[Bandung-pm] The problem with intellectually insecure whites

[Lawrence Auster]

The problem with intellectually insecure whites

Kevin MacDonald

January 19, 2009

America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues — at least in the long run. After all, it’s difficult to come up with an historical example of a nation with a solid ethnic majority (90% white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, great battles, and untold suffering. 

And it’s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the organized Jewish community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the leading pioneer of racial Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu — another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to provoke Palestinian retaliation — which then becomes the cover for claims that Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was approved by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they would rather not have discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only entertained by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan  (“For the media, the less whites think about their coming minority status, the better”) has noted that the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in doing stories that discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.

It’s not surprising that the New York Times — the Jewish-owned flagship of anti-white, pro-multicultural media — ignores the issue. The issue is also missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. Certainly, their audiences would find it interesting.

Now we have an article “The End of White America” written by Hua Hsu, an Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby in which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: “Have you read The Rise of the Colored Empires by this man Goddard?” … Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”

Buchanan’s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as “rationalized hatred” presented in a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a doctorate from Harvard and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a major publisher. It was therefore “precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man of Buchanan’s profile — wealthy, Ivy League–educated, at once pretentious and intellectually insecure — might have been expected to bring up in casual conversation.”

Let’s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure,"  would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995’s White Man’s Burden, an awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black oppressors. There will be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for claims like “the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or identity group.”

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a non-white soon-to-be majority. 

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities are certainly not treated as individuals. And it means that whites — especially white males — are losing out on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial injustices, and from 2002–2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile homicide perpetrators increased 43%. Hence,  the reasonable outlook is for a continuing need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after whites become a minority. 

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite."

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the future. An advertizing executive says, “I think white people feel like they’re under siege right now — like it’s not okay to be white right now, especially if you’re a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. ‘We used to be in control! We’re losing control’” Another says, "There’s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."

It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I get it: as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth." A professor comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The classic thing white students say when you ask them to talk about who they are is, ‘I don’t have a culture.’ They might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel bankrupt when it comes to culture … They feel disadvantaged, and they feel marginalized."

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop—a product of the African American urban culture.

The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional white America. For this group of whites — and only this group — there is  "a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with 'the real America.'”

This is what I term implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its name."

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In my opinion, it is the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.

It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. As I noted elsewhere,

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. 

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and ethnicity are intellectually bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the idea that the world will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes the pathetic Christian Lander: "“Like, I’m aware of all the horrible crimes that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there’s a bunch of white people who are desperate — desperate — to say, ‘You know what? My skin’s white, but I’m not one of the white people who’s destroying the world.’”

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of desperation is like — what it's like to be a self-hating white. We must get to the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have been deprived of their confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white. 

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles reversed. No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception. 

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic identifications will disappear and that they won’t continue to influence public policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites. 

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of the whites. Placing ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the deep sense of historical grievance fostered by many ethnic activists and organized ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these groups. The “God damn America” sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent notorious example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this power structure — as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were “Stalin’s willing executioners.” 

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for leftist versions of social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support racial Zionism and the mass murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinian people in one of the largest prison systems the world has ever seen. Such people may be very different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the “transformation” of Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, G. A. Landau, “cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical activity.” And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. Bromberg, noted that:

the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of  “unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness”…. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...

After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor noted, “in all the institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the intelligentsia is very hard” (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to the Russification that accompanied World War II, “the Russian Federation…was still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of an ethnicity-free society” (p. 276). While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian movement.

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It's happened before.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.  


URL with hyperlinks:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Hsu.html
------

 
Who Benefits From White House Scandal(s)

“Monica-gate” did have Israeli origins

By Michael Collins Piper — AFP

Republican critics of President-elect Barack Obama are enthusiastically shouting “gotcha” in the wake of allegations that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) was secretly trying to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat. However, there are much bigger long-term policy implications at work behind the scenes.

The truth is that Illinois politics—particularly in Obama’s home base of Chicago—have long been known as a cauldron of venal political corruption with a handful of powerful secret interests directing the course of events. Even if Obama has “clean hands,” the thread of corruption surrounding the governor and other Democratic power brokers may start to unravel, implicating many close Obama associates.

Already, Obama’s newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is being implicated in the context of the bizarre Senate seat-for-sale tragicomedy.

TheWatergate affair, which came to light as a result of a break-in by operatives linked to the Republican Nixon administration, snowballed into a more-wide-ranging series of scandals involving influence peddling, obstruction of justice, bribery, illegal campaign contributions, etc, netting a host of GOP figures and ultimately bringing down Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew.

Although an argument can be made that there was a secret agenda behind the Watergate affair—that it was effectively a coup d’etat designed to topple Nixon (who was intent on cleaning house in official Washington and redirecting U.S. foreign policy against the long-standing “special relationship” with Israel)—the fact is that the scandal did entwine the president and prevent him from acting as he wished, and kept Nixon at bay for the two years following the 1972 election (which Nixon won by a landslide) until he was forced out of office.

The ongoing revelations in Illinois may well have a similar impact on the new Obama administration, keeping the president on edge, essentially destabilized.

This is precisely what happened with the so-called “Whitewater” scandal that enveloped Bill and Hillary Clinton from virtually the first days of his administration, ultimately leading—through a tangled series of events—to the Monica Lewinsky mess, involving Bill Clinton’s illicit affair with a White House intern.

Despite the common (and quite inaccurate) perception— particularly by Clinton’s many “conservative” critics—that somehow the “liberal media” lionized Clinton during his presidency, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the truth is that throughout his presidency, Clinton was very much under fire from the mass media in America.

