Paleoconservative Intellectual Paul Gottfried Interviewed

According to Wikipedia:

Paul Edward Gottfried (born 1941) is an American paleoconservative political philosopher, intellectual historian, columnist and former Horace Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, as well as a Guggenheim recipient. He is currently an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute,[1] and H. L. Mencken Club President.

He is the author of numerous books and articles detailing the influences which various German thinkers (such as Hegel and Schelling) have exerted on American conservative political theory, and was a friend of many political and intellectual figures: such as Richard Nixon, Pat Buchanan, John Lukacs, Thomas Molnar, Will Herberg, Samuel T. Francis, Paul Piccone, Murray Rothbard, Eugene Genovese, Christopher Lasch, and Robert Nisbet. Gottfried is a paleo-conservative critic of neoconservativism within the Republican Party.

According to his own website:

aul Edward Gottfried (b. 1941) has been one of America’s leading intellectual historians and paleoconservative thinkers for over 40 years, and is the author of many books, including Conservatism in America (2007), The Strange Death of Marxism (2005), After Liberalism (1999), Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt (2002), and Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America (2012) . A critic of the neoconservative movement, he has warned against the growing lack of distinctions between the Democratic and Republican parties and the rise of the managerial state. He has been acquainted with many of the leading American political figures of recent decades, including Richard Nixon and Patrick Buchanan.

His books include:

Conservative Millenarians: The Romantic Experience in Bavaria, Fordham University Press, 1979 ISBN 978-0-8232-0982-8
The Search for Historical Meaning: Hegel and the Postwar American Right, Northern Illinois Univ Press, 1986 ISBN 0-87580-114-5
The Conservative Movement, Twayne Pub 1988, with Thomas Fleming (second edition 1992) ISBN 0-8057-9724-6
Carl Schmitt: Politics and Theory, Greenwood Press 1990, ISBN 0-313-27209-3
After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State, Princeton University Press, 2001 ISBN 0-691-08982-5
Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy, University of Missouri Press, 2002 ISBN 0-8262-1417-7
The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium, University of Missouri Press, 2005 ISBN 0-8262-1597-1
Conservatism in America: Making Sense of the American Right, Palgrave-Macmillan, 2007 ISBN 0-230-61479-5
Encounters: My Life with Nixon, Marcuse, and Other Friends and Teachers, ISI Books, 2009 ISBN 1-933859-99-7
Leo Strauss and the American Conservative Movement, Cambridge University Press, 2012

Jared Taylor writes:

It would be hard to think of a scholar more essential to American conservatism—real conservatism—than Paul Gottfried. Perhaps no one else writing today combines such deep erudition and keen insight with a real sympathy for conservative thought. Building on his previous work in The Conservative Movement, After Liberalism, and Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt (reviewed in AR, Jan. 2003), Professor Gottfried’s latest book authoritatively recounts “the evolution of the American conservative movement from the 1950s to the present.”

This is not a primer; Prof. Gottfried does not write for beginners. But for those prepared to follow its concise arguments, this is a vastly rewarding account of how the American Right was invaded and denatured by ex-liberals and ex-Communists who have stripped the word “conservative” of virtually all meaning.

I talk to Paul Gottfried by phone Thursday.

Paul: “For somebody with such strong European sensibilities, I shouldn’t like LA, but I love LA. I like the natural setting. I love the areas around it like Santa Monica and Pasadena.”

Luke: “I believe that Los Angeles used to be the most Anglo-Saxon city in the United States.”

Paul: “It would not surprise me.”

Luke: “I grew up a WASP. Then I converted to Reform Judaism about 20 years ago and then Orthodox Judaism.”

Paul: “I have no idea how you can convert to those things. It is ethnic, very ritualistic, you have to live in a community with people of the same background. It’s very different from being a Protestant. There are beliefs that hold together a community. Here there is ethnicity and ritual. As a WASP, you don’t make it, particularly with the Orthodox. You haven’t remained in that camp?”

Luke: “I’m still an Orthodox Jew. I go to synagogue every morning. I study the Rambam, daf yomi (page of Talmud).”

Paul: “That’s remarkable.”

Luke: “I’ve always had a latent white nationalism in me, and in the last few weeks, I’ve come out of the closet.”

Paul: “I don’t understand how you reconcile Orthodox Judaism with white nationalism?”

Luke: “One led to the other. I saw how effectively and without any shame how Jews organize in our self-interest. We do not sell our homes to non-Jews in this community.”

Paul: “You’re talking about a group that does not recognize white Protestants as anything other than the other, as some outside group.”

Luke: “If we Jews can and should organize in our self-interest, and every other group does except for whites, that makes me think, hey, why aren’t [non-Jewish] whites organizing in their group interest?”

Paul: “That’s like saying you’re going to become black or Chinese because these are groups that organize in their self-interest. The one indispensable element for Western civilization are the white Christians. Once they go, everything goes. Jews aren’t going to save anything except Jewish self-interest, which is often viewed as incompatible with the preservation of a Western Christian civilization. Jews typically tend to weaken that. I agree with Kevin MacDonald on this entirely. I don’t think it’s anything socio-biological nor necessarily consistent with the entire course of Jewish history, but if you look at Jews in today’s world, they do very much play the role Kevin MacDonald says they do.”

Luke: “I interviewed Kevin MacDonald a couple of weeks ago and agreed with virtually everything he had to say but he also agreed with me that the traditional Orthodox Jew presents much less of a threat.”

Paul: “To say that Orthodox Jews are less of a threat to civilization does not mean that they are an appealing alternative. They’re not as dangerous as the more assimilated Jews. It doesn’t make them the good guys. It doesn’t make them a model you want to imitate if you are interested in preserving Western civilization.”

Luke: “Whites need the craft of the Jew to survive.”

Paul: “What we’re looking at is created by white Christians. They’ve created multiculturalism and all those problems, but once they go down, I don’t think much will survive as a recognizable Western society.”

Luke: “Why do you think the term ‘white nationalist’ is considered so loathsome?”

Paul: “Because whites have chosen themselves to be the ultimate victimizers.”

When we talk about whites, we invariably mean non-Jewish whites aka goyim.

Paul: “So you’re saying that these people who have chosen the role of victimizers have a right to organize in self-defense in the same way that all the groups whom they’ve privileged as victims have been able to do. I see it as a non-starter. I don’t think whites have a nationalist sense. I don’t think they’ve had a nationalist sense. My concern is not with the lack of nationalism but with the masochism they are expressing, the self-destructiveness. Nationalism is always organizing against other groups. What whites need to do is to stop beating themselves and treating other groups according to their just deserts.”

