What do Catholic authoritarians want?


Well, really we would like and end to sin and suffering, that God should renew all things and Jesus Christ be all in all.  But we don’t want to put off all of our hopes to the eschaton; for the coming centuries hegemony would do nicely.

What does this mean?  Basically, control of a culture.  Forgive me, that’s still far too vague.  Let’s ask a more precise question:  what would Catholic hegemony mean in majority-Protestant America?  Simple:  it means Catholics and Jews switching places in the social order.

Imagine an America where Catholics hold the same power that Jews hold in the real America.  As there is no law forcing everyone to be a Jew, and no formal penalties laid on Gentiles, so in Catholic America, there would be no legal disabilities set on Protestants or Jews.  We Catholics are a very tolerant bunch when we are in the minority.  Furthermore, I demand that you praise us for this, just as historians uniformly praise the Muslim Arabs for allowing freedom of religion in their empire when they were a tiny ruling minority and for employing infidels to make up for the expertise they lacked–as if they had any practical choice in any of this.

In this alternate America, reactionary Catholics control the media.  (Naturally, we want to eventually eliminate the mass media, not just control it, but let’s say that’s a more long-term goal.  First, we must use the instruments at hand to cement our power.)  Of course, I don’t mean that a room full of cardinals meeting in secred dictates what goes on television or in the newspapers.  I mean that the major media corporations are owned by self-conscious Catholics (with perhaps a few very sympathetic Protestants mixed in) and staffed either by other Catholics or by Protestants indocrinated in our ethos.  We, and those formed in our ethos, dictate the beliefs and, more importantly, the prejudices, of the intellectual elite.  There is complete freedom of expression, but anyone who criticizes the Catholic Church will lose his job and find himself socially ostracized.  Everyone knows this well enough to guard his tongue, but it is forbidded to explicitly acknowledge the grip we hold on public discourse, lest it generate resentment among the masses.  Other religions will exist and self-govern, but their leaders will be obsessed with avoiding charges of anti-Catholicism, so they will praise us to the skies.

History in the public schools is taught from our perspective.  Whenever teaching a historical incident when Catholics clashed with some other group, schools must present the Catholics as blameless victims or courageous agents of justice (depending on who threw the first punch) and their opponents as ignorant, greedy, and viscious.  I actually think that Catholic reactionaries would be more magnanimous than the Jews here.  I think we would permit Protestant schools to teach their history from their own perspective, which will of course be less complimentary to us.  Can you imagine a private school in actual America taking the side of “anti-semites” without facing the direst consequences?

Our beliefs on contested social issues would be written into the law, even where they conflict with majority opinion.  The dominant school in constitutional law will be that the Constitution is a living document which contains Catholic natural law as its implicit basis and which must therefore undergo a process of nautral maturation whereby this basis is more explicitly acknowledged.  Jewish and Protestant politicians may sometimes agitate for liberalized abortion laws, but everyone knows that they’re wasting their time, because the Supreme Court would immediately declare such liberalizations unconstitutional.  This legal hegemony is maintained even though the majority of politicians, judges, and lawyers are not Catholics.  All that matters is that most of them are either indoctrinated by us, overawed by us, or fear us.

Now, no doubt anyone reading this who is not a Catholic authoritarian would say that I have just described the most horrifying imaginable theocratic tyranny.  But how can that be, since all I have done is to swap two groups of people–reactionary Catholics+their conservative Protestant allies vs. Leftist Jews and their liberal Protestant allies?  The fact is, for a society to have any unity at all, it must have shared beliefs.  Some group must have hegemony.  In a diverse society like America, that means some minority must have hegemony.  Catholic authoritarians would naturally prefer to be that group.

It doesn’t matter what their IQ is; what matters is that they hate us.

