April 15, 2016 David Klinghoffer in 2012: With Concerns about Darwinist Racialism in Mind, National Review Cleans House Luke Ford No sacred cows.

David Klinghoffer in 2012: With Concerns about Darwinist Racialism in Mind, National Review Cleans House

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

David Klinghoffer wrote April 18, 2012:

As you may know, National Review editor Rich Lowry recently had to perform the unpleasant task of cutting the magazine’s ties with two contributors. This happened in the span of just a few days earlier this month.
Both writers — John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg — had given in to an ugly racist impulse that periodically has to be purged from parts of the political Right. There are always folks out there who are ready to conflate conservatism with racialism and tribalism, and it’s a part of Lowry’s job to combat that lie and keep the distinction perfectly clear in everyone’s mind.
Readers of ENV may have followed Derbyshire’s wrestling with us over the Darwinism issue over the past several years. A funny and erudite guy, Derb was also a harsh (and largely uninformed) critic of Darwin doubters and intelligent-design advocates. It was a part of his schtick, and, given the racialist content of the article that got him fired, I would assume it still is. That’s old news.
Weissberg (that’s him pictured above) is someone I was not familiar with. I’ve just taken a moment to catch up a bit with some of his foul associations, as Rich Lowry presumably did before deciding, rightly, to call it quits with him. I only bring this up here because the event that got Weissberg canned was heavy with evolutionary, Darwinian and eugenic themes, sponsored by a group with similar interests.
It was a conference held by a white racialist group, American Renaissance, last month in Tennessee. You can click on this link and see some of the participants. As Rich noted, Weissberg had turned up at the meeting to discuss strategies for successfully “repackaging” white nationalism. Needless to say, once someone has descended to such garbage, you can’t have him around anymore.
Beyond that, Weissberg himself isn’t terribly interesting — but a look at the American Renaissance website does offer a reminder of the key role that Darwinian thinking continues to play among a fringe of racialist pseudo-conservatives.
The 2012 conference, as I said, leaned heavily on this theme. Leading the program was eugenics advocate Richard Lynn. The American Renaissance site helpfully gives us the gist of his presentation.
He briefly summarizes the field of eugenics since Francis Galton coined the term in 1883, noting that the West has now had six generations of dysgenic fertility that has led to a decline in genetic IQ of about one point per generation. Improvements in nutrition have increased tested IQ, thus masking the genetic decline, but this is a one-time environmental boost that has run its course. Eugenics is the obvious solution, but it is notoriously difficult to accomplish. If we in the West do not have the will to stop dysgenic reproduction or dysgenic immigration, Prof. Lynn predicts “the torch of civilization will pass from the Europeans to the Chinese.”
There was someone called Donald Templer on “The Geographic Distribution of Intelligence: Evolution, Migration and Dysgenics.” Templer specializes in “race and intelligence, and racial brain shape.”
There was a French visitor, Guillaume Faye with his “charmingly accented English,” praising “the biological substrate” that gives hope for “world-wide white racial consciousness.”
And so on. It’s quite a cast of characters, judging from the mug shots.
To get a sense of the centrality of Darwinian eugenic considerations to the organization, you just have to spend a few minutes investigating the contents of the website and of the affiliated American Renaissance magazine, which are all well archived.
We have a fellow called Michael Levin on “The Evolution of Racial Differences in Morality,” explaining how “Races appear to have evolved different levels of morality; this has important social consequences.” In “Decline of the West,” contributor Thomas Jackson laments “a century of genetic deterioration” and commends the insights of Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton: “Today, eugenics is held in universal disrepute but many objections to it are silly.”
Peter Crittendon calls for “Ending a Historical Taboo” by “restoring the respectability of eugenics.” In “The Origin of Races, Part I,” Michael W. Masters praises a certain Seymour Itzkoff who
writes of the “encompassing embrace” of third-world immigration to Europe and the United States: “It is an embrace that will suck us back into evolutionary history if we delay too long.” What Lothrop Stoddard called “the rising tide of color” may well be reversing the course of human evolution.
And on and on. American Renaissance is fully as obsessed with the insights of evolution and eugenics as the prominent neo-Nazi website Stormfront, except the material is presented in a superficially objective and scholarly fashion and the anti-Semitism is kept more under wraps — though evidently this last element comes out more freely in person at the conferences.
I don’t envy Rich Lowry the responsibility of cleansing such associations, however tangential, from the magazine he leads. Obviously, though, it had to be done.

David writes: “Both writers — John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg — had given in to an ugly racist impulse that periodically has to be purged from parts of the political Right.”

What exactly is ugly about the writings of John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg? What exactly is racism? Who declared racism a sin? Conservatives love to call people with a strong white identity “ugly” but why is white identity less worthy than black identity or Jewish identity or Japanese identity?

“There are always folks out there who are ready to conflate conservatism with racialism and tribalism, and it’s a part of Lowry’s job to combat that lie and keep the distinction perfectly clear in everyone’s mind.”

What is racialism? What is Judaism if not tribalism? Is Klinghoffer in favor of a conservatism devoid of nationalism? If you don’t prefer your own people to others, what are you? Surely the conservative thing is to favor your own children over other children and your own kind over other kinds?

“Derb was also a harsh (and largely uninformed) critic of Darwin doubters and intelligent-design advocates. It was a part of his schtick, and, given the racialist content of the article that got him fired, I would assume it still is.”

Here is the article that got him fired. It’s straight commonsense. Klinghoffer does not bother to wrestle with any of Derbyshire’s points.

Weissberg (that’s him pictured above) is someone I was not familiar with. I’ve just taken a moment to catch up a bit with some of his foul associations, as Rich Lowry presumably did before deciding, rightly, to call it quits with him. I only bring this up here because the event that got Weissberg canned was heavy with evolutionary, Darwinian and eugenic themes, sponsored by a group with similar interests.

Robert Weissberg is a formidable intellect. The easy way that Klinghoffer has for dismissing people of formidable accomplishment is disturbing.

Weissberg had turned up at the meeting to discuss strategies for successfully “repackaging” white nationalism. Needless to say, once someone has descended to such garbage, you can’t have him around anymore.

