Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Opposing the Left: Higher Education


When I refer to the Left, I'm referring to what I believe to be the "evil Left". I'm not saying that everything or everyone on the Left is evil or wrong, but I do think that many of the people and doctrines like Cultural Marxism and multiculturalism are primarily motivated by an animus to Whites instead of a true dedication to justice or fairness. So for simplicity, instead of constantly saying "evil Left", I'll just say "Left".

Higher education holds part of the "brain" of the Left that propagates multicultural, anti-White and other Cultural Marxist ideologies to our institutions and power centers, like government, Mainstream Media, Hollywood, corporations, non-profit organizations, ethnic activist organizations, the diversity industry, K12 education and others. The academic Left leads the Cultural Marxist indoctrination our intellectual and cognitive elites.

Many departments within the social sciences and humanities have essentially been captured by the Left with many of these "scholars" acting primarily as promoters and activists. Many departments restrict entry to like-minded comrades or blackball right-wing dissenters. Whiteness Studies is a particularly egregious example.

Weakening the academic Left should pay large, cascading dividends.

Higher Education is too Expensive

Traditional higher education is ridiculously expensive for the learning it provides and is inflexible by requiring physical presence at a specific time and place. This expense has grown well beyond inflation for decades. One fraction of the high cost comes from the physical and administrative overhead of the modern university, while another is the subsidizing of faculty research using undergraduate tuition, which is usually unfair for the students, since high-powered professors usually leave most teaching to graduate students. Another portion of the cost arises from diverting money to fund the Left and its pet causes, including employing Leftist ideologues as "scholars" to formulate Leftist ideology and engage in activism, and funding activist campus organizations serving as training grounds for Leftists starting on their Long March through our societal institutions.

An Alternative: VECS

Higher education is on the brink of a revolution displacing a noticeable fraction of existing academia with an alternative system we can call the Virtual Education and Certification System (VECS), since hopefully it will vex the Left. VECS will be an online alternative that is cheaper and more flexible by separating learning from the certifying of student mastery.

A major business opportunity exists to replace the current "manual" and "physical" education with "automated" and "virtual" education. This emerging business will be both profitable and save students money, time and inconvenience. Some businesses are already in this market but not with the depth and sophistication I believe possible. The University of Phoenix is probably the largest virtual university, while many traditional universities, like the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign actively court online students.

Some of the communications and collaborative technologies to fully implement the vision still need to be developed and deployed but should be available over the next decade or so.

VECS would dramatically extend the current online offerings by splitting the learning process from the process of certifying mastery of a subject. A quality education with nearly all the benefits of the current system plus additional benefits could be had more cheaply for most students. Statistically, most students don't really take advantage of resources like instructor's office hours or even lectures. Students would only pay for what they use.

There has been a recent trend favoring inexpensive community colleges for non-elite students that offers some lower cost competition to VECS, although I think VECS would offer better for less. Community colleges could also team up with VECS to provide physical facilities as needed.

The First Half: Student Learning

Students could learn at their own pace using whatever sources they desire. Extensive high-quality lectures would be available. Many different versions of each course could be developed by the most exceptional teachers targeting students of varying ability and diverse learning styles. Students can choose presentations that best match their needs, or a combination of lessons if needed. e.g. $50 for whole semester of lectures and $1-3 per individual lecture depending on how many are purchased (discount for purchasing more). An active, electronic book might cost $40, since no physical books need to be manufactured. Course costs would likely vary depending on popularity, lecture creation costs, size of target audience, etc.

Since this course content is sold to a mass audience and is electronic, it can be enhanced incrementally at relatively low cost and the scholars and staff creating it will receive higher status and monetary rewards than traditional faculty. The existing system is very labor inefficient where, typically, many non-stellar lecturers create many middling variants of similar course materials. VECS would encourage the most outstanding and effective teachers to create reusable learning materials.

There could also be some flexibility in coverage of materials so highly intelligent students could cover a broader range of material more deeply.

The virtual approach wouldn't work well for a few specialized subjects or classes, like laboratory intensive courses, hands-on engineering, etc, but ways to get around this could be devised, including sophisticated computer simulations, partnering with existing institutions, corporations, government or creating regional campuses that students can visit occasionally to perform capital-intensive work. Some subjects can be left wholly to traditional universities if they're too hard to virtualize.

Fortunately, the virtual approach works well for ALL the politicized humanities and social sciences, and all of the general curriculum courses that such politicized instructors currently use for indoctrinating non-majors. The displacement of part of traditional academia with VECS would starve funds from an important fraction of the Left. For example, if over 30% of current Whiteness Studies and ethnic studies professors had to find new jobs, they couldn't use academia to leech off of the non-elite Whites they despise and want to marginalize.

By creating new virtual institutions, many non-Leftist scholars currently shut out of market, might be employed and spend part of their time doing anti-Leftist and alternative research. Also, because fewer of our intelligentsia would be marinated in Leftist dominated environments, hopefully more non-Leftist scholars and professionals could be cultivated. A goal to is provide a traditional, high-quality education emphasizing communication and reasoning skills, so the student can work and think independently.

A functional online library could be created or licensed either directly from content publishers or existing libraries. If they refused to do so, either minimal fair use sources could be created for instructional purposes or the internet and local libraries could be used as needed for library research. Once VECS became large enough, existing libraries or content producers would eventually compete for this market share. e.g. student library fee of $25-$300/year, with the $300 fee referring to serious scholarly use of library resources by a graduate student. I consider that number an high upper limit. Google Books, before it was partially locked down recently, demonstrated the feasibility of digitizing millions of books and making them easily searchable and browsable. In fact Google Books already provides a large usable library if you restrict your sources to those having expired copyrights.

New Tools for Student Teacher Interaction

One part that existing online universities don't really get right are the various interactions between instructors and students. I imagine a sophisticated set of tools to create learning networks that link students with peers and varying levels of grad student or professor for one-on-one or group discussion and projects. Students could build long-term relationships with preferred teachers or they could contract out as needed with anyone available. Commonly students would choose a set of teachers as special mentors who would take an interest in their progress and act as mentors and possible career references.

Tools could be created to match student to teacher very flexibly. For example, if a student or a small study group wanted to ask some questions at 3 AM they could put out a search request for anyone available for a certain subject with a proposed price. The teachers could've set their profile ahead of time to match the appropriate courses, minimum acceptable price and their availability. The student would only see the results of available teachers without necessarily being able to browse the teachers availability (to protect privacy if desired). The student could then look over the teacher's ratings and decide whether to hire the teacher. Procedures could be devised to deal with student dissatisfaction. Records of the interaction could be kept to audit complaints. Most would behave reasonably to protect their reputations because both students and teachers could be rated as troublemakers if they act up too much.

For example, students could pay $10-$200/hour for instructional consulting depending on desired expert level, ranging from a junior or senior tutor, graduate student, postdoc, or OK, good, great or outstanding professor and so on. All these folks could have ratings like on Amazon based on student satisfaction and they could market themselves to different categories of student (e.g. very patient with slow students, average students, outstanding high-IQ students, etc).

Since most students don't spend much time directly interacting with professors, such one-on-one time can be purchased as needed. For example, during a course a student may spend $190 for one-on-one time as follows: $30 for 2 hours with a $15/hour senior plus $160 for 2 hours with a $80/hour professor. Notice that this is more exclusive time than most current students get and the cost is modest compared to traditional course costs. The student has complete control of how much money to spend and how to allocate their spending.

For recitations, a small group of 10 students could split the costs of a one hour weekly discussion session with an $100/hour professor: $10/student over say 12 weeks yields $120/student for the class. Of course, instead of being constrained to a single one hour recitation, it could be broken up into two 30 minute sessions per week so people who can't always make the live session could submit questions that might be addressed by the professor or group.

