Washington. Sam was the moderator at a talk given by John Tyndall, a leader of the National Front in England. Mr. Tyndall was trying to get us enthused about being white guys, and so he launched into a peroration about the glories of Elizabethan England. Since Elizabethan England was the place where Catholic priests, like Edmund Campion, SJ, could be hanged until not quite dead, drawn and quartered and have their entrails thrown into boiling oil for the crime of saying the Mass, I was less than enthralled by the picture Mr. Tyndall had painted for us. In fact, if his intention was to bring us all together, his talk had the exact opposite effect. Since both Father Campion and Lord Burghley and his henchman Walsingham were all white, just what meaning did this fact possess?

My friend Gerry Bruen must have been entertaining the same thoughts because after Mr. Tyndall finished his speech, Gerry asked him whether “the Irish are white.” The question annoyed Mr. Tyndall, who got a disgusted look on his face and said, “Of course, the Irish are white. My mother is Irish.”

At this point, Sam Francis broke into the discussion, and turning to Mr. Tyndall, he asked, “Are Jews white?” Mr. Tyndall was taken aback by the question. After a long pause, he turned to Sam and said, “I’ll have to get back to you on that one.” So today I’d like to honor the memory of Sam Francis by trying to answer his unanswered question: “Are Jews White?

Jones believes that the root of America’s cultural divide is not race, but religion. Besides Sam Francis the story intertwines Catholics, Leo Pfeffer and the Neoconservatives, Kevin MacDonald, the NAACP, Mearsheimer & Walt, and the SPLC. Jones ends with an appeal to spirituality and Logos I find moving but unconvincing:

In the end, when Father Scalia entered his hospital room and asked him if he wanted the sacraments of the Church, Sam Francis chose the Higher Logos, and we can honor him by choosing the cause of Logos as we enter the next phase of the culture wars. Both Sam Francis’s deathbed conversion to Catholicism and the persecution of John Sharpe are symbolic of a shift in the culture wars. The offensive launched by the Southern Poverty Law Center is the best indication I can offer that the main front in the culture wars is now the confrontation between Jews and Catholics. The Enlightenment is finally dead. There are no more quasi-Masonic movements, where each of us can rise above whatever sect he belongs to and join the Lodge known as “conservatism” or liberalism, or whatever. I think we, no matter what our religious or ethnic background, should rejoice at this development because in this confrontation 1) the Church has both a history and a set of beliefs that will lay to rest forever the charge of anti-Semitism and destroy it as a tool of political oppression and 2) because no matter how much they want to finesse the attack by focusing on what they consider fringe groups, the Jews have taken on a considerable group of people, who will react eventually to the attack. The situation in Hungary now is a case in point.

And finally, we should be happy because the attack clearly defines the terms of engagement, all of which are all spiritual. The revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because of his DNA. We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed. Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).

We are now engaged in a battle which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this battle have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger; the Catholics have never been weaker, but the outcome of spiritual battles–and the battle for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual battle–no matter what the odds, is rarely predictable. If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong.” Then the revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite position has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.” We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair, if we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, because he was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, saying, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed.”

The Catholic heirarchy and broader Christian leadership stand alongside the vast majority of jews in support of the immigration invasion and, by implication, the liquidation of Whites. So I disagree with Jones’ claim that the main confrontation is between Jews and Catholics. The confrontation I care about is between Whites and the people actively demoralizing, displacing, dispossessing, and disenfranchising them.

Jones is wrong about DNA. DNA is more important than anything else in determining low-level personality traits. Traits that ultimately express themselves in higher forms as ethics, morals, and culture. There is some feedback flowing the other direction, but the driving force is DNA. Some races, ie. genetic clusters, produce more morons, and some produce more geniuses. Likewise sociopaths who crave infinite wealth or totalitarian power and to best achieve these aims gravitate toward, foment, and revel in revolution.

The denial of such truths is akin to Lysenkoism, both in contradiction of biological reality and in the dependence on repressive political and social tactics. We call these tactics Hate Laws and Political Correctness, which suppress truth primarily by suppressing questions.


Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial

Mencius Moldbug has taken up my challenge to explain the immigration invasion.

"A theory of the ruling underclass" is flawed, but in an interesting way. Like Lawrence Auster, Mencius criticizes liberals (which he prefers to call universalists or progressives). And like Auster he has a curious blind spot. The difference is that Mencius has been more willing to argue about it, and I have yet to see him dissolve into unhinged anti-anti-semitism ala Auster.

Triggered by the obtuseness of Obama-supporting progressives who shrug off black nationalism while despising White nationalism, Mencius begins by pointing the glaring inconsistency in liberal anti-racist logic:

Which is the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of chauvinist ethnocentrism in America today is not of the vanilla flavor that disturbs them so. If they can explain this, they can explain anything, and we should probably just surrender – if they’ll let us.

For example: one of the most popular radio stations in San Francisco, at least to judge by the billboards I see, is called The Race. I am especially fond of the URL. “I am race!” Yes, this means exactly what you think it means.

Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But – as progressives often observe – they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.

So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, “dynamists,” and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool? How do you feel when you watch this video?

Please try to express your answer in plain English, not Stalinist boilerplate. Trust us – we know the boilerplate answer.

What’s interesting, at least to this antisocial reactionary (if you’re looking for another R-word, I also answer to “realist”), is that anti-Europeanism is almost as hard to explain from the other side of the table. I am reasonably, if not comprehensively, familiar with modern racist and white nationalist thought. I must say that it tends to leave me quite unsatisfied – especially as regards the real psychological motivations of Messrs. Wilkinson, Ghertner, et al.

Are they, for instance, in the pay of the Jews? While I certainly cannot disprove this or a variety of similar conjectures, I tend to doubt them. Occam’s razor suggests that even if some multiculturalists are tools of the Mossad, surely the vast majority are perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The Rothschilds just don’t have that much cash. If we work under the assumption that our opponents believe exactly what they say, we should account for at least most of them. Then we can watch Stormfront go head to head with the Elders of Zion, which should be entertaining if nothing else.

I have an explanation. You may not like it. Feel free to offer your own.

Mencius goes on quite a bit about black and white tribes before reviewing his personal class warfare vocabulary:

Early in UR I suggested a five-caste taxonomy of American society, and described the conflict of American politics as a struggle of three of these castes (Brahmins, Dalits, Helots) against the other two (Optimates, Vaisyas). For those whose time is short, Brahmins are intellectuals, Dalits are what Marx called the lumpenproletariat, and Helots are unskilled laborers. Optimates are the old “upper-crust” aristocracy, and Vaisyas are the petty bourgeoisie.

These castes correspond to social status, not tribe. However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status. As far as I can tell, in 2008 there is very little chauvinism even among Vaisyas. Among Dalits and Helots, race matters again. Obviously, despite certain Jackie Chan movies, there is no such thing as an interracial gang.

Mencius then attempts to argue how black (and presumably white) tribes don’t really matter because they are divided by class.

He inexplicably confounds this argument by recounting the melodramatic story of a sociology student’s naive trek into a black housing development and his interactions with the tribal militia there. If for some reason you need an introduction to what desegregation and civil rights of the 1960s “liberated” in every city, read the full post. Or watch this if you’d like to hear it from the militiamen themselves.

One of the many negative consequences of the invasion is that it brings in whole new tribes and militias, many of which are more organized, ruthless, and mobile than the indigenous black militias. If you happen to cherish multiculturalism and think diversity is a strength please go read that link. The last paragraph contains a special message just for you.

After much verbiage Mencius finally comes to his point:

The progressives no longer need muscle. They are in the saddle. There are no more Grayson Kirks, let alone Bull Connors. What they need now is votes, and the biggest vote bank of all is just south of the border. Immigration will keep the progressives in power for the next century. They always have been the American PRI, and they always will be.

And I haven’t even stated my theory yet.

Fortunately, it’s not my theory. It is a very old theory. Perhaps it even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.

This roughly translates as “using the barbarians to control the barbarians.” Typically the implication is that when you have a problem with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians. Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic case of yi yi zhi yi.

Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I’d like to think it’s obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.