I don’t understand why illiberal sites like Alternative Right and The Occidental Observer are always going on about IQ.  They think it terribly important that white Christians know that blacks are dumber than they are, while Jews are smarter.  Biology is supposedly the source of all our problems.  Those of us who focus on culture and religion are supposedly cowards, who are supposedly using these concerns to keep from facing the harsh biological reality.  This can’t be right, though.  Suppose I were to divide the white population up, calling everyone with an IQ above 120 an “alpha”, everyone with an IQ between 90 and 120 a “beta”, and everyone with an IQ below 90 a “gamma”.  If IQ were everything, white alphas should be as big an adversary to Christendom as the Jews, and white gammas should be as big a social problem for America as the blacks (indeed, much worse, because there are more of them).  This is clearly not the case.  I’m sure if we were to look into it, alphas are overrepresented in cultural subversion and gammas in violent crime. but alphas would also be overrepresented in cultural preservation and gammas in the muscle-work of the establishment.  The big difference is that nobody thinks of himself as a “gamma”, while many people do think of themselves as black.  Being black isn’t an IQ range; it’s a whole identity.  It correlates strongly with certain beliefs and loyalties.  What we find disturbing about the Jews and the blacks is their hostility to our civilization.  For them, America and the West are evil; these are their ancestral enemies; not only do they not share our loyalty to our nation and civilization, they actually would welcome their destruction.  Our ancestors, whom we revere, they regard as criminals.  This makes them a moral threat, which bothers us more even than physical threats.  When I meet a black man, it’s very unlikely that he’s going to mug me.  It’s quite likely, though, that he regards my society as illegitimate and my cultural-ethnic heritage as shameful.  When I meet a Jew, it’s a near certainty that he feels this way.  Thus, black violence bothers us more than white violence, because it seems more meaningful.  If a white steals my TV, I chalk it up to senseless greed; if a black man does it, the disturbing thought crosses my mind that he might have felt entitled to.

Why does this bother us so much?  It annoys but doesn’t disturb me that gypsies think its all right to steal from the rest of us.  But that blacks feel entitled to my money and Mexicans to my land disturbs me in a different way.  I think it is because all the anti-Christian, ant-Western propaganda we’ve endured has gotten to us.  We don’t feel confident that our culture, religion, or race deserve to survive.  We believe they do, but we recognize it as a disputable point.  We’ve been taught to feel shame over our European heritage.  We’ve rejected that shame, but not escaped it; it has left its mark.  There’s a sensitive spot that certain minorities are very good at hitting.

Then there’s the rational reason for worry.  Blacks and Jews have willingly–enthusiastically!–given themselves over to the role of wedge minority, as those “poor excluded others” in whose interests the liberals claim justification for smashing our culture to bits.  We have to be honest about it:  they’re on the enemy’s side, and we’ll never win them over.  I used to maintain hope that wedge minorities could be won over by pointing out how their own traditions and group cohesion are ultimately threatened by liberal individualism.  I’ve now come to believe that liberalism destroys wedge minority cultures faster even than those the liberals are attacking.  Minorities’ self-understanding is remolded to fit their role as victims.  Ask a black to describe black identity, and it will all have to do with being oppressed by the white man.  He doesn’t know anything positive about African culture; what he thinks of as “African values” were manufactured in the past few decades by Leftist academics in their “Afrocentric” fairy tales.  Ask a Jew what it means to be a Jew, and you’ll hear about “tolerance”, “human rights”, and of course, vivid consciousness of being an outsider.

We must remember, though, that wedge minorities are ultimately a distraction.  The liberals say “you boys can’t have that tree-house there, because that excludes girls!”, but they don’t really care about girls feeling excluded.  What they care about is stopping those boys from making themselves feel included.  They say “Don’t brag about your fathers and grandfathers because it will make people from other families feel bad”, but they don’t care about other families.  They care about erasing filial devotion.  The Leftist will never be happy until the atomism which is the sickness of his soul is spread to everyone everywhere.  Our job as reactionaries should always be to bring things back to the real issue.

The Jews that it’s okay to bully

The Orthodox, of course.  You’re not supposed to give the New York Times/Hollywood/ACLU bunch so much as a sideways glance, or heaven help you, but you can criminalize those who want to follow Mosaic law, and that’s a perfectly progressive thing to do.  What’s going on?

