Are Jews A Race?

Prior to the Holocaust, it was common for Jews to refer to themselves as a race. But with the Holocaust and the rise of Boasian anthropology, that has gone out of fashion, and educated Jews tend to take exception to any categorization of Jews as a race.

Steve Sailer defines race as “an extended family, partly in-bred.”

Q. Why do you talk about race so much?

A. Most human beings talk about race a fair amount. I write about it.

Q. Why do people care about race?

A. Why do people care about who their relatives are? Maybe they should care, maybe they shouldn’t. I’m not here to preach morality. But people do care, so it’s important to understand the implications.

Q. What’s race all about?

A. Relatedness.

Race is about who is related to whom.

Q. Do you mean a race is a family?

A. Yes, an extended family. (To be precise, a particular type of extended family, one that’s more coherent over time than the norm, a distinction I’ll explain below.)

Q. Race means family? I’ve never heard of such a thing!

A. It’s remarkable how seldom this concept essential to understanding how the world works is mentioned in the press. Yet, in my Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, the first definition of “race” is:

“1. A group of persons related by common descent or heredity.”

Q. If races exist, then, pray tell, precisely how many there are?

A. How many neighborhoods are there in the place where you live?

For some purposes, an extremely simple breakdown into, say, City vs. Suburbs is most useful. For other uses, an extremely detailed set of neighborhood names is helpful: e.g., “The proposed apartment complex will aggravate the parking shortage in Northeastern West Hills.”

Similarly, racial groups can be lumped into vast continental-scale agglomerations or split as finely as you like.

For instance, should New World Indians be considered a separate race—or merely a subset of East Asians?

Every system of categorization runs into disputes between “lumpers” and “splitters.” Whether lumping or splitting is more appropriate depends upon the situation.

Q. Isn’t race just about skin color?

A. That’s a simplistic verbal shorthand Americans use to refer to ancestry. Nobody really acts as if they believe race is synonymous with skin color.

Q. What do you mean?

A. Consider golfer Vijay Singh who during 2004-2005 became the only man in this decade besides Tiger Woods to be the number one ranked player in the world. Singh, who was born in the Fiji Islands of Asian Indian descent, is much darker in skin color than Woods.

Singh is at least as dark as the average African-American. Yet, nobody in America ever thinks of Singh as black or African-American. There’s an enormous industry that celebrates the triumphs of blacks in nontraditional venues such as golf. But Singh’s accomplishments elicited minimal interest in the U.S.

A 2007 article, for example, asked where are all the black golf champions who were expected to emerge in the wake of Tiger Woods’s first Masters championship in 1997. It never mentions the blackest-skinned player on tour, Singh … because we’re not actually talking about skin color when we use the word “black,” we’re talking about sub-Saharan African ancestry.

Q. Aren’t we all related to each other?

A. Yes, that’s why we’re “the human race.”

Q. If we’re all related to each other, how can one person be more related to some people than to other people?

A. How can you be more related to your mother than you are to your aunt? Or to my mother?

Q. If races exist, how can somebody belong to more than one race?

A. If extended families exist, how can you belong to your mother’s extended family and to your father’s extended family?

Q. How many races can you belong to?

A. How many extended families can you belong to?

Consider Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s children. Clearly, they are part of the Schwarzenegger clan via their father and grandfather. But they are also part of the Jadrny extended family through their father’s mother. Yet, they also belong to the well-known liberal Catholic Shriver tribe through their mother, Maria Shriver, daughter of Sargent Shriver, the 1972 Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate. And, they are, famously, Kennedys, because their maternal grandmother is Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the sister of the late President.

Jon Entine writes in 2012 in the Forward:

Jews Are a ‘Race,’ Genes Reveal

Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People
By Harry Ostrer
Oxford University Press, 288 Pages, $24.95

In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature. Considering that the Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness, such a conclusion might be a cause for concern. But Ostrer sees it as central to Jewish identity.

“Who is a Jew?” has been a poignant question for Jews throughout our history. It evokes a complex tapestry of Jewish identity made up of different strains of religious beliefs, cultural practices and blood ties to ancient Palestine and modern Israel. But the question, with its echoes of genetic determinism, also has a dark side.

Geneticists have long been aware that certain diseases, from breast cancer to Tay-Sachs, disproportionately affect Jews. Ostrer, who is also director of genetic and genomic testing at Montefiore Medical Center, goes further, maintaining that Jews are a homogeneous group with all the scientific trappings of what we used to call a “race.”

For most of the 3,000-year history of the Jewish people, the notion of what came to be known as “Jewish exceptionalism” was hardly controversial. Because of our history of inmarriage and cultural isolation, imposed or self-selected, Jews were considered by gentiles (and usually referred to themselves) as a “race.” Scholars from Josephus to Disraeli proudly proclaimed their membership in “the tribe.”

Ostrer explains how this concept took on special meaning in the 20th century, as genetics emerged as a viable scientific enterprise. Jewish distinctiveness might actually be measurable empirically. In “Legacy,” he first introduces us to Maurice Fishberg, an upwardly mobile Russian-Jewish immigrant to New York at the fin de siècle. Fishberg fervently embraced the anthropological fashion of the era, measuring skull sizes to explain why Jews seemed to be afflicted with more diseases than other groups — what he called the “peculiarities of the comparative pathology of the Jews.” It turns out that Fishberg and his contemporary phrenologists were wrong: Skull shape provides limited information about human differences. But his studies ushered in a century of research linking Jews to genetics.

Ostrer divides his book into six chapters representing the various aspects of Jewishness: Looking Jewish, Founders, Genealogies, Tribes, Traits and Identity. Each chapter features a prominent scientist or historical figure who dramatically advanced our understanding of Jewishness. The snippets of biography lighten a dense forest of sometimes-obscure science. The narrative, which consists of a lot of potboiler history, is a slog at times. But for the specialist and anyone touched by the enduring debate over Jewish identity, this book is indispensable.

“Legacy” may cause its readers discomfort. To some Jews, the notion of a genetically related people is an embarrassing remnant of early Zionism that came into vogue at the height of the Western obsession with race, in the late 19th century. Celebrating blood ancestry is divisive, they claim: The authors of “The Bell Curve” were vilified 15 years ago for suggesting that genes play a major role in IQ differences among racial groups.

Furthermore, sociologists and cultural anthropologists, a disproportionate number of whom are Jewish, ridicule the term “race,” claiming there are no meaningful differences between ethnic groups. For Jews, the word still carries the especially odious historical association with Nazism and the Nuremberg Laws. They argue that Judaism has morphed from a tribal cult into a worldwide religion enhanced by thousands of years of cultural traditions.

Is Judaism a people or a religion? Or both? The belief that Jews may be psychologically or physically distinct remains a controversial fixture in the gentile and Jewish consciousness, and Ostrer places himself directly in the line of fire. Yes, he writes, the term “race” carries nefarious associations of inferiority and ranking of people. Anything that marks Jews as essentially different runs the risk of stirring either anti- or philo-Semitism. But that doesn’t mean we can ignore the factual reality of what he calls the “biological basis of Jewishness” and “Jewish genetics.” Acknowledging the distinctiveness of Jews is “fraught with peril,” but we must grapple with the hard evidence of “human differences” if we seek to understand the new age of genetics.

Although he readily acknowledges the formative role of culture and environment, Ostrer believes that Jewish identity has multiple threads, including DNA. He offers a cogent, scientifically based review of the evidence, which serves as a model of scientific restraint.