Basically, the Brahmins have every possible Machiavellian interest in encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.

They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize real power, it’s lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump they’ll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you’re a progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies. Yes, we can!

Of course, I’m not saying that the people who believe in peace and love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings where they gloat about how well it’s all working. They don’t need to. However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they’re doing. And you can’t exactly call it a failure.

Did you watch that Mandela video? The man next to Mandela is Joe Slovo. One of South Africa’s leading progressives active in the liberation struggle. Or, as some might say, Communist terrorists. Do you wonder why this pasty-faced fellow is comfortable in a crowd full of people chanting “kill the whites?”

Actually, the captions on the video are mistranslated. The word in the song is amaBhulu, a Xhosa racial slur which refers not to all whites, but specifically to Afrikaners. Which Slovo (being a cosmopolitan Anglophone) is most definitely not. So the crowd is essentially chanting “kill the rednecks,” ie, Slovo’s hereditary tribal enemies. No wonder he has a smile on his face. Yi yi zhi yi.

No, I don’t like Mencius’ explanation. It’s certainly less politically correct than anything to be found in the mainstream, but there are several flaws.

The first and least important criticism is that I wish he would put more effort into fleshing out the analysis than weaving so many too-clever phrases. He writes in a way only brahmin are likely to understand, or afford the time to read. Judging from his commenters his eak-way ode-cay is not deflecting their isapproval-day.

A more substantial flaw is that with all he has to say about tribes he pretends as if the most powerful tribe of all doesn’t exist:

However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status.

Come now. No tribalism amongst the upper classes? Between this and his euphemistic description of Joe Slovo as a “cosmopolitan Anglophone” Mencius has a prominent blind spot. The hand-waving about the Rothchilds and Elders of Zion fails to explain. Perhaps he can try waving away the ADL and the Israel Lobby.

Another somewhat related gap is his neglect of the corporatist/globalist/economic angle.

Yes, the cosmopolitan progressives Mencius likes to focus on certainly are addicted to the frisson of stirring shizzle from the safety of their ivory towers. I’ve sent more than my share of ridicule their way. A thinking person can only do this so long before they begin to wonder why such flimflam, no matter how ridiculous, persists.

For some reason, and despite his considerable economic savvy, Mencius doesn’t like to focus on that other, less ridiculous type of one-world universalist. The sober, ultra-rational cosmopolitan globalists. You know, the financial wizards who transform chaos into profit. The ones whose lackeys claimed we needed millions of savages to build all those houses we didn’t really need. The ones whose brilliant “industry” boils down to pyramid schemes and government bailouts. The name Soros might ring a bell, though his high profile is rather exceptional.

Without the powerful backing of economic revolutionaries the social revolutionaries would have swung from lampposts long ago. But with the proper financial backing it hardly matters whether a flimflam artist’s “logic” makes any sense.

Here’s what makes sense to me.

Yes, White elites are certainly betraying their lower-class kinsfolk for both social and financial reasons. They support the invasion over the objections of their kinsfolk. Mencius downplays or ignores the jewish tribe but their elites are obviously less conflicted on this issue. Their kinsfolk are financially and psychologically better prepared to surf the invasion’s waves, and they overwhelmingly favor the invasion. Besides the profits of an ever-growing pyramid they also have perfectly understandable sociobiological motivations to dispossess, displace, and ultimately liquidate their de-tribed competitors.

Auster prefers to euphemize the invasion as “liberals” warring on “the Christian majority”. He seems not to notice that the invaders are overwhelmingly Christian and the invasion is openly abetted by church leaders. Mencius portrays the invasion as class warfare, and seems not to notice that naming the tactics doesn’t explain why his “brahmin” should want or need to attack what he calls “[t]heir real hereditary enemy … the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter”.

Caste/class make us “hereditary enemies”? Sorry, for my part it’s the fact that they’re trying to ethnically cleanse me. For their part it’s clear that the universalist ideals of egalitarianism and tolerance are a steaming pile of hooey. The genocidal maniacs appear to be motivated by a combination of greed and deep-seated sociobiological passive-aggressive survival instinct.