Another example of the same thing:  When orthodox Christians are accused of antisemitism, they often respond by saying how much they admire Orthodox Jews or how much they support Israel, and this never works.  Nobody ever says “oh, well you’re okay then”.  It just means you’re one of those Fiddler-on-the-Roof-watching-pretend-friends-of-Jews who’s just waiting for the moment to show your true colors and strike.

Actually, I suspect that for our elite the Orthodox are only Jews for body-count purposes.  (If we only counted Hitler’s Western secular Jewish victims, the number wouldn’t be nearly so impressive.)  When they demand that Christians accept and approve the Jews, they mean the secular, liberal, degenerate Jews.  Saying you approve of one of the more pious branches of Judaism doesn’t buy you anything.  Nor does saying you support Israel, no matter how uncritically.  They suspect (and perhaps there is some truth to it) that Gentiles think of the State of Israel as a giant ghetto for the world’s Jews, and what we fear about an Arab victory is having to take those Jews back.

If disapproving and disliking liberal Jews makes one an antisemite, then of course conservatives will always be judged guilty of antisemitism.  On the other hand, let’s look at who is the attacker and who the defender here.  Christians don’t like liberal Jews because the latter are attacking their culture.  It’s self-defense.  On the other hand, with these bans on circumcision and kosher slaughter, it’s clearly the secular Leftists who have thrown the first punch at observant Jews who were just minding their own business.

This shouldn’t surprise us.  The Left is progressive, and progress is always aggressive, although that’s often only clear to those who are being “progressed” into.

Amish apologize for Holocaust

From Alternative Right, citing an article in Jewish Issues Examiner:  At Last, the Amish Apologize for the Holocaust.  Words fail.

I think its important, though, for us to point out that what these Amish did wasn’t just silly; it was evil.  It is slander.  Their apology affirms that their ancestors did something culpably wrong in the 1940’s, when that is a plain and obvious lie.  They have sinned against truth and against piety–these are their own grandfathers they’re talking about, after all.  And that’s just the worst of it.  By bowing to the Holocaust propaganda machine, they have made it harder on those Christian groups who haven’t yet sold out our forefathers.  After all, if the Amish are willing to apologize for–what was it exactly?–how dare Catholics refuse to affirm the communist-manufactured lies about Pope Pius XII that the Jewish propaganda machine have latched onto?  And there’s the fact that the Amish used forbidden technology to go to Israel.  The Jewish Issues Examiner condescendingly refers to gentile moral principles as matters of emotional comfort, things that must give way to the only true moral imperative of groveling before designated victims.  Lastly, they’ve announced that they’re replacing a perfectly good foreign policy (none) with a reckless and silly one (uncritical Zionism).

There must be a back story here.  Are the Amish hoping to attract tourists?  Is this part of some kind of power play, where one faction has something to gain by racking up outside praise or lowering the authority of past generations?  Did somebody pressure the Amish to do this?  I don’t believe the Jews would bully the Amish about this, but as for the philosemites, I don’t think there’s any depth to which they wouldn’t sink.

Eastern Europeans horning in on Jewish victim racket, New Republic editor complains

We all know that it’s a lot easier to be an anti-semite than it used to be.  It used to be that denying the Holocaust earned you this title.  Now, it seems that even regarding the murder of a greater number of gentiles as a crime of equal magnitude is a sign of nefarious intentions.  In this article, James Kirchick reviews Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands:  Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, which sounds like a very interesting (if deeply unpleasant, due to the subject matter) book about the parallel mass-murders of Stalin and Hitler in Eastern Europe during the 30s and 40s.  By their accounting, Hitler murdered 11 million, Stalin 6-9 million (only counting noncombatants, I believe).  That’s 6 million Jews, 11-14 million gentiles.  But, Kirchick and Snyder assure us, the Jewish victims were special.  Why so?  As Snyder notes, the extermination of the Jews had special features.  No doubt.  I’m sure every mass murder is unique in its own way, but what feature makes one so much more important than others?  He suggests that it was the deliberate attempt to eliminate a whole ethnicity, as opposed to an equal number of unrelated persons, that makes the Holocaust so hienous.  I’m not sure how Snyder and Kirchick can reconcile this with the egalitarian individualism they presumably share.  The claim that decimating another ethnicity is worse than directing comparable violence against one’s own is hardly self-evident.  One could easily argue the reverse, that mass murder of one’s own co-ethnics is particularly perverse.  Myself, I say murder is murder.

