Does anyone remember my column of nine years ago called “Letter of Termination to the White Race?” I don’t believe we know who really wrote this letter — or why, but the point is, it paints a chilling picture of what is in fact happening to the White race right before our eyes.
By carefully controlling and managing the schools, universities, media, and press, this “out group” has managed to convince the great bulk of your racial kinsmen that not only is resistance futile, but that it is immoral, barbaric, depraved, and unworthy of a “thinking” individual. By promoting the stereotype of a “racist redneck resistance,” they have made the idea of a struggle for White Identity a veritable sin in the minds of nearly every White person. In short: they have convinced European-derived peoples that a prolonged suicide is preferable to the unmitigated evil of “racism.”
TOO has emphatically emphasized the reality of this War on Whites, featuring the topic Anti-White Attitudes in fifty-three articles, and in particular the topic Jews as a Hostile Elite, fifty-five times. My article today belongs in either category [Ed.: actually both!].
Nine years ago, I was very taken with a literal belief that Whites were being systematically attacked in a coordinated strategy against us. I have no reason to doubt this now. Around the time I wrote “Letter of Termination to the White Race,” I also wrote kindred columns. For instance, I wrote about former Washington Post political columnist, Harold Meyerson, no friend of the White race.
Meyerson once wrote that “whiteness is a huge problem,” which of course means he believes Whites are a huge problem, just as his fellow Tribe members Noel Ignatiev, Susan Sontag, and a host of others have believed. Well, when Jews say these things, we flesh-and-blood Whites have good reason to worry, since these sentiments have often resulted in rivers of the blood of non-Jews. For example, it was not even a century ago that Bolshevik Jews became a hostile elite in Russia and, not coincidentally, millions upon millions of White Christians perished.
Our editor Kevin MacDonald has been in the fore in chronicling these massacres, nowhere better than in his review “Stalin’s Willing Executioners,” where he wrote, “If there is any lesson to be learned, it is that Jews not only became an elite in all these areas, they became a hostile elite — hostile to the traditional people and cultures of all three areas they came to dominate.” MacDonald made this case based on the bold theses presented in Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century. As we will see, Slezkine provides much fodder for the theme that non-Jews should indeed take Jewish hostility seriously.
MacDonald expanded on this theme in the foreword to Tom Sunic’s Homo Americanus, arguing that the current American regime is “maintained less by brute force than by an unrelenting, enormously sophisticated, and massively effective campaign to constrain political and cultural activity within very narrow boundaries.” Government death squads are not yet acting at the behest of our hostile elites, and dissenters “are not yet trundled off to jail or beaten with truncheons, but [they] are quietly ignored and marginalized. Or they are held up to public disgrace, and, wherever possible, removed from their livelihood.”
The key point, however, is that this could change — and quickly. We know any number of White activists who have suffered job loss without apology. We know the countless times law-abiding White Nationalist groups have been denied the right to free speech, physically attacked for their beliefs (with slap-on-the-wrist sentences, if they are prosecuted at all), and we know that others fighting for our cause have ended up in prison (often with long prison terms, even for non-violent offenses).
Looking at developments in Russia during and after the Revolution, it seems quite possible that America may experience the same trajectory. In Russia, Slezkine tells us that so many viewed the Jews as non-threatening outsiders, yet during the Red Terror, Christians expressed shock that seemingly pacifistic Jews changed almost overnight: “We were amazed by what we had least expected to encounter among the Jews: cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical, warlike activity; those who yesterday did not know how to use a gun are now found among the executioners and cutthroats.”
Slezkine also describes a “formerly oppressed lover of liberty [who] had turned into a tyrant of ‘unheard-of despotic arbitrariness.’” He had been “transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness.” He could now be pictured as “standing in a Cheka basement doing ‘bloody but honorable revolutionary work.’”
Quoting MacDonald in his Slezkine review once more, we can conclude that, “Indeed, hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews … has been the Jewish norm throughout history . . . this sort of hostility to whites and to Christianity is a mainstream Jewish phenomenon.”
