Kevin MacDonald IS pro-White

[Burrhus]

"I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people
to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or
who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are
morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed.
Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.

It is the conviction that what we are doing is deeply immoral that
justifies virtually any tactic against us." Kevin MacDonald from the essay below.

If the racial and jewish problems afflicting the West have you down, here's a bit of optimism from one of our best intellectuals. Just a bit.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WHY WE WRITE
KEVIN MACDONALD
California State University—Long Beach
_______________________
One of the charges repeatedly leveled against me by the Southern
Poverty Law center and others who would silence my research is that
I write for The Occidental Quarterly and serve on its Editorial Board.1
Thus I want to explain here why I write for TOQ, and why I think this
journal is so important.

I like to think of The Occidental Quarterly on the model of the Partisan
Review in the 1940s and 50s. Partisan Review was an important leftist intellectual publication that gradually became anti-communist with increasing
evidence of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. The editors,
writers, and readers of Partisan Review saw themselves as alienated,
marginalized figures. As Norman Podhoretz put it, “They did not feel
that they belonged to America or that America belonged to them.”

But times have changed, and now that the ideas championed by Partisan
Review, and the left in general, predominate, it is we who don’t feel that
we belong to America or that America belongs to us. But the good news
is that change can happen fairly quickly—within the lifetimes of individuals.
An encouraging sign is that it’s beginning to be respectable to talk
openly about Jewish power and influence.

Consider John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid.3 Books like The Bell Curve have opened up discussion of formerly taboo subjects like race and IQ. The recent furor about illegal immigration has also brought to light the fact that a great many whites are deeply troubled by the
changes unleashed in the past few decades.

But there is a long way to go. Already in 2006, we began to see article
after article in the Jewish press about presidential candidates from
both parties lining up Jewish money for the 2008 campaign and falling
all over themselves to show their allegiance to Israel and hostility to
Iran. Glimmerings of discussion, mostly on the internet, are a far cry
from actually influencing the political process.

In early 2007, John Derbyshire had an online discussion with one
Joey Kurtzman who runs the website Jewcy which is aimed at hip,
young, strongly identified Jews. Derbyshire also has some interesting
things to say about the very precarious status of conservatives in the
contemporary United States. He writes:

If tomorrow I submitted a piece to National Review saying,
“Kevin MacDonald is really onto something. He’s doing great
work, and I think everyone should read him,” the editors would
reject the piece, and they would be right to do so. I don’t think I
would be canned for submitting such an article, but if it
happened, I would not be much surprised.

You forget how lonely conservatives are. The flame of
thoughtful, responsible American conservatism burns low, and
needs constant careful attention. In the folk mythology of
present-day America, conservatism is associated with Jim Crow
and the persecution of racial minorities. . . .

I live in an ordinary middle-middle-class New York suburban
neighborhood. My neighbors all know I am a conservative
commentator. A couple of them will not speak to me on that
account. The others just think I am mildly nuts—a thing
associated in their minds, somehow, with my being British-born.
They regard me with a sort of amused sympathy. The nearest
conservative I know lives about eight miles away.

Anyone running a mainstream conservative magazine has to
constantly demonstrate ideological purity in matters of race.
They have to show repeatedly, by indirect means of course . . .
that they are ideologically pure in this zone. Otherwise, they
won’t be taken seriously by the cultural establishment.
And that matters. In America, persons who have, or are
suspected to have, incorrect opinions on race, are low-status.

Human beings are primarily social animals, and we are intensely
conscious of status rankings within the groups we belong to. . . .
There isn’t any kind of chicanery or dishonesty there. That’s
just how the world is, how America is, under what Bill Buckley
calls “the prevailing structure of taboos,” and the prevailing
system of status perception . . .

National Review wants to get certain ideas out to the U.S.
public—ideas about economics, politics, law, religion, science,
history, the arts, and more. To do that, the magazine needs
standing in our broad cultural milieu. It needs status. That’s
hard at the best of times for a conservative publication.

Comments like this show the power of the liberal consensus that
has been dominant in the United States, at least since the 1960s and
actually quite a bit longer. Basically, what Derbyshire is saying is that
conservatives should be aware that they exist at the sufferance of the
“cultural establishment” and that in order to exist at all they have to
pledge obeisance to the fundamental tenets of leftist ideology. But to
do that is to basically throw in the towel and acquiesce in the dispossession
of our people. Obviously, we can’t do that.