Luke: “You see no hope for whites organizing in their group interest like Jews and Chinese and blacks?”

Paul: “But whites are not successful at it. They destroy themselves. Most whites at most times do not buy into this white nationalism. There are other things that have united white people — ethnicity, religion, being a part of a particular nation. It is rare that whites have seen themselves in terms of racial nationalism.”

“I have had this discussion with Jared Taylor on a number of occasions and I have tried to explain to Jared that whites in the past have expressed racial preferences does not mean that white nationalism was the focus of their existence. Groups dislike other groups and try to preserve their own identity. White nationalism says that nothing else really counts in terms of what we are except race. I have a problem with that. I don’t want to take sides with homosexuals against black people. I’m much more concerned about the feminists and homosexuals than I am about people of different races because I am a social conservative.”

Luke: “Why couldn’t white nationalism mean organizing in your group interest just like all other groups do?”

Paul: “Nationalism historically has meant reaction, the friend-enemy distinction. Nationalism in the 19th Century develops against some group that has conquered somebody else. It contributes to the tensions of both sides leading to World War I. Until recently, it was a destructive force. I don’t think it is true anymore. I support nationalist movements in Europe because they are against multiculturalism. They don’t usually hate their neighbors, at least in Western Europe. I don’t think the nationalist paradigm even works here. I don’t think the problem is that whites are beleaguered but that whites behave in a lunatic fashion. They just have to stop being lunatics. They don’t have to hate blacks or exclude them, just don’t be crazy. I worked at a college. I think most of the people I worked with were certifiable. The feminists, the anti-whites, they were just loony tunes. The answer is not to organize them as white nationalists, it is getting them to [stop] behaving in a crazy way.”

Luke: “What do you think of American Renaissance and Jared Taylor?”

Paul: “I think it is a noble endeavor. He undertook this project, hoping that it would turn the country around. This is also true about VDARE. It is a hope that if you call certain problems to the attention of the general public, it will have a beneficial effect. It has not had that beneficial effect because the problems by now are so systemic that one small publication coming out once a month is not going to make much difference.”

“Another problem we face is that the conservative movement in the United States is controlled by neoconservatives. There is no right-wing movement that can effectively contend against the left. You have elements of the right that have no political voice. It is the problem of powerlessness that leads some of us to look for solutions that are not really solutions.”

Luke: “Where do you see hope for America?”

Paul: “I have no hope for the near-future. I hope that in the course of time, there will be a reaction. I always tell people that I am a right-wing Lenninist. The worse, the better. If I lived in New York City, I would have voted ten times if I could for DeBlasio. I would never vote Republican in a presidential race. That staves off the disaster. Things have to fall hard before they get any better.”

Luke: “Should Jews fear Kevin MacDonald?”

Paul: “I can’t imagine why. First of all, he has no power. What could he do to them? Second, a lot of the stuff he writes is perfectly sensible. There’s nothing he’s going to do. He doesn’t have that wide readership. He is denounced and marginalized by the establishment. So am I. I don’t even write on these subject, you just have to cross the line by questioning the happy results of the civil rights revolution that takes you out of the picture. I was recently kicked out of ISI (Inter-Collegiate Studies Institute), which had published me for like 40 years because I was friendly with people who believed in cognitive disparities [by race]. Once you befriend anyone who believes in cognitive disparities, the conservative movement kicks you out.”

Luke: “The Jewish response to him is to throw slurs rather than to rebut.”

Paul: “Yes, of course. What else do you expect? He’s questioning the nobility and high-mindedness of Jewish leftists. I wouldn’t expect any other kind of response. I don’t think the very Orthodox Jews care one way or the other.”

“The neoconservative position is that if blacks don’t like us, we have done so much for them, we have sacrificed ourselves, they should kiss our toes and support Israel and if they don’t, they’re making us suffer because they’re extremely evil. What Kevin MacDonald shows is that leftist Jews take certain positions because they’re trying to neutralize the Gentile [threat]. Most Jews I have known on the left fear white Gentiles.”

Luke: “Many liberal Jews I’ve known make civil rights for blacks the center of their Jewish identity while the Orthodox Jews I go to synagogue with could care less about civil rights for blacks.”

Paul: “Because they live in another world. They’re not concerned about what happens to Gentiles. The other [Jews] are in the process of assimilating and they fear and hate Christians. I was listening to this guy Alan Dershowitz on a television program and he was asked if the Ten Commandments are good and he said, oh no, they’re awful. They were written for primitive people. And they have nothing to do with us. Now why would a Jew be attacking the Ten Commandments? Because he doesn’t want the Gentiles to have it. He doesn’t want them to have any religion except left-liberalism. He hates the goyim. If you read his book Chutzpah, it is even more obvious that he hates Gentiles. I’ve never seen Jewish liberalism as anything other than an attempt to neutralize a group that Jews fear and hate.”

Luke: “When did you become a heretic? Outside the pale of acceptable opinions?”

Paul: “I always was. My father was. My brother is. I’ve never thought any differently. I was critical of the Civil Rights revolution. Most of the people I grew up with thought this way except that they opportunistically changed their minds later on.”

Luke: “How have you dealt with the ostracism?”

Paul: “I don’t care. The people who ostracize me, I despise anyhow. If somebody asked me why do I bother to fight at all? The answer is I despise my enemies. They’ve kept me back. I’ve published important works that they make sure are never reviewed, even if they are published by Princeton and Cambridge and other universities. They can all go to hell. I can vomit when I look at these neocons on Fox News. They’re there so they can offer a politically correct alternative to political correctness and their parents got them those jobs.

“If I were ever given any power, I would destroy them. I would make sure that they disappear from the face of the earth. The thing I really like about the Jewish tradition is that it is OK to hate your enemies because I thoroughly despise mine.”

Luke: “When you say you would like to see them disappear from the face of the earth, does that include violence?”

Paul: “I don’t care. Whatever. No, I’d just like to see them professionally ruined and socially ruined. I do not wish them physical harm. I would like to see them no longer be any factor in public life, which would probably cause them to commit suicide. I hear that this guy Jay Nordlinger who works at National Review always refers to me as the Court Jew of Pat Buchanan. I have never criticized the state of Israel in any of my writings. Why would I be called that? The answer is that I don’t agree with the neocons about the outbreak of World War I or something like that. If you deviate the breadth of a hair from the party line, they hate you. They have gone out of their way to ostracize and marginalize me. That’s fine. I would do the same thing if I were in a superior position. I would align myself with Kevin MacDonald against them at any point if I thought that that kind of alliance would go anywhere.”

Luke: “Do you practice Judaism?”

