Homicide or Suicide?
In the Occidental Observer, Kevin MacDonald engages Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, which is easily the second most important book (aside from The Culture of Critique) about White racial decline in the United States. A shorter review has been posted in VDARE. It doesn’t do justice to the breadth of the subject matter and isn’t worth bothering with.
The thrust of MacDonald’s review is that Kaufmann omits certain facts about the Jewish role in Anglo-American racial decline and glosses over others. Aside from that, MacDonald and Kaufmann are in broad agreement on most points of interest. Kaufmann doesn’t shy away from the fact that Jewish influence was a major cause in the reinterpretation of Americanism along cosmopolitan lines. The major difference from MacDonald’s viewpoint is that Kaufmann (correctly) pays more attention to the indigenous “liberal, cosmopolitan Anglo-Saxon tradition” as a cause of subversion from within.
Having read both books, I came away with the impression that they complemented each other. Each provides certain windows into White racial decline that the other lacks. For example, Kaufmann’s book draws attention to Felix Adler and the Ethical Culture movement, an angle on the Jewish Question and the rise of secular humanism which I don’t recall MacDonald addressing before. Similarly, MacDonald’s account contains a much more in depth treatment of Boasian anthropology and the New York Intellectuals.
It is a sad testament to the decrepit state of American intellectual life that all of two books have been written about the most important subject in American history: the decline of its indigenous White majority. Even taken together, MacDonald and Kaufmann have barely scratched the surface of the subject. In contrast, hundreds (if not thousands) of articles and volumes have been written about the Holocaust and can be easily accessed in any decent college library, an event which didn’t even take place on American soil. This fact alone speaks volumes about ethnic constitution of America’s ruling class and their priorities.
A future scholar will one day have to write a separate book entitled The Fall of the Jim Crow South. There wasn’t a singular Anglo-America or White America that declined on account of Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, the New York Intellectuals, and the Frankfurt School. Until the 1970s, Dixie was another country in its racial policies and cultural attitudes. Neither Kaufmann or MacDonald has adequately addressed this.
The cause of the South’s racial decline is plain enough to discern: the federal government forced the national racial consensus on the region through Smith v. Allwright, Morgan v. Commonwealth of Virginia, Shelly v. Kramer, Sweatt, McLaurin, Gayle, Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Immigration Act of 1965, Loving v. Virginia, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and direct military intervention in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama. There was little popular support for integration in the region. In the South, traditional racial attitudes remained strong from the elites to the common man, and were stoked to new heights during the Civil Rights Movement, whereas they collapsed elsewhere. Integration sparked the massive resistance movement, the citizen’s councils, and a revival of the Klan — why not in Chicago, Boston, and New York City?
In the Senate, Southerners led by Richard Russell filibustered and bitterly resisted the new federal civil rights laws, but were frustrated and defeated time and again by a lopsided coalition of Northern Democrats and Republicans. They deserted Lyndon Johnson at the polls for Barry Goldwater and George Wallace. Beyond the 1960s, Southerners defeated the Equal Rights Amendment and voted against Ronald Reagan’s IRCA amnesty of illegal aliens, the Immigration Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. They also led the opposition to the MLK holiday in Congress and the George W. Bush amnesties.
If the Confederacy had won its independence, there is little reason to believe that cosmopolitanism and anti-racism would have emerged victorious in the American South in the twentieth century. These were not indigenous social movements. Indeed, the only reason that White America held out as long as it did is because the South transformed itself into a one-party state under Jim Crow to defeat integration in Congress. Northern Republicans didn’t stop pushing for civil rights legislation until a Depression overwhelmed the Harrison administration in the 1890’s.
As I have stressed elsewhere, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960’s wasn’t the first time America had flirted with racial egalitarianism. The same laws were proposed and ratified during Reconstruction. They were supported in the North; opposed in the South. The bloodiest war in American history was fought to liberate the negro and impose racial equality on the country. An insurrection was carried on for three decades in the South to reverse the verdict of the Civil War. In the North, it was never reversed, and de jure integration became the order of the day from the 1880’s forward.
If the South was assassinated, the North committed suicide.