“On the one hand, the study of Jewish genetics might be viewed as an elitist effort, promoting a certain genetic view of Jewish superiority,” he writes. “On the other, it might provide fodder for anti-Semitism by providing evidence of a genetic basis for undesirable traits that are present among some Jews. These issues will newly challenge the liberal view that humans are created equal but with genetic liabilities.”

Jews, he notes, are one of the most distinctive population groups in the world because of our history of endogamy. Jews — Ashkenazim in particular — are relatively homogeneous despite the fact that they are spread throughout Europe and have since immigrated to the Americas and back to Israel. The Inquisition shattered Sephardi Jewry, leading to far more incidences of intermarriage and to a less distinctive DNA.

In traversing this minefield of the genetics of human differences, Ostrer bolsters his analysis with volumes of genetic data, which are both the book’s greatest strength and its weakness. Two complementary books on this subject — my own “Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People” and “Jacob’s Legacy: A Genetic View of Jewish History” by Duke University geneticist David Goldstein, who is well quoted in both “Abraham’s Children” and “Legacy” — are more narrative driven, weaving history and genetics, and are consequently much more congenial reads.

The concept of the “Jewish people” remains controversial. The Law of Return, which establishes the right of Jews to come to Israel, is a central tenet of Zionism and a founding legal principle of the State of Israel. The DNA that tightly links Ashkenazi, Sephardi and Mizrahi, three prominent culturally and geographically distinct Jewish groups, could be used to support Zionist territorial claims — except, as Ostrer points out, some of the same markers can be found in Palestinians, our distant genetic cousins, as well. Palestinians, understandably, want their own right of return.

That disagreement over the meaning of DNA also pits Jewish traditionalists against a particular strain of secular Jewish liberals that has joined with Arabs and many non-Jews to argue for an end to Israel as a Jewish nation. Their hero is Shlomo Sand, an Austrian-born Israeli historian who reignited this complex controversy with the 2008 publication of “The Invention of the Jewish People.”

Sand contends that Zionists who claim an ancestral link to ancient Palestine are manipulating history. But he has taken his thesis from novelist Arthur Koestler’s 1976 book, “The Thirteenth Tribe,” which was part of an attempt by post-World War II Jewish liberals to reconfigure Jews not as a biological group, but as a religious ideology and ethnic identity.

The majority of the Ashkenazi Jewish population, as Koestler, and now Sand, writes, are not the children of Abraham but descendants of pagan Eastern Europeans and Eurasians, concentrated mostly in the ancient Kingdom of Khazaria in what is now Ukraine and Western Russia. The Khazarian nobility converted during the early Middle Ages, when European Jewry was forming.

Although scholars challenged Koestler’s and now Sand’s selective manipulation of the facts — the conversion was almost certainly limited to the tiny ruling class and not to the vast pagan population — the historical record has been just fragmentary enough to titillate determined critics of Israel, who turned both Koestler’s and Sand’s books into roaring best-sellers.

Fortunately, re-creating history now depends not only on pottery shards, flaking manuscripts and faded coins, but on something far less ambiguous: DNA. Ostrer’s book is an impressive counterpoint to the dubious historical methodology of Sand and his admirers. And, as a co-founder of the Jewish HapMap — the study of haplotypes, or blocks of genetic markers, that are common to Jews around the world — he is well positioned to write the definitive response.

In accord with most geneticists, Ostrer firmly rejects the fashionable postmodernist dismissal of the concept of race as genetically naive, opting for a more nuanced perspective.

When the human genome was first mapped a decade ago, Francis Collins, then head of the National Genome Human Research Institute, said: “Americans, regardless of ethnic group, are 99.9% genetically identical.” Added J. Craig Venter, who at the time was chief scientist at the private firm that helped sequenced the genome, Celera Genomics, “Race has no genetic or scientific basis.” Those declarations appeared to suggest that “race,” or the notion of distinct but overlapping genetic groups, is “meaningless.”

But Collins and Venter have issued clarifications of their much-misrepresented comments. Almost every minority group has faced, at one time or another, being branded as racially inferior based on a superficial understanding of how genes peculiar to its population work. The inclination by politicians, educators and even some scientists to underplay our separateness is certainly understandable. But it’s also misleading. DNA ensures that we differ not only as individuals, but also as groups.

However slight the differences (and geneticists now believe that they are significantly greater than 0.1%), they are defining. That 0.1% contains some 3 million nucleotide pairs in the human genome, and these determine such things as skin or hair color and susceptibility to certain diseases. They contain the map of our family trees back to the first modern humans.

Both the human genome project and disease research rest on the premise of finding distinguishable differences between individuals and often among populations. Scientists have ditched the term “race,” with all its normative baggage, and adopted more neutral terms, such as “population” and “clime,” which have much of the same meaning. Boiled down to its essence, race equates to “region of ancestral origin.”

Ostrer has devoted his career to investigating these extended family trees, which help explain the genetic basis of common and rare disorders. Today, Jews remain identifiable in large measure by the 40 or so diseases we disproportionately carry, the inescapable consequence of inbreeding. He traces the fascinating history of numerous “Jewish diseases,” such as Tay-Sachs, Gaucher, Niemann-Pick, Mucolipidosis IV, as well as breast and ovarian cancer. Indeed, 10 years ago I was diagnosed as carrying one of the three genetic mutations for breast and ovarian cancer that mark my family and me as indelibly Jewish, prompting me to write “Abraham’s Children.”

Like East Asians, the Amish, Icelanders, Aboriginals, the Basque people, African tribes and other groups, Jews have remained isolated for centuries because of geography, religion or cultural practices. It’s stamped on our DNA. As Ostrer explains in fascinating detail, threads of Jewish ancestry link the sizable Jewish communities of North America and Europe to Yemenite and other Middle Eastern Jews who have relocated to Israel, as well as to the black Lemba of southern Africa and to India’s Cochin Jews. But, in a twist, the links include neither the Bene Israel of India nor Ethiopian Jews. Genetic tests show that both groups are converts, contradicting their founding myths.

Why, then, are Jews so different looking, usually sharing the characteristics of the surrounding populations? Think of red-haired Jews, Jews with blue eyes or the black Jews of Africa. Like any cluster — a genetic term Ostrer uses in place of the more inflammatory “race” — Jews throughout history moved around and fooled around, although mixing occurred comparatively infrequently until recent decades. Although there are identifiable gene variations that are common among Jews, we are not a “pure” race. The time machine of our genes may show that most Jews have a shared ancestry that traces back to ancient Palestine but, like all of humanity, Jews are mutts.

About 80% of Jewish males and 50% of Jewish females trace their ancestry back to the Middle East. The rest entered the “Jewish gene pool” through conversion or intermarriage. Those who did intermarry often left the faith in a generation or two, in effect pruning the Jewish genetic tree. But many converts became interwoven into the Jewish genealogical line. Reflect on the iconic convert, the biblical Ruth, who married Boaz and became the great-grandmother of King David. She began as an outsider, but you don’t get much more Jewish than the bloodline of King David!

To his credit, Ostrer also addresses the third rail of discussions about Jewishness and race: the issue of intelligence. Jews were latecomers to the age of freethinking. While the Enlightenment swept through Christian Europe in the 17th century, the Haskalah did not gather strength until the early 19th century. By the beginning of the new millennium, however, Jews were thought of as among the smartest people on earth. The trend is most prominent in America, which has the largest concentration of Jews outside Israel and a history of tolerance.