Paul: “Up to a point. I consider it an ethnic identity. I know that now that you are Orthodox, that is not your position any more. It’s being loyal to ancestral custom. I do believe in God.”

Luke: “Do you believe that God has communicated to humanity?”

Paul: “Yes.”

Luke: “How?”

Paul: “I can accept the Bible as being inspired and probably the New Testament as well as the Old Testament. I do have a religious side. I don’t feel entirely comfortable with the intensity of my hatred for my enemies.”

Luke: “Do Jews have the same relationship to America as WASPs?”

Paul: “No. Not the same as the WASPs used to. I think it is true of the old German Jews. They thought of themselves as 1000% American. They tried to assimilate into the WASP establishment. There are different senses of being American [among Jews]. The neoconservatives identify America with global democracy, human rights, Jewish interests, Zionism, the struggle against German Nazism in two world wars, the victory of the Civil Rights movement. They have their own myth of America and it differs only slightly from Obama’s view of America, that America is good because it has progressed, overcome prejudice, it is universal and it is based on human rights. Other Jews on the left are more radical because they are still afraid of Christian influence. However radical Americans have become, Jews are even more radical with gay rights and things like that. Jews often play a pivotal influence in introducing new phases of radicalism.”

“My father thought the Civil Rights movement was something that was organized by members of the Communist party. He didn’t think Joe McCarthy was too bad. I first met Jewish radicals when I was a graduate student at Yale. Then I noticed how radical they were and how much they disliked the WASP establishment at Yale. I admired these [WASPs].”

Luke: “Is it endemic to belonging to a tribe?”

Paul: “Yes. That’s exactly what it is. Jews are more articulate than most other groups. They have higher intelligence than most other minorities. I meet people from India, from China. They all behave like Jews. John Derbyshire is married to a Chinese lady and she says all her friends are big Obama supporters. It’s all ethnic identity. I’ve known black people who were devout Christians, who were against abortion, who prayed over food when they ate it, and they loved Obama and they thought George W. Bush wanted to re-enslave every black in America because being a Democrat was black ethnic identity. It was being on the side of the minority party against the Christian white majority that was going to oppress you.”

Luke: “Would it make sense for a national state such as the United States to pay special attention to the activities of tribes and perhaps giving them greater scrutiny before perhaps giving them access to power and national security interests?”

Paul: “We’re beyond that. I can’t even imagine that. There’s not even a WASP leadership running the country. What you have are groups of minorities who distrust each other. My wife gets New York magazine which is put out by Jewish liberals and you think that once you leave New York, it is entering Nazi Germany. Their sense of the world is so provincial. They seem to hate cowboys in Texas, and fundamentalist preachers in Oklahoma. They think these are nasty people who are going to come after them as Jewish liberals. But the WASPs don’t seem to care. They buy into all this stuff. They want to please. They want to accommodate. The ones who are patriotic are patriotic about America as a universal nation going abroad to destroy the enemies of human rights. They have no sense of ethnic identity. These nutty ideas — propositional nationhood, human rights, liberal internationalism — were invented by whites. There’s no concern to preserving their own cultural hegemony in the United States.”

Luke: “Remember when Osama Bin Laden was killed, people poured out on to the streets, the people were overwhelmingly white and Protestant.”

Paul: “True. It was seen as a patriotic act. WASPs are patriotic but it is a patriotism that is made to incorporate Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Stonewall, and the rest of this stuff. It is a progressive narrative that fills their patriotism. It is a cumulative leftism that goes into this WASP patriotism… While I would like to restore WASP hegemony of the old form, I can’t think like a WASP. I don’t even know what goes into their heads. I understand people who try to preserve their identity. People who go around beating themselves on the head because they were prejudiced or used to own slaves, it’s all very nutty. I’m trying to read the minds of people whose behavior is incomprehensible to me.”

“The WASPs have a certain kind of guilt culture. They internalize the guilt, which is very good for lawfulness, for republican government, for self-government, but it is not the way most people act and think. An Italian friend was telling me that they had to lie about where their niece was staying so that they could get reduced insurance rates. They told their older son, ‘Tell the insurance company that Laura lives here.’ He asked me, do you think I did the right thing? I said, of course you did the right thing. You have to protect your family.

“Then he had a teacher from India who taught Sanskrit who said, in my village, I would do the same thing. Then he asked this Methodist who said, you did a terrible thing. Each individual should never lie. And he went on and on.

“Both sides are right. Traditional societies would take the side of this Italian guy and WASP individuals would take the side of the Methodist.”

Luke: “I know Jews in the entertainment industry who don’t care about the effect of their work on society. They feel no loyalty to the wider society.”

Paul: “What they would typically say, since Jews are very verbal, is that this is good because it is breaking down Christian prejudice.

“I suppose from a Protestant sense, from an Old Testament sense, I would say this is terrible, you are breaking down communal morals, but this is exactly what they want to do. I don’t think this is just an indifference to morals, there’s a certain malice that lies behind it. In many ways, it is a moral act, a kind of inverse morality they are practicing.”

Luke: “Are Jews served by putting themselves off-limits to any group criticism?”

Paul: “It’s an expression of power. Usually the ones who run to shut you up are Christians. It makes you wonder about the prospects for white nationalism, these people are just running to serve someone else’s interests, which are not your own. Morally, culturally, it is not good that this happened. I don’t see it being changed.”

“Neoconservatives are selectively for academic freedom when it advances what they see as Jewish interests. They’ll say it’s everybody’s interests.”

“They also hate the Russians because their ancestors came from Russian villages. If you say nice things about the Russians, they don’t like it. I’ve noticed that all the magazines that take money from neoconservative foundations and from Rupert Murdoch take the same party line on certain countries and certain issues. I don’t see any of this changing. We are not going to change anything.”

“The Jewish positive [intellectual] tendencies are seen in science and business. Most of the Jewish cultural [and political] influence in America is very bad. I just don’t see the good cultural influence of Jews.”

Luke: “That comes from non-Orthodox Jews because Orthodox Jews don’t participate in these things.”

Paul: “Speaking as a German Jew, most of them come from Eastern European Jews. Orthodox Jews don’t do much one way or the other [in culture and politics]. It seems that the only political interest they have is Israel. The [Modern] Orthodox are ardent Zionists.”

“The WASP contribution to American culture is nil at this point. It’s not that Jews are singularly evil but that the group that once provided cultural leadership is gone.”

Luke: “Have Jews collectively been more of a blessing or a curse to the United States?”

Paul: “I think it is mixed.”

“Just because I like Bach and Goethe doesn’t mean I have to like Hitler.”