From the earliest days of the Revolution, racialism established only a tenuous hold in North. Pennsylvania was saturated in Quaker egalitarianism and repealed its anti-miscegenation law before the Constitution was signed. In the North, Thomas Jefferson’s racial theories were met with fierce opposition by the first abolitionist movement; denial of racial differences were commonplace in anti-slavery circles. Benjamin Franklin thought that negroes were “not deficient in natural understanding.” Alexander Hamilton remarked that “their natural faculties are perhaps probably as good as ours.” Samuel Stanhope Smith, the president of Princeton University, wrote several influential environmentalist tracts; anti-racism only went into eclipse after 1805.
Several Northern states never adopted Southern-style anti-miscegenation laws (Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey) or Jim Crow-style segregation. In New York, an anti-miscegenation law was rejected by the state senate on libertarian grounds. In Massachusetts, the capital of “natural rights” rhetoric, the state anti-miscegenation law was repealed in the 1830’s for similar reasons. National Expansion and Indian Removal were never popular causes in New England and the Jackson administration was widely criticized for both. James Fenimore Cooper lionized the Noble Savage in The Last of the Mohicans (1826). The annexation of Texas was delayed for years by Northern Whig opposition. The Mexican War was deeply unpopular in New England.
In the North, the Amistad case was a cause célèbre, and starred former president John Quincy Adams who was an inveterate foe of the so-called “Slave Power.” In the 1830s, the second abolitionist movement was born and was even more committed to anti-racism and human rights than the first. William Lloyd Garrison and his followers denounced the Constitution as a pact with the Devil and burned it in the streets. Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin went on to become the all time bestseller of the nineteenth century. John Brown was lauded as a martyr after his murderous invasion of Virginia. Frederick Douglass was a respected intellectual. The Northern states passed personal liberty laws that violated the Constitution in order to harbor runaway negro slaves. The Dred Scott decision, which affirmed that only Whites could be U.S. citizens, was widely denounced in the North.
The trajectory of the North could not have been more different from the South. In the Antebellum era, a new generation of Southerners came of age and explicitly rejected the egalitarian heritage of the American Revolution. George Fitzhugh attacked capitalism, democracy, and the pernicious egalitarianism of Thomas Jefferson. Josiah Nott and Louis Agassiz pioneered new theories of racial differences. Sir Walter Scott novels were all the rage; the Middle Ages and aristocratic ideals came roaring back in style. In his famous cornerstone speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens stated that the Confederacy was the first nation in the world to be founded on the principle of racial inequality. The Civil War was fought over these ideals: aristocratic republicanism or egalitarian democracy, slave-based feudalism or free market capitalism, federalism or national consolidation, racialism or anti-racism. The victory of the North in that conflict determined the future disastrous course of America.
During Reconstruction, fanatics like Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner wrote anti-racism into the Constitution in the form of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Over the next fifty years, as the South retreated into Jim Crow, the North would steadily move towards full blown integration. Fatally, the churning of the Northern capitalist economy would bring wave after wave of European immigrants into the the Midwest and New England, eventually swamping the indigenous Yankee population in most Northern states. After thirty years of struggle, the damage was finally mitigated by the Immigration Act of 1924, but not before millions of indigestible German and Eastern European Jews had settled in the United States.
These Jews quickly established ethnic defense organizations, penetrated Ivy League universities, founded the motion picture industry, bought up newspapers, inserted themselves into the national political debate, and amassed huge fortunes by beating the indigenous Yankees at their own capitalist game. Their “freedom” and “equality” gave them every right to do so. As Kaufmann persuasively argues, Jews found receptive allies in the treacherous Northern Anglo-Protestant cosmopolitan milieu, which was the lineal descendant of the pre-Civil War abolitionist Left. If the Jewish nationwreckers succeeded at propagating Boasian anthropology, Freudianism, multiculturalism, and modernist cosmopolitanism, it was only because they found in the American North a region which by history, tradition, and inclination was already ripe for a fall and receptive to idealistic social engineering crusades. They travelled down the same road to fame and fortune that Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Carnegie had blazed before them.