What especially irritates Kirchick is Eastern European nations presenting themselves as victims just because, well, Hitler and Stalin murdered millions of them.  This is just a dodge, he tells us, to direct attention away from the collaboration of some of their number in anti-semitic massacres.  These countries have failed to “come to terms”, as the saying goes.  No doubt Kirchick would be happy to point them to some Jewish groups who would be happy to help them “come to terms” by accepting their money and groveling.

So, why are the 6 million “unique”, i.e. so much more important than the 11-14 million?  I can’t shake the impression that the real reason is that those 11-14 million were only goyim.  I hasten to point out that this is not a distinctively Jewish sentiment–in fact I’m sure that many Jews would be horrified by such a notion.  Christian Zionists and neoconservatives are often the worst offenders.  One can’t shake the feeling that they regard Jewish lives as being more valuable than gentile lives.

Remembering antisemitism, and nothing else

From the Tablet:

Books about anti-Semitism are depressingly numerous. New studies of the subject appear in a constant stream, focusing on anti-Semitism in this or that country, in literature or politics, in the past, the present, or the future. In 2010 alone, readers were presented with Robert Wistrich’s A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism From Antiquity to the Global Jihad and Anthony Julius’ Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, which between them offer 2,100 pages of evidence of how much people used to and still do hate Jews.

Here’s another theory.  Maybe it’s that Jews dominate academia, and they’re disposed to self-pity and/or they see advantages in playing up their victim status.  Notice how no amount of groveling on the part of gentiles will ever be enough; as long as the Jews can keep churning out books about how put upon they are–or ever once were–it will be “evidence of how much people used to and still do hate Jews”.  So, which theory is true?

Ask yourself why people are writing books about antisemitism, and the answer will be clear.  If most people really were filled with a murderous hatred of Jews, I doubt the Jews would be so reckless as to get up in front of us and tell us how rotten our culture is because we don’t like them enough.  That’s only something somebody does when they’ve got power behind them, and their audience doesn’t.

We Americans seldom notice what a “Jew’s-eye” view of history we’ve been taught.  We give far more attention to the fortunes of this one people than to much vaster multitudes.  For example:  the tendency to regard McCarthyism and the Stalinist Terror as comparable events, and to regard the former with greater horror than the Chinese Cultural Revolution.  (The Cultural Revolution just liquidated China’s educated class; it didn’t inconvenience any Jewish movie makers.)  The Jewish Holocaust must never be forgotten (and must be commemorated everywhere), but there’s no need to remember Hitler’s Slavic gentile victims or the 100 million victims of world communism.  The wrongful conviction of Dreyfus is a greater outrage than the mass murder of Catholic clergy, nobility, and peasants by the French Jacobins and the Spanish republicans.  An antisemitic rant by Chrysostom or Luther is more lamented than the Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre.  Ironically, the relentless focus on Jewish suffering lets Christians off the hook too easily, because it ignores the beastly way we have often treated our own coreligionists through the centuries.

Today, Arts and Letters Daily links an editorial at Jewish Ideas Daily (JID) expressing outrage Yale is terminating its “Interdisciplinary Initiative for the study of antisemitism”.  That’s right–Yale had been shelling out money so that Jewish groups wouldn’t have to fund their own ethnic advocacy propaganda.  Now Yale has decided to pull the plug.  I suspect the JID writer is right about the real reason:  the Initiative started pestering the wrong kind of gentile.  Obviously, Yale had funded this enterprise as a way of helping Jews bully Christians.  When the Initiative started attacking Muslims, a new favored victim group, Yale decided things were getting out of hand.  Jewish victimology can, of course, continue in the history and sociology departments, but it will not have a special source of funding.  JID calls this “ignoring antisemitism”, and it may well seem so, given what they’re used to.