“Jews have brought with them a certain kind of animating force, which I don’t see in WASPs anymore. The brain stupefaction of WASPs never ceases to amaze me. There are exceptions. Jared Taylor is one. Sam Francis is another. I would say that most of the WASPs I have admired have been southerners.”

“The neocons will call any Jew they don’t like a self-hating Jew. Anyone who disagrees with them is a self-hating Jew.”

Luke: “What do you think about the accusation that American Jews have dual loyalties [to America and to Israel]?”

Paul: “I could say what the late Joseph Sobran said, ‘What’s so dual about it? Is there any country but Israel for them?’ That’s partly true. Theoretically, they love Israel as a Jewish land but they are not going to go there to live. It’s some distant country they admire. In traditional Jewish circles [outside the haredim], anything for Israel is good. But they’re not going to leave the United States. They have a physical and financial and residential attachment to the United States.”

Luke: “Do you ever pause before saying anything to ask yourself whether this will be good or bad for the Jews?”

Paul: “Never… I was not even raised to think that way.”

Luke: “My perception of tribal identity is that you can never go wrong within your tribe by putting your tribe’s interests first.”

Paul: “If you would put Jewish interests first, you would not care at all about what happens to white Christian society in which you are living, but if that goes down, Jewish tribal interests are not going to survive long. It’s linked to a larger whole no matter how much Jews despise their white Christian allies.”

Luke: “What percentage of American Jews would you estimate care more about Israel than about America?”

Paul: “It would be true of the Modern Orthodox Jews I have known… and the older generation of liberal Jews. That’s a vanishing sentiment.”

Luke: “I was watching Alan Dershowitz’s 2009 documentary The Case For Israel, and in the last 20 minutes he complains about how Israel is singled out for human rights violations. I think that is philosemitism. Our actions are singled out because we are a more interesting people. Nobody cares what the Arabs do because they don’t produce anything.”

Paul: “You could say the same thing about South Africa because it was a white Protestant society. The horror over Nazi crimes was much greater than the horror over Soviet crimes because Russians are seen as barbaric people compared to the Germans. Atrocities committed by people more like yourself become harder to justify.”

Luke: “Do you think South African whites simply lost the will to rule?”

Paul: “Exactly.”

Luke: “Do you think American whites have been losing the will to rule?”

Paul: “Yes. I don’t think the Israelis have. I greatly admire the Israelis. The thing I admire about the Israelis is that they don’t give you any human rights nonsense. They don’t talk about global democracy. I give the Israelis as a model of political realism. They don’t even hate their enemies, but they wouldn’t think twice about shooting them.”

“I once met David Duke. I thought he was a nutcase. I don’t fit into the radical right. I don’t like people who are visceral antisemites. Kevin MacDonald is fine. He wants to criticize Jews and I generally agree with what he says. Someone like David Duke and William Pierce viscerally hate Jews. They want to destroy them. I find that to be a vile sentiment.”

“Jim Kalb and I had the same problem. We were known to be friendly with socio-biologists. What they say makes sense to me, but I am not a deep racialist. I do not hate people because they’re black. I would be very happy if black people didn’t vote. I would be very happy if the Civil Rights movement had failed. That’s because I would like America to remain an old-fashioned constitutional republic with a sane immigration policy. I would even vote for black people if I agreed with their views. I am not a white nationalist. Is Jared a stronger white nationalist than I am?”

Luke: “What do you think will happen to America?”

Paul: “It will muddle through for a while because it is so rich. I think the whites will become so decadent that they will allow the minorities to do whatever they want. There will be no core loyalty except to social programs. The government will give out victimological credits. Tribal divisions will become so severe that it will convulse the country. At some point, the saints will rise up and try to preserve what there is left of white society.”

Luke: “Do you think different races can live in the same land for very long without conflict leading to war?”

Paul: “It depends upon proportions.”

Luke: “Do you think we will ever restore freedom of association in this country?”

Paul: “WASPs will never allow it. They’re so decadent and full of guilt and political correctness.”

Luke: “I will pull this together.”

Paul: “Please feel free to cut out my effusions of hate.”

Luke: “Oh no, I love your effusions of hate.”

Paul: “Jared Taylor, being a Southern WASP aristocrat, would never say those things.”

Luke: “Jews are much more visceral and emotional and passionate in their hatreds.”

Paul: “I’m afraid that I came across as someone insufficiently racist.”

Paul knew the late Phil Rushton. “The guy was an incredible researcher. He was not in any way motivated by malice. He was convinced of the conclusions of his scientific research.”

“These people [along with Arthur Jensen] have a 19th Century mentality. They think that if you prove something scientifically, people will accept it. Political correctness is not at all about rationalist or science.”

“Most of the kids I tried to teach did not have the grey matter to do college work so you had to entertain them, give them social work courses or major in communications. If one tried to run a college on the basis of being able to attract students with the cognitive wherewithal to do college work, you’d have to close up your place. Most small colleges and state universities are dealing with people who do not have the IQ to do college work. They’re bored by it. There’s little effort to get them to study. They’re simply customers who bring money in. Students are sent into a learning situation they do not have the means to deal with.”

By the 1990s, Paul had been purged from National Review, followed by Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, and Robert Weisberg.

“You don’t want millions of blacks to be mobilized because they were going to vote for the left. I would have been the last one to vote for female suffrage for the same reason.”

Paul Gottfried writes for VDARE:

Jews are also a more cohesive group than WASPs—who may be the least unified and most atomized ethnicity on earth. A diatribe against WASPs will not hurt its author and may even bring him or her admiring recognition. By contrast, adverse comments about Jews, or about the“Holocaust Industry” in the case of Norman Finkelstein, who (despite being Jewish himself) lost his job at Depaul University after Alan Dershowitz weighed in against him, can be professionally fatal.

The late Joe Sobran once observed that denying that Jews are powerless can bring swift retribution. That is precisely because the Jewish community is anything but powerless. The professionally conscious intellectual is also expected to stress the supposed agonies of the American Jewish experience—for example, the virulently anti-Semitic past for which American Christians are considered responsible.

…Jews in public life pose a special problem in the US and in other Western democracies to the extent that they overwhelmingly follow a certain behavioral and attitudinal pattern. The problem is not only that these Jews work collectively to discredit any traditional gentile way of life. They also work reduce the possibility of debate about what they condemn, because they associate (and get others to associate) open discourse with bigotry and anti-Semitism.

