In his book, Think A Second Time, Dennis wrote on page 311: “We must educate the American public and humanity as a whole as to the infinite worth of the individual child, the lesser significance of blood, and the greatness of adoption.”
Dennis Prager believed in the “proposition nation” (a country primarily united by common beliefs) as well as the “proposition family” (a unit primarily based upon shared morals). He wrote: “As a father, my purpose is not to pass on my seed, but to pass on my values.”
James Kirkpatrick argued: “Nor can any real family hold together on the ground of ideology. We love our parents and our children because they are ours—not because we agree with their view of the Constitution.”
In the second edition of Ultimate Issues, Prager wrote that the Jews’ greatest problem is that “fewer Jews know that they have a message.” The solution? “Jews must be taught why to be Jewish.” In other words, Jews must be taught that they are a proposition nation.
In the Winter 1986 edition of Ultimate Issues, Dennis wrote that the Mormons should be allowed to build a study center in Jerusalem:
The opposition to the building of a non-Jewish center in the Jewish state is very instructive of the moral and psychological state of many Jews today. Most obviously, it reveals a strong strain of intolerance. Just imagine, for example, if another country forbade the construction of a Jewish center. Wouldn’t these very same Jews cry — correctly — “bigotry” and “anti-semitism”? Apparently, to many Jews the tolerance that is demanded of non-Jews is not be demanded of Jews…
Israel and Jewry would appear [if they back out of the deal] — not without reason — to non-Jews as religious bigots and as a people that demands rights for itself that it is unwilling to extend to others…
Between the illusory assurances of a non-democratic, hermetically sealed Jewish state and the risks of an open and democratic one, I choose the latter…
Finally, as far as this religious Jew is concerned, let every religion on earth set up a center in Jerusalem and thereby become acquainted with Jews and Judaism.
A critique of Jews is that they stand for racism for us, multi-racialism for you. In this video put on Youtube in 2013, an Englishman asks Jared Taylor: “You mentioned dual standards… You have a situation where America like our country [Britain] is dominated by a particular ethnic group… You say the Jews have their homeland and they have announced it is a homeland for Jews. Yet the same people in America through their various organizations like AIPAC and all the rest of it have announced that they want America to ease its immigration controls and to proclaim an amnesty for illegal immigrants. That’s millions and millions of people. In our country, the Board of Deputies of British Jews in the early 1950s promulgated the first draft of what was to become the notorious Race Relations Act in the Group Libel bill, and this is now part of our law, part of the Public Order act, whereby if you criticize particular ethnic groups, particularly the Jews themselves, you face on conviction for a first offense, going to prison for six months. These people are an ethnic group, they play the ethnic minority card, and their behavior in Palestine and Israel and their behavior outside Palestine, in Britain and America, is racism for us, but multi-racialism for you. Now it wouldn’t matter if an ethnic group in America like the Eskimos or the Red Indians or the Navajo or even the Mexicans had that sort of hypocritical view because they haven’t got the clout, the power, the money power and the media power and therefore the political power of Jewry, but they have got that power and therefore what they do and what they think and how they’re brainwashing our people is very important. I don’t think you can get to grips of how our people are stampeding to the cliff like lemmings, you can’t get to the nub of this matter until you address Jewish duplicity on the question of race.”
Jared Taylor: “There is no question that the aggregate impact of Jews has been overwhelmingly unfavorable on all of the questions that I touched on. There’s no question that Jews have been extremely vocal about promoting diversity in the United States while maintaining homogeneity in Israel. As far as American Renaissance, we have been focused exclusively on race. One can’t afford to be a crank on more than one subject at a time. There are a plenty of places where one can learn about the Jewish question.”
Another reason that Dennis supported the Mormons building a center in Jerusalem corresponds with his desire for increased immigration to America: “I want members of other religions exposed to Judaism. I believe that Judaism is so impressive…”
Many Muslims, including the 9/11 terrorists and Sayyid Qutb, a founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, came to America, hated it, and set about to murder Americans. Not every group is equally suited to appreciating the First World.
So what best predicts a child’s education attainment (and with it future income and family stability)? Blood or home? As the Times of London reported: “NATURE not nurture is the main determinant of how well children perform at school and university…”
Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton said: “It doesn’t matter whether you look at longevity or obesity, studies on thousands of children show that the best predictor of whether or not you are obese or die early is the biological parent you never saw. Absolutely no prediction occurs from knowledge of the adopting parents.”
“IQ and educational achievement is the same as longevity and obesity. Biological parents are the best predictors for how children perform, not the parents who bring them up for 17 or 20 years.”
“Russell W.” wrote to Lawrence Auster about Prager:
He also has a sometimes bizarre anti-biology approach to all ethical matters. For instance, he considers racism as the most grievous human sin throughout history, and so anything at all that even acknowledges race as a reality is offensive. He was (completely rightly, in my opinion) appalled at the “Baby Richard” episode during the 90s, where an adopted child who had lived with his new parents from near-infancy to around age four or five was removed and given back to the formerly absentee biological father. He described the danger in ascribing so much importance to blood (and again, this seems like a perfectly valid point), but he takes this view to the extreme and says blood is completely meaningless. For instance, he has said many times that if the hospital mistakenly gave him another person’s baby and he kept that child for a day, he would not want to bring it back to switch it for his biological child. Of course, for every sane and decent person there’s a threshold of time after which the emotional connection overrides biology, but one day?
Auster replied:
I was just talking with a Jewish friend the last couple of days who has the same absolute opposition to the slightest hint that “blood,” i.e., descent, matters in the definition of a people, particularly the Jewish people. He said this rejection of any racial or ethnic component is central to Judaism, since what makes a Jew is the covenant with God. To non-Jews, of course, this staunch Jewish rejection of ethnic tribalism seems risible, as Jews are the oldest and most famous tribal people on earth.
Economist Gregory Clark wrote in the New York Times Feb. 21, 2014:
To a striking extent, your overall life chances can be predicted not just from your parents’ status but also from your great-great-great-grandparents’. The recent study suggests that 10 percent of variation in income can be predicted based on your parents’ earnings. In contrast, my colleagues and I estimate that 50 to 60 percent of variation in overall status is determined by your lineage…
Does this imply that individuals have no control over their life outcomes? No. In modern meritocratic societies, success still depends on individual effort. Our findings suggest, however, that the compulsion to strive, the talent to prosper and the ability to overcome failure are strongly inherited. We can’t know for certain what the mechanism of that inheritance is, though we know that genetics plays a surprisingly strong role. Alternative explanations that are in vogue — cultural traits, family economic resources, social networks — don’t hold up to scrutiny.
Family names tell you, for better or worse, a lot: The average life span of an American with the typically Jewish surname Katz is 80.2 years, compared with 64.6 years for those with the surname Begay (or Begaye), which is strongly associated with Native Americans. Heberts, whites of New France descent, live on average three years less than Dohertys, whites of Irish descent…
The notion of genetic transmission of “social competence” — some mysterious mix of drive and ability — may unsettle us. But studies of adoption, in some ways the most dramatic of social interventions, support this view. A number of studies of adopted children in the United States and Nordic countries show convincingly that their life chances are more strongly predicted from their biological parents than their adoptive families. In America, for example, the I.Q. of adopted children correlates with their adoptive parents’ when they are young, but the correlation is close to zero by adulthood. There is a low correlation between the incomes and educational attainment of adopted children and those of their adoptive parents.
These studies, along with studies of correlations across various types of siblings (identical twins, fraternal twins, half siblings) suggest that genetics is the main carrier of social status.