Students that wanted to save some money might prefer to spend somewhat less to view prerecorded recitations. Students and professors who offered their recitation for sale could receive some compensation for any use of their recitations.

Of course recitations aren't mandatory. They're just a way for a group of students to encourage group learning with a high-value expert at a lower cost since they're sharing the bill. And there really is no specific timetable for learning, but many students might prefer to adhere to a rigid schedule to avoid procrastination and laziness.

Students can also create peer support groups that are essentially free, or perhaps they periodically hire a senior or a grad student to answer some of their questions or discuss the material at a very low per student cost (e.g. $16/hour divided by 4 students is $4/hour). So 15 hours of this assistance over the course of a class would cost only $60 per student.

Some Rough Cost Estimates

Most traditional universities are charging about $800 to $4000 per class when total costs are included (excluding room & board). The high-end numbers represent expensive private universities, including the big-name elites like MIT and the low-end numbers represent state subsidized universities. Those numbers leave a lot of room for undercutting. A basic package of training materials, instructional time and certification test might run $300-$800 so it would usually even undercut the in-state tuition of many state supported colleges. Poor students can trade off the costs of assisted learning for using free course materials and more individual and peer work to eliminate all instructional costs. But most students probably would prefer to benefit from top-notch commercial instructional materials and the personal assistance from experts for a few hundred dollars per course. Of course if students are not prepared for the certification test, they would likely fail and need to retake it. That is no different than the current system except that retaking a certification test would be much cheaper than retaking a traditional class.

Student Networking

Another facet of traditional education missing from current online universities is the socialization and human networking which is probably the most significant factor in elite education, like the Ivies. Part of this could be recreated through collaborative online communities working through common projects and having an infrastructure for peer support and socializing. It may also be possible to create or frequent local meeting places for students to study together, socialize and network, at least within or near cities. Also, there could periodically be regional meetings allowing some socialization with peers. e.g. having periodic meetings 100-200 miles away. Modern social networking technologies will likely partially replace socialization from attending traditional universities by allowing similar peers to be discovered locally and cultivated.

Since students passing certifications would also be proven achievers (discussed below), there would likely be interest from the local business and professional community in mentoring or networking with these students.

The Second Half: Certification

Now let's consider the certification half, since we're separating training from the certification of student mastery, unlike current universities. It's well known that current universities are suffering a plague of grade inflation since they've relaxed traditional educational standards in favor of profiting from the "educational industry complex" which can't afford to disappoint high-paying customers. So modern college transcripts really aren't taken all that seriously by the business world, since, typically, most students are getting A and B grades for showing up for class and making a modest effort, unlike fifty years ago when higher education was more restricted to the cognitive elites and grading was more severe.
Objective and Trustworthy Tests
High-quality, reliable certification tests would provide a far more objective and trustworthy measure of student mastery than the current unreliable system. Different certification vendors could exist, and based on the quality of their result, they might have varying acceptance by the marketplace. I'm most interested a vendor providing genuinely reliable and competent assessment of the student's mastery in many subjects. The tests could include fairly elaborate testing processes including multiple choice, short answers, essays, work products, problem solving, computer demonstration, audio and video answers, creative works and oral exams. I fully expect that for nearly all certification tests professionals would grade exams requiring a demonstration of student work or essays, just like at a good university, with only a modest fraction of a test being machine gradable answers. This would make student cheating much harder, because even though there may not be an infinite set of questions, if they're able to master the very large set of questions, they essentially know the subject anyway. Small details can be changed for many sorts of questions to make memorization nearly impossible. And over time additional questions can be added into the wider pool eventually creating such a large set that it wouldn't really help most students unless they had an eidetic memory.

Since most of the grading would involve some subjective judgment, sets of 3-5 independent graders would typically each score these subjective questions and an overall grade would be calculated. If there is unusual disagreement between graders, more attention would be applied to the deviations. Auditors would periodically review the full grading system to make sure it is reasonably consistent and fair. Questions would be designed to eliminate the need for students to inject any personal details, like race, ethnicity or sex, unless that was important for the subject. Fairly detailed grading standards would be developed and published to make the system as objective as possible. Full records would be privately kept for long periods to help insure the system is as consistent and fair as possible.
College Curricula Define Standard Courses
Modern college curricula could be used as a baseline for standardizing certification test coverage. Some states are already creating standards to systematize in-state transfer of course credits. Detailed specifications of course content and test expectations could be published. There might be some flexibility in the range of material covered so that as long as the student showed they had a reasonable mastery of a good subset of the material, that would be adequate for passing. For example, in one block of 10 questions the student must choose 5 to answer. Scores could be assigned based on the proficiency demonstrated. Also, the student could choose among a few variations of the course that emphasizes different sets of material if that makes sense for the subject matter.

Different tests could be targeted to different levels of student (e.g standard, superior, elite) and the level would be included in the transcript. This corresponds to the quality and difficulty range of existing universities and regular versus honors courses. The upper reaches of student achievement could also be tested if desired. e.g. proficiency at the 99.9 percentile level, by having fairly difficult tests that spread out the full range of student mastery. Certification tests could be spread out over multiple sittings, like two three hour exams, or classes could be certified in smaller units, e.g. certifying each half of a semester course separately.
Standardized Testing Centers
There would be standardized testing centers where the student is filmed while taking the test to prevent cheating (that record would be deleted after the results are certified and the student approves the result, thereby waiving rights to sue, etc). Typically the tests might be $150-$300 per class. Since the certification costs are not staggeringly high and some tools would be provided to help the student assess whether they're ready to take the test, the pressure shouldn't be overwhelming, since they can always take the test later. Some accommodation might be made for students who have severe problems with high-stakes testing, although they should bear that extra cost and that should be noted on their transcript.
Complicated Certification Tests Just Cost More (and are Rare)
In some cases it might make sense for the certification to include ongoing supervised work or testing, for example, for a project involving significant initiative or creativity. Again, this is likely to be statistically rare so the higher costs wouldn't be too burdensome compared to the total educational costs. For example, some supervision and testing demonstrating that the student created a large computer program. That might be needed once or twice for a computer science degree. Technology may be usable to record the student creating their work product as proof of authorship.

There can even be high-value oral exams before three professors using the high-quality video infrastructure normally used for student/teacher collaboration. Complicated exams like this would be the exception and might cost over $500 since, for example, it may involve one hour from a $120/hour professor and one hour each from two $80/hour professors, plus additional costs. Again, this sort of test would be rare.

Certification has the virtue of allowing self-motivated students to achieve recognition of their mastery at any time with no overhead other than testing costs.

Some General Impacts

VECS would probably impact the lower tiers of academia more than the elites, although I would hope several non-Leftist elite virtual universities would be created, supporting many scholars critiquing the Left and formulating alternative ideas, as well as supporting non-partisan objective scholars. Hopefully, scholars could create new virtualized and localized educational communities where they could perform their research while making money training and certifying students without all the soul-draining administrative tedium required by current universities. Hopefully they could recreate much of the value of a research community through gathering in common localities or using the new collaborative and communication tools. They could also be adjunct at traditional universities, particularly as VECS gains acceptance and traditional universities want a piece of the pie.

If scholars could be paid around $50-$200/hour for around 10-20 hours per week for one-on-one teaching or recitation with very low adminstrative overhead, and received funds for student certification, their research, e.g. by foundations or the government, and consulting out their intellectual skills, then they could still have some reasonable time for academic research while living a reasonably comfortable life. Many scholars don't have that opportunity today given the shenanigans Big Education pulls like using legions of adjunct faculty. Popular teachers may be able to make salaries like $300+/hour for teaching groups (e.g. weekly lectures or discussions with groups of 15 for $20/hour per student).