Although Jews make up less than 3% of the population, they have won more than 25% of the Nobel Prizes awarded to American scientists since 1950. Jews also account for 20% of this country’s chief executives and make up 22% of Ivy League students. Psychologists and educational researchers have pegged their average IQ at 107.5 to 115, with their verbal IQ at more than 120, a stunning standard deviation above the average of 100 found in those of European ancestry. Like it or not, the IQ debate will become an increasingly important issue going forward, as medical geneticists focus on unlocking the mysteries of the brain…

Jon Entine is the founder and director of the Genetic Literacy Project at George Mason University, where he is senior research fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication. His website is

From YNet Aug. 29, 2010:

German central banker criticized for remarks on Jews

Foreign, defense ministers say Thilo Sarrazin was out of line for saying ‘all Jews share a particular gene,’ arguing that Muslims undermine German society, marry ‘imported brides’

German government leaders condemned a central bank executive on Sunday for making anti-Semitic remarks before the publication of his book on Monday that takes a critical look at Turk and Arab immigrants.

Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said Thilo Sarrazin was out of line for comments about Jews, remarks that were also criticized by Jewish leaders in the country responsible for the Holocaust.

“All Jews share a particular gene, Basques share a certain gene that sets them apart,” Sarrazin told Welt am Sonntag newspaper ahead of the release of his book “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (Germany does away with itself).

Sarrazin, a Bundesbank board member, denied he was stirring racism. He has faced heavy criticism for making disparaging comments about Muslim immigrants. Sarrazin has repeatedly created uproar for criticizing Turks and Arabs in Germany.

“There’s no room in the political debate for remarks that whip up racism or anti-Semitism,” Westerwelle said.

“There are limits to every provocation and Bundesbank board member Sarrazin has clearly gone out of bounds with this mistaken and inappropriate comment,” Guttenberg added.

Stephan Kramer and Michel Friedman, leaders in Germany’s Jewish community, also criticized Sarrazin, 65, a member of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and former finance minister in the city-state of Berlin.

“Someone who tries to define Jews by a genetic make-up is consumed by a racist mania,” Kramer said.

“Enough already!” Friedman wrote in Bild am Sonntag newspaper. “No more tolerance for this intolerance. It’s okay to provoke thought but enough of this baiting and defamation. We don’t need any hate preachers, especially in the Bundesbank.”

Embarrassment for Bundesbank

Almost 3 million people of Turkish origin and an estimated 280,000 of Arab extraction live in Germany.

Leaders in Sarrazin’s SPD have called for him to quit the party and resign from the Bundesbank.

Sarrazin’s comments have also embarrassed Bundesbank President Axel Weber, who some German leaders have backed to succeed Jean-Claude Trichet as president of the European Central Bank next year.

The Bundesbank has tried to distance itself from his remarks, saying they are his personal opinions and not linked to his role at the bank. The central bank requires evidence of “serious misconduct” to bring about Sarrazin’s dismissal.

The central bank last year stripped Sarrazin of some of his duties. If the central bank’s board voted to remove Sarrazin, the move would then need the approval of the president.

In the book, Sarrazin argues that Muslims undermine German society, marry “imported brides” and have a bad attitude. He said young Muslim men were aggressive due to sexual frustration.

“Sadly, the huge potential for aggression in this group is obvious. The Arab boys can’t get at their Arab girls,” he said.

“In the end, they use the German girls from the underclass who are easier to get, and then they hold them in contempt because they’re so readily available.”

From Ynet Aug. 30, 2010:

German banker: I’m man of numbers, not anti-Semite

Central bank executive Thilo Sarrazin spreads anti-Muslim messages on every stage, but only when he speaks against Jews does political establishment unite against him. His book launch met with protest, which Sarrazin calls ‘opportunistic attack’

BERLIN – It has been more than a week since Thilo Sarrazin – an executive in Germany’s central bank, a senior member of the Social Democratic Party, and a political provocateur – has been spreading racist remarks against the Muslim minority in Germany. He did so on every media platform provided him in order to promote his new book “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (Germany is doing away with itself) that was released on Monday.

Popular German tabloid Bild published selections from the book in recent weeks. In interviews held with Sarazzin in more quality newspapers n Germany, the banker came out against Islam in general and claimed that German intelligence is declining as a result of immigration. He backed up his assertions with pseudo-scientific statistics on fertility, intelligence, and labor. All of this went without any major comment.

However, when he claimed in an interview on Sunday that Jews carry a “particular gene” that sets them apart from all other nations, the German political establishment spoke up.

Chancellor Angela Merkel called for him to be ousted from the Bundesbank, Germany’s central bank, and promised that a discussion would be held with the heads of the financial institution. Merkels called the statements “unacceptable” and said, “These are comments that only damage and don’t help integration in this country, which is a national duty.”

Joining Merkel in her denunciation of Sarrazin’s statement, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Sarrazin “crossed the line.” A long list of Christian Democratic Union party members also joined in the condemnation.

Sarrazin’s own party, SPD, also did not spare him harsh criticism. The party headquarters in Berline announced on Monday that it will launch an official procedure to sack him from the party.

Sarrazin: What’s the fuss about?

The official launch event for Sarrazin’s book was held on Monday in Berlin. During the event, Sarrazin said that he was shocked by what he called “the opportunistic attack” against him. The senior politician reiterated his claims that he is not racist, but rather “a numbers man” who isn’t afraid to reveal the truth even it is inconvenient for the listener.

In defense of his hotly contested statement, Sarazzin referenced research published in scientific magazines that “reveal the genetic basis shared by European Jews.” Regarding the comment itself, he asserted, “It wasn’t said in positively or negatively.”

…For many Germans, the problem is not with the subject matter of Sarrazin’s statements – the increase of immigrants in Germany, especially Muslims – but the way in which he expresses them in his book. Sarrazin speaks of a “German national identity” and an “inborn intelligence.” He also uses statistical tools to prove that immigrants are multiplying at a faster rate than native Germans. He claims that is definitive proof of the threat to the “national identity” and “the level intelligence.”

This type of discourse reminds Germans of Nazi anti-Semitism, which also relied heavily on dubious scientific tools to prove its claims. In the media flurry that has been sparked as a result, debate of the actual content of his statements has been lost.

French philospher Guillaume Durocher writes:

For if the early twentieth century’s racial science, however flawed, was more accurate than the blank-slatist ideas that have become culturally hegemonic in the West since 1945, then there would need to be a radical and far more nuanced reassessment of Hitler. Indeed, it is now documented that many of the founding fathers of the blank-slatist consensus, namely Franz Boas, Theodor Adorno, and Stephen J. Gould, were ethnically-motivated pseudoscientific fraudsters.[12]

The continued ethnically-motivated character of much of the reigning orthodoxy is not in doubt. That Jewish publications freely discuss the genetic characteristics of Jews while the German writer Thilo Sarrazin was widely defamed a few years ago by Jewish organizations (making it onto innumerable “Top Anti-Semites” lists, with enormous associated costs to his reputation) for discussing this same issue in a morally neutral way, can only be explained in terms of ethnically-motivated hypocrisy and sophistry. This is only one among innumerable examples which could, with truly nauseating frequency, be cited.