Wrangel contra MacDonald

In the comments of my review of The Culture of Critique, “Wrangel” objects to the materialistic framework of MacDonald’s thought:

Perhaps there is a slight misinterpretation of MacDonald in here. Under, “Gentiles” MacDonald primarily think about European-Americans a.k.a “Whites”, not Christians. As a matter of fact, he is mostly concerned about people of north-European origin, mainly Anglo-Saxons. His conceptual apparatus is mainly materialistic and tribal-based.

Many Gentiles are not Christians, while many Christians are not white, nor of European origin.
On other hand, many whites today are not Christian.
Latinos are gentiles and mostly very Christian, but I doubt that MacDonald had them in mind when he talked about preservation of Gentiles. Actually, MacDonald consider Christan Latinos and their immigration as main threat to “white-american” identity, and he claim that Jewish influence is cause of that. MacDonald explained this Gentile/White v.s Jewish dichotomy in contemporary America, and in many cases his insights are quite correct, specially about hypocrisy and non-scientific nature of “Frankfurt school”.

However there are certain problems with his theories:

1. He created elaborate sociological-tribal theories about reasons of disproportional influence of Jewish elites and Jewish culture in US. However lets see counterexample. POLAND, before WW2 had significant number of Jews, who were almost majority in some bigger Polish cities. Poles are white, European gentiles like their equivalents in US. However, although quite numerous and organized, Jews had almost zero influence on Polish state, its culture and value system. Poland was ultra-Catholic and ultra-conservative state, with strong Polish nationalism – and with very large Jewish population, many of whom were also quite self-aware as Jews. I would say that influence of radical protestantism in New World and it’s obsession with old testament opened the door for disproportionate Jewish influence in US.

2. He talked about “whites” and “gentiles” like they are some cohesive group with tribal identity. Christians, Muslims, Hindu and even Atheists are all “gentiles” according to Jewish perspective. What they have in common? That they are not Jews? If we base gentile identity simply as opposition to Jews, then we actually agree with Jewish rabbis about Jewish identity, thus playing their game in making Jews unique and superior to others. What if we base identity of “whiteness”? What does “white” mean? Perhaps in America, term “white” have some meaning but NOT IN EUROPE. Germans, French, Poles, Russians etc. are all white, but they also have different ethnic and group loyalties. MacDonald, under “white” seems that mostly means about north-Europeans of Germanic ancestry. So his appeals to “white” or “gentile” identity are quite problematic.

3. When we talk about “Jews”,what “Jews” do we mean? Most Jews in the world, and specially in the US are Ashkenazi and followers of RABBINICAL Judaism, which originate in Pharisees-one of many Jewish sects in old days. What we mostly associate with Jews, Jewish mentality, customs and culture is connected with rabbinical Judaism, to the point that for many people Judaism=Rabbinical Judaism. This is not correct.
Rabbinical Judaism sect imposed it’s will to most Jews over the centuries, but it was not the only form of Judaism around. Lots of Jews in past belonged to KARAITE Judaism, while there are some who are still Karaites. Karaites were not so much in conflict with Gentiles, as Rabbinical Jews, since they have different laws then Rabbinical ones. They don’t accept Talmud, and recognize patrilineal descent, not matrilinear like Rabbinical ones do. They don’t recognize Rabbinical authorities. These two groups are far for being friendly. Not to mention non – Jewish Israelite groups like Samaritans. Most in-group cohesion of Jews that come from rabbinical tradition is based either on their faith, or from respect to tradition and laws based on that faith. This lead us to main critique of MacDonald…

What he offered as “salvation” of “Gentiles” is actually imitation of Jews and Judaic “tribalism”. In order to Gentiles (whatever that means) preserve their identity and group cohesion, they have to become spiritual Jews, or Judaics for that matter.
Mac Donald approach is basically based on same (secularized) protestant mentality that lead to Jewish spiritual dominion in America in first place. His thought is secular, materialist and mostly atheistic.

What MacDonald don’t realize is that this secularization, materialism and atheization lead to destruction of faith in western man, and de-sacralized him. Such spiritually crippled man is vulnerable and inferior to more self-confident religious-cultural communities, like Jews. Jewish cultural influence and moral domination in west is consequence of spiritual self-destruction of western man and sectarianism within Christianity (radical protestantism), and it’s not the cause of that. Just see example of pre WW2 Poland as illustration.