We don’t need to look to Chin for precedents. As any well-educated jew should know, two thousand years before Machiavelli the Assyrians and Babylonians knew how to kill nations by flooding them with aliens.


Something Unspeakable This Way Comes

Yes, you may be sick of Lawrence Auster. I know I am. I consider here some previous statements which I have only just become aware, and which I find relevant to the critique of his ideas I have already invested quite some effort in. This is also connected to and motivated by the realization I first made and began to explore in September: that it is not possible to forthrightly discuss political correctness, cultural marxism, liberalism, immigration, or White genocide without locking horns with jews. I am still only beginning to absorb the staggering disproportion of their involvement and aggressive and unapologetic pursuit of their own group interests over a very long period of time.

I can see that anyone who comes to such conclusions and speaks out honestly about them is smeared as a lunatic driven to irrational hate by a supposed congenital defect that makes them believe jews are to blame for everything. There is virtually nobody to cite in support who themselves has not already been similarly smeared, even though most do not fit the evil and demented caricature they are slandered with. Thus I continue to focus on and criticize Auster, who has long analyzed and argued against liberalism – an ideology he seems well aware jews helped construct, that most adhere to, and that has empirically served their interests – but when faced with the unpleasant implications of his own arguments would literally rather abandon them than see any responsibility fall on jews.

A few days ago Auster noted a post of his from 14 Nov 2003 where he comments on a quote from Nietzsche’s Human, All-Too-Human:

“… [T]he whole problem of the Jews exists only in nation states, for here their energy and higher intelligence, their accumulated capital of spirit and will, gathered from generation to generation through a long schooling in suffering, must become so preponderant as to arouse mass envy and hatred.”

Now this is amazing as a very early, remarkably incisive expression of the Jewish problem. Think of it–this was written in the 1870s, 20 years before Theodore Hertzl’s blinding revelation that the Jews could never be safe as a minority in Europe and needed their own country. (In the early 1990s I and a friend shared the thought that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top and so create majority-minority tensions. This was a new and disturbing idea to me at the time. Little did I know that Nietzsche had said exactly the same thing 120 years earlier.)

But the passage is also amazing in the context of the Jack Wheeler article I posted yesterday. Wheeler argues that liberal guilt is aimed at neutralizing the envy being directed at the liberal from those at the bottom. Now, according to Nietzsche, which is the most envied and hated of all groups? The Jews. And, as we know, which group is also the most liberal–and famous for its liberal guilt–of all groups? The Jews. The Jews are the most liberal because they are the objects of the most envy.

Auster then links to a post from 12 Nov 2003 where he writes:

Susie is correct about Nietzsche’s idea that the slave mentality or _ressentiment_ against the strong originated largely among the Jews, and about his view that this same mentality was expanded through its embodiment in Christianity to the detriment of the world. (However, it’s important to point out that Nietzsche’s hatred, especially in his almost insane late book The Anti-Christ, was directed against Christianity, not against the Jews; Nietzsche was never an anti-Semite.) She’s also correct to point out the connection between the slave mentality and modern liberalism; and also that Jewish neoconservatives differ from liberal Jews in being determinedly pro-American.

However, this doesn’t mean that the neoconservatives are free from all forms of that resentment. In my view, the Jewish neoconservatives advance an _ideological_ vision of America, and oppose any notion of a _substantive_ American nation, precisely because they fear that they would not be seen as 100 percent full citizens in it. To this degree, they are still functioning as a self-conscious minority trying to weaken an “oppressive” majority. And the majority, by yielding to the minority’s demands, does indeed weaken itself and even puts itself on the path to extinction.

My solution to this dilemma is that the majority must re-discover itself _as_ the majority, and see the minority _as_ the minority. This doesn’t mean exclusion, persecution, or loss of rights of the minority. But it does mean that the minority, insofar as it is a minority, should not be able to speak authoritatively for the society as a whole. That indeed is the state we’re in now, with advanced liberalism and multiculturalism, in which the minorities express themselves as groups and are given importance as groups, while the members of the majority only express themselves as individuals. An ordered state of society is one in which the majority is the majority, and the minorities are minorities.