If the evolutionary science of the early twentieth century, however imperfect, was more accurate than the social science of today, a moral reassessment of Hitler would be inevitable notwithstanding his real brutality. Politics is, at best, the world of amoral raison d’État and Realpolitik, not of individual morality. The mainstream historians concede as much: Most do not condone the burning alive of hundreds of thousands of German men, women and children through firebombing, the ethnic cleansing of 9 million German civilians in East Prussia, Silesia, and the Sudetenland, or the rape of 2 million German women by the Red hordes, among many other atrocities and questionable doctrines (supposed defense of “Polish sovereignty,” “unconditional surrender,” “Yalta” . . .).

No, the historians plead these were unfortunately necessary measures, understandable reprisals, or regrettable collateral damage in the war against Hitler. They consider that these crimes, unlike Hitler’s, are ultimately excusable in the context of the overarching moral imperative of destroying the absolute evil of “Nazism.” They adhere, openly or not, to an ends-justifies-the-means morality. Certainly, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs and you couldn’t destroy “Nazism” without raping a couple million women and girls.

But by the same token, if Hitler’s racial ideas, at the center of his doctrine, were not quite as “pseudoscientific” as the mainstream claims, what does that mean for the moral significance of his undeniably often brutal means?[13] As Raymond Aron wrote on deceit, but one could say the same of violence and political amorality in general: “Deceit in the service a great endeavor is easily excused, and sometimes even inspires admiration.”[14]

National Socialism was a sincere attempt to systematically apply the evolutionary science of the day to public policy. This was remarkably successful in certain respects (above all in the astonishing rise in the German birthrate) and catastrophic in others. This was inevitable, National Socialism was by its own account a kind of fanatical civil religion. This had the advantages and disadvantages of all religious revolutions: The society’s culture, values, and behavior were indeed radically transformed in line with the new faith (a successful religion can be considered a kind of cultural programming), but this also necessarily meant inflexibility and dogmatism.

The result? Where German National Socialism was right, it was brilliantly successful. Where it was wrong, it was disastrous, in the end fatally so. Above all, Hitler fixed what was still an infant and imperfect racial science into a semi-fixed (because sometimes vague) political doctrine. The spirits of science (skepticism) and of religion (faith) are in truly radical opposition, combining them being thus supremely difficult, like the would-be philosoper-king’s almost impossible ambition of uniting thought and action. The achievement of any degree of success in this task may perhaps be considered the supreme work of art.

We have to consider that Hitler in general was “too racist”: He tended to overestimate both the degree to which an individual or people’s qualities were due to genetic factors and the amount of genetic difference between European peoples. This had tragic results, arguably resulting in millions of deaths and ultimately in the Third Reich’s defeat through failure to build sufficient constructive relationships and alliances with fellow Europeans.



Posted in Adolf Hitler, Anthropology, Anti-Semitism, Germany, Holocaust, Jews, Race | Comments Off on Are Jews A Race?

The Man in the High Castle

In episode seven of this great new drama about life in America after Germany and Japan win WWII and divide up the country, an American art dealer says to an elite Japanese couple, “Better that Germany and Japan rule the world than semites rule the world.”

In episode eight, he attempts to sell them a fake Indian necklace made by a (1/8th) Jew. The sale is not going well until the wife holds it and says, “This necklace has woo. I can feel it. This is from someone who has known great sorrow.”

Dealer: “You know that this belonged to a noble man whose people were annihilated.”

This makes me think about how Americans view American Indians and how Germans have viewed Jews. I’d say that most Americans have a positive view of the noble Indian but in the 19th Century, whites had no doubts that the Indians had to be subjugated.

The conventional wisdom is that Hitler and the Nazis despised Jews and thought they were vermin. The truth is closer to the opposite — they feared Jews because of their high intelligence and drive.

I’m rereading Paul Johnson‘s classic, Modern Times, where he writes:

Hitler’s aims can be reconstructed not merely from Mein Kampf itself, with its stress on the ‘East Policy’, but from his early speeches and the so-called ‘Second’ or Secret Book of 1928. This material makes it clear that the ‘cleansing’ process – the elimination of the Jews — was essential to the whole long-term strategy. Being a race-socialist as opposed to a class-socialist, Hitler believed the dynamic of history was race. The dynamic was interrupted when race-poisoning took place. The poison came, above all, from the Jews. He admired Jews as ‘negative supermen’. In his Table-Talk he said that if 5,000 Jews emigrated to Sweden, in no time at all they would occupy all the key positions: this was because ‘blood purity’, as he put it in Mein Kampf, ‘is a thing the Jew preserves better than any other people on earth’. The Germans, on the other hand, had been ‘poisoned’. That was why they lost the First World War. Even he was poisoned: that was why he occasionally made mistakes – ‘all of us suffer from the sickness of mixed, corrupt blood’.

If one simply replaces the term “blood purity” with “ethnic solidarity”, then Hitler’s fears make more sense. All that talk about blood purity seems absurd, but when I make that simple substitution in my mind, then I understand. Jews are better than other groups at practicing ethnic solidarity and Judaism gives Jews an evolutionary group advantage.

Hitler’s attitude reminds me of Rabbi Meir Kahane, who said in an August 27, 1985 radio debate with Dennis Prager on the ABC Talk Radio Network: “I don’t hate Arabs, I love Jews. And I intend to save the Jewish people, both from Arabs and from themselves.”

This is garden variety nationalism. Not all nationalists are like Hitler, just like not all Jews are like Dennis Prager, but Hitler was a nationalist. He was looking out for his group’s interests.

Kahane continued: “And if anyone in this room thinks that there is one Arab in Israel who would rather live in a country which is legally defined as the Jewish state, he has greater contempt for the Arabs than I thought that even liberals could have.”

People want to be free to rule themselves. They don’t want to live in a land ruled by another racial and religious group.

Kahane: “The problem is that the Arabs who live inside Israel hate Israel.”


Dennis Prager said about Kahane: “This is a Jewish fascist… His appeal is to those who suffered under Arabs, namely, Arab-Sephardi Jews.”

“Fascist” is a common term of derision given to those who support racial and ethnic nationalism.

Caller: “Mr. Prager, do you believe that the Arabs, if they have a chance to destroy Israel, will do that?”

Prager: “Most Arabs would.”

Caller: “Then from that standpoint alone you must admit that Mr. Kahane has a reason for doing that [throwing the Arabs out] because the Arabs will unite and destroy Israel the first chance they get.”

Prager: “Yes, but one of the reasons that it is important to have a Jewish state…is in order to preserve Judaism. But [if Israel] becomes like its Arab neighbors in moral outlook, then the only difference between a Kahaneized Israel and an Arafatized Jordan is the language that they speak.”

When I look at conflicts in terms of groups pursuing their group interest and their evolutionary advantage, history makes more sense.

Paul Johnson writes:

Spain had a long tradition of crude social engineering and internal crusades. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries it had expelled in turn vast numbers of Moors,
Jews and Protestants. By such macro-persecution it had avoided the
Reformation and the horrors of the Wars of Religion. The failure to adopt similar methods of drastic extrusion had permitted the French
Revolution to enter and thus crucified the country for fifteen years of
civil war, as Goya’s drawings bore eloquent testimony. Now the invasion by post-Christian totalitarian culture had brought another three years of martyrdom. On the Nationalist side, 90,000 had been killed in action; 1 10,000 Republican soldiers were dead; there were a million cripples; 10,000 had died in air-raids, 25,000 from malnutrition, 130,000 murdered or shot behind the lines; now 500,000 were in exile, half never to return. 104 The destruction of treasure had been immense, ranging from the famous library of Cuenca Cathedral to Goya’s earliest paintings in his birthplace, Fuentodos.