The overall effect would likely be to reduce some employment of scholars in academia and education, since some previous labor would be eliminated by automation. But this may also free up student funds to support more one-on-one and small group discussions built around a standardized lecture package, so employment may not drop precipitously but instead be redirected to higher-quality interactions for the students. Education would be more affordable, efficient and flexible. Particularly effective teachers would command a larger consulting rate and be in high demand.

VECS works particularly well for training undergrads since they normally don't get that much attention from professors at many universities. With this model they could get that attention if they needed it at a lower cost than traditional universities. Adult and non-traditional students would be drawn to the flexibility and low cost, since they may have commitments precluding traditional full-time attendance.

Since this new form of education could deliver better training and better measurement of mastery with significantly lower costs and greater flexibility, I would expect market pressure to draw some significant fraction of students toward this option. And since business would gain a much better estimation of student abilities, they would have more confidence in these certification results. Market acceptance of certification would provide all the needed legitimacy to increase market share. Small business can lead the way in accepting these new certifications, since they would have practical value and small businesses may want to help weaken our out-of-control elites.

Communities should be strengthened since fewer youth need to leave to get a quality education, and career transitions will be easier and cheaper, which is helpful in dynamic and unstable economy.

Also, the same logic and some of the same infrastructure could be used to provide a wider set of pragmatic career training. As suggested by Charles Murray in his book Real Education, too many students attend four year colleges that aren't good fits for their abilities, interests or career prospects. It makes more sense to channel lower ability students into more pragmatic, focused training that doesn't waste their time and money.

In fact this entire scheme might be transferrable to K12 education and might point the way to reducing the baneful influence of the Cultural Marxists and teachers unions.

Some Concerns

One concern is student and instructor privacy. For example, a politician wouldn't want his fiery student discussions about overthrowing the system and reeducating the masses to leak out on the web. There can likely be both legal and technical approaches to mitigating privacy concerns.

For example, all audio and video streams could add a wide set of dynamic watermarks that vary per user, so if the data is leaked in the future, there would hopefully be way to track down the source of the leak, even if it had undergone some distortion trying to mask the source. By a wide set of dynamic watermarks, I mean that hundreds or thousands of relatively insignificant changes are made to the data in such a way that intelligibility is preserved, but the data has been customized in a way that is hard to hide even with substantial data transformation. This is a speculation on my part; I don't know if this is technically feasible.

Legal protections for networking privacy could be established to restrict use of any leaked data with penalties for people who misuse illegally leaked data, e.g. to humiliate someone.

Students could choose to maintain more privacy by not disclosing their real names and using an avatar instead of live video. There may soon be photorealistic or cartoon-like video avatar technology that monitors your behavior and causes your avatar to mimic your motions, like facial expressions or lip movements. Voice obfuscation could transform your voice to be unrecognizable or to sound like Bugs Bunny or Jack Nicholson.

Another concern is that the contract instructor labor will be fulfilled largely by cheaper foreign labor, e.g. from India, China or Eastern Europe, undercutting American scholars. That is a distinct possibility.

Another objection might be that a few corporations will dominate VECS and enforce Leftist ideology in the training materials. e.g. engaging in biased grading of essay exams if they don't regurgitate Leftist shibboleths or subtexts. As long as a certification system delivers high-quality skill, ability and knowledge assessments, the market will accept it, so traditionalists could create alternatives if needed. My hope is that non-Leftists can get a foothold in these emerging fields and prevent them from being politicized. The main goal is to break the current ideological near monopoly in academia.

Another concern is that widespread adoption of VECS would seriously damage our University R&D. This is a valid concern. Our R&D has been under strain for many reasons, including outsourcing of R&D by corporations, offshoring of manufacturing, insourcing of many foreigners at lower wages to act as research scientists and engineers, and other factors. So this is added to the massive list of indicators of decline we need to oppose. Academia should not believe they'll be spared while the rest of society goes down in flames. Average students and their families will fight against the current research funding rent-seeking done on their backs.

Conclusion: Like it or not, here it comes

Regardless of whether VECS is a wise change to our education system, and I do believe it will be a valuable addition, based on the large gains in productivity and lower cost, this sort of change will occur whether we want it or not. It won't displace all existing institutions, but it will likely shrink the existing system noticeably. Higher Education can't continue its stratospheric rise in costs without consequences or competition. And given the policies of our elites to offshore increasingly skilled labor and insource foreign professionals to drive down domestic wages, the trumpeted value of ultra-expensive higher education is in doubt. Many students and their families will gladly abandon $100,000 debts for a more flexible and pretty much just-as-good $12,000-$25,000 education.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Whiteness Studies: Noel Ignatiev Also Critiques Jews

This is the first of several posts I intend to write on Whiteness Studies, a recently developed "scholarly" field that is actually populated exclusively with committed, Leftist, anti-White activists.

More disturbing is the widening power these activists and their allies wield through the placement of cadres or fellow travelers within institutions, or other forms of influence like diversity industry "training" (i.e, reeducation) in universities, K12 education, corporations, military, government and the broader society, frequently using public funds.

Noel Ignatiev is one of the Jewish leaders of the Whiteness Studies movement, a co-founder of the journal Race Traitor and the notorious source of several widely-cited, genocidal-sounding quotes. He's not a "hypocritical Jew" since he holds somewhat similar beliefs critiquing Israel, Zionism and anti-Semitism
(details below).

Below is the "What We Believe" statement from the homepage of the racetraitor.org site with some particularly incendiary quotes bolded:

The white race is a historically constructed social formation. It consists of all those who partake of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects, than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return for which they give their support to a system that degrades them.

The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race, which means no more and no less than abolishing the privileges of the white skin. Until that task is accomplished, even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence permeates every issue, domestic and foreign, in US society.

The existence of the white race depends on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial interests above class, gender, or any other interests they hold. The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable as a predictor of behavior will lead to its collapse.

RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that hold it together and those that promise to tear it apart. Part of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle, Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.

The editors publish things in RACE TRAITOR because they think that publishing them will help build a community of readers. Editorial opinions are expressed in editorials and unsigned replies to letters.
Here's another aggressive, genocidally-worded exhortation:

Every group within white America has at one time or another advanced its particular and narrowly defined interests at the expense of black people as a race. That applies to labor unionists, ethnic groups, college students, schoolteachers, taxpayers, and white women. Race Traitor will not abandon its focus on whiteness, no matter how vehement the pleas and how virtuously oppressed those doing the pleading. The editors meant it when they replied to a reader, "Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed."
This Occidental Observer editorial disputes Ignatiev's claims of innocence in using genocidal language. He claims to not want genocide against Whites but rather to radically reorder society.

Ignatiev is a Communist desiring the revolutionary transformation of the US.

Here's the conclusion of his pamphlet Introduction to the United States: An Autonomist Political History:
A revolutionary strategy is, in short, a strategy of dual power. It is the treating of revolution as an act for today, as a part of the continuous struggle, instead of a dream to be indefinitely postponed in the interest of "realism".

From what we have said so far it should be evident that we regard the struggle against white supremacy as the most advanced outpost of the new society and the key ingredient in a revolutionary strategy. The waging of that struggle among whites is the main distinctive task of STO, as befits its character as an organization made up of white people.
Here's the Google Book Link. The pamphlet was originally published in 1980 and then reprinted in 1992.