For confirmation one need only check the websites of quintessentially Jewish organizations as the Anti-Defamation League and the Canadian Jewish Congress, or such predominantly Jewish organizations as theSouthern Poverty Law Center ($PLC to VDARE.com. There one learns that only bigots and anti-Semites would oppose gay marriage. The CJC has repeatedly used its weight to make sure that anyone who criticizes the desired social innovation will be prosecuted in court for “hate speech”.

Jews in public life and in academe have trouble living in an intellectually open society, because it would allow those whom they fear and/or loathe to be heard in open forums. This is something that Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals seek to avoid at all costs, through “Hate Speech” laws, academic speech codes, and associating dissent with the Holocaust or anti-Semitism.

During forty years in “higher education”, I never ceased to be amazed by how allergic most of my Jewish colleagues were to open discussion. Never did they wish to see opened a question that they collectively decided to close, allegedly for the sake of combatting prejudice and discrimination. (It goes without saying that everything featured on VDARE.com would qualify as off-limits.)

But this war on forbidden thoughts does not end with what VDARE.com dares to discuss. My Jewish colleagues and the ones I read in academic journals never tire of invoking certain guilt-infused taboos, reminding their subjects about how little they had done to atone for racism, sexism, and other currently condemned attitudes…

One cannot have both a free society and one controlled by the current crew of Jewish intellectuals and journalists.

Posted in Jews, Neoconservatives, Paul Gottfried | Leave a comment

Jews Ordered To Register In Donetsk, Ukraine

The Jewish Press reports:

On the first day of Passover this week, three armed men in the eastern Ukrainian province of Donetsk distributed flyers warning Jews to “register” themselves and their assets with the new pro-Russian government, according to the novosti.dn.ua website.

The flyers were handed out next to a synagogue as people were leaving following holiday prayers. They read as follows:

“Dear Ukraine citizens of Jewish nationality,

Due to the fact that the leaders of the Jewish community of Ukraine supported (Stepan) Bendery Junta, and oppose the pro-Slavic People’s Republic of Donetsk, [the interim government] has decided that all citizens of Jewish descent age 16 and older, residing within the territory of the republic, are required to report to the Commissioner for Nationalities in the Donetsk Regional Administration building and register by May 3.

(Ed. Note: Stepan Bander was a Ukrainian nationalist leader in Kiev who fought with Nazi Germany in the 1940s against Soviet troops before switching sides and taking up arms against the German occupation.)

“ID and passport are required to register your Jewish religion, religious documents of family members, as well as documents establishing the rights to all real estate property that belongs to you, including vehicles. Evasion of registration will result in citizenship revocation and you will be forced outside the country with a confiscation of property. A registration fee of $50 is required.”

This frightens me. I think it portends ill for the welfare of Jews in the Ukraine. It also seems reflective to me of the way the world works.

It seems incontrovertible to me that Jews and other members of tribes have a different relationship to the nation-state than do non-Jews. To be blunt, I would suspect that some tribes are less loyal than the majority population (as measured by law-abidingness, honesty with taxes, civic participation, etc). Because of this, it seems rational to me that a nation-state might want tribalists such as Jews, Chinese, Mexicans, Cubans, Muslims, blacks, etc to specially register and to keep a special eye on them.

Most Jews are not revolutionaries, but history shows that a disproportionate number of leftist revolutionaries are Jews.

As Ashkenazi Jews are on average about 15 IQ points above the goy, they are going to have a disproportionate influence on society compared to their numbers. It would make sense for a nation-state to keep a special eye on them and to warn Jewish leaders that they will expel anyone who threatens the nation.

In the book, Why the Jews?: The Reason for Antisemitism, the authors write: “Finally, does not the fact of Jewish nationhood still mean that Jews are members of two nations — the Jewish nation and the nation among whom they reside? Yes, and in this respect Jews are unique; but so long as moral rather than national values are held supreme, this should trouble no one.”

When Jews adopt the majority’s national identity to the exclusion of their Jewish national identity, they soon cease to be Jews. They assimilate.

In my experience, to belong to a tribe means putting the tribe’s interests first. It’s hard to imagine any tribe penalizing a member who puts the tribe’s interests above that of the nation they live in.

As an Orthodox Jew, my first identity is that of an Orthodox Jew. My primary thoughts and concerns are about the welfare of Jews. While I abide by Jewish law, it is difficult to have much social intercourse with non-Jews and non-observant Jews. You belong to a people set apart. The more religious the Jew, the less he interacts with non-Jews and the more narrowly focused his life becomes.

If Israel were run by Torah law, sex between Jews and non-Jews would likely be illegal. It would also be likely that non-Jews would have to specially register and they may well face significant discrimination and be at risk of expulsion. So I don’t think we should be surprised when non-Jews establish nation-states that make minority populations specially register and receive extra surveillance and face the risk of expulsion if they rock the boat.

According to Wikipedia: “Kahane’s legislative proposals focused on transferring the Arab population out from the Land of Israel, revoking Israeli citizenship from non-Jews, and banning Jewish-Gentile marriages and sexual relations, based on the Code of Jewish Law compiled by Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah.”

Posted in Jews, Ukraine | Leave a comment

That’s Disgusting!

Many of my political positions are based primarily on disgust. Gay marriage, for instance, I find disgusting. I don’t find gays qua gays disgusting, but when they push homosexuality in my face, when they insist on publicly celebrating it and seeking everyone to join in, I feel disgusted.

There are many acts, sexual and otherwise, that disgust me and when they are pushed in my face and I am asked to celebrate them, my stomach twists and I revolt.

Now I can come up with rational sounding arguments for my positions, but down deep, they are based on disgust. They are part of my wiring.

I remember that during the three years I was on the left, ages 19-22, I experienced life differently. I had fewer fears about catastrophe and I was more open to new ways of doing things.

Leftists and rights not only see the world differently, they experience the world differently.

I find meat, particularly pork and shellfish, disgusting because I was raised a vegetarian, have been one all of my life, and am now a convert to Orthodox Judaism, which abhors pork, etc.

I find tattoos and piercings disgusting. I find celebrations of ripping off the wider society (theft, cheating on taxes, customs, etc) disgusting. I find taking welfare disgusting. I find affirmative action disgusting. I find messy rooms and filth disgusting.

The new book, Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences, notes:

Conservatives are more likely to emphasize purity and disgust as a foundation for moral and political orientations. Researchers have known for some time that self-reported disgust sensitivity, not to mention the kinds of things found to be socially or morally disgusting, are related to political beliefs such that those who reported higher disgust sensitivity are more likely to adopt conservative positions, especially on sex-related issues like gay marriage…

If you need examples of people’s physiology affecting their attitudes and behavior even when they think they are being rational, consider that job applicant resumes viewed on heavy clipboards are generally judged to be more worthy than identical resumes on lighter clipboards; that holding a warm or hot drink can influence whether opinions of other people are positive or negative; and that when people reach out to pick up an orange while smelling strawberries they unwittingly spread their fingers less widely– as if they were picking up a strawberry rather than an orange. People sitting in a messy, smelly room tend to make harsher moral judgments than those who are in a neutral room; disgusting ambient odors also increase expressed dislike of gays.