Part of our evolved psychology is designed to emulate and look up
to socially dominant people, especially if they look like us. A critical
component of the success of the culture of critique is that it achieved
control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the West,
and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish
alike.

Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became
widely accepted among people of very different levels of education
and among people of different social classes. Most people are quite
insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know that the professors
at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times and the
Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh
and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and
ethnic issues. This is a formidable array, to the point that you almost
have to be a crank to dissent from this consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people
to believe that people who assert white identity and interests or
who make unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are
morally degenerate, stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed.
Obviously, all of these adjectives designate low status.

It is the conviction that what we are doing is deeply immoral that
justifies virtually any tactic against us. When Jared Taylor was to
speak in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 16, 2007, the left had no
compunctions about shutting the speech down and even roughing
him up. And there is a long history of intellectually dishonest, politically
motivated movements that have attempted to show that white
ethnocentrism—and only white ethnocentrism—is an indication of
psychiatric disorder. This is a major theme of The Culture of Critique,
and we continue to see it when the word “virulent”—meaning “like a
virus”—is used, as in “virulent racism” or “virulent anti-Semitism.”

But perhaps we don’t pay enough attention to the simple fact that
people who believe as we do are vilified as intellectual cretins. A classic
example that probably went a long way toward creating this
stereotype was the TV show All in the Family from the 1970s, produced
by Norman Lear who has a strong ethnic identity of his own, in addition
to being a liberal activist.

It is repeatedly brought out that the main character, Archie Bunker,
is uneducated and none too smart—constantly mispronouncing even
ordinary words and lacking a basic understanding of geography or
history—Lincoln signed the Declaration of Independence, Denmark is
the capital of Colorado, and Florida is on the West Coast. But this TV
show still shapes current attitudes about people who have a problem
with multiculturalism. I found the following posted online by a fan of
the show:

This is definitely my favorite show and I am glad that there
are re-runs on Nick-At-Nite. One of my favorite episodes is
when Archie gets locked in the cellar and is finally “rescued“
by a repair man, but Archie is drunk, and he thinks that the repair
man is God; little does he know, that the repair man is
black! (Not that it matters, but to Archie?!) And when Archie
bows down to him and lifts his head to see his “God” the audience
roared in laughter as did I. . . . I hope this show remains
on the air for a long time, because I could never get sick of watching All in the Family!

Obviously, we have a long way to go.

But what I take away from this is that the greatest danger to the
cultural establishment is the existence of intelligent, well-written,
well-documented, and fundamentally honest articles arguing for the
importance of white identity and white interests. And the same goes
for discussions of the interests and influence of other groups. The
point is that our message must be conveyed with intelligence and
ruthless criticism of the intellectual shoddiness of our opponents’
theories and the pervasiveness of double standards when it comes to
ethnocentrism. And, by the way, I think that TOQ does exactly that.

We are trying to raise the status of this sort of discourse, and this is
inevitably a top-down sort of thing. Notice that Derbyshire is not concerned
about what the average person thinks, but what the cultural
establishment thinks. We must begin by recruiting well-educated, intelligent,
and honest people who are willing to write material supporting
white identity and interests and to honestly discuss the ethnic tactics
and influence of other groups. This is going to be a long process,
and a huge disincentive is that people who do so are subjected to all
sorts of attacks on their character and—more importantly—their livelihood.

The Occidental Quarterly represents a unique vision on the right. It is
the only outlet for article-length, high-quality publications aimed at an
educated readership. Any serious history of the changes in the United
States must acknowledge the importance of top-down changes. It’s
not going to come from skinheads and disaffected working class people.
Having said that, it is also true that once we start to get some traction
there is every reason to think that change will come rapidly.

And we do have some things going for us. As I argue in “Psychology
and White Ethnocentrism,” an essay first published in TOQ,
there is a lot of evidence that white people still have a sense of white
identity—even the smart ones—although it is typically unconscious,
and that we are gradually coalescing into implicit white groups—
groups that reveal white associational patterns like “white flight” and
even white political interests, even if they cannot explicitly proclaim
themselves as white. Obviously it’s not going to be easy, but The Occidental
Quarterly is a critical place to start. And we have no choice but
to start somewhere.

