An Introduction

Posted by Guest Blogger on Wednesday, 10 August 2005 20:18.

This is my first post on majority rights. I am a young journalist, and I’m still involved with the conservative movement, though I find it completely worthless. But because, I do write for some mainstream outlets and what I will say could give me the Kevin Lamb/Sam Francis treatment, I am using a pseudonym.

I do not consider myself to be a white nationalist, though I desire no real debates with them. I think that it is important to preserve the western character, including the people, of America and Europe. I believe that racial differences are very real, and largely biological. I really wouldn’t think that these differences would be that important were it not for the fact that every single problem that affects minorities is attributed to racism and oppression as opposed to their biological differences in intelligence, temperament and the like. I really do not think you can address affirmative action effectively without mentioning IQ or immigration without noting the racial transformation of the country.

Ethnically, I am half German Jewish, though I am not particularly religious. And unlike many unreligious Jews, my religion is not shilling for Israel and whining about anti-Semitism. In fact, I think that Kevin MacDonald may be on to something, though I am not completely convinced.

The reason I am blogging here is because I have found it difficult to get things published about important issues with traditional conservative outlets, no matter how tempered my language is, even though I find multiculturalism to be the most pressing issue to be addressed.

Tags: Blogs & Blogging

Comments:

Posted by John S Bolton on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:52 | #

Presumably you mean temperament rather than temperance above, and tempered my, rather than tempered by. Have you been criticized unfairly for intemperate language? That will not likely happen here.

Posted by Svigor on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:09 | #

Welcome.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:36 | #

Welcome.

If you wish to work as journalist in a mainstream publication it is best you use a pseudonynm. Many controversial things are discussed at this site, and I am grateful to the proprietor for his dedication to open exchange of ideas.

Lately, white nationalism has been perculating through the blog, and some of the brew is from my pot; all the better reason to use a pseudonym, poor Hutchinson is so worried his cricket partners many not like his association with us.

Well, that said, if anyone brings facts to the table (and doesn’t ignore the elephant in the room) I’m willing to hear them - and challenge them if necessary.

Futhermore, I welcome a new perspective on things - I’m sure many are worn out with my bleating, as much as they are with other contributors and commentators.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:43 | #

Thanks for that, Will.

For the benefit of MR readers, what our newest contributor did not say is that he is emerging rightward from paleoconservatism, though he has some significant libertarian sentiments. Politics is an impure coinage but I suppose he stands somewhere between JJR and me or Mark. Perhaps it would be more enlightening to say “more Brimelow than Taylor”.

In any case, I know he has some extremely interesting things to say. I know he is driven by the desire for honesty in public debate. He is a free-speaker and I hope both he and all the rest of us will profit from plenty of that!

Posted by Pericles on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:38 | #

Welcommen.

Regards,

Pericles

Posted by A. C. Kleinheider on Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:01 | #

“more Brimelow than Taylor”

I suspect that Brimelow is more Taylor than he let’s on, but I take your point.

Posted by sr on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:57 | #

How about me? Am I welcome too? Sometimes I wonder. . . Are my posts too brutal?

Posted by AD on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:32 | #

I do not consider myself to be a white nationalist

Did you consider Sam Francis to be a ‘white nationalist’?

Posted by Il Ragno on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 03:01 | #

Mabuhay!

Let’s see what you got.

Posted by Stuka on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 04:23 | #

Sometimes I wonder…Are my posts too brutal?

If only! Of course I don’t speak for the owner of this wonderful blog, but the issue isn’t whether our comments are too brutal, but if they’re not brutal enough. We are in a war. Our enemies are playing for keeps. This is a no-holds-barred, fight-to-the-finish. Once this is understood by our side, we won’t worry about being “too brutal.”

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:07 | #

I think that Kevin MacDonald may be on to something, though I am not completely convinced.

Are you any more convinced:

* Frank Salter and Harry Harpending in “On Genetic Interests”
* Gregory Cochrane, Jason Hardy and Harry Harpending in “Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence”
* Charles Murray in his chapter on Jews from the book “Human Accomplishment”

are onto something?

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:35 | #

If MacDonald isn’t onto something, where are the rebuttals? Anyone who pays attention to Jewry should know that the silent treatment is not a good sign for MacDonald’s detractors.

Posted by Will Barett on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:27 | #

Thanks for the welcome.

Svigor/James Bowery: I didn’t mean to start a debate on MacDonald, I simply figured I’d be forthright about my religious heritage, which I am in no way ashamed of, but still note that I’m not hysterical about criticism of Jews as many Jews (even thoughs who have un-PC views on race) are.

My short view of MacDonald is that he does a good job documenting Jewish involvement in destructive left wing movements and that the motivation for those Jews involved was not always benevolent idealism, that is where I think he is on to something.

Where I am not completely persuaded, though I have an open mind, is that this is somehow a rational strategy for the Jews. MacDonald explicitly notes that Western cultures are much more universalistic and tolerant than others. So, If this is true, I don’t see why the Jews would rationally undermine such societies.

I try to read up on sociobiology and behavioral genetics as much as I can, but my main interest is politics, (which is why I found COC to be the most fascinating of MacDonald’s books.) So I can’t really say who’s theory of the Jews I find most compelling.

I think it’s scandalous that MacDonald’s books are not more widely discussed and reviewed, and it speaks volumes about tabboos in our society. However, just because I think it should be more widely discussed, does not mean that I necessarily think it’s right.

AD: I think Sam Francis was a white nationalist. I greatly admired his writings, and found him to be very insightful, but like MacDonald, just because I don’t think someone should be silenced or I find them interesting, does not mean I agree with them on everything.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:44 | #

Well I wasn’t asking you about your opinion on MacDonald but your opinion of the other writers who are broaching the taboos. I won’t try to ferret out of you what your area of specialty is but I will say that any well-rounded writer on these topics needs to at least read and have an opinion of Salter/Harpendng’s work “On Genetic Interests”.

Posted by Svigor on Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:34 | #

My short view of MacDonald

[...]

Where I am not completely persuaded, though I have an open mind, is that this is somehow a rational strategy for the Jews.

I agree, in fact I’d expand that to include MacDonald’s entire thesis of Judaism as evolutionary strategy. The fact is I’m not qualified to pass judgement.

MacDonald explicitly notes that Western cultures are much more universalistic and tolerant than others. So, If this is true, I don’t see why the Jews would rationally undermine such societies.

My caveat above aside, I don’t know that MacDonald characterizes the strategy as entirely rational. Since self-deception is so central to related Jewish behavior, this seems to make sense (i.e., Jews don’t even really know what they’re about in this regard, so it follows that they’d make some mistakes, possibly even critical ones).

Of course there’s no strictly logical support for the idea that the silent treatment means MacDonald is right. I still think it’s more than fair to suggest that the silent treatment is evidence that Jewry cannot refute him. Jewry has enormous intellectual and financial capital, an overabundance of motivation to refute MacDonald, and an unrivalled history of apologetics.

Btw I don’t see Jewishness as a religious matter. Judaism-as-religion exists within the wider and more fundamental Judaism-as-tribe.

Oh, and I certainly wouldn’t expect you to be ashamed of your Jewish heritage. I wouldn’t be if I was Jewish (though I suspect I might end up labeled a self-hating Jew).