Individuals being sentenced by a judge should hope it is right after a rest break rather than after several cases have been heard because judges’ sentencing practices are measurably more lenient when they are fresh. Sitting on a hatred uncomfortable chair leads people to be less flexible in their stances than if they are seated on a soft, comfortable chair, and people reminded of physical cleansing, perhaps by being located near a hand sanitizer, are more likely to render stern judgments than those who were not given such a reminder. People can even be made to change their moral judgments as a result of hypnotic suggestion.

In all these cases the baloney generator can produce a convincing case that the pertinent decision was made on the merits rather than as a result of irrelevant factors.

People actively deny that a chunky clipboard has anything to do with their assessment of job applicants or that a funky pong has anything to do with their moral judgments. Judges certainly refuse to believe that the length of time since their last break has anything to do with their sentencing decisions: after all, they are distributing objective justice. Leibniz had it right, though, and the baloney generator is full of it. The way we respond– biologically, physiologically, unconsciously, and in many cases unwittingly– to our environments influences attitudes and behavior. People don’t like to hear that since they much prefer to believe their decisions and opinions are rational rather than rationalized.

This desire to believe we are rational is certainly the case when it comes to the arena of politics where an unwillingness to acknowledge the role of extraneous and possibly subconscious forces is especially strong. Many pretend that politics is a product of citizens taking their civic obligations seriously, sifting through political messages and information, and then carefully and deliberately considering the candidates and issue positions before making a consciously informed decision. Doubtful. In truth, people’s political judgments are affected by all kinds of factors they assume to be wholly irrelevant.

…Responses to political stimuli are animated by emotional and not-always-conscious bodily processes. Political scientist Milt Lodge studies “hot cognition” or “automaticity.” His research shows that people tag familiar objects and concepts with an emotional response and that political stimuli such as a picture of Sarah Palin or the word “Obamacare” are particularly likely to generate emotional, or affective (and therefore physiologically detectable) responses. In fact, Lodge and his colleague Charles Taber claim that “all political leaders, groups, issues, symbols, and ideas previously thought about and evaluated in the past become affectively charged—positively or negatively.” Responses to a range of individual concepts and objects frequently become integrated in a network that can be thought of as the tangible manifestation of a broader political ideology.

The fact that extraneous, sub-threshold forces shape political orientations and actions makes it possible for individual variation in non-political variables to affect politics. If hotter ambient temperatures in a room increase acceptance of global warming, maybe people whose internal thermostats incline them to feeling hot are also more likely to be accepting of global warming. Likewise, sensitivity to clutter and disorder, to smell, to disgust, to threats all become potentially relevant to political views. Since elements of these sensitivities are outside of conscious awareness, it becomes possible that political views are shaped by psychological and physiological patterns.

…buried in many people and operating largely outside the realm of conscious thought are forces inclining us toward liberal or conservative political convictions. Our biology predisposes us to see and understand the world in different ways, not always reason and the careful consideration of facts. These predispositions are in turn responsible for a significant portion of the political and ideological conflict that marks human history.

Posted in Personal, Politics | Leave a comment

If You Can Have Jewish Neighborhoods, Why Not White Neighborhoods?

For the past 20 years, I’ve lived in and around the Pico-Robertson neighborhood of 90035. It contains about 100 Orthodox synagogues and about 30 kosher restaurants. About 10,000 Orthodox Jews live within a mile of the intersection of Pico and Robertson Blvds. So how did they achieve this distinctly Jewish quality of the neighborhood? Jewish homeowners deliberately decided to not sell to anyone who was not Jewish.

Jews have no problem organizing in their group interest. Orthodox Jews in particular need close-knit communities because Jewish law does not permit driving on the Sabbath, so they have to live within walking distance of their shul (and this produces close-by Jewish schools, mikvehs, Jewish supermarkets and restaurants, book stores, etc).

But if whites did the exact same thing, wouldn’t that be met with an outcry? Wouldn’t that be regarded as illegal? What if whites in a neighborhood banded together and resolved to only sell their homes to a fellow white? Why is segregation OK for Jews but not for whites?

Orthodox Jews hold by a principle in Jewish law that no woman and no non-Jew and no convert to Judaism should be their king (nor president of their shul), but imagine the outcry if Christians in America decided that only Christians should be elected to public office.

Jared Taylor writes:

Segregated proms are not uniquely Southern. The Solomon Schechter School of Westchester, New York, announced that no non-Jewish dates would be allowed at the Junior Ball. Gann Academy in Waltham, Massachusetts, did not issue a ban on gentiles but urged students to consider the school’s “commitment to Jewish continuity” when they chose dates for dances.

No combination of races appears to integrate comfortably. Bolsa Grande High School in Garden Grove, California, is 52 percent Vietnamese and 37 percent Hispanic, and teachers try to keep an underlying current of hostility in check. Seventeen-year-old Ivan Hernandez explained that conflicts can be avoided when groups stay apart. “People tend to stay with their own culture,” he said. “I really don’t know many Vietnamese because I don’t hang out with them.”

“That seems to be a pattern that’s happened all over the country,” said Will Antell, a former desegregation official for the state of Minnesota. When races separate “they’re coming back to join their cohorts…. It’s on being with young people like themselves.”

Many schools try to encourage mixing, but students often pay no attention. A black student, LaShana Lee, wrote about how her Atlanta school celebrated Mix It Up Day, a national project that encourages students to cross racial boundaries:

“Mix It Up Day was just another failed attempt to get all students to ‘step outside the box.’ No one was really willing to sit with different people. Everyone took it as some sort of joke, and the majority of students understood we wouldn’t actually participate.”

Researchers have found that successful integration inhibits racial mixing. If a school has only a few minority students they have no choice but to mix with the majority. “When you get larger minority populations, they reach a size where you can have a viable single-race community,” explained James Moody of Ohio State University, who studies school integration. “At that point, students find enough friends within their own race and don’t tend to make cross-racial friendships.”