Why is white nationalism garbage? Klinghoffer doesn’t bother to prove his assertion. Why is white nationalism any less worthy than Jewish nationalism or Japanese nationalism or Tibetan nationalism?

“Weissberg himself isn’t terribly interesting…” What a cheap shot against a great man.

“There was someone called…” Another cheap put-down.

Klinghoffer: “It’s quite a cast of characters, judging from the mug shots.” Another cheap put-down.

Not everyone can be as handsome as Mr. Klinghoffer but God gave us this burden, and best we can, we must carry on. Mustn’t grumble.

“We have a fellow called Michael Levin…” An airy dismissal of a formidable mind.

American Renaissance is fully as obsessed with the insights of evolution and eugenics as the prominent neo-Nazi website Stormfront, except the material is presented in a superficially objective and scholarly fashion and the anti-Semitism is kept more under wraps — though evidently this last element comes out more freely in person at the conferences.

Such cheap putdowns. You could just as easily say the Nazis were as obsessed about their nation as Jews are about theirs. The Nazis believed in gravity. Jews believe in gravity. See their amazing similarities?

I have read the archives of American Renaissance. It is an important publication. I would be interested to read critiques of it that limited themselves to facts and logic. Name-calling is not an honorable form of argument.

I want to give David Klinghoffer his due: The more you study the physical sciences and the life sciences and evolution (as in, for example, getting PhDs in the topics), the less likely you are to believe in God. Most of the leaders of white nationalism are not monotheists and they tend to despise Jews.

I wish Klinghoffer would make his arguments in the honorable fashion of solely disputing facts and logic. That he apparently can’t do this might reveal that his arguments are not strong.

Posted in Conservatives, David Klinghoffer, Race | Comments Off

David Klinghoffer: Evolution and the Alt-Right

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

David Klinghoffer writes:

I prefer understanding to demonizing. Darwinian “conservatives” operate with a particular picture in mind of what a human being is — a very different picture from the one posited by the Judeo-Christian tradition on which conservatism has drawn in the past. It’s either man the animal or man in the image of an intelligent designer. Those are the choices.
From such a stark dichotomy, everything else is downstream. Recognizing as much would be a first step to restoring the health of a fractured and troubled movement.

I don’t see the contradiction between believing in God and believing in evolution. As Dennis Prager says, “I believe God created evolution.”

Different races have different gifts. I believe this. David Klinghoffer believes this. These gifts are either the gift of the Creator or the gift of evolution (or they are both).

Here is David Klinghoffer’s piece in full:

If you follow conservative journalism at all, you know that a mostly online splinter called the “alternative right” or “alt-right” is currently a subject of bitter and voluminous indignation. At The Federalist today, Cathy Young has an interesting analysis (“You Can’t Whitewash the Alt-Right’s Bigotry“), taking issue with two other journalists at Breitbart who tried to explain the phenomenon in a sympathetic, even admiring manner.
There is great worry about the conservative brand image, and the alt-right figures prominently in that. Cathy Young’s piece, you’ll notice, has some intriguing references to evolution, “human biodiversity,” “race-related genetic cognitive and behavioral differences,” and related subjects. On that, she and other mainstream conservatives could have said much more. Though this has escaped focused attention, the alternative right draws heavily on themes of evolution-based racism. And that is significant.
Miss Young notes “retired California State University-Long Beach psychology professor Kevin MacDonald, who has some peculiar theories about Jews: namely, that Judaism is an ‘evolutionary strategy’ by which Jews seek dominance…It’s ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ dressed up as evolutionary psychology.”
Another writer cited by Young raises eugenic, or rather dysgenic, concerns:
“The Pro-Life Temptation” by Aylmer Fisher — presumably a pseudonym stolen from the innocent British geneticist — which cautions the alt-right against adopting an anti-abortion stance in knee-jerk opposition to liberals. The pro-life position is ‘dysgenic,’ since it encourages breeding by ‘the least intelligent and responsible’ women.
If you think you know where this is going, you’re right. Fisher argues that, firstly, the pro-life position is “dysgenic,” since it encourages breeding by “the least intelligent and responsible” women who are most likely to have abortions and who are “disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.”
Taken from the Radix Journal (more on it in a moment), that’s ugly stuff and Miss Young does a service in pointing it out. In her article, our old nemesis John Derbyshire, scrubbed from National Review, makes an appearance, along with the alt-right “movement’s online hubs such as Richard Spencer’s AlternativeRight.com and Steve Sailer’s VDARE.” (Actually VDARE is edited by Peter Brimelow, not Steve Sailer, who has his own blog at another alt-right hotspot, The Unz Review. Once upon a time, I enjoyed editing them both as writers for National Review.)
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. We’ve reported here in the past on the evolutionary preoccupations of Derbyshire and another “race-realist” outlet, Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance. But not till reading Cathy Young’s post did I recognize that the mother lode of pseudo-conservative, pseudo-scientific racism is Richard Spencer’s AlternativeRight.com, which as she points out has been rebranded as Radix Journal, “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States, and around the world.”
Here, the vein of evolutionary thinking is particularly rich. We read, “Darwinian Evolution Revolutionized the Natural Sciences. The Social Sciences Have Been Immune for Too Long.” In “What Is Identitarian Religion?,” writer “Alfred W. Clark” tells of a “long-standing ‘Trad Catholic’ I know [who] told me recently that he had left the Church. [H]is ‘conservative’ priest had become obsessed with [among other things]…denouncing evolution because it’s ‘racist‘.” More:
And what of identitarian atheists and agnostics? Can they co-exist with identitarian religion? Since identitarian religion is not at odds with nature, and thus not at odds with evolutionary science, it does not threaten secular knowledge but offers itself as an additional societal glue.
Another writer wonders why few women seem enthusiastic about “race-realism”:
The evolutionary basis for this doesn’t seem too hard to figure out. As a prehistoric man, you have to decide the best way to find food and kill the members of the other tribe….
There is sympathy for eugenics, and much fretting about the “dysgenic menace.” A writer notes an “antisocial Darwinism” where “Society favors the broken at the expense of the fixed. The result isn’t so much that the fixed are crushed, but that the broken proliferate and become permanent dependents of the state.”
Richard Spencer shares his “Foreword to a new annotated edition of [racial eugenicist] Madison Grant’s Conquest of a Continent [1933],” explaining that “Darwinism offers a compelling and rational justification for Whites to act on behalf of their ancestors and progeny and feel a shared since of destiny with their extended kin group.”
Again, Alfred W. Clark asks, “What Is the #Altright?” He explains:
Michael Brendan Dougherty recently called the alt-right “race obsessed”. A better phrase might be: race realists. Most alt-righters actually take Darwinism seriously. (If you are at a loss of what “taking Darwinism seriously” means, you might want to read this book.) Young alt-righters are comfortable with modern science which shows that human biodiversity is a facet of life. The fact that so many today in Conservatism Inc. want either to ignore or deny human biodiversity, shows how untethered from reality modern conservatism has become.
And much more along these lines.
The Right has periodically sought to purge itself of tendencies like this, and it’s engaged in such a purge right now. I prefer understanding to demonizing. Darwinian “conservatives” operate with a particular picture in mind of what a human being is — a very different picture from the one posited by the Judeo-Christian tradition on which conservatism has drawn in the past. It’s either man the animal or man in the image of an intelligent designer. Those are the choices.
From such a stark dichotomy, everything else is downstream. Recognizing as much would be a first step to restoring the health of a fractured and troubled movement.