Kevin MacDonald, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at California
State University—Long Beach. He is author of A People That Shall
Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Westport,
Conn.: Praeger, 1994; paperback ed., Lincoln, Nebr.: iUniverse,
2002), Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary
Theory of Anti-Semitism (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998; paperback
ed., Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks Library, 2004), The Culture of
Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in
Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport,
Conn.: Praeger, 1998; paperback ed., Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks
Library, 2002), and Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western
Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism (Atlanta: The
Occidental Press, 2007).

PDF file: http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/ar...WhyWeWrite.pdf

[ogenoct]

Sorry, but being pro-White and anti-Jewish at the same time does not work.

Constantin

[Winston]

Originally Posted by ogenoct

Sorry, but being pro-White and anti-Jewish at the same time does not work.

Constantin

How so?

123123

[ogenoct]

Originally Posted by integrity

How so?

Because some Jews are White. Can one be pro-White and anti-French at the same time?

[Starr]

Ogenoct how many jews who live in the west truly look at themselves as being a part of the white communities of the countries in which they reside as opposed to a separate minority group with a seperate and opposing set of interests? How many even look at themselves as having more in common with other non white minority groups than they do with white folks?

[Jake Featherston]

Originally Posted by ogenoct

Because some Jews are White. Can one be pro-White and anti-French at the same time?

Actually, yeah, you could, if you perceived the French to be acting against the interests of the other White peoples. You might as well suggest that since I claim to love seafood, I must enjoy eating canned tuna.

[Aryan Imperium]

Originally Posted by ogenoct

Sorry, but being pro-White and anti-Jewish at the same time does not work.

Constantin

Why???????????????????

[Macrobius]

Originally Posted by ogenoct

Because some Jews are White. Can one be pro-White and anti-French at the same time?

Several of the American (Revolutionary) founding fathers were just that. President John Adams, for example, was horrified at the political status accorded to Blacks and Jews in the American South. In Boston society, that would never do. He was pro-White and anti-French, for the most part.

The identification of 'Jew' and 'White' is a late 19th century meme, if then. Jews were still a subject of discrimination and prejudice in White, Anglo, Yankee circles until the time of the New Deal, and sporadically thereafter. If American Jews had been as vocally pro-Japanese during the War as German ones were inclined to Communism and Leftism, we probably would have sent them to concentration camps too. Their 'inviolable' status is easily a memory of persons alive today -- anyone who has political memories reaching back before the Reagan era and its immediate aftermath.

Indeed, at no time during the Cold War was Israel more than a cynical investment on America's part, as far as our political class was concerned. The willingness to apply Neo-Con smear tactics against 'Israel's Enemies' came in, well, with the Neo-Cons. It is hardly older; even if some of us stopped wearing our political Nappies in the last decade, anyone older knows otherwise.

In any event, Jews have freely intermarried with Aryans since the term Caucasoid ('Caucasian-looking', similiar but not necessarily the same as 'Caucasian') vs. Caucasian was created, and the Jim Crow race laws were implemented nationwide. Even that is in relatively recent memory.

[Petr]

Originally Posted by Macrobius

President John Adams, for example, was horrified at the political status accorded to Blacks and Jews in the American South.

Interesting - can you direct us to more material on that subject?


Petr

[Angler]

Originally Posted by ogenoct

Sorry, but being pro-White and anti-Jewish at the same time does not work.

Preposterous. Not only does it work, it's absolutely required.

It's just like the way anyone who is pro-white is naturally going to be opposed to self-hating white Gentiles who work to force multiracialism on the Western countries they live in. Being "pro-white" doesn't mean one supports every single white person.

Even if Jews can be labeled as "white" in a scientific sense, they are a distinct (and highly inbred) ethnic group whose members work for their own ethnic interests at the expense of non-Jews. Thus, for practical purposes, they should be viewed as a separate race. Jews don't see themselves as the same as non-Jewish whites, so why should non-Jewish whites look upon Jews as brethren? Why should non-Jewish whites not oppose Jewish schemes to undermine majority-white Western nations? They can and they should.