Dr. Amitai Etzioni writes for The Atlantic about microaggressions:

The study that I believe could have helped a great deal was conducted by a research assistant of mine at Columbia University who disappeared before she completed her Ph.D. Carolyn (I am withholding her last name in order to acknowledge her without embarrassing her) asked members of 80 groups in New York City what they felt about other such groups. She avoided broad strokes and asked not about divisions between black and white, but what African Americans felt about Africans from Nigeria and blacks from the West Indies. She asked Hispanics about Dominicans, Haitians, Mexicans, and Cubans, and so on.

What Carolyn found was that there was little love lost between any two groups. Members of all the 80 groups she studied attached all kind of unflattering labels to members of other groups, even if they were of the same race or ethnic group. When she interviewed members of subgroups, they were unsparing about each other. German Jews felt that Jews of Polish origin were very uncouth (and surely would not want their daughter to marry one or to share a synagogue with them). The Polish Jews, in turn, felt that those of German background were stuck up and “assimilated,” and hence one was best off crossing to the other side of the street if they neared. Iraqis from Basra considered those from Baghdad to be too modern, and those from Baghdad considered their brothers and sisters from Basra as provincial—and so on and so on. Today they would all be called at least microaggressive.

None of this is surprising to sociologists, who have long held that one major way community cohesion is promoted is by defining it against out-groups—and that there is a strong psychological tendency to attribute positive adjectives to an in-group and negatives on to the outsiders. In short, it’s part—not a pretty part—of human nature, or at least social nature. Choose any group and you will find its members griping about all the others.

Posted in Jews, Whites | Leave a comment

Impatient At A Dinner Party

I was at a dinner party the other night and during that awkward stage when you are meeting strangers, one guy goes on for 15 minutes about the ant infestation in his apartment and I was going out of my mind with boredom, truly, I wanted to climb the walls. What are some polite ways to try to steer a conversation with two strangers when you are all going to be together for several hours that night and who knows how many times you’ll meet up again in the future?

My friends note that I am very particular, need to have everything, including conversation my way or I’m not happy.

My other problem is that when I get too involved in a discussion, I become harsh and closed off to alternative points of view.

I get overwhelmed by my implicit memories and brain encoding, stuff that is beyond my rational reach, and my emotions get stirred up and I’m either impatiently bored or out of control.

Posted in Personal | Leave a comment

I’ve Never Heard Of A Jewish/Black/Latino/Asian Supremacist

The shooter in Kansas City yesterday, Frazier Glen Miller, is often called a “white supremacist.”

I never hear that “supremacist” term applied to rabid nationalists of other groups, only to whites.

I suspect most people view their own group as superior.

If you want to devote your life to the uplift of your group, that’s wonderful if you are Jewish or black or Chinese or Mexican, but if your group is white people, then you’re an evil white supremacist.

I put “Jewish supremacist” into Google and got 46,00 results.
“White supremacist” gave 757,000 results.
“Black supremacist” gave 52,300 results.
“Latin supremacist” gave 371 results.
“Latino supremacist” gave 2100 results.
“Asian supremacist” gave 2000 results.

In real life, I only ever hear the term “supremacist” applied to white nationalists. Most of the time, I suspect, it is not accurate, as even the most ardent white nationalist will usually agree that blacks, latinos, asians, Jews, etc outdo whites at many different things.

The phrase “white supremacist” begs the question — supreme at what? Different races have different gifts on average. Every time I hear the term “white supremacist”, it is used as a slur and not at all accurately.

When I review the Wikipedia entry on Frazier Glen Miller, I find that I agree with him about half the time (the need for whites to organize in their group interests) and loathe his views about half the time (his hatred of Jews, blacks and the United States government). I suspect that the woman who strangled her seven kids held views that half of the population agreed with much of the time. Just agreeing on some points with somebody loathsome does not mean much. It’s just an uncomfortable feeling.

James Fulford writes:

A shooting rampage in Kansas has produced some unusually accurate reporting in the Main Stream Media. Reports identify the race of the shooter, race (or religion or ethnicity, if you prefer) of the victims, and the ideology behind the attack. That’s because the shooter was white:

Police arrest ‘raging anti-Semite’ in Kansas Jewish center shootings
By Saeed Ahmed, Ashley Fantz and Catherine E. Shoichet, CNN, Mon April 14, 2014
White supremacist ID’d as gunman in deadly shootings at Jewish centers
FoxNews.com, Published April 14, 2014
In contrast, when a black person shoots large numbers of people out of hatred of whites, it’s a constant struggle to find out if they’re black at all. Even then, their motives don’t appear, or are suppressed by the MSM, or denied by the police.

A classic anti-Semitic hate crime which was also an “Immigrant Mass Murder”, was the Empire State Building shooting by Ali Abu Kamal in 1997. Kamal was a Palestinian terrorist who hated the US for its support of Israel, went to New York and shot 7 people. See 1997 Empire State Building Shooter And The NYPD.

But the rare terrorist who can be linked to the “right wing”, like the Holocaust Museum Shooting, is happily promoted by the media.

A white prisoner writes:

I cannot think of a single white gang here in Texas prisons that started on the outside. That is simply not the way the vast majority of our people live. And even now, after many years of existence, essentially none of these gangs has any true organization beyond these walls. This is not the case with the non-white gangs. The Crips, Bloods, Gangster Disciples, Mexican Mafia, Texas Syndicate, Raza United, and Azteca — just to name a few — are vast criminal empires. Most started outside prison as criminal gangs and simply maintain their structure on both sides of the wall.

White gangs are lumped in with criminal gangs of this kind, but even worse, they are the only ones labeled as “racist” or “supremacist.” So the irony is that although most of the blacks and Hispanics come here as full members of racially exclusive street/prison gangs who hate whites, we are the ones who are called “haters.”

The administration understands this, of course, but claims it has no control over how they classify us. At the same time, most of the lower-level guards are non-whites who share the same enmity towards us as the other prisoners.

The courts have ruled that no matter how much sense it would make to separate prisoners by race, that is impossible because it would be discrimination against minorities. It does not matter that whites are the ones who suffer most from integration, society must protect the “civil rights” of those who prey on us. The irony is that most of the young whites who suddenly find themselves in this hell never had a “racist” or “hateful” thought until they came to prison and learned the truth.

Whites therefore join prison gangs because they want to survive. They need comrades in a hostile world. They are knowingly put in a position in which, in order to survive with any dignity or self-respect, they must take steps that will leave them labeled as “haters” and even “terrorists.”

There are other consequences. No one in seg can take part in rehabilitation — no education, job training, or drug abuse programs for us. Since all candidates for parole are expected to have gone through programs of this kind, the consequence is that as a “confirmed” gang member in seg, I have no chance of parole. At the same time, all the experts will tell you that training of this kind helps inmates return to society, but there is none of that for us.