By the 1930s, white racial attitudes in the American North were so fragile that they were shaken to pieces by the wartime propaganda against the Third Reich. In stark contrast, Southerners emerged from the Second World War even more committed to segregation and white supremacy than they had been before. Northern WASPs were so crippled by their own effete liberalism that they allowed Jews to take over institution after institution rather than be impolite and “make a fuss” about their own precipitous dispossession. A revolution was effected without so much as a shot being fired.
In the end, Northern WASPs didn’t put up a fight. Unlike Germans under the Third Reich, they rolled over and died. It wasn’t exactly suicide, but it might as well have been. Like generations of Yankees before them, they were so used to worshiping money and conforming to public opinion that they allowed their culture to be stolen right out from under them once a new elite was thrown up by capitalism. Their tragic unraveling is an understudied subject. It is full of lessons for those of us who don’t want to see history repeat itself.
“It was the appetite of America’s capitalist economy for cheap labor that brought the Jews here. The same process is happening today with Asian, Hispanic and African non-Whites.” ( — Prozium)
OK, American’s capitalist economy temporarily stopped functioning in 1924. Gotcha.
The Jews are very proud of their ongoing efforts to annihilate Western Civilization, their rival:
Good link, Fred.
Over on that site, I just posted a few comments under the name ‘Common Cents’ where I point out the obvious fact that Jews have tended to be so-called ‘white-collar criminals’ (AKA parasites) wherever they have settled throughout their history. I’m starting to use their own Talmudic rhetoric against them now, as I refer to them as “economic terrorists” (they are) and say that they are committing “economic crimes against humanity” (which organized Jewry is clearly doing).
The owner of that website might soon delete my comments, but for the time being that are @ http://kvetcher.net/2009/08/3717/falling-babies-time/
Benjamin Franklin thought Swedes, Russians, and Germans were swarthy? What a bleepin’ tard. So much for his “genius”.
Rob:“Benjamin Franklin thought Swedes, Russians, and Germans were swarthy? What a bleepin’ tard. So much for his “genius”.”
A few Germans that I’ve met are indeed somewhat “swarthy,” and no it wasn’t just because of a recent tan they had acquired. They weren’t “swarthy” like Italians in terms of the Arabesque darkness and hairiness and so forth, but rather in terms of a semi-darkish/yellowish tint to their skin; not sure about Russians and Swedes, though.
Franklin’s quote is indicative of the problem with the shifting definition of free and white. Franklin saw potential immigrants as originating no further afield than the Saxons. Of course today, Franklin would probably be considered a Nazi because no doubt he wouldn’t see Jews as white. Whiteness has little utility.
“Benjamin Franklin thought Swedes, Russians, and Germans were swarthy?”
Germans come in all types of varieties, including many Mediterranean-types found in South Germany (Bavaria). I would know because that is where my ancestors hailed from!
Russia also has many Alpinid strains in their population.
Sweden I don’t know much about. I am half-German/ half-Norwegian so don’t really care to much about what is going on in Sweden to be honest.
Franklin could be best described as a Proto-Nordicist. He was assuredly a Racialist as well along with Thomas Jefferson.
That Franklin and others have considered the question “who is White” important would seem to indicate Whiteness has utility, and has for a long time.
Jews spend a great deal of effort arguing about “who is jew”. Would you say that means jewishness has little utility Desmond?
More help from our friends the Jews in securing and entrenching the fall of Anglo-America:
( * For non-Americans: “comprehensive immigration reform” is the other side’s euphemism for not just a continuation of race-replacement immigration but its expansion.
The point being that despite arguing who is a Jew, at least since Franklin’s time, the recognition of who is a Jew changed little. No doubt you would as readily recognize a Jew in 1790 as today. Undoubtedly though, you would not accept Franklin’s definition of who is white. And it is already clear that the definition is widening. By 2090 Hispanics, no doubt, will be recognized as fully white. However, a Jew will still be a Jew.
P.S. Nice posts on the Jewish crime wave.