Wheeler link and emphasis added.

Let’s review. In Nov 2007 Auster summed up his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society like so: “the more difficult or dangerous a minority or non-Western group actually is, the more favorably it is treated”. I noted a corollary: that jews are the most favorably treated minority of all, therefore they are the most difficult and dangerous. Auster rejected this because jews are not “perceived as dysfunctional, unassimilable, alien or hostile”, except by anti-semites. I then pointed out that even his ad hoc qualifications are arguably satisfied, and that his anti-semitism trump card does nothing but lend credence to my point. Auster responded by making insinuations about my pseudonym, complaining about my blog’s color and typeface, and exploring the various ways in which I have sinned against jews – for instance by being indifferent to being labeled an anti-semite.

Far from being indifferent I recognize the hostility and hypocrisy behind that label and the distraction and intimidation it is intended to produce. I condemn and reject it all. I understand and accept Auster’s affinity for jews, and thus I understand his anti-anti-semitic bigotry. What I don’t understand, and can’t abide, is his inconsistency and hypocrisy.

As the blockquotes above show, in 2003 Auster expressed thoughts similar to my own. Consider for example his analysis of the fears motivating jewish neoconservatives. He knows the root of those fears is not their neoconservatism, it is their self-discriminating jewish identity and their self-serving liberal values. The quotes above imply that this “self-conscious minority” helped put “the majority” “on the path to extinction”. So as I read it, Auster makes the argument that jews by their own volition have been both unassimilable and hostile to “the majority”.

The tact Auster has consistently taken, and the out he would probably take here, is to place all blame and responsibility on “the majority”. As he literally phrases it “the majority” weakened “itself”, put “itself” on the path to extinction, and the cure is to re-discover “itself”. This thinking is of course just as simplistic and one-sided as he imagines everyone he calls an anti-semite is guilty of, except in the opposite direction. His own standard, expressed for instance here, is that it is an error to make judgments about jews as jews. This for some reason does not keep him from asserting “that in whatever society they entered Jews would automatically rise to the top”, nor does it keep him from passing judgments on “the majority” as “the majority”.

Beside revealing a fallacious double standard, Auster’s advice for “the majority” is both dubious and disingenuous. When individuals in “the majority” notice that jews express collective interests, interests which are more cohesive and identifiable and monolithically pursued (eg. civil rights, open borders) than those of “the majority”, and point out that such interests harm “the majority”, Auster is just as quick as anyone to denounce and call for the offender to be excluded from any further discussion. His proscription of anyone who opposes jews (most of whom are liberal) undermines his prescription that “the majority” should oppose liberals (many of whom are jews). The assertiveness he recommends has already failed, and it was defeated by generations of the kind of divide-and-conquer ostracization he supports.

It’s easy to imagine the reverse – a world in which liberal jews or other minorities are denounced and excluded. Liberal jews and their comrades in “the majority” are for all practical purposes driven by just such an imaginative reversal. They constantly breathe life into this fear with their movies, reporting, scholarship, and politics, and insist that everyone else be animated by it too. Their fear of potential repression by “the majority” is used to justify pushing “the majority” toward extinction. If you reject their utopian vision because you can see that it is in fact producing chaos and dystopia, well then you are obviously a neo-nazi who validates all their fears. It is sheer tautological madness.

Smears and inversion are the hallmarks of liberalism. They are the key tools with which liberals have rendered “the majority” powerless and are actively reducing it to a minority. Not one in a hundred people know that this is happening or why. That is not an excuse Lawrence Auster can hide behind. He sees. He knows. And yet he dissimulates.

A quote left on my previous post by Desmond Jones:

‘The Jews,’ he says, ‘will be compelled by anti-Semitism to destroy among all peoples the idea of a fatherland.’ Or, I secretly thought to myself, to create a fatherland of their own.”—Theodor Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 196.

Kevin MacDonald quotes Earl Raab:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.


Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea (which I’ve proposed at FrontPage Magazine) that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.

The deeper I dig the awfuller the truth gets.