Franco determined to end the destructive process of corruption by
amputating the agonized limb of Spanish collectivism. His feelings
towards the Left anticipated those of the wartime Allies towards Nazism: he got unconditional surrender first, then de-Communized,
but in a manner closer to the drumhead purges of liberated France than
the systematic trials in Germany. It was not a Lenin-style totalitarian
massacre by classes: the Law of Political Responsibilities of 9 February 1939 dealt with responsibility for crimes on an individual basis (the only exception was Freemasons of the eighteenth degree or higher).

Strictly speaking, there was no death penalty for political offences as
such. But there was a great rage in the conquerors – the Interior
Minister, Suner, wanted revenge for his brothers who had been shot in
Republican prisons, and he was typical of thousands – and it was not
difficult to pin capital crimes on Republican officials of all degrees.
Mussolini’s son-in-law Ciano reported from Spain in July: Trials
going on every day at a speed which I would call summary …. There
are still a great number of shootings. In Madrid alone between 200 and
250 a day, in Barcelona 150, in Seville 80. ‘ 106 Some tens of thousands thus died, but the figure of 193,000 sometimes given for the total is wrong, since many death-sentences passed by courts were commuted.

Franco made it clear on 31 December 1939 that many long prison
sentences (fifteen years was usual) would have to be served: ‘It is
necessary to liquidate the hatred and passions left us by our past war.
But this liquidation must not be accomplished in the liberal manner,
with enormous and disastrous amnesties, which are a deception rather
than a gesture of forgiveness. It must be Christian, achieved by means of redemption through work accompanied by repentance and penitance.’

In 1941 the gaol population was still 233,375; scores of thousands of those who had run the Republic died in prison or in exile. Others were banned from a huge range of public or private occupations by a decree of 25 August 1939, which put the objectives of the purge before government efficiency or the interests of the economy. Thus ancient and traditional Spain, led by a man who regretted every second that had passed since the old world ended in 1914, sought to immunize herself from the present. The attempt did not succeed in the long run; but it gave Spain some protection from the pandemic which now overwhelmed Europe.

My home country of Australia has been a haven for Jews. They’ve been citizens since the state began but that does not mean Australia was always eager for more Jewish immigrants.


When the Australian government announced in December 1938 that 15,000
more refugees would be admitted over the following three years, the
Catholic Advocate warned that:

“If the present policy of admitting large numbers of Jewish immigrants
is continued, we are likely to be confronted by a rapid increase in
anti-Semitism. … The Jews are not simply an international religious
body like the Catholics: they are a nation with well-marked
characteristics, both mental and physical, with their own virtues,
vices and talents, and with their peculiar loyalties. … It is the
sense of this difference which has caused friction between the Jew and
his hosts throughout the ages, and which has constantly brought
tragedy to the Jews.”

Deeply concerned at increasing Jewish power and influence in
Australia, Stephensen [of Australia First] declared:

“The answer to Semitism is anti-Semitism; and when Jews gain too many
advantages for themselves, by their practice of self-segregation, they
invariably find (and surely should expect to find!) that the majority
of non-Jews will resent, and eventually will curb, the privileges
which the Jews have won for themselves by concerted sectional action.
That is what will inevitably occur in Australia sooner or later, if a
large colony of self-segregating Jews is allowed now to establish
itself in our community.”

For Stephensen, Jewish ethnocentrism and endogamy were at the heart of
the Jewish problem, and the solution to this problem was simple:

“It is well known that there are many Jews who are good citizens,
honest and cultured, despite the reputation of the generality of their
kind of being financially “tricky”, unscrupulous, and parasitical.
That there are intellectual and sensitive Jews is also as well-known
as that there are many “Flash Yids” who degrade and debase public
culture. No case can be made against Jews generally, except … that
their insistence on racial self-segregation is anti-social, considered
from the point of view of the community as a whole. We cannot concede
to them in Australia a right which, if conceded in perpetuity to other
types of immigrant … would lead to the sectionalizing of the community
and its disunification. … The remedy is that the Jewish Race should
abolish itself, by becoming absorbed in the common stream of mankind.
[Otherwise] we others, who are so strictly excluded from the Jewish
community, have at least a reciprocal right to exclude them from ours.”

No country in the 1930s wanted to take in large numbers of Jews. Hostility to the Jews was not unique to Hitler and the Nazis. It was widespread in the English-speaking world as well.



Posted in Adolf Hitler, America, Germany, Jews | Comments Off on The Man in the High Castle

The Victimization Olympics

American Jewish historian Peter Novick writes in his book The Holocaust in American Life:

…But the success of Jews in gaining permanent possession of center stage for their tragedy, and their equal success in making it the benchmark against which other atrocities were judged, produced a fair amount of resentment — “Holocaust envy.”

Discussing the refusal of the Smithsonian Institution to return the skeletons of thousands of Indians to the tribes that wished to rebury them, Clara Spotted Elk asked: “What would happen if the Smithsonian had 18,500 Holocaust victims in the attic?” A leading Holocaust scholar concluded his argument that the massacring of the Pequot Indians wasn’t really genocidal by noting that many Pequot survived: “As recently as the 1960s, Pequots were still listed as a separate group residing in Connecticut,” he said. “While the British would certainly have been less thorough, less severe, less deadly in prosecuting their campaign against the Pequots, the campaign they actually did carry out, for all its vehemence, was not, either in intent or execution, genocidal.” Commenting on this, an historian of American Indians wondered what the response would be to the argument that the Holocaust wasn’t genocidal because while the Nazis “could certainly have been less thorough, less severe, less deadly” in their policy toward Jews, after all, some Jews survived, “a number of whom even live in Connecticut.”

Armenian Americans were offended by what they saw as Jewish insistence on making the Holocaust “unique,” while portraying the Armenian genocide as “ordinary.” A Jewish magazine published a symposium in which Jewish writers responded to an Armenian who, in moderate language, questioned the uniqueness of the Holocaust and suggested numerous ways in which it paralleled the events of 1915. Lucy Dawidowicz (quite falsely) accused the Armenian of “turn[ing] the subject into a vulgar contest about “who suffered more.” She added that while the Turks had “a rational reason” for killing Armenians, the Germans had no rational reason for killing Jews. Other contributors offered various reasons why the Holocaust, unlike the Armenian genocide, was “special”: that it took place in the heart of Christian Europe; that anti-Semitism was “sui generis”; that what happened to the Jews, unlike what happened to the Armenians, “represents a new divide in human history.”

Armenians had other grievances. The designers of the Washington Holocaust Museum went back on earlier commitments to give significant space to the Armenian genocide as part of the background of the Holocaust. They yielded to those in the museum’s governing councils who objected to any dilution of the Holocaust’s “unprecedented” character. They yielded as well to the urgent lobbying of the Israeli government, which was anxious not to offend Turkey — at the time, the only Muslim country with which Israel had diplomatic relations. (Turkey has consistently denied that there ever was an Armenian genocide.) Israeli lobbying also led a number of prominent American Jews, including Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, and Arthur Hertzberg, to withdraw from an international conference on genocide in Tel Aviv when the Israeli organizers, despite heavy pressure from their government, refused to remove sessions on the Armenian case.