On June 24, 2015, David Klinghoffer wrote:

In Explaining Dylann Roof’s Inspiration, the Media Ignore Ties to Evolutionary Racism
We haven’t said anything yet about the horrific church massacre in South Carolina because the terrible event did not seem, at first glance, to touch on the scientific issues that we typically deal with here. True, confessed mass murderer Dylann Roof’s apparent “manifesto” deals a little with themes of pseudo-scientific racism:
Negroes have lower [IQs], lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races?
A horse and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same.
But beyond that there was none of the evolutionary chatter you find at some neo-Nazi and white supremacist sites. Now, though, the mainstream media are rejoicing at the revelation that a racist group that evidently inspired Roof is headed by a man who is also a donor to Republican candidates.
“‘Supremacist’ Earl Holt III and his donations to Republicans,” announces the Washington Post. “Council of Conservative Citizens Promotes White Primacy, and G.O.P. Ties,” says the New York Times.
Guilt by association is a nasty business. It’s often very selective, too. It leaves things out that don’t fit the desired narrative.
When I read these articles, I noted that the official spokesman for Holt’s group is a person called Jared Taylor, best known for leading another, slightly more polished white nationalist web publication, American Renaissance. These organizations have their different emphases and preoccupations. While the Council of Conservative Citizens is obsessed by “black-on-white” crime, American Renaissance has as one of its specialties science-flavored, notably evolutionary, justifications for racism. In the media coverage I’ve seen, the latter fact has gone unmentioned.
I have written about Taylor’s group before:
American Renaissance is fully as obsessed with the insights of evolution and eugenics as the prominent neo-Nazi website Stormfront, except the material is presented in a superficially objective and scholarly fashion and the anti-Semitism is kept more under wraps — though evidently this last element comes out more freely in person at the conferences.
Here, for example, is Jared Taylor on Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance:
Most importantly, Mr. Wade points out that “brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene.” And since human evolution is “recent and copious,” the brains of different populations function differently. This is the book’s main heresy: After the races separated, they evolved different mental patterns that gave rise to different social patterns.
The language isn’t scabrous as you’d find on the Council of Conservative Citizens website, but the message amounts to the same thing. Taylor is praised as a “race-realist” by our old nemesis John Derbyshire, kicked out of National Review for his own racialism. Derbyshire, last observed when he was granted space in The American Spectator to denounce intelligent design in absurd terms, now hangs his hat at a series of racist publications.
Of course, no one I’ve referred to endorses Dylann Roof’s murderous rampage. I don’t doubt that they are all sincerely mortified by the association, however unintended, with such unapologetic, undisguised evil.
I mention this at all not to blame them for Roof’s crime, in any way, but simply to note — because the mainstream media covers it up — how certain ideas tend to hang together.
The racial elements in Charles Darwin’s writing, the eugenicist implications, are often brushed aside as ugly but incidental, a mere byproduct of his time and place. Yet the myth of European superiority over inferior dark peoples continues to percolate in some evolutionary thinking, a century and more after the close of the Victorian era. It seems to have found an eager student in a disturbed young man named Dylann Roof.

I take evolution for granted. That’s my bias. I also take the existence of God and the divine nature of the Torah for granted.

Klinghoffer uses many slurs in these posts that he does not bother substantiating. He calls Dylann Roof’s manifesto “pseudo-scientific racism” but does not explain how it is wrong. He does not explain how racism is wrong. You would think that if racism were a sin, Judaism, Christianity and Islam would have commandments against it. They don’t. From a Torah perspective, there is no such sin as racism (nor sexism, ageism, homophobia, Islamophobia etc). No great rabbi has written a sefer (book) against racism.

Klinghoffer writes: “American Renaissance has as one of its specialties science-flavored, notably evolutionary, justifications for racism.”

This is just put-down. Nowhere does David bother to explain what racism is and who declared it a sin. Nor does he show any factual or logical problems in American Renaissance publications.

There are only two honorable forms of argument — to dispute facts or to dispute logic.

When people take care with their selection of a spouse, they are practicing eugenics. What is so horrible about eugenics?

Klinghoffer writes: “…except the material is presented in a superficially objective and scholarly fashion and the anti-Semitism is kept more under wrap.”

Again, David does not bother to point out any factual and logical errors. He just throws slurs.

“Derbyshire, last observed when he was granted space in The American Spectator to denounce intelligent design in absurd terms, now hangs his hat at a series of racist publications.”

This is just name-calling. It is not an honorable argument. Klinghoffer is simply indulging in point-and-sputter.

“The racial elements in Charles Darwin’s writing, the eugenicist implications, are often brushed aside as ugly but incidental, a mere byproduct of his time and place. Yet the myth of European superiority over inferior dark peoples continues to percolate in some evolutionary thinking, a century and more after the close of the Victorian era. It seems to have found an eager student in a disturbed young man named Dylann Roof.”