More recently, from an interview conducted on St. Patrick's Day in 1996:
Now if there were five or ten per cent counterfeit whites around—people who looked white but really weren’t—then, I think, the white skin would lose its value. The judge, the school principal, the cop, the social worker, the personnel officer at the plant—and all of the other people who implement and carry out the racial tracking of our society—would no longer be sure about how to perform their function. The white race would undergo some kind of fission or self-destruction, and we would open up to the possibilities that could transform this country from the nightmare that it has been into the dream that it might be.
And from: Abolutionism and "White Studies": (last paragraph)
The task of the nineteenth century was to abolish slavery. The task of the twentieth century was to end legal segregation. The next task facing the American people is the abolition of the white race as a social category. The movement to abolish slavery stimulated women's rights and other reform movements. The Civil Rights movement helped give birth to the counterculture and various oppositional movements. Today nothing offers a greater likelihood of revolutionizing the political climate than a comprehensive challenge to whiteness and its ways.
It should be recognized that although Ignatiev is a self-described non-believing Jew, he forcefully denounces some of the most important Jewish interests as understood by many Jews:
  • The right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state
  • The use of anti-Semitism accusations to restrict debate about Israel and Jewish influence
  • The causes of Anti-Semitism being only evil Gentiles
He loudly condemns Zionism and considers Israel a racist state. His proposed solution is a unified non-sectarian Palestine including both Jews and Palestinians without any legal favoritism for Jews, and with Palestinians having the Right of Return, full legal rights and financial assistance. Obviously very few Jews accept this solution, since it destroys their conception of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate, and, in the real world, Ignatiev's proposed solution would likely lead to the eventual subjugation or genocide of most Israeli Jews. Of course, Israel is in an extremely difficult long-term strategic position no matter what approach they take, particularly with the fast-approaching proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Hilariously, he uses the example of South Africa to reassure Israelis to gamble on the good faith of the Palestinians for their survival:
...the establishment of majority rule did not cause the gods to weep or the earth to open and swallow the people...
I wonder why didn't he use Zimbabwe as a heartwarming example of post-racial brotherhood?

Of course South Africa is puttering along behind Zimbabwe by one or two decades but is following the same, drearily predictable descent.

Following are several quotes demonstrating his beliefs:

1) Israel as racial state:
Israel is a racial state, where rights are assigned on the basis of ascribed descent or the approval of the superior race. In this respect it resembles the American South prior to the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, Ireland under the Protestant Ascendancy, and, yes, Hitlerite Germany. But in its basic structures it most closely resembles the old South Africa. It is therefore not surprising that Israel should have developed a close alliance with South Africa when that country was still under apartheid.
2) Jewish Influence in the US:
Is one permitted to say above the level of a whisper that U.S. policy toward Israel has something to do with Jewish influence in the U.S.? Perhaps Nobel Peace Prize winner Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa can get away with it: "The Israel government," he observed, "is placed on a pedestal [in the U.S.] People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful-very powerful" (Guardian 29 April 2002). Not only does Zionism shape U.S. policy, it stifles discussion of alternatives. To cite a personal example: Two years ago a PBS reporter interviewed me on the eve of the UN-sponsored conference on racism about to be held in S. Africa. I made some remarks about Israel, and afterwards I asked her if she would use what I said. "Of course not," she replied. "I agree with you, and so do all the journalists I know, but we can't run any criticism of Israel without following it by at least ten refutations." Harvard Professor Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer of the Middle East Forum have begun a website, Campus Watch," to denounce academics deemed to have shown "hatred of Israel." Students are to inform on professors.
3) Sources of anti-Semitism:
If I accomplish nothing else in this talk, I hope to create space for some who are repelled by Israeli actions but are held back from condemning Zionism by a desire not to be antisemitic.

Does what I have just said mean that I dismiss the possibility of a revival of anti-semitism? No, it does not. History shows that anti-semitism ebbs and flows, and that it may return. Time prevents me from exploring that history in any depth; let me instead recommend two books: The Jewish Question by Abram Leon and The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt (in particular the first part, "anti-semitism"). For now I will say only that anti-semitism (or more accurately anti-Jewish sentiment) is rooted neither in human nature or Christian theology; it is the product of social relations, including the historic concentration of Jews as representatives of commerce in non-commercial societies. The peculiar occupational distribution of European Jews led members of the dispossessed classes among the non-Jewish population to direct their animosity toward the Jews as the visible agents of oppression. "anti-semitism," as the 19th-century German Socialist August Bebel put it, "is the socialism of fools." It is not beyond historical explanation (as is implied by a term like "The Holocaust," which takes anti-semitism out of history and relocates it the realm of natural phenomena).
4) His proposed solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict:
What solution, therefore, do I propose? A simple and moderate one: within historic Palestine, the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, live ten million people. I propose that there be established there a single state, in which every person who declares his intention to live there and adopt citizenship be recognized as a citizen and have one vote. I propose further that the special advantages given to Jews be terminated, that the Palestinians who were forced into exile after 1948, and their descendants, be granted the right to live there, and that the state undertake practical measures to make it possible for them to do so by building housing and extending to them to right to rent or buy, if necessary providing funds to help them. I propose further that both Hebrew and Arabic be declared official state languages to be taught in the schools, that all residents be granted the right to publish newspapers and maintain cultural institutions in any language they choose, that the special position of Orthodox Judaism be ended and that the state declare freedom of worship and make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Ignatiev has also authored a five-page entry on Zionism for the Encyclopedia of Race of Racism that has been roundly condemned by many Jewish groups. This link contains a critique and a link where someone uploaded a PDF file from a photocopy of the full entry.

Future posts will consider some ideas for coping with the White-hating Left.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Some Jews Supportive of White Advocacy

This post will hold a list of Jews and Jewish Organizations that are supportive of White Advocacy.

As I discover more, I'll update this list.

This initial list is pretty small because I've just started researching this topic so I'm sure there are plenty more to be added.


Let me know if other categories would make sense. Feel free to leave suggestions in the comments.

I particularly thank the empathetic Jews willing to see how Gentiles might be ticked off at the anti-White and anti-Christian actions of some Jews and who try persuading their brethren to question and change their anti-White positions. They give me hope that we can all work together to create a just, mutually beneficial society.

Organizations/Publications/Web Sites:
Bloggers and Writers (address the Jewish Question in good faith):
Bloggers (not sure if address the Jewish Question):

Bloggers (seemingly unwilling to confront the Jewish Question):
[NOTE: I've put Mr. Auster here because my perception in reading a good fraction (? 80%+) of his writing over the last two years or so, is that he seems to casually dismiss critics of Jewish influence without confronting their arguments. I haven't had time to dig into his archives yet and I notice he's just put up a post, "Anti-Semitism--a collection" covering some of his interactions with possible and actual anti-Semites. I'll try digging through these in the near future and see if and how he has dealt with what I think of as reasonable arguments concerning disproportionate Jewish influence. One of my questions is how does Mr. Auster define anti-Semitism (I'm not sure right now).

I am a free-speech advocate who believes the healthiest way to deal with some of the extreme conspiracy theory among various groups of both the Left and Right is to openly and thoroughly discuss the issues, provide evidence, critique fallacies, etc. Of course this can be a very time consuming process so I understand if a particular people like Mr. Auster don't wish to do this over and over.

In time I'd like to see some collaborative sites that enable large groups of people to analyze the honesty and truthfulness of various topics, including books like The Critique of Culture, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, etc. Some of these books are extensively documented so it would be possible to have a group of people scan the full context of all the original sources and post them on a web site to provide such an audit that people of good faith can judge. I would think that such a scanning would constitute fair use under US copyright law.]

Update 2009-04-08: Added Paul Gottfried

Our Negligent Civil Defense and Ideas for Improvement

According to wikipedia:

Since its creation by President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks, United States Civil Defense has been concentrated within the cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Not surprisingly civil defense is now handled by the Department of Homeland Security.