Desmond, that’s because the Jews want it that way. For all their yapping about “exclusion” this and “exclusion” that the LAST thing they want is to meld into us and lose their identity. THEY MORE THAN ANYONE want separateness yet they’re always throwing in our faces that WE want it. That’s doubtless an instance of the phenomenon known in psychology as “projection.” All those Jewish “ghettos” and “Jewish quarters” in all those European cities of the last thousand years? It was THE JEWS who wanted those most of anybody. They loved living by themselves walled off from everybody else. But you’ll constantly hear today how “the Euros confined the Jews to ghettoes for a thousand years just as they confined the Negroes to ghettoes in the XXth Century. Well, the Jews are PROUD to have spearheaded the drive to eliminate the racism that kept the Negroes confined to ghettoes!” Right, I’m still waiting for them to spearhead the drive to eliminate the racism that keeps the Palestinians confined to ghettoes in Palestine in the year 2009 …..
Whiteness, jewishness, and hispanicness are of the same class. They are fuzzy biopolitical concepts, yes. People disagree about the boundaries of their groups for political as well as biological reasons.
There are jews and hispanics who put more weight on biology, and draw their boundaries relatively restrictively, as Franklin does for Whites. Others are more expansive. The point is there is a continuum between self, family, ethny, race, and humanity – with Whiteness, jewishness, and hispanicness falling somewhere between race and humanity. Jews, hispanics, “african-americans”, “asian-americans”, “pacific-islanders”, etc. know the political (and indirectly biological) utility of these group identities. Whites go unarmed against them when we reject our own.
Jewishness is not of the same class. It is not a victim of Darwin’s altruistic conundrum. They are the chosen and there are admonishments against marrying out (Deuteronomy, Chapter Seven, Ezra). In your piece on Postville, the Lubavitcher is confident in his racial superiority and its relationship to separateness. The Goyim are no better than cattle. It will never change. It’s like the Syrian Jews said, “We don’t want Gentile characteristics…”
The utility is in ethnicity. Canada is an ethnic grievance society. Jews, Ukrainians, Italians, Japanese, Chinese, Sikhs, French-Canadians, etc. etc advanced their group cause by portraying the founding Anglo as debased. Anti-Semiticism, internment, head tax, discrimination and supremacy. (During the Quebec separatist movement, the English, who lived in Montreal, were derided with the pejorative, Westmount Rhodesian) . The effectiveness of the KKK, though short-lived, in both Canada and the US, was in their ethnic identity. The power of the forces that opposed them was in their ethnic identity.
Whiteness holds no utility.
Examine the pitch from Mr. Sears at Resisting Def. They talk about diverse whiteness. Mr. Sears, of Irish Catholic dissent, when confronted by the white guilt of slavery, can say, “Hey bro, we feel yo pain. The Irish were enslaved by those Anglo bastards too.” Or Craig Boedeker’s piece on Race where he points out that his people didn’t arrive in the US until 1880. It’s those white boys over there that are responsible.
Or check out the English. They were not ignoble to their Jews. It’s the Germans that debased themselves. And so it goes.
The lubavitcher and syrian jews equate, in biopolitical terms, to Franklin or yourself. They see only themselves as jews. Other jews are less insular. This doesn’t mean the less insular jews aren’t jews. And their disagreement doesn’t prevent them from all using their jewishness to advance their interests.
I think I understand your distrust and dislike of others with broader biological views of Whiteness. I also appreciate the depth of your knowledge of the history of biopolitics in North America, you’ve certainly helped educate me in that regard. The intra-White finger-pointing that disturbs you also disturbs me. However, we face a more existential external threat directed at us all, in whole or in part, as Whites – ie. we who cannot claim the special status of “people of color”. It makes sense for us to acknowledge this, and to unite and defend ourselves accordingly. As Franklin said, we should hang together or we will surely hang separately. You don’t have to give your daughter to a Ukranian in order to ally with him against more alien enemies.
It’s true, intermarriage on an ethnic level, even among whites, is not necessary, however, that’s not really the issue. Ukrainians, by allying with the multicult, furthered their own ehtnic interests as Ukrainians. Geographically, they center in Northern Alberta, in a small town outside Edmonton called Vegreville. It’s well known that segregation, even from other Europeans, is de facto and constantly encouraged. Here they have their own schools, educational program, taught in their own language and subsidized by the Provincial and Federal governments. Victimization pays enormous benefits to the community.