Racial thinking now branded as racism was taken for granted commonsense in the world prior to the 1950s.

Are there not some ways that European civilization is superior to African civilization?

In his blog post published April 14, 2016, Klinghoffer praises Cathy Young’s article on the Alt Right and refers to a superb Radix essay on abortion, “… that’s ugly stuff.”

How is that an argument? I notice when I challenge Jewish intellectuals in particular why Jewish identity is wonderful but white identity is horrible, they often revert to arguing “that’s ugly stuff.” I could say something Klinghoffer wrote was “ugly stuff” but how would that advance an argument?

The Alt-Right occupies the moral and intellectual high ground. It is obvious from the inability of its critics such as David Klinghoffer to engage in honorable argument.

Klinghoffer:

But not till reading Cathy Young’s post did I recognize that the mother lode of pseudo-conservative, pseudo-scientific racism is Richard Spencer’s AlternativeRight.com, which as she points out has been rebranded as Radix Journal, “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States, and around the world.”

Klinghoffer is fond of the slur “psuedo-scientific” but he never seems to bother with offering examples and facts to back up his assertions.

What exactly is wrong with being dedicated to the heritage and future of European peoples? Why is that inferior to being dedicated to the heritage and future of Jews, blacks and the Japanese?

Miss Young notes “retired California State University-Long Beach psychology professor Kevin MacDonald, who has some peculiar theories about Jews: namely, that Judaism is an ‘evolutionary strategy’ by which Jews seek dominance…It’s ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ dressed up as evolutionary psychology.”

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a forgery. Young and Klinghoffer offer no evidence of forgery in Kevin MacDonald’s work. I doubt they’ve even read his book Culture of Critique. Kevin’s critics hurl slurs. Why? Because they can’t meet him on the field of honorable argument disputing facts and logic.

Posted in Alt Right, David Klinghoffer, Evolution | Comments Off

Is It Easier To Sell Nationalism Or Globalism?

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments:

* I would disagree that Open Borders is a tough sell. Rather, it is an EASY one and Nationalism and ethno-centrism a very tough one. The dominant feature of Western White life is the Seinfeld effect — the complete influence of an urban elite concentrated in just a few cities, where mating and job/career opportunities center on trivial but massively influential “rules” that amount to virtue signaling and Calvinist ideas of a God-chosen elect. Who can be seen by their success.

“Only a loser” would care about “took our jobs” per South Park; the hip and successful people welcome the Third World right to their neighborhood (in reality in other people’s working/middle class neighborhoods). And by hitting universal gullible White Nice Altruism, i.e. the sucker bait tendency of many Midwestern Whites with Calvinist ideas of loserdom and success, Open Borders was a bottom up phenom which is why it took Donald Trump to try and fail, really, to capitalize on Nationalism.

Having a nation state is incompatible with White Calvinism and Status-mongering and gullibility regarding Third World Grifters. It is in part a genetic failure neatly matching that of the Third World to build anything resembling a decent society where people would want to live.

* Immigration is buffer against the Negroes.

When whites had lots of babies, like during boom era, and could use race-ist policies, Negroes were kept in check. But once race-ist policies were terminated and Negroes continued to have lots of kids, immigration was the only effective way to create safe spaces for white elites, especially in cities. I’ve often seen cases of black town – brown town -white town. Immigration walls have been lowered. But immigrants themselves as demographic walls between blacks and whites.

Elites got lots of buffers.

* The article you linked finishes by referring to the “Trump Effect” as the reason politicians like Ted Cruz are finally giving the right answers about immigration and the resulting cheap labor.

The Trump Effect is another example of leadership. When everyone follows your lead, you are a leader.

Many dairy farms used to be 100-head, family operations, like the one a dear friend of mine used to own, until corporate farming turned the whole thing into “2,800″ cows and so forth. That questioner in Cruz’s audience was not some old, stereotypical American farmer; he was a corporate manager who benefits from cheap, imported, Mexican labor.

My friend and his family milked and cared for their own cows and took care of their own farm. They sold the milk at fair market prices everyone could afford. (Milk has never been expensive or scarce in the United States! Even without cheap, Mexican labor.) That farm had been in their family since just after the Revolutionary War. They were forced to sell because they couldn’t compete against people like your friendly audience member there.

Be careful what you believe.

* The fact that mainstream Republicans support open borders demonstrate it’s driven not by ideology but by other factors. That of Wall Street and the Chambers of Commerce.

In regards to the wealthy – almost of all of them seem to be in lockstep – open borders is a must have. It doesn’t matter if they are newly minted Silicon Valley billionaires or old WASP East Coast Brahmins they are in agreement.

For all intents there are no real political parties in the U.S. all we have are two major front groups for the monied class that calls the shots behind the scenes and who owns the MSM, which is their megaphone to get the establishment message out to the masses.

Trump pretty much exposed it when in the first debate heopenly stated he gives lots of money to people on both sides of the isle to gain influence and access. It was quite interesting no one touched that statement after he said it.

Also the mass disenfranchisment of Colorado GOP voters by the party bosse via executive fiat demonstrated that RepresentativbeDemocracy is quite the joke to the elite. Heck the way the parties are structured and the delegate system, it’s mostly to make sure the wrong kind of candidate goes nowhere.

* Ted Cruz admitted he applied to Princeton and HLS as an Hispanic. Political reporter Mark Halperin took heat for asking un-PC questions like this to Cruz a year ago when Cruz started running for President. Oh, yes yes, Alan Dershowitz said he was his most brilliant student, along with Cruz’s friend, a Jamaican immigrant who was also one of Dershowitz’s most brilliant.

* Japan is a technological and industrial First World superpower with high wages and salaries attributable to its refusal to admit tens of millions of alien affirmative action beneficiaries, wage suppressors, and ethnic hostiles and ineducable unassimilables.

* The beneficiaries of high-skilled immigration in competition with native talent are big business and the immigrants themselves. H1-B visa holders are, at their very best, no better than American graduates. Therefore, high-skilled immigration is a scam defrauding generations of American taxpayers invested in public education and public goods, college borrowers, and the ancestors whose several hundred years of progress and sacrifice for their descendants.