UPDATE 24 Jan 2008: Auster replies:

Another person on the warpath against me today is the anti-Semite “Tanstaafl.” He has found and quotes at length various statements of mine about the Jews, including my 2004 FrontPage Magazine article, “Why Jews Welcome Moslems,” and concludes that I’m an anti-Semite just like him, and therefore I’m a lousy hypocrite for condemning him and refusing to have anything to do with him. It is the case that anti-Semites, whose intellects are pathologically distorted, are unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews. By the way, Tanstaafl, unable to resist for a second showing us where he’s really coming from, consistently spells the word “Jews” as “jews,” lower case.

My real conclusion is that Auster is the opposite of an anti-semite – he is an anti-anti-semite, i.e. a jewish bigot. He is indeed a hypocrite, which he illustrates here once again. His intellect is “pathologically distorted” and “unable to see any distinction between rational criticism of Jews and their own dehumanization of Jews”. My point in this post, and the previous one concerning him, is that he has all the intellectual ability required to engage my arguments, which are after all based on his own words and lines of reasoning. Yet he refuses to do so, apparently because he reserves a higher pedestal for jews, a pedestal from which they can slander and dehumanize and ostracize anyone they choose to label “anti-Semite”.

To Auster’s credit, and despite his deliberate distortions of my thoughts and desires, he does provide links here. Thus his readers can judge for themselves who is rational. I have no hope or desire to change the anti-anti-semites (like Auster, or my commenter Adam, who corresponds with Auster as Paul T.), my hope is that his non-jewish readers, unaware they are being assimilated, will become more aware of the inversion and inherent bigotry contained in the anti-semite slur. I hope they think of this every time Auster uses it, and every time he quotes his Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society. A law from which he exempts the powerful jewish minority based on the circular (and self-nullifying) logic that to argue they have been unassimilable or hostile to “the majority” is forbidden.

UPDATE 6 Mar 2008: Added missing link to Auster’s 12 Nov 2003 comment above.


Committing PC’s Most Mortal Sin

Vanishing American wrote a very long and informative post entitled On political correctness, multiculturalism, and their effects. If you have the time I encourage you to read it as a whole and then skip to my comments near the end of this post.

Here I will pull out what I believe to be the most salient bits. For instance, what is it:

Of course we all have a general idea of how and where these poisonous ideas started. Political correctness is also known as ‘cultural Marxism’, and it is an attempt to apply Marxist ideas to the social sphere. Economic or political Marxism focus on the means of production and the economic connection between human beings, or more accurately, between classes of people. In fact, the economic nexus is the explanation for everything in the Marxist world view. Cultural Marxism tends to focus, again, on groups of people, and on the power relationships between them. And of course those with power, or apparent power, are cast in the role of villains in the same way that the rich or the bourgeoisie are the villains in the economic view according to Marx. The downtrodden, the ‘wretched of the earth’, the workers, the exploited classes, are the heroes in that scheme of things. In cultural Marxism, socially ‘exploited’ or oppressed groups, those who are weak in some way, those who are less successful, those who are outsiders or outlaws are the heroes by virtue of their weakness and ascribed victim status. And the system of speech codes and social hierarchies which we call political correctness is just a way of codifying the social order as seen by the cultural Marxists, with minorities, women, gays, and Third Worlders (not necessarily in that order) as the apex of the pyramid. Members of those groups are to be treated with kid gloves, spoken of in exaggeratedly respectful terms, exempted from criticism and from accountability for their actions, and above all, must not be offended in any way, whether by failing to display proper deference or by using a taboo name to designate these groups.

Who originated it and why:

Much of the ferment in leftist thinking occurred in Europe, with the so-called Frankfurt School (link added) and Critical Theory, which attempted to bring down Western culture simply by relentlessly criticizing every aspect of the culture from the angle of every ‘oppressed’ or aggrieved group. It was an attempt to discredit the existing order of things and to foment more dissatisfaction and anger to be channeled into revolt. And of course by this time, the ideas of Gramsci, who advocated infiltrating all the existing institutions to bring them down from within, had mostly supplanted the old-fashioned idea of armed revolt.