Let's look at the top five priorities for the new Secretary of Homeland Security:

Homeland Security Secretary Asks—Here Are Answers!
by James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.
January 26, 2009

On day one, new Secretary for Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a directive requiring her staff to report to her by the end of the month on five top issues. The directive covered:

  • State and local intelligence sharing (law enforcement's ability to "connect the dots" in looking for terrorist threats);
  • State, local, and tribal integration (ensuring governance at all levels works together);
  • Transportation security (assessing what is being done to safeguard air, surface, and maritime transportation);
  • Risk analysis (determining the most efficacious means to reduce threats and vulnerabilities); and
  • Critical infrastructure protection (reducing the danger terrorists might destroy or degrade important assets from bridges to computer networks).

The secretary wants answers by January 28.

Well that seems like a typically bureaucratic list and certainly each of these issues is worthy of attention but isn't something obvious missing?

This "obvious item" hasn't been spotted for at least thirty years in US Civil Defense policy: namely, helping the general public thoroughly prepare. Admittedly for relatively minor disasters like floods, hurricanes, etc, the government provides adequate information to the general public.

But they don't even come close for WMD attacks, especially nuclear attacks.

In this post I want to focus on nuclear attacks from terrorism or war. I plan to deal with an EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) nuclear attack in a future post.

I think a nuclear attack on the American homeland is nearly inevitable as nuclear weapon technology proliferates broadly, say Iran and another Muslim state or two. Or perhaps Pakistan's nuclear weapons and technology falls under fundamentalist control. Even if nuclear weapons proliferate only to Iran, their leadership might be crazy enough to attempt nuclear attacks against the US via terrorist proxies. Proliferation enables our enemies to use nuclear terrorism with plausible deniability and there is the disturbing possibility that a major nation might attack us covertly to gain advantage while diverting blame onto terrorists or a rogue state.

This alleged statement of a high-level retired Chinese General should not be ignored. I wouldn't be too surprised if some Chinese leaders have long-term genocidal, colonization plans to relieve their population pressure and increase their power and glory.

Hopefully the government has thoroughly dispersed a variety of our intelligence and national security infrastructure because otherwise an wily enemy could smuggle several tactical and strategic nuclear warheads through our porous borders and detonate them simultaneously at critical facilities like Homeland Security, the FBI, the Pentagon, CIA headquarters, Ft. Meade (NSA) as well as our major cities, military bases and other important targets. I'm sure most of our major national security facilities have at least some hardened bunkers but the loss of a significant fraction of our national security manpower and intelligentsia would be devastating. I suspect that a modest-sized group of ideologically committed Muslim terrorists backed by a government like Iran using scrupulous security protocols may very well be able to pull off such an operation with secrecy. A clever enemy would do data mining and espionage to determine a reasonably set of targets to devastate our ability to recover and respond.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sure seems like a simultaneous, large nuclear attack by terrorists would NOT be that hard using a small group of people planting bombs with timer/cell phone triggers. God knows our lightly controlled borders and cargo inspection system would not be that hard to breach, particularly by using corrupt payoffs for what is thought to be drug or human smuggling. Only ONE illicit container-sized shipment needs to get across the border. In fact a devastating number of warheads could be smuggled in a lot less than one container.

The government's strategy for nuclear attack seems to be:

  1. Prevent the attack (without seriously involving, educating or preparing citizens).

  2. Give citizens a bit of advice that might help some folks on the periphery of any attacks (if we don't suffer a large-scale, simultaneous attack) because the advice is essentially "hunker down or run away somewhere safe" with a few days of emergency supplies.

  3. Deal with the mess afterward if an attack does succeed (hoping it wasn't a serious attack like 10+ city nuclear attack including all the major ones).
Are You Ready? (PDF) (text)

An examination of the Department of Homeland Security's ready.gov website does include a modest discussion of nuclear attack but the content is quite superficial and provides nothing to CONCRETELY prepare ahead of time, which is vital for survival in most cases if near or downwind from an attack.

OK. To be fair the document DOES discuss shelters. Here's the full discussion:

Taking shelter during a nuclear blast is absolutely necessary. There are two kinds of shelters—blast and fallout. The following describes the two kinds of shelters:

  • Blast shelters are specifically constructed to offer some protection
    against blast pressure, initial radiation, heat, and fire. But even a blast shelter cannot withstand a direct hit from a nuclear explosion.
  • Fallout shelters do not need to be specially constructed for protecting against fallout. They can be any protected space, provided that the walls and roof are thick and dense enough to absorb the radiation given off by fallout particles.

There are NO REFERENCES to any other sources that would provide more details.

Unless you prepare a shelter ahead of time, then if you're in the path for fallout without adequate shelter, you aren't likely to survive the period of high radiation, which can last for weeks. To the best of my understanding, you might survive without special shelter if you're far enough from the blast and the prevailing winds keep the fallout away from you. If you have significant radiation exposure, you'll get ill and might not survive for long. Almost no American basement provides adequate radiation protection, although you could rig up something barely adequate with the proper materials and a little time.

I have no problem with the government using multiple documents to disseminate knowledge because obviously you can't fit everything into one document. The problem is the ONLY thing that seems to exist for citizens is this high-level document (which is more useful for tornadoes, chemical spills, etc). There are NO detailed followup documents that help with nuclear attacks that I could find; I'm pretty sure they don't exist.

Of course the motivated individual CAN find lots of good data on the web that was published 30-50 years ago when we had a better Office of Civil Defense (e.g. details about nuclear weapon effects, how to build a fallout shelter, including some expedient ones).

Why isn't the government publishing up-to-date information covering the details needed to usefully prepare for nuclear attack?

A serious civil defense program might include policies like the following:

  • Sponsoring R&D and certified testing of a wide variety of fallout and blast shelters designs from cheap-and-adequate to expensive-and-premium with plenty of intermediate models.

  • Publishing plenty of documents on shelter theory, design and construction with ample technical detail aimed at multiple audiences including architects, engineers and the motivated layman.
  • Publishing plenty of documents filled with detailed survival skills like radiation detector operation, emergency medicine for laymen, decontamination, shelter life, etc.
  • Creating building codes and recommendations to encourage builders to incorporate fallout or blast shelters into new structures or retrofit them into existing ones. Ideally there would be standard, proven designs of varying cost that owners could choose based on their budgets. Tax policy could offer incentives for building shelter space and preparedness spending.

  • Encouraging a shift in new houses toward more earth-covered structures designed to provide some innate blast protection at all times. These structures would also have lower energy costs.
  • Making some modest and inexpensive changes to building standards if they would substantially improve the survivability or reduce the combustibility of structures at a distance from the blast. At least spread awareness so home buyers can choose these various customizations at their discretion. For example it might be possible to design windows with a coating that lowers the chance that the nuclear flash causes combustibles in a room to ignite (e.g. several miles away ground zero). The idea is improve the overall robustness of our cities with minimal additional cost.

  • Supporting the creation of several standard, trustworthy, survival packages so average citizens can choose among them based on their budget without needing to master a large body of technical knowledge.

  • Creating standards for the full spectrum of products related to WMD protection: shelters, air filtration, NBC suits, radiation detectors, energy production, decontamination aids, blast doors, etc.

  • Supporting the development of EMP-related knowledge and technologies. I plan to discuss this in a future post.

  • Creating vastly improved civil defense warning systems, including detecting nuclear blasts and sending special warnings instantly to the entire surrounding region, giving people on the outskirts of blast zone some time to cover or shelter from the blast wave. Twenty or thirty seconds could save hundreds of thousands of lives and dramatically reduce the severity of injuries which would reduce pressure on emergency medical systems.

  • Encouraging the creation of a civil defense industry that manufactures trustworthy, standard products like air filtration systems, power supplies for shelters, shelter design and construction, blast doors, etc.

  • Making sure we have a two-way communication system that keeps shelter residents in contact with each other and the authorities.
  • Creating hardened infrastructure throughout all our major cities, like vital services, public shelters, tunnel complexes, etc.
  • Creating local community organizations, plans and infrastructure.
  • Encouraging industry to harden their facilities and operations to recover more quickly after an attack, particularly when creating new facilities so the cost isn't prohibitive.