* Immigration’s one of those things that hurts the populace and helps elites on both sides–on the right by cutting labor costs, on the left by stoking ethnic divisions–so it tends to prosper in a system ruled by money, such as ours. You see the same corrupt bargain in Europe–when the working class began to drive wages up through unions, the businessmen brought in immigrants to drive down wages. Pitting native and foreign working classes against each other is a nice side effect.

* Japan’s GDP per capita was $32,500 in 1991. It was $37,500 in 2014. Japan was – and is – one of the richest countries on earth.

Oh, and a 100 years from now, Japan will be inhabited by the great grandchildren of the people living on that island today. Who will inhabit your town, state and country at that time?

* The important thing is that Cruz habitually copies Trump. (Right down to the presidential-looking flags and accoutrements now behind him during appearances. Not as many “TrusTed” banners anymore.) He’s drafting in behind the leader, as in a foot race, trying to use his energy. This serves the establishment’s interest in slowing down Trump. Your positive comment about him proves their strategy is working.

There is no hope for a Cruz presidency; the party and powers do not want one, nor would you. He belongs on the Supreme Court as a strict constructionist. Perhaps Trump could offer him a future nomination during the deal-making at the convention.

* Why was there the impetus in the US, Canada, and Australia to change their immigration policies all within 3 years of each other in the 60s?

* So when did interacial couples first become the vogue in TV? I remember 90s TV shows like Dawson’s Creek, Days of our Lives, Melrose Place, Buffy, and Baywatch where the white female characters were paired with characters of the same race, even music videos of bands like N Sync, BBmak, and Backstreet Boys which were aimed at teens did not have interracial scenes, it was more the British groups in the 90s like Solid Harmonie and Spice Girls that had a multiracial cast.

Posted in Nationalism | Comments Off

Why Don’t Blacks Like Bernie Sanders?

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Comments:

* Maybe some are aware of George Soros, his funding of “black lives matter,” amongst other organizations, and perhaps are aware of the notion that some Jews like Soros use blacks as pawns to forward a globalist agenda at black folks expense?

You never see too many Jews confronting the police in places like Ferguson, but they pay to bus out of state poor blacks down there to get their asses kicked. Perhaps some black folks consequently feel that some Jewish people in positions of power can be a bit clannish, and manipulative, to reach goals not necessarily great for blacks in the long run.

* I don’t know who has designated the Democratic Party as “the black party,” but it is certainly quantitatively and qualitatively defensible to assert that Democrats have a white people problem.

After all, no Democrat has won a majority of white votes since 1964. Romney arguably lost what should have been a shoe-in because his unlikability failed to motivate voters. (Apart from the absence of a third-party diversion, there were many similarities to the 1996 election.) The white turnout in 2012 was lower than the black turnout for the first time in history, and if so many black felons weren’t ineligible to vote the differential would have been even more staggering.

Then we should keep in mind the black male vote fell from 94% Democratic in 2008 to 80% in 2012. In 2012 Obama won 92 or 93 percent of the overall black vote ONLY because of higher turnout among black women (not hard: once again, there are fewer women than men in jail for major felonies) AND an increase in their share from 93 to 96 percent, which can easily be explained by 1. simpler folk more easily falling for the “war on women” rhetoric, and 2. sex appeal. (On this latter point: my Catholic school alumna and staunchly anti-ERA mother once explained Kennedy’s 1960 victory as such: “Catholics and females” [Mom could of course have added “vote fraud” but let’s keep things simple]. A similar operative was at work in 2012.)

Your point about the 1980s and the centrists casting the blacks off to the left is well-taken, but it is also true that so long as Democrats are competing with Democrats for the black vote it’s a win-win situation. If however the black vote falls below 90% for the Democrats, and if white turnout re-surges as it seems it will, the game will certainly metamorphose. No, the Democratic Party isn’t the Black Party, but on the post-primary level the black vote is very much integral to their lifeblood almost everywhere outside the extreme northeast and the extreme northwest, and certainly on the national scale.

* It’s not snark, it’s true — the Democrats ARE the “black party.” True, 12% “can’t really dominate any party in a two-party system,” if you’re counting on raw numbers alone, but when Democrats get nearly 100% of the black vote, it serves as the keystone of the arch in the Democratic coalition of white liberals, gays, Hispanics, blacks, unions.

Second, the black vote is effective far above it’s actual numbers because the Democrats use race as a moral trump card that wins every time. Don’t like Democrats? Then you must be a racist Klansman wanting to lynch innocent Negroes just for sport and beat the hell out of colored preachers just for wanting to vote. Just as if you criticize a Jew, you’re automatically Hitler and want to throw six million of them into the gas chamber, if you disagree with a Democrat you’re the Grand Dragon. End of argument.

They use this holier-than-thou moral superiority to turn everything else into a “civil rights” issue: abortion, feminism, affirmative action, gay marriage — and more recently, for transvestites and cross-dressers to be able to take a piss in the ladies’ room.

* They are the black party because the Dems cater to blacks in ways that are destructive to all. Whites, Asians included. Such as Section 8 programs busting up white working class neighborhoods. Rigging police and fireman’s exams in big cities on so on…

* The Democratic Party in the South is conservative – they want to conserve the same corrupt spoils system and they want to stay on the same road we are on right now, moving at the same pace. Bernie, for all his talk about banks and taxes, only wants to move a bit faster down that same road. The GOP establishment only wants to move a little slower down that road. They are all conservative. The only person who wants off the road is Trump – he is the only revolutionary in this election.

* Of course they can dominate a party if they constitute a unified block that is impervious to normal politicking. You have a significant block in your corner no matter what which allows the candidate of their choice to manuever to get enough of the remaining electorate to win. No way Obama is POTUS today without black voters.

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off

‘Feminism is like the Netherlands: it owes its existence to a network of dykes fighting the forces of nature.’

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

“Hello! We are your new 7th Century Neighbors!”