Perhaps most infuriating of all to Armenians — given how forthcoming the American Congress had been with proclamations and funding for commemorating the Holocaust — Israeli diplomats and important American Jewish activists joined in a coalition that helped defeat a congressional resolution memorializing the Armenian genocide. Major Jewish organizations that had originally planned to support the resolution backed off and stayed silent in response to urgings from Israel. One veteran Jewish leader explained what motivated his lobbying against the resolution: “Many contend the Holocaust was simply a terrible event, neither unique nor particular. To compare…Armenians [in 1915] to the situation of Europe’s Jews in 1933 or 1939 is a dangerous invitation to revisionism about the Holocaust… If Jews say every terrible event…is genocide, why should the world believe the Holocaust is distinctive?” There were those in the American Jewish world who supported the congressional resolution commemorating the Armenian genocide. But it would be hard to quarrel with Armenian or other observers who concluded that, as far as “official” Jewry was concerned, some memories were more equal than others.

As so often in these years, the most-publicized conflicts in this realm were between Jews and blacks. Those that attracted the greatest attention featured Louis Farrakhan and his merry band. “Don’t push your six million down our throats,” Farrakhan said, “when we lost 100 million.” “The black holocaust,” said his aide Khalid Abdul Muhammad, “was a hundred times worse than the so-called Jewish Holocaust.” Though one would be hard-pressed to find blacks outside the Nation of Islam who would endorse this sort of trash talk, a sense of being perpetually one-upped by Jews, and of Jews’ having stolen from blacks their rightful place as America’s number-one victim community, was widespread…

The greatest symbolic affront was that while Jews had a federally funded museum memorializing their victimhood, proposals for a museum of the black experience never made it through Congress. Blacks were well aware of the irony… It was American Jews’ wealth and political influence that made it possible for them to bring to the Mall in Washington a monument to their weakness and vulnerability. Those who remained weak and vulnerable — who were oppressed here rather than there — lacked the wherewithal to carry off such a venture.

The most common Jewish response to the charge that Jews were intent on permanent possession of the gold medal in the Victimization Olympics has been to protest that it was others, not they, who were engaged in competition. Jews were the aggrieved party — “they are stealing the Holocaust from us,” said Elie Wiesel; others were illegitimately appropriating language and imagery to which they were not entitled… The use of the word “ghetto” for black slums were frequently cited as an example of “stealing the Holocaust”: “there is no barbed wire across 125th Street and there are no guard towers”; “no place in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago was even remotely like Buchenwald in 1938 or Warsaw in 1942 or Auschwitz in 1944. The most commonly expressed Jewish grievance was the use of the words “Holocaust” and “genocide” to describe other catastrophes. This sense of grievance was rooted in the conviction, axiomatic in at least “official” Jewish discourse, that the Holocaust was unique. Since Jews recognized the Holocaust’s uniqueness — that it was “incomparable,” beyond any analogy — they had no occasion to compete with others; there could be no contest over the incontestable.



Posted in Holocaust | Comments Off on The Victimization Olympics



Wearing a yarmulke is no longer safe in the city of Malmö. The mayor blames the Jews, while other Swedish politicians point to ‘social inequality.’

The store window had been smashed many times before. The shoe-repair shop is located in one of the rougher parts of Malmö, Sweden, and the Jewish owner, a native of the city, had gotten used to this sort of vandalism. But in the spring of 2004, a group of immigrants just under the age of 15—too young to be prosecuted by Swedish law—walked into the store yelling about “damn Jews.” The owner was hit in the face by one of the boys. Yasha, an 85-year-old customer and relative of mine, was struck in the back of his head. The doctor who received him at the emergency room concluded that he must have been hit with a blunt object. “I left Poland to get away from anti-Semitism,” he later told the police. “But at least there I never experienced any violence. That only happened to me here, in Sweden.”

The Jews of Malmö, a community of about 1,500 in a city of 300,000, are living through a new form of anti-Semitism. This kind does not stem from neo-Nazis or right-wing extremists—traditional perpetrators of European Jew-hatred—but has come to the city through immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East and is part of a larger, countrywide problem of failed integration. According to the 2011 census, one in 10 Malmö citizens comes from the Middle East and North Africa, and ethnic Swedes are no longer in the majority among 15-year-olds. In 2009, 60 hate crimes against Jews were reported in Malmö, ranging from hate speech to assault. The city’s Chicago-born Chabad rabbi, Shneur Kesselman, estimates that he alone has been the victim of 100 incidents during his few years in the city. A dozen families have already left Malmö for Stockholm, Israel, or the United States because of anti-Semitism, according to community leaders.

If only this were the whole problem. But Malmö’s mayor of 17 years, Ilmar Reepalu, has “Tourettes syndrome with respect to Jews,” according to Kvällsposten, a Swedish newspaper. Last week, Reepalu, a Social Democrat, made headlines across the country after I published an interview with him in which he said that Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant party with its roots in the Swedish neo-Nazi movement, had “infiltrated” Malmö’s Jewish community in order to turn it against Muslims. On Monday, he was publicly reprimanded by the head of his party.



Posted in Anti-Semitism, Islam | Comments Off on SWEDEN’S ‘DAMN JEW’ PROBLEM

Black Friday

From Radix Journal: Black Friday is part of the dark void at the heart of contemporary America. Every year it seems the advertisements creep in earlier and earlier, and our “holidays” come to resemble more of an all-day advertising pitch than a day of rest and reflection.

When the struggles of our ancestors are reduced to trivialities, the trivial is all we are left with to “celebrate.” Celebration in contemporary America means consumption. Where our forefathers stopped to give thanks for a good harvest, survival in battle, or healthy progeny, today we take time to read the sale clippings for tomorrow’s next marvel of planned obsolescence. As you read this, many of our own relatives have been in line for hours or more just pawing to get inside the local Wal-Mart, Best Buy, shopping mall, or wherever.

Watching news clips at the early hours of every “Black Friday” is a morbid fascination for this author. As of this writing, in Long Island, one Wal-Mart worker article has already been “trampled to death” by a “mob of wild shoppers.” It speaks volumes that this is an expected happening every year. It takes “dying for a bargain” to new heights.

Within all of the madness, there are saplings of resistance to this bland corporate affair that deserve our attention. The outdoor performance clothing store REI has started a campaign it calls #OptOutside. Its CEO’s statement includes,

We believe that being outside makes our lives better. And Black Friday is the perfect time to remind ourselves of this essential truth.

Of course what this most SWPL of retailers does not realize is how shockingly “White” such a statement is. One report quotes a local California State Park Superintendent who hopes that the REI campaign will “Get people to see our parks.” As Steve Sailer observers, nature reservers are “safe spaces” for Europeans.



Posted in Whites | Comments Off on Black Friday

That Laquan McDonald Shooting In Chicago: A Counter-Take

John Derbyshire writes:

Here (with a hat tip to Countenance Blog) is an interesting counter-take on the 2014 Chicago shooting of Laquan McDonald.

I expect every police officer in the country has been taught a defensive doctrine called the Tueller Drill. The Tueller Drill was developed by Salt Lake City Police Officer Dennis Tueller, who among other things was a firearms instructor for his department.

Dennis trained uniformed police officers who were armed with pistols and who regularly encountered violent suspects armed with impact weapons, particularly knives.


That begged the question, then, of what distance became the threshold at which an impact-weapon armed attacker did constitute an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm such that the officer would be justified in using deadly force. Was that distance 5 feet? 10 feet? 15 feet?


After running a great many empirical tests, Dennis found that the distance that an impact-weapon armed attacker could cross from a standing start in 1.5 seconds was not just 5 feet, or 10 feet, or 15 feet. Rather, such an aggressor could consistently cross a distance of 21 feet, a full 7 yards, in the 1.5 seconds it would take the typical officer to draw his holster and engage that aggressor with aimed fire.

