Beullogeo's

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

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

R. Davis writes:

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

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

LA replies:

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

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

James M. writes from England:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Jaws writes:

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

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

Bert R. writes:

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

LA replies:

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

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

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

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

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

It isn't difficult to differentiate the two men.

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

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

I'm on a brief fact-finding visit to Appalachia. It feels good to be amongst my people - even those who are down and out, and whose English I can't always understand. Maybe I'll write more about it when I get back.

In these tumultuous times, "Big Wall Street investment companies are taking advantage of the Federal Reserve's unprecedented offer" to avail themselves to unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money. We can only hope some heads will roll. We can be certain none of any consequence will.

Meanwhile the freshest progressivist-globalist bigbrains are hard at work on the next boondoggle, green energy:

NECKER ISLAND,British Virgin Islands: Richard Branson was lounging under the starry midnight sky on this palm-dappled speck of an island recently when he popped a sobering question.

"So, do we really think the world is on fire?" Branson, the British magnate and adventurer, asked several guests, as a manservant scurried off to fetch him another glass of pinot grigio.

What he wanted to know was whether his high-powered visitors, among them Larry Page of Google, Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, thought global warming threatened the planet.

Branson does - and so did most of his guests. So on this recent weekend on his private hideaway in the crystalline waters between the islands of Tortola and Anegada, they tried to figure out what to do about it and perhaps get richer in the process.

Something tells me that these hard-charging save-the-planet types never considered the simplest solution: stop the progressivist-globalist pyramid scheme. In other words, stop fueling turd world overpopulation with food and technology, and stop allowing overpopulating turd worlders to immigrate and overwhelm those of us, specifically the White folk, whose population has already stablized or is declining.

Hands up, how many think "global warming threatened the planet" is more important than how to "get richer in the process"? Branson didn't need to pop that question.

"In James Bond movies, evil-doers meet in exotic settings to plot the destruction of the planet," [chief executive of Ecology Coatings Richard] Stromback said, puffing on a cigar before dinner one night. But the people here, he said, were plotting to save the planet.

So far, however, the hopes and dreams of alternative energy have far outstripped reality. But for Stromback and many of the other participants, a confluence of two powerful forces - soaring oil prices and growing concern over global warming - means the era of economically viable green power is finally at hand.

Many executives and financiers, including some in attendance at the retreat, have a lot of money riding on global warming. Branson, for example, has invested in a host of alternative energy enterprises, including existing businesses within his sprawling Virgin Group.

Khosla, the founding chief executive of Sun Microsystems and one of the most successful venture capitalists in Silicon Valley, has at least 33 investments in "clean tech," including new fermentation technology to make fuel-grade ethanol.

The world-managers already have alot of money riding on green energy. Uh-oh. Hold on to your wallet.

But the big question that hung over the meeting was whether the nations or the world could ever work together to tackle climate change and emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

"We have an agreement that there should be an agreement," said [former British prime minister and senior adviser to Bear Stearns-gobbling JPMorgan Chase Tony] Blair, who was dressed in a white polo shirt, blue cargo shorts and sneakers. "But there's no agreement on what that agreement should be."

Plutocrat tools can be so droll when performing for their next paycheck.

Everyone, it seemed, had some project in the works. Elon Musk, the co-founder of PayPal, talked about his latest project, Tesla Motors, a Silicon Valley company that makes sexy electric sports cars retailing for $100,000. Page has ordered one.

Brilliant! Now if only we can convince all the smog belching pickup truck driving invaders to use their tax rebates as a down payment on sexy electric sports cars.

Their poverty problem solved once again, who could begrudge these world-class egos some world-class debauchery?

There was plenty of time for fun and games, of course. After lunch one afternoon, Branson suggested that the entire gang sail off to Mosquito, a nearby island he also owns, aboard a dozen catamarans. He said there was a party over there.

Page, an avid kite surfer, struck out alone. One of Blair's security personal trailed behind in a motorboat. As the catamarans beached up on Mosquito, music was blaring and bikini-clad women were dancing. Branson deadpanned, "Normally the girls would be naked, but the prime minister is here."

Profit, pretense, and partying. Simple recipe for a non-solution.

UPDATE 21 Mar 2008: If your brain is big enough you don't need to rob banks. You invent fraudulent schemes so massive they are "too big to fail". In other words you manipulate government into collecting taxes for you:

Central banks on both sides of the Atlantic are actively engaged in discussions about the feasibility of mass purchases of mortgage-backed securities as a possible solution to the credit crisis.

Such a move would involve the use of public funds to shore up the market in a key financial instrument and restore confidence by ending the current vicious circle of forced sales, falling prices and weakening balance sheets.

Of course the financiers can think of lots of ways to get paid. That is the only real "service" they provide.

Look at the bright side. They'll blow at least some of the money on "green" gigayachts.