Posted in Islam | Comments Off

John Rivers: ‘We’ve Crowd-Sourced the Police State. It’s all very exciting!’

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Daniel Greenfield writes:

As popular as those techniques remain, however, online harassers have learned that they can cause far more damage with a slightly less flashy and more methodical approach — you might even say the “hottest new trend” in harassment is opposition research….

In both cases, it represents a ton of very meticulous, calculated work — of the sort we’re used to seeing from professional opposition researchers.

The anti-Rapp campaign also shares its ethical logic with professional oppo: Namely, that people in public positions (of any sort) should be held publicly accountable.

I haven’t followed the Alison Rapp case, but considering that Dewey’s previous anti-Gamergate piece is an uncritical regurgitation of talking points about the “victimhood” of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian, with no mention of the censorship debate at the center of it, skepticism is the wiser approach. Dewey of course fails to note that Gamergate supporters have been targeted by these types of tactics.

Furthermore opposition research is much more effective on the left because it has the political connections to use it effectively and move into media outlets. Gamergate supporters have no shot at seeing their talking points appear in media outlets. Gamergate opponents however have their talking points appear uncritically in, among other places, Dewey’s WaPo blog posts.

The higher profile victims of this trend, people like Justine Sacco, were targeted by the left. Dewey complains about opposition research against ordinary people, yet has no problem adopting and incorporation opposition research from the anti-Gamergate side.

But back to the topic, opposition research and mobs are normative in a Salem culture where there is no such thing as a private life because every thought and action of an individual is subject to communal review at any time. This can happen in small communities. It also happens in theocracies and under political extremists. We’re the latter now.

Posted in America | Comments Off

‘Love might win. But Herpes wins more. #Yikes’

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Posted in Homosexuality | Comments Off

The Marx of the Anti-Semites

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

John Derbyshire writes in 2003:

One evening early on in my career as an opinion journalist in the USA, I found myself in a roomful of mainstream conservative types standing around in groups and gossiping. Because I was new to the scene, many of the names they were tossing about were unknown to me, so I could not take much part in the conversation. Then I caught one name that I recognized. I had just recently read and admired a piece published in Chronicles under that name. I gathered from the conversation that the owner of the name had once been a regular contributor to much more widely read conservative publications, the kind that have salaried congressional correspondents and full-service LexisNexis accounts, but that he was welcome at those august portals no longer. In all innocence, I asked why this was so. “Oh,” explained one of my companions, “he got the Jew thing.” The others in our group all nodded their understanding. Apparently no further explanation was required. The Jew thing. It was said in the kind of tone you might use of an automobile with a cracked engine block, or a house with subsiding foundations. Nothing to be done with him, poor fellow. No use to anybody now. Got the Jew thing. They shoot horses, don’t they?

Plainly, getting the Jew thing was a sort of occupational hazard of conservative journalism in the United States, an exceptionally lethal one, which the career-wise writer should strive to avoid. I resolved that I would do my best, so far as personal integrity allowed, not to get the Jew thing. I had better make it clear to the reader that at the time of writing, I have not yet got the Jew thing—that I am in fact a philoSemite and a well-wisher of Israel, for reasons I have explained in various places, none of them difficult for the nimble web surfer to find.

If, however, you have got the Jew thing, or if, for reasons unfathomable to me, you would like to get it, Kevin MacDonald is your man. MacDonald is a tenured professor of psychology at California State University in Long Beach. He is best known for his three books about the Jews, developing the idea that Judaism has for 2,000 years or so been a “group evolutionary strategy.” The subject of this review is a re-issue, in soft cover, of the third and most controversial of these books, The Culture of Critique, first published in 1998. Its subtitle is, “An evolutionary analysis of Jewish involvement in twentieth-century intellectual and political movements.” The re-issue differs from the original mainly by the addition of a 66-page preface, which covers some more recent developments in the field and offers responses to some of the criticisms that appeared when the book was first published. The number of footnotes has also been increased from 135 to 181, and they have all been moved from the chapter-ends to the back of the book. A small amount of extra material has been added to the text. So far as I could tell from a cursory comparison of the two editions, nothing has been subtracted.

The main thrust of this book’s argument is that Jewish or Jewish-dominated organizations and movements engaged in a deliberate campaign to delegitimize the Gentile culture of their host nations —most particularly the USA—through the twentieth century and that this campaign is one aspect of a long-term survival strategy for the Jews as an ethnicity. In MacDonald’s own words, “[T]he rise of Jewish power and the disestablishment of the specifically European nature of the U.S. are the real topics of CofC.” He illustrates his thesis by a close analysis of six distinct intellectual and political phenomena: the anti-Darwinian movement in the social sciences (most particularly the no-such-thing-as-race school of anthropology associated with Franz Boas), the prominence of Jews in left-wing politics, the psychoanalytic movement, the Frankfurt School of social science (which sought to explain social problems in terms of individual psychopathology), the “New York intellectuals” centered on Partisan Review during the 1940s and 1950s, and Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy.

MacDonald writes from the point of view of evolutionary psychology—a term that many writers would put in quotes, as the epistemological status of this field is still a subject of debate. I have a few doubts of my own on this score and sometimes wonder whether evolutionary psychology may eventually turn out to be one of those odd fads that the human sciences, especially in the USA, are susceptible to. The twentieth century saw quite a menagerie of these fads: Behaviorism, Sheldonian personality-typing by body shape (ectomorph, mesomorph, and endomorph), the parapsychological reseaches of Dr. J.B. Rhine, the sexology of Alfred Kinsey, and so on. I think that the evolutionary psychologists are probably on to something, but some of their more extreme claims seem to me to be improbable and unpleasantly nihilistic. Here, for example, is Kevin MacDonald in a previous book: “The human mind was not designed to seek truth but rather to attain evolutionary goals.” This trembles on the edge of deconstructionist words-have-no-meaning relativism, of the kind that philosopher David Stove called “puppetry theory,” and that MacDonald himself debunks very forcefully in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique. After all, if it is so, should we not suppose that evolutionary psychologists are pursuing their own “group evolutionary strategy”? And that, in criticizing them, I am pursuing mine? And that there is, therefore, no point at all in my writing, or your reading, any further?