French revolution, dechristianization of France, murdering of priests, desacralizations of Churches, destruction of traditions were all done by gentiles. Jews at that time had almost zero influence on these events. Some Enlightenment thinkers had quite negative attitudes towards Jews.

And when we speak particular “interests” about Christainity, let’s not forget that word “Catholic”- Katolikos, means “universal”.

I also wish there were a more precise term for the group toward whom Jewish radicals direct their hostility.  “White gentiles” and “Christians” are, as Wrangel emphasizes, not identical categories, and neither is precisely what we mean to say.  This isn’t a critical problem for MacDonald’s book, which focuses on America in the first half of the 20th century, when “white gentile”, “white Christian”, and “majority culture” all meant pretty much the same thing.  Today, things are more complicated.  Secular Jews are part of the dominant white culture, but this dominant culture is definitely post-Christian, rather than Jewish.  In a global context, “gentile” is indeed too general a description.

MacDonald is an atheist and embraces an explicitly materialistic worldview in which everything reduces to competition for resources with the ultimate goal of reproductive success.  We certainly want to avoid thinking this way.  On the other hand, I don’t think that identifying the interests of the Christian community necessarily means embracing this sort of reductionism.  We have non-material interests, like fostering loyalty and love for the Church, that clash with what Jews percieve to be their interest in a demoralized Christianity.

Wrangel is right that there has been liberalism and anticlericalism without significant Jewish influence.  The Jews are a tool of liberalism, not vice versa.  On the other hand, wedge minorities have been a very important tool.

Wrangel points out that Jews have had an enormous influence on some cultures (America, Weimer Germany) but not on others (Poland).  This is a fascinating observation, and I would like to think about it more.  As he says, it suggests that it’s something in some host countries that makes the difference.

I’m a bad person

I blame Kevin MacDonald.  He’s made me find this sort of thing really funny:

In 2008, The New York Times’Noah Feldman commented on the “systematic overrepresentation of Mormons among top businesspeople and lawyers.” In 2009, the Atlantic boldly asserted that Mormons are “overrepresented in the national political elite.” Slate’s Jacob Weisberg transgressed the bounds of religious tolerance to tag Mormon prophet Joseph Smith “an obvious con man.”

(At least the author, Jim Goad, seemed to find it funny too.)

Review: K. MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique”

The far right is sharply divided on Kevin MacDonald; some think he’s brillant, others that he’s an obsessive nut.  I’ve just finished reading The Culture of Critique, and I lean toward the position that he’s brilliant (with a touch of obsessiveness).  He’s the only author I’ve encountered who more-or-less shares my principles of thinking about Christian-Jewish beliefs, namely

  1. Jews and Christians are separate groups and sometimes have incompatible interests.  This, rather than some inherent evil in Christianity, is the reason why they sometimes fight.
  2. Jews are in widespread agreement about what their interests are (massive immigration, the sexual revolution, marginalization of Christianity), and they are very aggressive in using their considerable influence to promote these interests.

Today, most everyone accepts the double standard–group identity for Jews, individualism for white gentiles–so that it seems like the most natural thing in the world.  Jews can be proud of their heritage, but Christians should be ashamed of their past; Jews demand that gentile countries, but not Israel, open their borders; they promote and preserve their own ethnicity while accusing whites of “racism” for doing the same.  And, of course, they congratulate themselves on their great moral courage when they tell their ethnic enemies to commit suicide.

MacDonald’s main argument in The Culture of Critique is that this double standard is the result of Jewish intellectuals, like Boas, Freud, Adorno, and Horkheimer, who consciously saw their theories as weapons to discourage gentile group solidarity and prevent antisemitism.  The chapters are of uneven quality, so I will focus on what I think are MacDonald’s strongest examples:  psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School’s study of “authoritarianism”.  Although posing as science, neither meets scientific standards of clarity and empirical falsifiability.  Both operated from the beginning more like cults than open-minded investigations, with predetermined ethno-political prejudices determining how the “data” was to be manipulated. 