The record demonstrates that it was that media— which is controlled by Jewish families and financial networks sympathetic to Israel—which played such a large part in promoting public knowledge of the scandals surrounding the Clintons.

The January 4, 1999 issue of The Nation featured a revealing article by Michael Tomasky which examined this phenomenon in quite revealing detail.

Tomasky pointed out that it was actually The New York Times—the flagship “liberal” newspaper—which played a substantial part in leaking many damaging revelations from the long-running investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton by Special Prosecutor Ken Starr. Tomasky wrote: “At every crucial turn and pivot, the Times’ editorial page has marched in lockstep with the prosecutor and his cheering section.”

“Why is this worth remarking on?” asked Tomasky. Because, he pointed out, “on national matters, [the Times’ editorial] page serves as more of an ideological Baedeker, instructing the country’s elite as to what constitutes responsible liberal opinion.”

In other words, The New York Times—voice of the pro-Israel elite—was telling its readers that it was “okay” to support Ken Starr’s maneuvering against Clinton. And so the question, then, was why one of America’s most liberal presidents would be the target of the editorial wrath of the very liberal New York Times.

The answer it was that it was because Bill Clinton was perceived to be insufficiently supportive of the demands of Israel. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal forced the president into retreat as far as pushing Israel was concerned—much to the delight of Israel’s Likud.

On Jan. 27, 1998 The Washington Post let the cat out of the bag when it reported that “last week, Clinton demonstrated he could not compel the Israelis to meet their responsibilities for a further military pullback. This week [in the wake of the scandal] he is even less capable, if only because people in his own party, not to mention the Republicans, will not support a policy of greater pressure on Israel.”

Should there be any doubt that Bill and Hillary Clinton were certainly aware that the Lewinsky affair was being promoted by Israel’s Likudniks and their American allies, bear in mind that at the height of the Lewinsky frenzy the first lady publicly called for the creation of a Palestinian state. This was a clear shot over Israel’s bow, much to the shock of Israel’s U.S. partisans.

The first lady was, as a consequence, thrashed relentlessly by Israel’s partisans, but there’s no question that this was an obvious and calculated provocation by Hillary (and certainly her husband) meant to show her husband’s enemies that the Clintons could play hardball with Israel if necessary.

Although the Clinton administration itself formally distanced itself from Hillary’s remarks, the point had been made.

Ultimately—some seven years later, in December of 2005—the truth about the Israeli role in utilizing the Lewinsky affair to put pressure on Clinton emerged.

Television evangelist Jerry Falwell couldn’t resist bragging and admitting the truth: he and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu did conspire— at a critical time—to trip up Clinton and specifically use the pressure of the Lewinsky scandal to force Clinton to abandon pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupiedWest Bank.

Falwell’s confession didn’t make national news—as it should have. Instead, the preacher’s confession came buried in a lengthy story in the December 2005 issue of Vanity Fair, describing the flourishing love affair between American evangelicals such as Falwell and hard-line Jewish extremist forces in Israel then under the leadership of Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu.

The admission by Falwell confirmed precisely what this author first revealed in The Spotlight in 1998 and later recounted in a lecture before the Arab League’s official think tank, the Zayed Centre in Abu Dhabi, in March of 2003.

Although, following my lecture, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith, a lobby for Israel, denounced as a “bizarre conspiracy theory” my charge that “Monica-gate” did have Israeli origins, the assertion by Falwell that the public unveiling of the Lewinsky affair forced Clinton to pull back on pressuring Israel confirmed exactly what I had charged.

Regarding Falwell’s recounting of how he worked with Netanyahu in undermining Clinton’s pressure on Israel, Vanity Fair reported:

    On a visit to Washington, D.C. in 1998, Netanyahu hooked up with Jerry Falwell at the Mayflower Hotel the night before [Netanyahu’s] scheduled meeting with Clinton. “I put together 1,000 people or so to meet with Bibi [Netanyahu] and he spoke to us that night,” recalls Falwell. “It was all planned by Netanyahu as an affront to Mr. Clinton. . . . The next day, Netanyahu met with Clinton at the White House. “Bibi told me later,” Falwell recalls, “that the next morning Bill Clinton said, ‘I know where you were last night.’” The pressure was really on Netanyahu to give away the farm in Israel. . . . It was during the Monica Lewinsky scandal . . . Clinton had to save himself, so he terminated the demands [to relinquish West Bank territory] that would have been forthcoming during that meeting, and would have been very bad for Israel.

What Falwell did not mention—at least as reported by Vanity Fair—is that his meeting with the Israeli leader took place on the very evening before the mass media in America broke open the Monica Lewinsky scandal with much fanfare.

Nor did Falwell mention that one of Netanyahu’s leading American publicists, neo-conservative power broker William Kristol, was the first American media figure to publicly hint (in the days before the scandal was officially unveiled) that there were forthcoming revelations regarding a sex scandal about to be unveiled to Clinton’s detriment.

The story of Clinton’s imbroglio with Israel is something Bill and Hillary Clinton would prefer be forgotten, but the lesson of Israel’s success in using such a scandal to batter Clinton is not something that Israel and its media allies will forget.

Barack Obama stands warned as his administration is now the subject of a frenzy of investigation and cover up surrounding corruption within the circles that brought him to power.


 Source: http://www.davidduke.com/general/how-the-zionist-network-holds-scandals-over-american-politicans_7008.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You or someone using your email adress is currently subscribed to the Lawrence Auster
Newletter.  If you wish to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please let us know by calling to 1 212 865 1284

Thanks,

Lawrence Auster,
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY  10025
Contact: lawrence.auster at att.net