Which finally brings us to today’s topic: a new book by Scott Greer, deputy editor/columnist for The Daily Caller, called No Campus for White Men: The Transformation of Higher Education into Hateful Indoctrination. I ran into this book last month when F. Roger Devlin reviewed it at American Renaissance. It’s a fine review, but of course no experienced reader of AmRen expects to read about the root cause of the campus war on White men. Those in the know, however, can still savor Devlin’s nod to the “Marxist inspiration” that has created the current campus climate:
Political correctness is an ideology that grew up around preferential policies in order to protect and rationalize them. Of obviously Marxist inspiration, it substitutes white male heterosexual students for Marx’s bourgeoisie as the “oppressor” class, and non-whites, women and homosexual students for Marx’s proletariat or “oppressed” class. The ideology of political correctness constantly tries to stoke resentment among the “oppressed” and foster guilt among the “oppressors.”
Then, upon finding another review of Greer’s book, this time at Counter-Currents, I had the familiar fear that Jewish machinations were going to go unexplored yet again — more than halfway through the review by Timothy Rohrer, as solid as it was, there was still no mention of the obvious cause of this campus war on White men. Then, thankfully — finally — Rohrer spelled it out: “The role of the Jews in this system is the critical element explaining why things have happened as they did.”
Really, does anything more need to be said? Rohrer is spot on when he points to activist Jews and the organized Jewish community, just as literally thousands of other real Whites have been over the last few hundred years. We KNOW this stuff already. After all, it has been more than a decade since MacDonald wrote about Slezkine’s admissions with respect to “Stalin’s Willing Executioners.”
Honestly, it is child’s play to show how Jews have essentially taken over higher education in America, transforming it into something akin to a “Jewish extended phenotype,” with Jews themselves doing much of the heavy lifting, but getting plenty of help from their recruited lackeys such as blacks and other non-whites, women, and disparate aggrieved groups that are now popping up like toadstools after a summer’s rain.
I remember back in the late ‘80s or perhaps it was the early ‘90s, when I found that five, six, or maybe even seven of the eight Ivy League presidents “happened” to be Jewish (oh, where was the echo meme then!). I shared this observation with just about anyone unfortunate enough to have been in my vicinity, but with depressing regularity, the response was a blasé, “So what?”
Well, for starters, the “So what?” is No Campus for White Men. And a mulatto president for eight years. And no White Protestants on the Supreme Court. And a media ruled by a hostile elite. And open borders. And the cultivation of “White pathology.” And the plunder of our economy (and Iceland’s, and Russia’s . . .).
Okay, let’s focus just on the campus. Author Greer doesn’t go near the Jewish Question, but we can easily see who rules academia, which group gets plum jobs out of proportion to their numbers or merit and so on. Take the obvious case of Elena Kagan, who lacked the serious qualifications it takes to become Dean of Harvard Law School. The evidence points strongly to the conclusion that she was appointed due to ethnic connections and in turn appointed Jewish professors based on the same ethnic connections.
Not only did she serve as Dean of Harvard Law, she was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, a development which MacDonald finds egregious [my emphasis added twice]:
Kagan is remarkably unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice in terms of the usual standards: judicial experience, academic publications, or even courtroom experience. Rather, all the evidence is that Kagan owes her impending confirmation to her Jewish ethnic connections (see also here).
The same goes for Jewish over-representation in elite academic institutions – far higher than can be explained by higher Jewish IQ. Does anyone seriously think that Jewish domination of Hollywood and the so much of the other mainstream media is about merit rather than ethnic networking and solidarity? And then there’s the addiction of the new elite to affirmative action for non-Whites.
Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit. The only common denominator is that Whites of European extraction are being systematically excluded and displaced to the point that they are now underrepresented in all the important areas of the elite compared to their percentage of the population. The new elite distinguishes itself mainly by its hostility to the traditional people and culture of those they displaced. It is an elite that cannot say its name. Indeed the ADL was all over Pat Buchanan for merely mentioning that Kagan is Jewish and that, upon her confirmation, Jews would be one-third of the Supreme Court.
Folks, I gotta tell ya that this obsession with replacing Whites (particularly White males) with others is, well, obsessive. There can be no doubt that it’s a Jewish strategy. Take a look, for instance, at Andrew Joyce’s recent TOO essay “TEAM Westport: A Case Study in anti-White Activism”, which superbly documents feverish Jewish activism aimed at White displacement in a very White (92.6%) upscale town in Connecticut.