I see the creation of this sort of civil defense infrastructure as "physical" insurance, particularly on a societal level. It won't guarantee individual survival, but it would certainly have a significant impact on keeping more of our citizens alive with fewer severe injuries AND making our society more robust in the aftermath of an attack. It would almost certainly help the county psychologically, since many more people would have practical survival knowledge and would have made significant, useful preparations. Current levels of ignorance and lack of survival infrastructure will likely lead to serious panic after an attack.

Much of cost for developing and deploying this could be amortized over decades so the cost isn't prohibitive and a large civil defense industry could lower costs using economies of scale. More robust structures could replace obsolete ones according to the natural replacement schedule.

I suspect a good fraction of families might not mind adding say $10,000 to the cost of their house and spending a few hundred dollars per year if it substantially improved their safety from this catastrophic risk (these are my somewhat made up numbers but I think they're in the right ballpark for adequate protection).

The main goals are to start spreading greater awareness and increasing our ability to weather these probable attacks. Affordable, decades-long improvement is better than the current lethargy and complete unpreparedness by the vast majority of citizens.

One benefit of pursuing a vigorous civil defense program is its deterrent effect on would-be attackers, since the greater our survivability, the more likely we'd be back on our feet after an attack, hopefully able to identify the attackers (e.g. using various scientific and intelligence techniques) and retaliate punishingly.

If we suffer a horrible attack with our current negligent preparation, I believe the survivors will be furious at our leadership and government legitimacy may well be lost (particularly considering how many other trends are undermining public trust already).

We'd better stop assuming the government will always stop the attack and start preparing the general public to cope with successful attacks.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Long Comment on Roissy about US and Western Decline

I've posted a long comment on Roissy's blog detailing many trends I interpret as decline for America and the West.


I also engage in some subsequent conversations mostly related to this post.

I intend to break up this long comment into smaller, more detailed blog entries and will use this post as the "table of contents" for that effort.

I also intend to create a list of indicators of American and Western Decline and welcome community input to sharpen the accuracy of this list, including dissenting opinions.

I'll link all these goodies from this post as I develop them.

I'm just a dude who's got a certain level of understanding trying his best within his own limitations to figure out what the *bleep* is going on, why and what should be done to deal with that. I think most other folks are in a similar boat. I don't pretend to have all the answers. Please enlighten me if you think I'm full of it.

Eventually I'd like to explore creating a community site that allows more decentralized collaboration (i.e. get's me out of the middle). I like to err on the side of free speech and letting everyone's contributions speak for themselves, good or bad, although perhaps enabling some tools to allow individuals to filter out those they find extremely time-wasting without preventing others from listening to their messages.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Disclaimer: Group Reasoning

As I explore various societal issues, I might engage in "group reasoning" about groups like Americans, Westerners, Jews, Gentiles, Christians, Whites and Blacks. Different aspects may contribute to group reasoning, including group variations in ability, identity, beliefs, behavior, culture, cohesion and so on.

Plenty of folks, including many scholars and activists, have NO PROBLEM employing group reasoning ON Whites, so Whites (and others) should have no problem using similar logic and analytical techniques as long as we do so honestly and with a healthy skepticism for any limitations.

Groups are an important facet of human reality and must be openly and honestly confronted to make sense of the World.

Science proves that some genuine differences exist between different races and ethnic groups, and for some traits and groups, these average differences may be substantial, at least when examining large populations. Of course depending on the traits and the groups involved, there may or may not be any significant differences, and for pretty much ANY trait and collection of groups, the individual variations for particular individuals can DRAMATICALLY override the average group differences.

One well-known group difference is that the mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is likely between perhaps 112-115 , which is significantly higher than White mean of 100 and the African-American mean of 85. Clearly at least part of Jewish intellectual excellence and practical achievement follows from this.

NOTE: I've seen conflicting values for mean Ashkenazi Jewish IQ; the point is there is a specific value that is probably between 107 and 115 and that its value is significantly higher than 100. It's the job of psychometricians to pin down the value down (and they may have done so without my layman's knowledge).

Another facet of group reasoning relates to participation by the group in the wider society to pursue their group interests using the full range of political, media, cultural, social, economic, psychological, intellectual and other possible levers of power and influence. In this context to talk about a group's action can be a bit slippery for several reasons, including:
  • Typically many group members are not directly involved, in fact, a large portion of the group may not be aware of what is transpiring in its name and may not even be sympathetic to the policies pursued in their name. Usually a smaller, elite fraction of the group drives much of the group behavior, although as a general rule, they do typically follow some rough consensus or have support from the mass of the group.
  • Different factions exist with different ideas, values, motivations, and disagreements between factions are common.
  • Not everything a group tends to pursue may be relentlessly focused on advancing group interests.
Whites are a group containing subgroups with extremely diverse and bitterly divided ideologies, and are particularly unusual since, overwhelmingly, White elites consider it racist for Whites to explicitly consider, articulate or pursue their own group interests, UNLIKE every other racial and ethnic group in America today. I consider this a hypocritical double standard that needs to be overturned. Essentially the dominant and powerful Whites work against non-elite White interests in conjunction with powerful Jewish and non-White interests.

In contrast there is broad agreement within some other communities between otherwise divided factions to vigorously pursue their own group interests. Jews and Blacks are the quintessential examples even though some dissenters, usually vehemently excoriated, exist within these groups.

I don't want to belabor this. I just want to acknowledge the trickiness of properly understanding the relationship between group and individual. The breakout of divergent group factions can be done when appropriate. When examining group tendencies there will almost always be specific counterexamples, but this doesn't detract from the larger point about groups having statistically significant differences.

In short: If non-Whites get a pony, Whites do too.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Original Giant Post

Update: 2009-02-12: See: Some Jews Supportive of White Advocacy

Original Post Below

This post follows up a discussion from a thread on the thought-provoking Roissy In DC blog.

I had started participating in that thread with this initial post.

[NOTE: Over the next week or so, I plan to break this post up into more focused chunks and point to those more narrow posts from this "parent post" adding a few additional notes. After that I'll try to get my posts more polished initially.]

Disclaimer: When I say "Jew" and "Jewish" I'm referring to ethnicity and not religion. I'll specify some term like "religious Jew" if needed. In fact many Jewish activists are actually atheists. Also, in some cases these folks may consider their activism to be, say, "Liberal" or "Conservative", rather than "Jewish" and they may or may not be conscious of serving Jewish group interests. And certainly not everything a Jewish person or group does is oriented toward serving Jewish group interests.

Seeking Alpha:
Scotch, a couple questions:

How does this grand conspiracy help Jews? I see how it helps the rich, and that the two overlap, but how specifically the Jews?

How does it help the Jews?
Here's a quote from one Jewish activist (from Chapter 7 of "Culture of Critique"):

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever. (Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin, 1993 February 19, 23)

Obviously Mr. Raab believes Jews will be safer by living in a multicultural society where the share of the population of non-Jewish Whites is much smaller and has lost its hegemony over society. This is clearly totally unrelated to wealth but directly related to perceived Jewish safety.

I don't believe there is a "grand conspiracy" by Jews, but it is undeniable that various Jewish individuals and groups have pursued a broad spectrum of policies that have harmed the traditional population of this country and its social, cultural, religious and moral order, while benefiting the Jewish community and Israel. I think it is clear that in many cases these ethnic Jewish actors were motivated by their perceived group interests as Jews and did NOT mind the weakening and displacement of White Gentiles.

In fact this weakening appears to be the raison d'etre behind the traditional, nearly universal Jewish support for unrestricted mass immigration from 3rd world countries. Recently some thoughful Jews are questioning the wisdom of mass Muslim immigration (because it's bad for Jews).