Laquan McDonald Video Not Dispositive of Police Criminal Misconduct

Posted by Andrew Branca, LegalInsurrection, November 25, 2015

Here’s a police training video displaying two officers testing this in the gym.

Branca also has a video he describes as

And in case that exercise wasn’t sufficiently convincing on how effective a knife can be against even a prepared and well-armed police officer, here’s a video of an actual confrontation between an aggressive and motivated knife-wielding attacker and several armed police officers, some of whom were armed with long guns. (CAUTION: Not all of these officers survive the encounter, and there’s plenty of blood, so if you’re sensitive to such things you may wish to defer viewing.)

You can watch it here.



Posted in Blacks, Crime, Police | Comments Off on That Laquan McDonald Shooting In Chicago: A Counter-Take

The Right Rises In Sweden

REPORT: Sweden’s liberal identity is under attack. As increasing numbers of refugees enter the country, anti-immigrant violence is rising.

And the Sweden Democrats, a radical nationalist group, is now the third largest party in the country. Phoebe Greenwood meets the young Swedes who believe multiculturalism is a threat–and the migrants afraid of what this means for them.



Posted in Sweden | Comments Off on The Right Rises In Sweden

No Free Speech In Britain

Woman Who Abused Muslim Passenger on Bus Given Suspended Sentence

Kevin Rawlinson, Guardian, November 13, 2015

A woman who subjected a pregnant Muslim woman and her two friends to a tirade of abuse on a London bus has been spared jail.

Simone Joseph, who accused her victims of supporting Islamic State and hiding bombs up their skirts, handed herself in after footage of her lengthy rant spread online.

She was given a 16-week jail term, suspended for 18 months, at Hendon magistrates court on Friday.

After watching footage of her Islamophobic attack–which was witnessed by her young child–Joseph said she was disgusted by her behaviour.

A letter from her principal victim, Hanane Yakoubi, who was 34 weeks pregnant, was read out in court. “I am finding it difficult to sleep at night and every time I go out I am afraid that something similar will happen as something like this has happened before because I am a Muslim,” it read.

“I cannot take medication for this because I am pregnant and as I do not speak the language I do not know how to ask for help.”

Joseph kept her head bowed as the footage was played to the court, wiping her eyes as friends and family watched. It showed her calling the women “sand buckets” and “sand rats” and telling them: “I don’t fucking like you people because you’re fucking rude. You come to England and you have no fucking manners.

“Go back to your fucking country where they’re bombing every day. Don’t come to this country where we’re free.”

In the footage, shot in north-west London on 13 October, Joseph berates the women for not speaking English and tells Yakoubi: “You’re lucky I don’t kick you in your uterus and you’ll never have a baby again.”

Tony Meisels, for Joseph, said: “This was a disgusting and extremely unpleasant incident, which any right-minded member of society would think so and which my client recognises as such in the cold light of day.

“She really is ashamed of what has happened and wishes to apologise to the complainant, the other people on the bus and the wider society.” Meisels told the court Joseph had family who are Muslim.

Sparing her jail, magistrate Marion Stern, said: “Although we understand and accept that you are remorseful and of previous good character, nevertheless, this was an abhorrent incident. This incident took place on a public bus in a confined space in the presence of the general public and children.”

She said the sentence was being suspended to take account of Joseph’s good previous character and the fact that she showed remorse. Joseph was ordered to pay £500 compensation to Yakoubi and criminal court charges of £180, in addition to completing 60 weeks of unpaid work.



Posted in Censorship, England | Comments Off on No Free Speech In Britain

The Media Is Wrong, White Student Unions Are not ‘Hoaxes’ Created by Racists

From Breitbart: The chaos that erupted across college campuses earlier this month escalated racial tensions among students to levels not seen since the 1950s and 60s, as radical activists sought to enforce a new orthodoxy of ‘white privilege’ across universities. The inevitable consequence — a newly-racialized American campus — is beginning to emerge.

In the space of a few days, Facebook pages for “White Student Unions” have sprung up on dozens of campuses across North America. The pages adopt the language of campus activists, promising a “safe space” for white students and condemning alleged anti-white racism on campus.

Mainstream media outlets have reported on them as hoaxes, the product of online trolls who don’t even attend the campuses they claim to represent. The Daily Beast blames “racist trolls” from 8chan, 4chan, and white supremacist site The Daily Stormer for “fabricating” the Facebook pages in order to further stoke racial tensions.

But this narrative is incorrect. In private interviews conducted with the creators of a number of these groups, Breitbart Tech has found that a number of the new “White Student Unions” are indeed the product of students on campus who are afraid to speak out publicly.

But these students aren’t white supremacists, or even white nationalists. In some cases, they are not even white. One of the anonymous student group founders we spoke to, who did not wish to be identified, was of South Asian descent. Another founder was Mexican-American. They are concerned by what they see as unchecked hostility towards their fellow white students.

Juan (real name omitted at his request), a Mexican-American student at UC Santa Cruz (UCSC), said he started his White Student Union page as a means to mock the “absurd nonsense of crybaby, race-obsessed college students, [by] using their tactics against them,” although Juan also added that he now thinks there might be a serious problem to tackle. “We’re coming to see that there might actually be some hostility to the thought that one might be proud of being of European descent.”

Rajesh (real name omitted at his request), a South Asian student who founded a White Student Union page page for the University of British Columbia (UBC), also expressed concern at what he saw as the increasingly unequal racial hierarchy emerging on campuses. “In the current ideological and cultural environment I, as a non-white, am lucky,” said Rajesh. “I have the right to be proud of my heritage, I am not made to feel ashamed of who I am and don’t need to constantly walk on eggshells in conversations for fear of being thought a racist.”

“I value whites. I’m culturally comfortable among whites. I’ve always grown up around whites. I enjoy the company of whites,” he stated.

Rajesh also claimed he was not the only minority concerned by the new racism: “I’ve been surprised by how many non-whites we’ve had approaching us. They are familiar with the stigmatisation of white identity and white people… And they don’t like that.”

White students involved in the new movement report a similar sense of stigmatisation. John (real name omitted at his request), a student at UC Santa Barbara (UCSB) and an editor of its White Student Union page, said he was led to set up the page by “a pervasive set of attitudes at my school towards people of European descent. I have had physical threats via pm, intimidation, and verbal abuse both online and off.”

John also detected hatred in attitudes to European history. “European history and culture is considered evil, and entirely defined by the harm it did other cultures,” he said.

The media continues to push the narrative that these pages are all hoaxes. BuzzFeed Canada today reported that Rajesh’s White Student Union at UBC is “almost certainly a hoax” after failing to obtain a phone interview with the student. Unlike BuzzFeed Canada, Breitbart Tech succeeded in obtaining a phone interview, as well as extensive online records that chronicle his time at the university, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is a student at the university. BuzzFeed Canada is wrong.



Posted in College, Diversity | Comments Off on The Media Is Wrong, White Student Unions Are not ‘Hoaxes’ Created by Racists

Showdown: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court Nomination that Changed America

Raymond Wolters writes: In 1954 Marshall won his most consequential case, Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, in which he persuaded the Supreme Court to rule that public schools must admit students on a racially nondiscriminatory basis. Altogether, Marshall appeared 34 times as an advocate before the Supreme Court, and he won 29 of his cases. It is hard to dispute Mr. Haygood’s conclusion: “There was not another lawyer in America whose constitutional victories could match Thurgood Marshall’s . . . .” “No [other] Justice had come to the high court with the background he possessed in traveling the land and fighting from courthouse to courthouse . . . He was a colossal figure in American jurisprudence.”

George Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit, Jr. after their victory in Brown v. Board of Education.
George Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit, Jr. after their victory in Brown v. Board of Education.
Nevertheless, most Southern senators thought Marshall was a poor choice for appointment to the high court. They said Marshall’s disposition was suitable for an advocate but not for a magistrate. They also criticized Marshall’s legal philosophy, which Mr. Haygood summarizes as a “decades-long [and often-expressed] belief that the Constitution was a living document.”

North Carolina’s Senator Sam Ervin maintained that Marshall was “by practice and philosophy a legal and judicial activist.” Ervin further predicted that if Marshall were appointed to the Supreme Court he would join other activist justices in rendering decisions which would “substantially impair, if not destroy, the right of Americans for years to come to have the Government of the United States and the several states conducted in accordance with the Constitution.” Ervin professed that he had “no prejudice in my mind or heart against any man because of his race.” Ervin recognized, however, that in opposing Marshall’s nomination, he was laying himself “open to the easy, but false, charge that I am a racist . . . .“

Showdown is testimony to the truth of Ervin’s observation. Mr. Haygood searched for evidence of Ervin’s racism, but the most damning thing he could find was Ervin’s signature on the Southern Manifesto of 1954: a document that said the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board was “unwarranted” and that urged resistance to “forced integration by any lawful means.” Since this did not prove that Ervin was a racist, Mr. Haygood deployed his peculiar method, “nonlinear narrative.” In doing so, Mr. Haygood describes several instances that had little to do with Marshall but which Mr. Haygood offers as evidence that Southern opposition to Marshall’s elevation to the Supreme Court grew out of deep-seated racial bigotry.

Thus, Mr. Haygood devotes several pages in one chapter to the 1934 lynching of Claude Neale, a Florida laborer who (perhaps under duress) confessed to the rape and murder of a 19-year-old white girl. Another chapter tells of the 1904 lynching of Luther Holbert, a plantation worker who fled after killing the uncle of Mississippi Senator John Eastland. Senator Eastland’s father tracked Holbert down, tied him to a tree, and set the tree on fire. Mr. Haygood also devotes an entire chapter to Southern white opposition to the 1916 appointment of a Jew, Louis Brandeis, to the U. S. Supreme Court; and several pages to the 1915 lynching of another Jew, Leo Frank, who had been in prison after being convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old white girl. Another chapter condemns President Theodore Roosevelt for not considering the provocations that black soldiers had experienced in an incident in which they fired some 200 rounds in Brownsville, Texas, in 1906 (but killed only a white bartender and wounded one white police officer). Mr. Haygood also criticizes President Woodrow Wilson for similarly making light of provocations that, in 1917, prompted 120 black soldiers to stage a mutiny and shoot up Houston, Texas, in a spree that claimed the lives of 15 whites, two of whom were soldiers.

For Mr. Haygood, these and several other “nonlinear narratives” are not digressions by a garrulous raconteur. They are presented as the key to understanding why most Southern Senators opposed Thurgood Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court. According to Mr. Haygood, “No one in the hearing room” believed South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond “for a minute when he started talking about states’ rights and how he was trying to stop the encroachment of federal power. They thought it pure racist code.”

Mr. Haygood to the contrary notwithstanding, Southerners and other strict constructionist Senators–especially Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond–raised several points that deserved respectful consideration. Ervin, for example, questioned Marshall’s temperament. He conceded that Marshall was one of the nation’s leading advocates; that Marshall had a distinguished career; and that Marshall had ably pleaded the cases and the cause of his clients and his people. But Ervin doubted that Marshall had a judicial disposition. According to Ervin, “in passing upon the qualifications of an appointee to the Supreme Court, it is not only important for a Senator to determine whether the nominee has sufficient knowledge of the law or sufficient legal experience, but also to determine whether he is able and willing to exercise that judicial self-restraint which is implicit in the judicial process.” Quoting Daniel Webster, Ervin declared: “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” According to Ervin, the Justices of the Supreme Court should “place themselves as nearly as possible in the position of the men who framed [the Constitution].” Their role was “simply to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the framers . . . .” For Ervin, the greatest judicial virtue was “the virtue of self-restraint.”

Marshall, on the other hand, had repeatedly said the Constitution should be interpreted as “a living document,” and he did not back away from this point of view during his confirmation hearing, in which he said the nation’s charter should be interpreted in the light of current problems. Like a predecessor-Justice, Robert Jackson, Marshall believed the Constitution contained “majestic generalities” that should be construed in the light of current needs. Like his soon-to-be fellow justice, William Brennan, Marshall thought the genius of the Constitution rested “not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems . . . .”

Marshall’s critics, on the other hand, rejected the idea that justices could change the interpretation of a Constitutional provision and give it another meaning. According to Ervin, that theory did not mean that the Constitution was “living” but rather that it was “dead.” Americans were being ruled by “the personal notions of the temporary occupants of the Supreme Court.”

Marshall’s partisans prevailed. In 1967 the Senate confirmed his appointment to the Supreme Court. The vote was 9-6 in the Judiciary Committee and 69-11 (with 20 abstentions) in the full Senate.

Mr. Haygood misses the mark when he dismisses strict construction as “pure racist code.” He is also mistaken when he fails to recognize that, all along, Marshall had been a race man, committed to advancing the interests of blacks. In the 1950s, in testimony before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, Marshall and his chief assistant, Robert Carter, had said it was their “dedicated belief” that the Constitution was “color-blind.” They said they were “not asking for affirmative relief. . . . The only thing that we ask for is that the state-imposed racial segregation be taken off, and to leave the county school board . . . to assign children on any reasonable basis they want to assign them on. . . . What we want from this Court is the striking down of race . . . . [D]o not put in race or color as a factor.”

But times change. Affirmative action for blacks came into fashion in the 1970s, and whites began to insist that the Constitution was “color blind” and that students should be admitted to selective programs on the basis of personal qualities, not race. When the issue came before the Supreme Court, however, Marshall favored discrimination to promote the interests of blacks.

One of the first Supreme Court cases on this question involved Marco DeFunis, a white applicant who filed an appeal after he learned that the law school at the University of Washington admitted black students whose qualifications were inferior to those of white applicants who were denied admission. When the justices of the Supreme Court discussed the case, it was clear that Thurgood Marshall no longer believed the Constitution was “color blind.” He was no longer opposed to preferring some students for racial reasons. “Why the turnaround?” asked Justice William O. Douglas. Marshall gave a straightforward answer: “You [white] guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it’s our turn.”

Haygood does not discuss Marshall’s record as a Supreme Court Justice. After the DeFunis case, however, Marshall consistently plumped for affirmative action to help blacks. His greatest triumph came in Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) and other cases, in which he persuaded the Court to interpret laws against “discrimination” as laws that forbade any policy, test, or standard that affected blacks adversely. Thanks to Marshall, “no discrimination” came to mean “no disparate impact.” On the surface this seems inconsistent with Marshall’s plea in Brown v. Board–“What we want from this Court is the striking down of race . . . . [D]o not put in race or color as a factor.” But to say that Marshall was inconsistent is to misunderstand him. He was “a race man.” He was consistently for his race, first and last.



Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Showdown: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court Nomination that Changed America