To be fair to Kevin MacDonald, not all of his writing is as silly as that. The Culture of Critique includes many good things. There is a spirited defense of the scientific method, for example. One of the sub-themes of the book is that Jews are awfully good at creating pseudosciences—elaborate, plausible, and intellectually very challenging systems that do not, in fact, have any truth content—and that this peculiar talent must be connected somehow with the custom, persisted in through long pre-Enlightenment centuries, of immersing young men in the study of a vast body of argumentative writing, with status in the community—and marriage options, and breeding opportunities—awarded to those who have best mastered this mass of meaningless esoterica. (This is not an original observation, and the author does not claim it as such. In fact he quotes historian Paul Johnson to the same effect, and earlier comments along these lines were made by Arthur Koestler and Karl Popper.) MacDonald is very scathing about these circular and self-referential thought-systems, especially in the case of psychoanalysis and the “pathologization of Gentile culture” promoted by the Frankfurt School. Here he was precisely on my wavelength, and I found myself cheering him on. Whatever you may think of MacDonald and his theories, there is no doubt he believes himself to be doing careful objective science. The same could, of course, be said of Sheldon, Rhine, Kinsey, et al.

It is good to be reminded, too, with forceful supporting data, that the 1924 restrictions on immigration to the U.S. were not driven by any belief on the part of the restrictionists in their own racial superiority but by a desire to stabilize the nation’s ethnic balance, which is by no means the same thing. (In fact, as MacDonald points out, one of the worries of the restrictionists was that more clever and energetic races like the Japanese would, if allowed to enter, have negative effects on social harmony.) MacDonald’s chapter on “Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy” is a detailed survey of a topic I have not seen discussed elsewhere. If the Jews learned anything from the 20th century, it was surely the peril inherent in being the only identifiable minority in a society that is otherwise ethnically homogeneous. That thoughtful Jewish-Americans should seek to avoid this fate is understandable. That their agitation was the main determinant of postwar U.S. immigration policy seems to me more doubtful. And if it is true, we must believe that 97 percent of the U.S. population ended up dancing to the tune of the other three percent. If that is true, the only thing to say is the one Shakespeare’s Bianca would have said: “The more fool they.”

Similarly with MacDonald’s discussion of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik takeover of the Russian Empire and the many horrors that ensued. This was until recently another taboo topic, though the aged Alexander Solzhenitsyn, presumably feeling he has nothing much to lose, has recently taken a crack at it. I believe MacDonald was driven by necessity here. Having posited that Jews are out to “destroy” (this is his own word) Gentile society, he was open to the riposte that if, after 2,000 years of trying, the Jews had failed to accomplish this objective in even one instance, Gentiles don’t actually have much to worry about. So: the Jews destroyed Russia. Though MacDonald’s discussion of this topic is interesting and illuminating, it left me unconvinced. As he says, “The issue of the Jewish identification of Bolsheviks who were Jews by birth is complex.” Paul Johnson gives only 15-20 percent of the delegates at early Party congresses as Jewish. If the other 80-85 percent were permitting themselves to be manipulated by such a small minority, then we are back with Bianca.

Since the notion of “group evolutionary strategy” is central to MacDonald’s case, I wish he had been better able to convince me of its validity. For instance, I happen to be fairly well acquainted with the culture and history of China, a nation that, like the diaspora Jews, awarded high social status and enhanced mating opportunities to young men who had shown mastery of great masses of content-free written material. Anyone who has read stories from the premodern period of China’s history knows that the guy who gets the girl—who ends up, in fact, with a bevy of “secondary wives” who are thereby denied to less intellectual males—is the one who has aced the Imperial examinations and been rewarded with a District Magistrate position. This went on for two thousand years. Today’s Chinese even, like Ashkenazi Jews, display an average intelligence higher by several points than the white-Gentile mean. So: was Confucianism a “group evolutionary strategy”? If so, then plainly the Chinese of China were, in MacDonald’s jargon, the “ingroup”. But then … what was the “outgroup”?

The more I think about the term “group evolutionary strategy,” in fact, the more I wonder if it is not complete nonsense. From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from AD 79 to AD 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity? Rather than learning to argue fine points of theology, would not a better strategy have been to learn, say, fencing or Latin? Sure, the Jews held together as a group across 2,000 years. The gypsies held together pretty well, too, across many centuries, yet their “group evolutionary strategy” was the opposite of the Jews’ at almost every point. And the Jewish over-representation in important power centers of Gentile host societies became possible only after Jewish emancipation—which, like abolition of the slave trade, was an entirely white-Gentile project! Did the genes of 12th-century Jews “know” emancipation was going to happen 700 years on? How? If they did not, what was the point of their “evolutionary strategy”? There is a whiff of teleology about this whole business.

Kevin MacDonald is working in an important field. There is no disputing that we need to understand much more than we now do about how common-ancestry groups react with each other. Group conflicts are a key problem for multiracial and multicultural societies. Up till about 1960, the U.S. coped with these problems by a frank assertion of white-Gentile ethnic dominance, very much as Israel copes with them today by asserting Jewish ethnic dominance. This proved to be quite a stable arrangement, as social arrangements go. It was obviously objectionable to some American Jews, and it is not surprising that they played an enthusiastic part in undermining it; but they were not the sole, nor even the prime, movers in its downfall. It was replaced, from the 1960s on, by a different arrangement, characterized by racial guilt, shame, apology, and recompense, accompanied by heroic efforts at social engineering (“affirmative action”). This system, I think it is becoming clear, has proved less stable than what went before and has probably now reached the point where it cannot be sustained much longer. What will replace it? What will the new arrangement be?

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Kevin MacDonald | Comments Off

You Can’t Whitewash The Alt-Right’s Bigotry

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Cathy Young writes:

Who’d have thought that in 2016, we would be discussing whether mainstream Republicans and conservatives should be nicer to white nationalists? Yet here we are.

The debate is, of course, about the “alternative right,” suddenly propelled into visibility by its fervent embrace of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy. Recently, it was the subject of a long, sympathetic article by Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos at Breitbart.com, the Trump-loving site that some, including ex-Breitbart writer Brian Cates, have long accused of courting the alt-right. (For the record, I have had a cordial professional relationship with both authors, have been on a panel with both of them and have appeared twice on Yiannopoulos’s webcast.)