Posted in Race | Leave a comment

Jewish Eugenics

Chaim Amalek writes: “What is the idea of “yicchus”, if not a poor man’s attempt at eugenics? Also, every sensible human being practices eugenics to the fullest extent of his abilities (social, economic, etc.) when selecting a mate. And everyone knows this. Here again, the Jews can lead the way in providing goyim with space in which to make the obvious case.”

John Derbyshire writes:

The contradiction between the vigorous, unapologetic ethnonationalism of Jews in Israel and the horror of other peoples’ ethnonationalism expressed by Jews elsewhere has been a recurrent topic here on VDARE.com—see, most recently, Is Immigration Really A ‘Jewish Value’? by Kevin MacDonald.

I think this contradiction is not hard to understand. If you are the ethnic majority in a nation, it is natural to wish to maintain the dominance of your ethny; if you belong to a minority ethny, especially one with as sorrowful a history as the Jews, it is just as natural to be hostile to the dominance of any other.

But these simple truths need restating, because the very peculiar cultural history of the Western world through the past few decades, leading to the widespread state of mind among whites that I call ethnomasochism, has made them nonobvious.

Cooper Sterling, writing, three years ago on VDARE.com, described a different, but related, contradiction—he used the word “paradox”—also concerning Jews.

“Since the 1960s, a prominent group of Jewish public intellectuals has been systematically and unscrupulously campaigning to discredit eugenics—but, in a great paradox, other Jewish intellectuals, and Zionists, have been actively interested in eugenic principles, both historically and currently, to secure the posterity—health and wellbeing—of Jews. Collectively, it amounts to a case of Do As I Say—Not As I Do.”

Posted in Eugenics, Jews, John Derbyshire | Leave a comment

The Shooting In Kansas City

My Jewish friend says about the shooting at the Jewish Community Center in Kansas City: “It’s an isolated incident… That’s what they said about Auschwitz. It’s a one-time thing.”

Chaim Amalek: “Sometime in the late seventies the Holocaust became one of the three pillars of mainstream American Jewish life, the other two being liberal politics and Israel. Please advise your friend that the New Goyim flooding into this country do not give a darn about the former or the latter, and insofar as liberal politics is now associated with men kissing men on the mouth and marrying them, they don’t much care about the third leg, either.”

“You spend far too much time engaged in morbid introspection when you should be focused on saving the white race, America, and getting laid. These are manly pursuits whereas introspection and talking about your feelings like a woman are not.”

Posted in Jews | Leave a comment

Start Fighting Back!

By Robert Oscar Lopez:

While the horror show involving Brendan Eich, Proposition 8, and Mozilla was reaching its ignominious crescendo, I was in Milan, Italy, speaking before an energized crowd of activists in the Lombardy region’s county hall.

Unaware of the witch hunt carried out by McCarthy’s rainbow-brandishing gay great-grandsons in Silicon Valley, a middle-aged man came forward and cried out in Italian, “Is it just me, or is the gay lobby imposing a dictatorship on us with their so-called scientific experts?”

The science to which he referred wasn’t JavaScript, but rather psychology and pediatrics. He was referring to homosexual activists’ constant invocation of research supposedly proving that kids don’t need a mom and a dad, because scientists in lab coats with horrendous conflicts of interest publish peer-reviewed papers claiming that the statistics prove that children can be removed from a parent and still be “well-adjusted.”

I asked the audience: “Enough of gays saying they feel offended all the time. How do they think I feel when they tell me, someone raised by lesbians, I don’t have a right to my father, because of experts and their supposed research?” Applause, applause. The clock struck 10:00 PM in Italy.

“They don’t want to be told whom to love. So who are they to tell children who aren’t theirs that they have to love two gay adults and can’t love a biological parent the adults cut out of their lives?”

Posted in Homophobia | Leave a comment

Congratulations on your recent conversion to White Nationalism

Nationalists come in many shapes and sizes. The government of Israel is nationalist. Nazis are nationalists. People on the political right such as Republicans tend to be nationalists. People on the left tend to more ideological commitments such as socialism, classism, and anti-racism. Ku Klux Klanners like the guy who shot and killed three Jews in Kansas City are nationalists. Some nationalists are evil and some are good just like some of those whose primary allegiance is religious or ideological rather than national are sometimes good people and sometimes bad. Supporters of the Democratic party in America tend to be egalitarians, believing that races and groups are born with equal aptitudes and that it is environment that primarily shapes them. Supporters of Stalin and Mao had these same views. So egalitarians and nationalists come in many shapes and sizes. Some black nationalists do evil, some Jewish nationalists do evil, and some white nationalists do evil. Simply supporting your group and putting your primary allegiance to your group, whether your group is national, racial, social, religious or ideological, is not necessarily good or evil.

The type of nationalism I support is law-abiding. It seeks nothing for its own group that it does not also welcome for others. My nationalism stands for good will towards all, and that every group needs to organize in their group interest including whites. If whites don’t start organizing, they will go the way of South African whites and Rhodesian whites.

Almost all mass evil committed in the world over the past 60 years, aside from communism, has been done on the basis of blood, not ideology. This sounds like a strong argument against nationalism, except you could also say that almost all mass evil was committed by people who breathe. Identifying and sacrificing for your own kind in preference to those who are different is wired into our DNA. The most effective way of overcoming it is with strong religious ties. Fellow Jews, fellow Muslims, fellow Adventists, look out for each other (some groups, such as Jews, much more effectively than others).

Barry emails:

Hello Luke:

Your interview with Kevin MacDonald was a tour de force. Outstanding.

I’ve hugely enjoyed your articles on porn, Judaism and much else over the years. Interviewing is your main skill through. They remind me of an early BBC series called Face to Face with John Freeman.

It strikes me that you are a consummate journalist with an insatiable curiousity. Unfortunately that is why you could never hold a job down in journalism.

Journalism will forgive anything – except curiousity.

The main skill you need in journalism is fitting in and you do that by constantly status-signalling the most conventional beliefs.

As one journalist told me. The key to getting a reputation as a fearless muckraker is not to upset anyone. Or anyone powerful anyway. You forgot that second bit Luke.

Actually journalism doesn’t need journalists anymore. It needs narrative shapers, opinion formers, marketers.

The other problem is that you think the truth will protect you. But the truth is not important. Social conformity is – fitting in is.

You are like the guy in this video who does not get it – he keeps blurting out the truth.

How would you fit in this environment Luke? It would be a comedy in itself! ….

Congratulations on becoming a white nationalist. It took me a while too. You were too wedded to the truth not to get it eventually.

Posted in Whites | Leave a comment