How it ate capitalism:

There was a kind of collusion of interests: Hollywood and the entertainment industry wanted to sell titillating movies and music to a ‘repressed’ public, especially to the baby-boom generation, who represented a very lucrative new market. So good old capitalism was happy to collude, wittingly or unwittingly, with the left’s desire to alienate and radicalize the young, and thus bring down Western culture.

How it coincided with (and I would say invited) the Turd World invasion:

At around this same time in the United States, we began to see mass immigration, on a scale unknown previously, and almost exclusively from non-Western, non-white countries. Slowly at first, and then more quickly, our cities began to be transformed, as more and more exotic peoples and their enclaves became an accepted part of the American landscape. However, during the early phase, most of the immigration was limited to big cities, while small-town and rural America remained as it had always been.

How under its rules everybody is special – except the white Christians who founded and built the West:

In the wake of the Civil Rights movement, Americans of European ancestry had become accustomed to learning to use appropriate terms for black people . . . Women declared that ‘women’s libber’ was a slur, and ‘feminist’ was the accepted term. Asians demanded not to be called ‘Oriental’ . . . Homosexuals were soon demanding special rights, including re-labeling as ‘gay’ rather than homosexual . . .
And, thanks to the agitation by home-grown black Moslems, the term ‘Moslem’ was out, and the preferred term ‘Muslim’ was established . . . But this was the beginning in earnest of politically correct language in this country. One of the things which some people quickly objected to was the arbitrary nature of some of the terminology. The frequent changes of names.

All this analysis is spot on. One of the most identifying traits of PC is the use of constantly shifting meaning and euphemism. In support of which I would cite their obsession with framing, proclivity for deconstruction, and enthusiasm for demented postmodernism.

Vanishing American moves on to address the point that:

the West is being defeated by its own values, its own softheartedness and basically humane sensibilites. The Moslems, in Iraq and everywhere they confront us, are doing the same thing: they are turning our virtues into weaknesses by exploiting them. The Mexicans and other illegals who are invading and colonizing our country have our number, too; they know that for every tough gringo, there are half a dozen soft-hearted ones who want to help them, take care of them, treat them as dependent children. Thus we aid in our own destruction.

I’ve heard it said on numerous occasions that Christianity is to blame for this apparent weakness of Western culture. And I’ve heard it said on equally numerous occasions that Anglo-Saxons are the most liberal of all ethnic groups in this country. Look at Britain, they say; Britain is farther down the road of national suicide than other European countries. And here in America, they say, it’s the WASP elites who sell out their country and advocate multiculturalism and ‘diversity’. WASPs invented multiculturalism, I have heard from various people.

. . .

There may be a grain of truth, too, in the charge that Britain and America were more prone to liberalism, given that Britain seems to have more serious problems than say, France or Germany with immigration and multiculturalism. But did the British, or Anglo-Saxons, invent multiculturalism? I see no evidence of that.

All quite right I thought, but there is something to add. Something that is important I restate here for the record because it is something I’ve been grappling with for some time. It took great effort to think it through, and takes even greater effort say it. To do so requires commission of the most mortal sin there is against political correctness.

I started blogging a little over two years ago with only a vague awareness and revulsion at politically correct dogma and a mild curiousity about its origins and rationale. What I have discovered, slowly, is shocking, and it only gets more shocking with each day’s news.

It began with the recognition that the West’s education and mainstream media are biased and has progressed to the understanding that they are in fact engaged in mass brainwashing, an indoctrination with PC dogma under the cover of deliberately inverted language such as "free thought" and "fairness". It began with the recognition that this PC dogma interferes with the West’s ability to recognize and properly defend itself from the threat of Islamic jihad and has progressed to the understanding that it denies the even larger threat posed by the immigration invasion, which is flooding the West with impoverished, uneducated, dangerous people, including Muslims. It began with the recognition that PC dogma is something believed and propagated by moonbats and progressed to the sad realization that elements of the Right, supposed conservatives, specifically the neocons, are working in concert with the Left in an unholy union called either Globalism or Universalism. It began with an assumption that Jews are white, civilized, and on my side, and has progressed to the tragic and most un-PC of all conclusions that they are indeed my enemy, because their collective words and deeds are destroying my past, present, and future.