On 11 February 2008 by the Pew Research Center published a paper titled U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050.

You may have seen the executive summary, or one of many news articles summarizing the summary. Some even contained nuggets of truth. For instance, USA Today's U.S. Hispanic population to triple by 2050:

"Immigration has long-term consequences on the make-up of the country and the size of the population and we need to take those results in account when we make immigration policy," says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that promotes limits on immigration. "Growing our population by 100 million more than we would otherwise is a choice. Immigration is a choice. … It's all up to us."

Jeffrey Passel, co-author of the report says:

"Fifty years ago, we didn't have the definition for the Hispanic population."

Right. Fifty years ago there were hardly any latinos in the US. Nobody then would have predicted that fifty years later they would outnumber blacks. Well, here we are. How can anybody accurately project what the US population will look like fifty years from now? They can't.

Then there's this article from AFP, titled Whites to be minority in US by 2050: study:

Immigration will drive the population of the United States sharply upward between now and 2050, and will push whites into a minority, projections by the Pew Research Center showed Monday.

"If current trends continue, the population of the United States will rise to 438 million in 2050, from 296 million in 2005," an increase of nearly 50 percent, the study by the Washington-based think-tank said.

More than 80 percent of the increase will be due to immigrants arriving in the country and their US-born children, who will make up nearly one in five Americans by 2050 compared with one in eight in 2005, it said.

Whites, who currently make up around two-thirds of the US population, will become a minority (47 percent) by 2050, the report said.

The Hispanic population, currently the largest minority group, will triple in size and double in percentage terms from 14 percent in 2005 to 29 percent in 2050, the report said.

The Asian population will roughly double in percentage terms, from five percent to nine percent, while the black population will remain static at around 13 percent.

Emphasis mine.

You can't accuse USA Today or AFP of hiding the agenda. It's right there in the headlines. In their articles they even summarize the strategy: Import non-whites until the Whites are swamped.

This is clearly illustrated by the graphs above. Well not the first graph, which comes from the Pew executive summary and was reproduced in some of the news coverage of their report. The second graph better represents the truth. I created it by resizing the original bars so they were all one pixel high per million people, then I shrank the image down to the same height as the original.

For reference, here are the numbers (in millions) computed from the graph's totals and percentages:

	1960	2005	2050
White	153.0	198.3	205.9
Latino	6.3	41.4	127.0
Black	19.8	38.5	56.9
Asian	1.1	14.8	39.4
Total	180	296	438

One truth clearly visible in the modified graph is that the growth in US population since 1960 is mostly from immigration. There were hardly any latinos or asians then, now there are millions. Another truth, not emphasized but buried in the full report, is that the White population is the slowest growing. In contrast the asians, blacks, and latinos reproduce and/or migrate like rabbits - and all of these "minorities" will, unless trends reverse, eventually outnumber Whites.

The truth is in fact even worse than that. The Pew numbers for 2005 are guesstimates, because after more than two decades of rampant illegal immigration nobody knows for sure how many people are actually in the US. I think we can be certain more than "12 million" are invaders.

This truth is partially reflected in the (appropriated colored) brown graph, taken from Pew's full report. Ever since Congress passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 legal immigration levels have steadily risen to unprecedented levels. The graph fails to reflect the non-white nature of the change, but it does at least reveal the increasingly illegitimate nature of immigration. It has become an invasion.

The media provides daily lectures concerning threats like overpopulation, global warming, and carbon footprints. A "public service announcement" I heard on the radio yesterday is typical. One somber voice after another proclaimed their earnest desire to preserve the environment of California and the world "for my children" to "ensure they enjoy the things I have".

Our insane and mendacious intelligensia wants Whites to be concerned about passing a healthy environment on to our children. So concerned that we'll forgo reproduction and welcome hordes from the turd world! Oh and by the way, make sure to be a loyal consumer and for the good of the economy go forth and borrow and spend like there's no tomorrow.

"No hope for tomorrow White man, live for today" - that's the message isn't it? A healthy and virtuous intelligensia would long ago have alerted us: "wake up White man, your government is subverted, your nation invaded, stop it and start making babies".

As early as 1968 Enoch Powell did raise the alarm:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Related: Interesting Predictions.

Mansizedtarget made the following comment to my previous post:

It seems to me the most coherent and viable identity that exists in a real way and is a means of resisting globalization, homogenization, and all the other evils of today is the nation.

I had been thinking likewise, and his statement triggered me to write what follows. None of it is particularly original or insightful, but it represents a synthesis of facts and opinions I've absorbed, much of it over the past year, some of which I have not previously expressed.