For our purposes, however, I’d like you to look through typical college job ads such as those found on this long list for Liberal Arts. Here’s what you’ll commonly find [again, emphasis added]:
Connecticut College is a private, highly selective institution with a demonstrated commitment to outstanding faculty teaching and research. Recognizing that intellectual vitality and diversity are inseparable, the College has embarked on a significantly successful initiative to diversify its faculty, student body and curriculum. The College seeks creative scholars excited about working in a liberal arts setting, with its strong focus on engaged teaching, participation in shared governance, and active involvement in an institution-wide advancement of diversity. We encourage applications from candidates who share this understanding of the faculty role and will contribute to the diversity of our college community, including members of historically underrepresented groups.
“Diversity” is so important that it’s mentioned four times in one paragraph. One could be forgiven for thinking that the entire purpose of the college is to promote diversity. And just to make people aware that they are on the side of the angels and committed to letting less talented people get jobs if they have the right skin color, there just had to be a mention of “historically underrepresented groups.”
Wells College is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons. The College seeks to promote diversity in all of its hires; members of under-represented populations are strongly encouraged to apply.
Again, I need to stress that in the campus setting, despite the attention aggrieved students who may be Black, Hispanic or Asian may get, when it comes to those relatively rare cases where Jewish interests conflict with those of their shabbos goy cannon fodder, Jews come out ahead, at least in most cases.
For instance, back in 2014, Native American professor Steven Salaita left a tenured position in Virginia to take up a post at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Foolishly, he thought that on his own time using Twitter, he could be mildly negative about what Israelis were then inflicting on the Palestinians (again). He wrote such things as “Let’s cut to the chase: If you’re defending #Israel right now, you’re an awful human being.”
Didn’t Salaita understand that you don’t reveal such thoughts, let alone tweet them, when you are preparing to teach at an American campus with 3,500 Jewish students? Sure enough, his tenure offer was rescinded, setting up a legal drama where he was given a significant settlement in exchange for never teaching at Urbana-Champaign.
Or take Tony Martin’s case, where the Wellesley professor of Africana Studies pointed out the disproportionate Jewish role in the slave trade. The abuse he endured prompted him to write a book called The Jewish Onslaught.
In modern feminism, Jewish feminists have had to confront the anti-Zionist platforms of non-Jewish women, as Joyce Antler discusses in The Journey Home: How Jewish Women Shaped Modern America. For example, at the United Nations International Women’s Decade Conference in Mexico City in 1975, when “Third World delegates began to attack Israeli representatives as ‘racists,’ all Jewish women attending the conference felt at risk; for Letty Cottin Pogrebin, this was the ‘click’ that initiated her life as a ‘Jewish-feminist.’” Five years later, in Copenhagen, the next U.N. Women’s conference was even worse in this respect. From these experiences emerged attempts to rid the feminist movement of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism; Pogrebin, for instance, wrote an eleven-page article in Ms. magazine that “described the prevalence of anti-Semitism on the political right as well as the radical left, within the black community, and among Christian feminists who blamed Jewish monotheism for the extinction of goddess cults and the death of Jesus.”
In any case, I am pleased that Timothy Rohrer’s review of No Campus for White Men directed our attention to this issue. On one level, we can roll our eyes upon hearing of the latest nonsense going on at some university or other, but on too many other levels, this process of White dispossession is deadly serious. Universities provide instruction that leads to important jobs and prepares the next generation for leadership of the culture and the country. The campus War on White Men, I am convinced, is but a prelude to the real war — the coming attempt at the extermination of the White race — a “hot” war, as opposed to the current “cool” gradual swamping of Whites via immigration, destruction of White families, etc.
This is deadly serious stuff, as I said, so we had best face the problem directly. Oddly, I’ve had this impression since Trump’s election that Alt Right sites that normally emphasize the Jewish Question have pulled back from discussing it, possibly in an attempt to gain “respectability” for the new administration and its Alt Right supporters. Now that the thrill of the Trump victory turns into the grueling reality of politics as usual, however, let’s hope that these sites return to writing about The Jewish Problem bluntly and honestly. Without a grim determination to face the issue, successful responses are not likely to appear on their own.
In closing, I’ll share an impression I had upon hearing the title No Campus for White Men. Some years ago I wrote about Cormac McCarthy’s bleak novel No Country for Old Men, and wove it into an account of the decline of America in step with the decline of Whites. I concluded that our situation could just as easily read No Country for White Men. A fortiori, this is true of the new book No Campus for White Men.