In a nutshell, the article argues that, while the alt-right does have some actual—but, worry not, utterly irrelevant!—white supremacists and neo-Nazis in its ranks, it is mostly a loose alliance of maverick intellectuals, traditionalists who feel unrepresented in the mainstream political establishment, and cheeky young rebels who post racist slurs and memes just to annoy the pearl-clutching guardians of political correctness.

While this taxonomy of the alt-right is interesting, it is ultimately—as it were—a whitewash, full of far-fetched arguments and misleading claims that consistently downplay this movement’s ugly bigotry.

Take the article’s section on the “intellectuals” behind the alt-right, which offers a respectful account of the movement’s online hubs such as Richard Spencer’s AlternativeRight.com and Steve Sailer’s VDARE. Sailer is credited with having “helped spark the ‘human biodiversity’ movement, a group of bloggers and researchers who strode eagerly into the minefield of scientific race differences—in a much less measured tone than former New York Times science editor Nicholas Wade.”

A caption also notes that “Razib Khan, who lost an opportunity at the New York Times over his views on human biodiversity, now writes for the alt-right Unz Review.” We are clearly meant to get the impression that the alt-right web is a refuge for, as the authors put it, “dangerously bright” people unafraid of taboo topics. While Bokhari and Yiannopoulos acknowledge that “all of these websites have been accused of racism,” the unmistakable implication is that such accusations stem from P.C. hypersensitivity—and probably fear of the alt-right gurus’ outstanding intelligence.

Are there political taboos surrounding race-related genetic cognitive and behavioral differences? Of course (and for very understandable reasons, given historical experience). The controversy around Wade’s 2014 book, “A Troublesome Inheritance,” demonstrates how sensitive the subject is. It is very likely this sensitivity has deterred legitimate inquiry. Some people who have waded into this minefield have also been, in my view, unfairly tarred as racists—such as Charles Murray, with whom I disagree on a number of things but whom I am honored to know.

But let’s be clear: the authors populating the alt-right’s webzines are not just Wades and Murrays with less tone policing.

Posted in Alt Right | Comments Off

Case Against Corey Lewandowski Dropped

Posted on April 15, 2016 by Luke Ford

Daily Mail: ‘I thought she was drunk’: What witness to Trump campaign aide’s alleged battery told police about reporter ‘victim’ he thought was staging ‘a fraudulent slip-and-fall’
Michelle Fields, then of Breitbart News, claimed Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbed her with force when she was trying to ask the candidate a question
She filed a criminal complaint against him for simple battery and police referred the case for prosecution
But Palm Beach County won’t prosecute because video evidence shows Fields invaded Secret Service ‘bubble’ around Trump and touched him first
Lewandowski, they found, ‘reacted and did what he needed to do’ and bruises on Fields’ arm pictured days later were not visible that night
Fields is contemplating filing a civil case against the campaign aide
One witness told police he thought Fields staged ‘a fraudulent slip-and-fall’ and was ‘animated and acting’ – and ‘at first I thought she was drunk
His recollections were more than three weeks old when police interviewed him, but prosecutors considered his statement along with other evidence

Among other inconsistencies, investigators found that Fields began the altercation by leaving the press area, entering the ‘protective bubble’ of Secret Service and staff security surrounding Trump, touching him in the process.
Ellis said Fields told her office that she had never touched Trump, but added: ‘That’s not what we see captured on the video.’
The video evidence shows the Republican front-runner pulling away from her after she makes contact.
The Spellman video was first surfaced by a news outlet called Lead Stories. The technology executive’s police interview came more than three weeks after the March 8 incident.
But he told an officer that a photo in the New York post was shot from the same point of view he had in the ballroom at Trump International Golf Club in Jupiter.
‘I had a straight shot at what was going on,’ he said.
‘From my perspective, I was just looking at her rush him … and then suddenly she makes a dramatic spin and turn that looked like a fraudulent slip-and-fall. I mean, it was just blatant.’
‘It looked so, so – disproportionate, is the right word,’ Spellman says on the video.
‘It was bizarre. And I studied her after, because at first I thought she was drunk.’
Also weighing against Spellman’s account is that he explains why he was watching Fields so closely.
‘I was looking right at her … I also noticed she had jeans on. You don’t get into that club with jeans on,’ he said. ‘So, uh, she looked pretty good in them, by the way.

Recalling the moment he said Fields ‘shoved her phone … right at’ Trump, Spellman said he was ‘surprised that Secret Service let ’em do that – let her do that.’
‘But then seconds later it just – she spun, and it was really animated and acting.
His written statement, obtained by NBC News, said he saw Fields ‘fall back in what appeared to be a disproportionate reaction and a fake action. I did not see from my view any touching. I truly believe her reaction was fraudulent.’

MORE PUBLICITY: The case will likely shine a spotlight on Fields as she prepares to promote her first book, due out in June
Lewandowski claimed, wrongly, after the incident that he had never touched Fields, calling her ‘delusional.’ She has threatened to file a civil lawsuit against him for defamation.
Lewandowski’s attorney, Bradford Cohen, warned Thursday against that course of action as he threw a rhetorical brushback pitch at Fields.
‘I don’t find it to be that good of an idea to file a defamation claim on this kind of case,’ he said on CNN, ‘because it opens up a very large door to your past. It opens up a large door to other things that could be going on.’
It could also open up Trump in particular to a round of cringe-worthy legal discovery in the middle of a presidential campaign.
Cohen said on the Fox News Channel’s ‘On the Record with Greta van Susteren’ that Trump and Lewandowski could file counter-claims against both Fields and her boyfriend Jamie Weinstein.
Weinstein, an editor at The Daily Caller, has been Fields’ most vocal online defender.
Fields, Cohen said on Fox news, ‘called Corey a thug and called Mr. Trump a thug.’
‘The first shot that was heard was from her boyfriend saying Corey is a thug and Mr. Trump is a thug … it just kinda snowballed form there,’ he added.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off