- - -

I paid a visit to Edmond Oklahoma last August, scouting places to resettle outside Aztlan. I remain deeply affected by the experience. In Edmund there are Whites doing all the jobs we're continually lectured Whites don't want to do. Edmond is a glimpse back in time to what Escondido California was like 20 years ago. What it could have remained. Clean, peaceful, prosperous, uncrowded. White America.

I knew even before the trip that "diversity" is a lie. California is not heading for "diversity". It's heading for pure latino. Oklahoma is not yet nearly as "vibrant". Which is to say it has less crime, less violence, and less people claiming special priviledges based on their non-whiteness. Alas, even Edmond shows signs of disease. In another decade latino, asian, and black gangs will be running amok and the Whites there will be looking for somewhere else to live.

After that trip a stunningly simple truth dawned on me: There is no racism when everyone is the same race.

It is an inversion of reality now typical of our sick society that this reality, writ large as nationalism, is seen as ignorant or defensive or reactionary and thus negative. The reality is that nations arise spontaneously from clusters of organically homogeneous people, and further, that such homogeneity is required for a nation's long-term stability and survival. A nation overwhelmed by aliens ceases to be a nation.

This has been known in the civilized world for at least 2700 years, when the Assyrians erased Israel and Babylon absorbed Judea and the jews became a wandering, nationless people. Our mendacious internationalist rulers know this nation-dissolving tactic just as well today. They are the reactionaries struggling desperately against human nature. They are the aggressors hammering uniquely shaped people into their one-size-fits-all worldview. They have corroded White minds with propaganda and miseducation, poking and prodding and delegitimatizing our normal proclivities toward nationalism, to convince us that our borders are mere lines on a map, arbitrary and immoral. They have mesmerized and beguiled us with financial and legal hocus pocus, and this has caused us to lower our defenses.

The progressives pine for one world because they think it will end war. The globalists pine for it because they think it will increase profit. Both goals are false.

Brutal gangs wage a constant undeclared war whose intensity grows precisely as our non-white population grows. Open borders are destroying our nation's cohesion, our sense of common cause, our respect for government and its laws. The crowding is overwhelming our infrastructure, the poverty overwhelming our wealth. We face increasingly unsafe, unhealthy living conditions, with less of our energy going to industry and more focused on security and escapism. We live in a post-civilizational society where distrust, decay, perversion, corruption, crime, and terror are accepted as normal.

"Diversity" and "multiculturalism" are euphemisms, cover for the pseudo-homogenizing forces of a consciously engineered attack on organic White homogeniety. Any natural sense of White common cause is denigrated and supplanted by dictatorial, nonsensical, one-way "tolerance". In contrast to a healthy and heart-felt fellowship that bubbles from the bottom up, "diversity" and "multiculturalism" are imposed from the top down. It is an attempt to accomplish by trickery and fiat the kind of forced mixing that occurs when a people are invaded, conquered, and colonized. This is decidedly unnatural and wrong.

"Anti-racism" is in reality anti-Whitism. The non-white immigration invasion will ultimately destroy virtually every predominantly White nation. Rather than serving as a beacon to the world, demonstrating how a nation can effectively and responsibly care for its own people, the US has instead become a bloated and putrefying Frankenstein monster, flocked to by scavengers, its wealth and possessions carved up and auctioned off by profiteers who will fly off to another victim when their host finally falls apart.

Nothing lasts forever, but the actual hows and whys of our nation's demise are no accident of history. It should have been different. There were plenty of people who warned this was coming and stood against it. They were pushed aside, denounced as nativists, xenophobes, bigots, racists, White supremacists, neo-nazis and anti-semites. For the past sixty years the ruling class has distanced themselves from any such taint, ridiculing and ostracizing anyone impertinent enough to freely say what their eyes and ears and brains clearly perceive. Today it is "politically incorrect" not only to speak such thoughts, but to even think them.

The responsibility for our predicament lies entirely with the willfully blind progressives and globalists whose utopian univeralist one-world policies have prevailed. They had control. They deserve all the blame.

Only when enough people reject the lies and see through the utopian one-world promises to the false and cadaverous reality underneath can we begin to build new societies and renew our civilization. This will only happen in places where the people associate as they choose, and where they enforce rules to keep out the shit-stirring ideologues and treacherous profiteers.

Today our one-world politicians promise everyone the moon. They have proven capable only of dispossessing Whites to buy favor with everyone else. In a true nation the politicians represent a cohesive people and can thus speak frankly about their common problems. Only under such circumstances is there a chance that what politicians propose will be honest and fair. If you're hoping for change it isn't going to come from either progressivist Obama or globalist McCain. Both roads lead to the same non-nation we've been heading toward for sixty years.

Under the title Whiteness and the Jewish Question Prozium writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To which I responded:

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

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

Excellent analysis otherwise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After much verbiage Mencius finally comes to his point:

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

And I haven't even stated my theory yet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what makes sense to me.

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

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

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

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