From: High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry by Dr. Stephen M. Steinlight

Thus, behind closed doors, Jewish leaders speak a different language. This is not entirely new with immigration, but the gulf is now a chasm. Privately they express grave concern that unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western Europe. There’s particular fear about the impact on Jewish security, as well as American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim population. At the conclusion of meetings with national leaders, several told me, "You’re 1000 percent right, but I can’t go out and say it yet." While they have yet to find the civic courage to break with the traditional consensus they can see the Rubicon glinting in the distance, and many recognize that eventually they will have to cross it.

Note: there is a smattering of Jews who seem to support controlled immigration for the broader interests of the country, like Dan Stein.

Another Jewish-dominated movement from the early 20th century was the banning of Christian prayer, symbols and belief from public schools which had been customary since the founding of the country. Are you denying this? (Jewish Power, J. J. Goldberg, p. 21)

Are Gentiles forbidden to notice the numerous lawsuits brought by Jews and Jewish or crypto-Jewish (e.g. the ACLU) organizations that effected these radical changes? It is significant because the Christian-based morality historically taught in public schools has been replaced by postmodern, politically correct relativism in many schools. This is the infamous Cultural Marxism mostly developed by Leftist Jewish intellectuals; see The Culture of Critique for extensive documentation).

So instead of punishing students for chewing gum and smoking like fifty years ago, our schools cope with slightly more serious hijinks, like murders, rapes and violent gangs. Every day, in every way, it's getting better and better!!!

Whites children are taught a cartoon version of history where their ancestors are the ONLY baddies and should be reviled while every other ethnicity should be celebrated for their innocence and authenticity.

Those millions of black men that were castrated before being shipped to slavery in the Arab World? Move along, nothing to see! Down the memory hole!

From Wikipedia:

The Arab slave trade from East Africa is one of the oldest slave trades, predating the European transatlantic slave trade by hundreds of years.[30] Male slaves who were often made eunuchs were employed as servants, soldiers, or laborers by their owners, while female slaves, including those from Africa, were long traded to the Middle Eastern countries and kingdoms by Arab and Oriental traders, as concubines and servants.

Also, the youth curricula linked above don't have an iota about the Jewish role in American slavery, which was NOT non-existent. But that's not surprising, the dominant Jewish narrative seems to be there aren't any black spots in Jewish history and Jews themselves never do anything to contribute to anti-Semitism. The typical Jewish anti-Semitism book essentially asserts that Jews are sinless naifs incessantly persecuted without cause by evil, jealous, irrational Gentiles. I think more Jews need to sincerely look within and acknowledge that they have sometimes harmed other groups through their activism and behavior, and they need to atone for this just as those who transgress unfairly against Jews should do likewise.

Most Jewish activists have a hypocritical, double-standard of promoting a Universalist, deracinated, secular multiculturalism for the US and Western countries BUT NOT FOR ISRAEL! Israel gets to be an ethnocentric Jewish nation that includes legalized discrimination against its own indigenous non-Jewish minorities and that essentially restricts immigration to Jews. Again, a quick google search will lead to voluminous details.

Particularly hypocritical is the attempt to deconstruct, undermine and attack the ethnic identity of Whites and to prevent them from organizing for their own group interests (racial realism). Many Jewish organizations like the ADL and the SPLC act as politically correct enforcers attempting to crush Whites who are just trying to organize in a manner that is allowed and encouraged FOR EVERY OTHER RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUP. Of course no other group is as well-organized, well-funded and aggressive in pursuing their own interests as Jews.

Racial Realism means that Whites should look out for their own interests like everyone else is doing. The variant that seems most just to me is that Whites should have the same rights and respect as other groups, no more or no less, and that traditional Freedom of Association is restored so there can have ethnic enclaves not subject to neighborhood busting by sleazy developers. Likewise other groups can have their own sanctuaries. Of course in such a society there could also be many public spaces that were integrated as well, probably a majority.

White Supremacists believe that Whites are superior to other races and that Whites should conquer and dominate other groups.

I disagree with this position and am inspired by the following quote from Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn:

In recent times it has been fashionable to talk of the levelling of nations, of the disappearance of different races in the melting-pot of contemporary civilization. I do not agree with this opinion, but its discussion remains another question. Here it is merely fitting to say that the disappearance of nations would have impoverished us no less than if all men had become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities; the very least of them wears its own special colours and bears within itself a special facet of divine intention.

I think it is crystal clear that those two concepts are quite different. Racial Realism just says that if we're going to have a multicultural society, then Whites have same groups rights as everyone else: no better or no worse.

Right now America has a hypocritical system that is strongly biased AGAINST Whites and FOR ANYBODY BUT Whites. I'm fed up with these dishonest double standards and believe the more that Whites are belittled, discriminated against, demonized by Hollywood, the MSM, the Diversity Industry and the Youth and Higher Education Industry, and besieged by grossly disproportionate crime from the Black Thug subclass and to a lesser extent by Hispanics, the magnitude and details of which is covered up by our "journalists", the more Whites will give up on the Color-Blind society, as I have, since, for the most part, ONLY Whites have pursued it in good faith.

It is clear that the more power Whites have relinquished, the more sacrifices we've made and the more we've let ourselves be displaced by 3rd World immigration, the WORSE our treatment. Why should we keep enabling this rotten, hateful system?

Our society even allows OPENLY RACIST groups like La Raza and OPENLY SUPREMACIST groups like MEChA to receive public funds and operate on college campuses while prohibiting NON-RACIST White ethnocentric groups. On campuses members of those racist organizations are not shunned and persecuted the way a corresponding White racist or supremacist would be.

Janet Murguia of La Raza appears regularly in the mainstream media and is treated with respect, while White racialists, like Jared Taylor, don't get airtime except when framed as an evil, bigoted Nazi to be held in the highest contempt. This is a hypocritical, double standard.

Oddly enough Jewish ethnocentrists like Dr. Alan Dershowitz DON'T receive the same treatment. Dr. Dershowitz is passionately concerned with Jews ethnic survival and participates in organized groups to address this grave worry. That is perfectly reasonable and laudable! But don't accuse Whites of bigotry and agitate for legal oppression against ONLY Whites to suppress them the doing exact logical equivalent for their own people and interests!

Seeking Alpha:
How does your theory fit with the fact that many of the proponents of your stated theories aren’t Jewish? Is it secret mind control? Kennedy was behind the Immigration Act, no? Rumsfeld and Bush led the current charge on Iraq, and from what I’ve read there was plenty of hawks in the Clinton administration as well.

I just don’t see the motive. The only motives I see (I don’t agree with them, but the argument can be made) are ways these things help the rich.

I dispute your claim that "many of the proponents of your stated theories aren’t Jewish".

Most of these changes have been pushed predominantly by Jews. Depending on the issue the Jewish contribution can vary from moderate to overwhelming; I believe in going with whatever the facts are as well as they can be ascertained. For example, if Jews were 3% of the population but applied 80% of the force behind a certain movement, I'd call that EXTREMELY disproportionate. Even if they provided say 20% of the force, that would be fairly disproportionate but at least there would still be broad societal consensus. For most of these issues, I'd say the Jewish contribution is over 40-50%, particularly when you factor in their intellectual and cultural leadership and disproportionate influence over Hollywood, the media, government, business, education and academia which act as force multipliers by inculcating Gentiles toward supporting Jewish interests.

Decades of anti-White and anti-Christian propaganda from OVERWHELMINGLY Jewish-controlled Hollywood have had an impact.

See: Joel Stein, "How Jewish is Hollywood" and Steve Sailer's take on this story.

Gotta love Mr. Stein's conclusion:

I appreciate Foxman's concerns. And maybe my life spent in a New Jersey-New York/Bay Area-L.A. pro-Semitic cocoon has left me naive. But I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.