MacDonald’s critique of The Authoritarian Personality is absolutely devastating, worth the price of the book in itself.  Not only did the double standards abound–group cohesion is a sign of a warped psyche when gentiles and right-wingers do it, but not Jews or communists–but in crucial places the book asserts the exact opposite of what its evidence shows!  The authors claim to have proven that filial piety and in-group identification (“ethnocentrism”) are the products of psyches wounded by authoritarian parenting.  Not surprisingly, their interviews seem to indicate otherwise, the “ethnocentric” subjects, having stern but loving parents, tended to be happier and more successful by any measure.  But in the upside-down world of psychoanalysis, everything is the opposite of what it seems.  Expressions of affection and gratitude toward parents mean that the subject is consumed by hidden fear and resentment.  Stories of neglect, abuse, and estrangement are a sign of a fundamentally healthy parent-child relationship, because the subject is confident enough to be honest.  And so on.  MacDonald quotes perhaps a dozen jaw-dropping examples of this sort of reasoning.  Overall, it would seem one could more easily cite this data as evidence that low enthnocentrism is an artifact  of teenage rebellion resulting from bad parenting.  Except that the American Jewish Committee wouldn’t have sponsored a study with that conclusion.

MacDonald’s background in evolutionary sociobiology gives him an interesting perspective here.  He claims that psychoanalysis and the sexual revolution both have the effect of discouraging adaptive behavior that would help gentiles in their competition with Jews for resources.  In particular, sexual libertarianism undermines monogomy and high-investment parenting by gentiles, leaving them a mess of broken families and poorly-raised children.  Of course, Jews too will be affected this way, but MacDonald speculates that their higher IQ means they don’t need as much social pressure/support to avoid self or child-destructive behavior.  Note MacDonald doesn’t say that Jewish intellectuals deliberately set out to destroy gentile families.  Their behavior has been guided by normal out-group negative stereotyping of majorities.  (Indeed, MacDonald quotes a number of prominent Jewish intellectuals on the genetic and ethical superiority of Judaism which are so outrageously prejudiced against gentiles that they are inadvertently comic.)

In the conclusion, MacDonald speculates on the long-term consequences of high-IQ ethnic minorities (Jews and East Asians) for Western civilization.  Jews comprise some 20% of the American elite, and control a corresponding fraction of the economy, but they donate several times as much money to ethnic-related activism than gentiles, meaning that Jewish support is the dominant influence on issues of high Jewish interest, such as immigration and abortion.  In a meritocratic, individualistic society, the ambitious and intelligent Jews and Asians will rise to the top; white gentiles will form a powerless lower class, riven by family breakdown, ruled over by an ethnically alien elite that despises them.  MacDonald does not think that white gentiles will embrace this fate willingly, so he predicts an ugly ethnic balkanization of Western countries.

The book is not without flaws.  MacDonald is given to the sort of reductionism common among evolutionary psychologists.  He sometimes seems to think that because Leftist radicalism has served Jewish interests, it is essentially nothing but Jewish self-seeking.  In fact, I think things like multiculturalism and Freudo-Marxism, whatever their origins, have by now taken on a life of their own.  Also, MacDonald seems to accept in his discussions of Boasian cultural relativism and American immigration reform that loyalty to an ethnic group requires one to believe in significant phenotype differences between races.  In fact, this is no more true for an ethnicity than it is for a family.  MacDonald himself seems to have some attachment to Western caucasians, even though we are, by his admission, genetically inferior to the Jews in just about every way that matters.  Critics of MacDonald say that he tends to reduce everything he doesn’t like to Jewish machinations.  There may be something to that, but it isn’t a problem here, when he’s writing a book about Jewish intellectual activism.

To sum up:  Christians should not resent Jews for being loyal to their own kind and pursuing what they see as their interests.  This is what we should expect them to do.  We should, however, start showing some concern for our own interests.

Cultural Jews: reflections on the centralization of culture

Let’s face it.  If it wasn’t for Jews, fags, and gypsies, there would be no theater.