Alliance with the Japanese, Jews, Chinese et al, all victims, is much better for advancing ethnic interests, than an alliance with Anglos who might suggest that though interned during WWI, those Ukrainians who resided in Canada during the 30s were much better off than in their Ukrainian homeland. Holodomor anyone?
It even pays a benefit in battles with organized Jewry. If Nazis are to be deported (largely Ukrainian, like Demyanchuk,) who allegedly lied to enter the country, then KGB agents (often old Jews) should suffer the same fate
Apparently Mr. Kaufmann has responded to MacDonald’s essay-review. It’s up on Vdare (with a rejoinder of KMac). Just posting it in case you missed it.
@ Van Speyk just above
I read those last night. I find Kaufmann very unpersuasive. I find MacDonald very persuasive. It’s not even close. MacDonald wins by a mile.
The Jews(racial impostors) not descendants from Ham (black race)but rather Jephthah(White race)believe that their brief periods of success is the result of their superior intelligence, but I’ve come to the conclusion that their success is due to the fact that the majority of people are little more than monkeys with speech capabilities.
Just like animals, most people want to entertain themselves, not deal with problems. This selfish, irresponsible behavior allows crime networks to thrive.
Furthermore, most people have trouble resisting bribes, and many are easily intimidated by threats, and many are easily tricked into doing something that they can be blackmailed over. Crime networks are operating freely all over the world because most people are either allowing them to operate, or assisting them!.
Zionism depends upon human garbage.
Crime gangs of all races and nationalities are collections of freaks. Their members are alcoholics, drug addicts, psychos, and retards who are suffering from all sorts of mental disorders. Many seem to retain a childish attraction to toilet humor and temper tantrums. They are crude, disgusting, dishonest, mentally unstable creatures who will cheat one another in addition to the rest of us.
You might find it interesting to imagine yourself dependent upon these freaks. Would you feel safe with them on your side? Would you want them to be part of your team. Have you ever spent time contemplating how nice the world could be if it was dominated by honest, respectable people rather than selfish, parasitic freaks?
Excellent article, and ensuing discussion. The only thing missing is the religious element, without which, one cannot ‘draw the links and ties’ necessary. But then, for most Americans, religion is the LAST thing they want to think about!
rtyu:”Zionism depends upon human garbage.”
I’ll never understand the people who are Judeoskeptical “anti-Semites” and also claim to be “anti-Zionists.” Why is that so? If you are skeptical of the often criminal motives of international Jewry you should definitely be unabashedly pro-Zionist because that means supporting the Zionistic Jews living in the Jewish nation of Israel, which is in effect ‘de-internationalizing’ Jewry and getting them out of our White nations by encouraging as many Jews as possible to settle in their own Jewish nation. Being pro-Zionist means you support those Zionistic Israeli Jews who are living apart and away from us Whites as they should be and attempting to (re)build their own Jewish republic out of a rag-tag group of long-wandering Jews who have long been homeless internationalists, rootless cosmopolitans, profiteering parasites/usurers, and so on.
If one thing is certain regarding the Jewish Problem and the pro-White movement, it’s that we White nationalists should all be strongly PRO-ZIONIST rather than ANTI-ZIONIST. Just as all of us here fully support Whites having our own nations where we can be our own masters free of Jews/Blacks/Asians/Arabs/etc, all Whites should support Jews having a nation of their own as well so that they will stop ‘sucking our [White] blood’ and learn to collectively stand on their own. White nationalism for Whites is, of course, the exact same thing as Zionism for Jews. It would be hypocritical in the extreme to support White nationalism while at the same time denying Jewry their right to a permanent settled nation. Think about it – if you are a White nationalist who is also an anti-Zionist then you basically support the status-quo of parasitic, subversive, and often anti-White Jewry continuing to permanently live in (and thus undermine/wreck) our White-Western countries.
Also, once Jews have been settled and secure in their own nation for a few generations I believe that many of the Jews living there will start to become ‘healed’ by their having a permanent homeland because I think that many of the various criminal/immoral pathologies which are very common amongst Jews can ultimately be traced back and blamed on their long-term homelessness/rootlessness and the resulting extreme insecurity/anxiety which has thus long-wracked the collective Jewish psyche and caused them to continually ‘lash out’ at their hosts.