A truly vicious piece of anti-White and anti-Christian hatred is "Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle". I'm planning a detailed analysis of this in a future post. The short answer is that pretty much ALL the Whites EXCEPT THE THREE JEWS (including the hippie drug dealer) are vicious, moronic, perverted, psychotic, thuggish, backwards, corrupt, racist, cruel or some other undesirable trait. Of course, the innocent black guy falsely jailed by a vicious, racist cop is saintly, the Korean and Hindu protagonists are cool dudes, as are the Jewish dudes, and, oh yeah, a group of Asians dorks turn out to be cool too. They drag Christianity through the mud with pure malice. Naturally the producer, directors and writers are all Jews.

When I accessed this Wikipedia page for the movie [on 2009-01-30 early AM EST], there is NO HINT that the movie might be biased against whites, although if one looks in the discussion and history it appears someone tried to get this in there, but was wiki-censored.

The simple test of double standards is whether our glorious PC commissars would change their opinion (Funny! Brilliant! Subversively Transgressive!) if various identities are interchanged (Unfunny! Viciously Racist! White Supremacist!). Hmm... Would the reception have been different if black characters were swapped with the white characters? Can you say "100 alarm riots in 100 hoods"? How about swapping Judiasm for Christianity? I'm sure the ADL, the SPLC and hundreds of other Jewish organization would be DELIGHTED with the witty sendup! NOT!!!

OK. Back to the Neocons.

Typically Jewish-led movements in Gentile host societies like having some Gentiles around, but usually they're the second string followers or "beards" like George W. Bush and NOT the central drivers and theorists. Kevin MacDonald discusses this extensively in "The Culture of Critique".

If you think George W. Bush "led the current charge on Iraq", that is, if he actually created and developed the doctrine and strategy, there's some scenic lakefront land in Florida selling on e-Bay real cheap! It's a REAL STEAL!

"White man's burden" by Ari Shavit in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz discusses the Neocons:

In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town: the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history.

A quick google search on neoconservative, jewish and "iraq war" will lead to many sources that provide great detail on this. Also, I gave some good initial books and some of the key players in my previous post.

The following article in The American Conservative magazine discusses the Neoconservatives including their role in promoting mass immigration for the US and in purging traditional conservatives (paleoconservatives) out of mainstream conservative media:

Among the Neocons: A foot soldier in the ideological wars relates by Scott McConnell

Justin Raimondo discusses the history of the Neocons here.

Some of the dissidents banished by the Neocons include Peter Brimelow, Joseph Sobran and Steve Sailer while others like John O'Sullivan gelded themselves to preserve their careers.

By the late 90s National Review had gotten very Neocon and Jewish and the remaining Gentiles knew they'd better not cross you-know-who if they wanted a home in "respectable media": that's the stick. Notice how Victor Davis Hanson's career skyrocketed (in Neocon controlled media) when he mouthed an extreme form of Neocon warmongering and 100% autonomic support for Israel: that's the carrot.

Check out the article: "Is Kevin MacDonald Right?" on jewcy.com which is an e-mail exchange between Joey Kurtzman and John Derbyshire which includes a discussion of Jewish power and influence in the media. This article is a gold mine. Here are two excerpts from John Derbyshire:

First Excerpt:

Working back through your questions: Yes, indeed I was, and am, “afraid of offending Jews.” Of course I am! For a person like myself, a Gentile who is a very minor name in American opinion journalism, desirous of ascending to some slightly less minor status, ticking off Jews is a very, very bad career strategy. I approached the MacDonald review with great trepidation. I gave my honest opinion, of course—the entire point of my line of work is to speak your mind and get paid for it—but I’ll admit I was nervous. Reading the review again, I think it shows.

Second Excerpt:

To your next point (I am working from the bottom up again) that my professed fear of ticking off Jews is some kind of affectation or pose, I can only assure you that this is not so. Almost the first thing you hear from old hands when you go into opinion journalism in the U.S. is, to put it in the precise form I first heard it: “Don’t f*ck with the Jews.” (Though I had better add here that I was mixing mainly with British expats at that point, and the comment came from one of them. More on this in a moment.)

Joe Sobran expressed it with his usual hyperbole: “You must only ever write of us as a passive, powerless, historically oppressed minority, struggling to maintain our ancient identity in a world where all the odds are against us, poor helpless us, poor persecuted and beleaguered us! Otherwise we will smash you to pieces.”

You can read between the lines of Derbyshire's contributions to sense his fear and caution to make sure he doesn't go too far in discussing this taboo. He also makes sure to add some sycophantic praise. Note: Mr. Derbyshire also writes some fine books for the general public discussing advanced mathematical ideas and history; I'm sure if he wants to continue getting these book contracts with major publishers that will be promoted in the major bookstores he knows he'd better be careful (Kevin MacDonald was banished from the major publishers).

Here's some discussion of this infamous e-mail exchange by Patrick Cleburne.

Anyone researching Neoconservatism, the Iraq War and Democracy-At-The-Point-Of-A-Gun-For-Arab-And-Muslim-Regimes-That-Are-Threats-To-Israel quickly finds that NEARLY ALL of the principle players were Jewish. George W. Bush was the nominal leader but was completely owned by this well-organized group of highly motivated ideologues. Try swimming through the sea of Jewish and Gentile-tool Neocon op-eds from after September 11th through the first few years of the Iraq War (there are probably thousands). I read through hundreds at the time and was complete Neocon tool for years. Their goals dovetailed neatly with what they considered to be in Israel's best interest by destroying the regimes considered most dangerous to Israel (Iraq, Syria and Iran).

Again, I'm not claiming all of these movements and actions are 100% Jewish, only that Jews have an extremely disproportionate influence. "The Culture of Critique" explores this in great depth.

Most disturbing is how a group of ideologues who put Israel's interest before America's were and are allowed to hold so many important government positions. And because it's now considered politically incorrect to discriminate in any way against foreign origin or ethnicity, our national security bureaucracies are filled with people of various backgrounds that may retain a higher loyalty to their ethnostate, like China, or alien religion, like Islam, which deeply compromises our security, unlike our various competitors that are unapologetically ethnocentric and lack legions of lawyers salivating over giant payouts for discrimination lawsuits. They'd better get with the multicultural program! Oh, they're non-White? How dare you corrupt their authentic culture!

A significant factor in Allied victory in World War II was our breaking of the Japanese and German codes which gave us great insight into their plans. If our government and society are infiltrated by hundreds or thousands of moles and operatives working for our enemies BEFORE and DURING wartime, we're open to intelligence breaches and attacks of shocking devastation, particularly in this era of WMDs. Most Americans don't appreciate our vulnerability since we haven't suffered a bloody war on our soil since the Civil War.

America will likely suffer grievous harm in the next two decades because of this.

Seeking Alpha:
Kennedy was behind the Immigration Act, no?
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was sponsored by Emanuel Celler, a Jewish Congressman from New York well known for promoting massive immigration since he was first seated in 1923. Sure, Ted Kennedy was a great supporter of of the 1965 Immigration Act but he was far from the being its primary cause. Other Jewish legislators like Senator Jacob Javits of New York also played a significant role in passing this act.

According to Wikipedia (and Kevin MacDonald agrees):

He [Jacob Javits] was also one of the main forces behind the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that by removing immigration quota that favored Western European nations helped to make the U.S. a truly diverse and multicultural country.

Please read Chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald's "The Culture of Critique". It lays out in great detail how Jewish organizations have forcefully and consistently pushed for mass immigration into this country. This book is heavily referenced and footnoted and includes a massive bibliography. It would be easy for a group to consult each of his original sources, excerpt a large segment around his reference and then let careful readers decide if he's been honest in his quoting and interpretation of these sources.