                    —Mel Brooks, in To Be or Not To Be

Who is the cultural Jew?  To my surprise, I find he is…me.

Allow me to explain.  A little while ago I was rereading parts of Paul Johnson’s celebratory History of the Jews.  The basic message I got from the section on American Jewry is this:  Jews have all the creativity and brains; Christians are just dumb, passive sacks of shit.  This is certainly not true for European culture, but thinking about it, it does roughly describe the American culture that has shaped me.  My favorite music comes from largely-Jewish Broadway:  Rogers and Hammerstein, Lerner and Loewe, Gershwin, and Bernstein.  Even when I turn to Rock and Roll, my tastes often tend toward Jewish artists like Billy Joel.  Most of the movies I’ve seen are products of largely-Jewish Hollywood.  I quote Star Trek episodes and Mel Brooks movies.  My youth was shaped by Jewish superhero comics, especially Superman.  Surprisingly, I find that I would feel much more at home in America if I were to convert to Judaism.

Christian America has no culture.  Long ago, Tocqueville noted America’s lack in this regard.  We were a new nation at the time, and probably we needed a few centuries to mature enough to develop a world-class culture of our own.  Instead, we let Jewish immigrants create one for us.  Not that we have any cause to complain.  What they gave us was better than anything we would have been able to come up with ourselves.  For the most part, the Jews of this era were an exemplary minority, with a real affection and gratitude for their adopted homeland.  They meant to give something back, and they did.

It sounds like a win-win situation.  What’s the problem, then?  There’s no problem with the existence of Jewish-American culture.  It’s a gift to the world.  There is a problem with the fact that it’s our only culture.  The Jewish-American experience isn’t the total American experience.  It’s the experience of a self-conscious minority concentrated in a few large cities.  The rest of the American experience has gone unsung, or sung only at a distance, after the manner of Oklahoma!  So, for example, watching television one would never see reflected the realities of rural life or religion.  This is never so embarrassingly clear as when, on rare occassions, a TV show tries to portray these sympathetically.  They can’t capture the idiom; the fictional priests and pastors, for example, just sound “off” to anyone who’s actually participated in a Christian community.

The Jewish/gentile split has contributed to that unique feature of American culture:  the sharp division between a small number of creators of culture and the vast mass of passive consumers of culture.  Most of us are just consumers of culture.  We buy books, movies, and music; we don’t invent stories or songs.  Not every people is like this.  I remember when I was a graduate student at the University of Illinois.  I had a friend there who was a postdoc from Taiwan.  One day when we were passing time chatting together, he asked me to tell him one of the ghost stories from my hometown.  He just assumed that my home town of 6000 would have a stock of stories, but of course it doesn’t.  Its stories came to it prepackaged from Hollywood.  Are Hollywood’s stories better than what we could have produced on our own?  Perhaps, but the loss is great.  I imagine what it would be like if my town had a real local culture.  What if the park or the high school or the shoe store were the setting for some story known by all the locals?  The experience of living there would be enriched by the context.  This is how culture draws a place–a park or a forest, say–into the social world, by populating it with fictional heroes and villians.  It’s the sort of culture that can’t be imported; like a nymph, its magic is limited to a particular place.

Let me say this clearly:  it’s not the Jews’ fault that the people in my hometown don’t tell each other ghost stories.  It’s our own fault.  Storytelling is a humble art—even we dumb Christians could do it.  In fact, rudimentary storytelling still does go on in Christian America.  We do it to entertain our children, nieces, and nephews.  But there’s no organization where the town gets together to retell its stories and make up new ones.  In contrast, there is an organization to disseminate the Hollywood culture–the movie theatre.  And there’s the local Wal Mart to distribute the wider culture’s movies and music.

If Christian America is going to make a culture, localism will be the key.  We shouldn’t fantasize about capturing the national movie or music industries.  Even if we succeeded, we’d just embarrass ourselves by putting out crap (like country music) to a national audience.  We’re not ready for the big time yet.  Right now, oral short stories and nursery rhymes might be the best gentile Americans can do.  We need to build from there.