As I said, this conclusion has been brewing for a while. Lawrence Auster, a former Jew who often calls out anti-Semitism, helped me recognize the false face of the neocons; and Steve Sailer gave their insane foreign policy a name: Invade the World, Invite the World.

The globalist agenda to erase the world’s borders in the name of increasing trade is supported only by promises written on so much toilet paper. The "economy", we are told, requires immigration, because it helps the "economy". Well whatever this "economy" thing is it doesn’t seem so important as to negate the obviously horrible effects of the immigration it supposedly requires. What good will any "economy" be when the only people left in the West are Turd Worlders squabbling over its remains? Likewise the Left’s pipe dreams of "Civil Rights" and "Universal Healthcare".

Just yesterday I encountered the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. It was a long, dry, scholarly paper by Kevin MacDonald titled Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review. You may not want read the whole thing, but at least you should skim and understand it before dismissing me or the sentiments I’m expressing here as anti-Semitic.

A reader named Emerson left a comment for Vanishing American that connected the dots:

I’ve read sources that attributed the origin of Multiculturalism to a Jewish female sociology professor in Canada. I don’t know if that’s true but it seems plausible, as I see the same alien presence running throughout your essay:
Cultural Marxism, Frankfurt School, Marcuse, Fromm, historical culprits behind the Immigration Act of 1965 (Sabath, Dickstein, Celler, Javits, Jocobstein, Perlman, Lehman), Feminist movement (Stein, Freidan, Abzug), the sexual revolution (Freud), 1960s radicals (Hoffman, Horowitz, Elsberg) the Civil Rights movement (SPLC and the Reds), the militant homosexual movement (ACLU, ADL, SPLC), the Universal Nation (Wattenberg, Podhoretz, Kristol, Jacoby, and Shylock), Aztecs marching in our streets (funding by Soros), culminating with the neoconservative movement to initiate genocide on all those nasty Arabs, Persians, Iraqis, Turks, Syrians and Kurds, using the American gentile military.
They do have a history: Jebusites, Hittites, Ammorites, Philistines…
It almost makes one paranoid, or wise.

I’ve also read that multiculturalism was invented to mask the failure of blacks to rise to white standards, after it was obvious that Zangwill’s melting pot didn’t work for blacks or Emma’s refuse, but only worked for Christian Europeans.

Also, your observation is true that the West is being defeated by it’s own values and humane sensibilities. American Christians just don’t grasp the fact that white altruism (Do unto others…) is not a trait of the other races, not even the race that passes itself off as white.

The comment I then left sums up my reasoning and makes the point I wished to reiterate and record here:

I agree with Emerson. And I’d also point out that to criticize Jews is to break the most fundamental of all PC strictures.

Isn’t it absurd that anyone would even think to blame Christianity or WASPs for the rise of PC and its catastrophic consequences? Isn’t this in fact a reversal of the truth? Hasn’t the rise and spread of PC eroded the power of Christianity, WASPs, and whites in general? Blaming them is in effect blaming the victim.

Yes, there are Christians, WASPs, and whites who have fallen for the PC brainwashing. Yes, there are some who have taken it so deeply to heart that they work to expand and protect it. That’s the nature of PC. That is its purpose. To control the minds of the people it seeks to destroy. The left, at its root, is all about destruction.

You don’t have to be an anti-Semite to notice where these ideas originate from and who benefits. But you do have to violate PC to say: Jews. Why is that? Is it factually incorrect to note that the West’s entertainment, mass media, and banking systems are disproportionately controlled, even dominated, by Jews? Am I imagining their inordinate sway in academia? Is it pure speculation to note that these institutions overwhelmingly favor everything PC – they are the very tools by which PC is spread?

If we are going to break the chains of PC then we must not be afraid to speak such truths. The very idea to blame WASPs and Christianity, while ignoring the role of Jews, is an indication just how powerful PC is. But it can and must be broken if we are to fix what is wrong with Western civilization.

Jews are not the only enemy, and not all Jews are enemies. I’m not going to sugar coat what I have to say any more than that.