Suicide–Or Murder? Kaufmann`s Rise and Fall of Anglo-America

Eric P. Kaufmann`s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America


presents the case that
Anglo-America committed what one might call
“suicide by
idea”:
White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants were motivated
to give up ethnic hegemony by their attachment to
Enlightenment ideals of individualism and liberty.
Anglo-Americans simply followed these ideals of the
Enlightenment to their logical conclusion. The result:
immigration was opened up to all peoples of the world,
multiculturalism became the cultural ideal, and
 WASPS willingly
allowed themselves to be displaced from their preeminent
position among the elites of business, media, politics,
and the academic world.

Kaufmann,
who is Reader in Politics and Sociology at London
University`s Birkbeck College, explicitly rejects the
proposal that the decline of Anglo-America occurred as a
result of an attack by some external force. His concept
is therefore a direct contrast to my view, argued at
length in my book




The Culture of
Critique
,
that the rise of Jews to elite status in the United
States and the influence of particular Jewish
intellectual and political movements, especially the
push for mass and indiscriminate immigration, were key
contributions–necessary conditions–to the demise of
WASP America.

My view is that the
outcome was the result of


ethnic conflict over the construction of culture
(PDF),
that is, the rules and norms by
which a society functions.
Indeed, the fall of Anglo-Saxon America is a textbook
case of how deadly the conflict over the construction of
culture can be.

In this review —an adapted version of a longer


paper

posted on my

Occidental Observer
website–I will show where
Kaufmann goes wrong, mainly because he ignores the
Jewish role in the decline of Anglo-America. But it must
be said that he provides a fascinating historical
overview. In this respect, his book resembles a similar
conceptually faulty but factually rich work: Yuri
Slezkine`s

The Jewish Century
.

As Kaufman notes, it was not very long ago that
America strongly asserted that it was a nation of
Northwestern Europeans — and intended to stay that way.
The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act was carefully designed to

preserve the
ethnic status quo
as of 1890, thereby ensuring
the dominance of Anglo-Americans. In 1952, the
McCarran-Walter Act reiterated the preference for
Northwestern Europe and was passed over President
Truman`s veto.

But only a decade later, in the 1960s, White
America began the process of

ethnic and cultural suicide:

“By the 1960s, as if by magic, the centuries-old machinery of WASP
America began to stall like the spacecraft of Martian
invaders in the contemporary hit film,
War of the Worlds.
In 1960, the first non-Protestant president was elected.
In 1965, the national origins quota regime for
immigration was replaced by a `color-blind` system.
Meanwhile, Anglo-Protestants faded from the class photos
of the economic, political, and cultural elite — their
numbers declining rapidly, year upon year, in the
universities, boardrooms, cabinets, courts, and
legislatures. At the mass level, the cords holding
Anglo-Protestant Americans together began to unwind as
secular associations and mainline churches lost millions
of members while the first truly national, non-WASP
cultural icons appeared.”
(pp. 2–3)

Of course, other ethnic groups have gone into
historical decline or have been replaced by force. But
the decline of Anglo-America seems mysterious. There are
no visible conquering armies that would easily explain
their impending exit from the stage of history.

Despite its obvious importance as an historical
phenomenon, however, as Kaufmann notes there has been

almost no
academic attention to the causes of this
very precipitous decline. Perhaps some things are better
left unsaid–at least until the losers of this
revolution are safely relegated to a powerless position.

That the victors do indeed deliberately intend to
make their revolution permanent is to my mind proven by
the move, both here and abroad, towards

“Hate” laws
,
which would make a discussion such as this very
hazardous. In my view, America`s successor order is
likely to be far more like traditional Jewish society,
with high levels of social control over behavior and
thought–and quite different from America of the
Founding Fathers. Coercion rather than Liberty will be
the hallmark.



Freedom, Representative
Government, and Individualism as Anglo-Saxon Ethnic
Traits

Confident
assertions
of White ethnic identity are virtually


non-existent

these days. However, Kaufmann shows that in the 18th and
19th centuries, Anglo-Americans had a strong sense that
they were the biological descendants of freedom loving
Anglo-Saxon tribes:
“The New England
town meeting was likened to the Anglo-Saxon tribal
council, and the


statements of Tacitus

regarding the
free, egalitarian qualities of the Anglo-Saxons were
given an American interpretation”

(p. 18). The
“Yeoman Farmer”
was considered the ethnic prototype.
In 1776 after drafting the Constitution, Thomas
Jefferson stated that Americans are

the
children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by
day and a pillar of fire by night; and on the other
side,





Hengist and Horsa
,
the Saxon chiefs
from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and
whose political principles and form of government we
have assumed”.

(pp. 17–18; emphasis in text).


As a cultural historian,
Kaufmann views ethnic self-conceptions as fallacies. But
in fact it is entirely reasonable to look for the
particular traits and tendencies of Europeans as
adaptations to prolonged life in a situation
characterized by harsh climates and the relative absence
of between-group competition. I have





argued

that evolution

in
the North
has predisposed
Europeans to the following two critical traits that are
entirely unique among the traditional cultures of the
world:



  1. A de-emphasis on extended
    kinship relationships and a relative lack of
    ethnocentrism.


  2. A tendency toward
    individualism and all of its implications:
    individual rights against the state, representative
    government, moral universalism, and science.

In other words, Jefferson was quite probably
correct to view the Anglo-Saxon tendencies toward
individualism and representative government as ethnic
traits.

A
critical feature of individualism is that group
boundaries are relatively permeable and assimilation is
the norm. As Kaufmann notes, even in the 19th century,
individualism resulted in assimilation rather than
maintaining impermeable boundaries with other Whites:
“Interethnic relations followed a pattern of Anglo-conformity. …
Immigrants were to be made into American WASPs by
absorbing American English, American Liberty, and
American Protestantism and, ultimately, by intermarrying
with Americans”.
(p. 19).


There
was an assumption, even among many liberals, that these
ethnic Others would look and act like Anglo-Americans.
In the 19th century, liberals typically had
“an optimistic,
expansionist Anglo-conformism that accepted the
immigrants, provided they looked like Anglo-Protestants
and assimilated to the WASP mytho-symbolic corpus”
.
(p. 37).

Intellectually, the ideal of assimilation was
often grounded in Lamarckian rather than Darwinian
thinking.

Lamarckians
  believed
that people could pass on to their descendants traits
which they had acquired during their lifetimes. With
Lamarck rather than Darwin as inspiration, race and
culture were conflated. Liberal intellectuals thought
that blacks would become White with more education, like
“the running of a
dirty stream into a pellucid lake which eventually
clears leaving no trace of mud”
. (p. 56). Immigrants
of all strains could become good Anglo-Saxons.

Lamarck`s theory has always been a darling of the
left because it holds the promise that inherited traits
can easily be changed simply by changing the
environment. It is no accident that Lamarckism became
official ideology in the Soviet Union, and among

many Jewish
leftists
, precisely because it implied that it
would be quite easy to mold the new Soviet man — just as

Lysenko

thought it would be easy to develop crops that could
flourish in cold climates.

In the hands of the Anglo-Saxon
 assimilationists,
Lamarckism was part of the optimistic spirit of elite
19th-century liberal intellectuals who envisioned a
future America to be people just like themselves, no
matter what

their origins
.



The Period of Ethnic Defense:
1880–1965

The view that America was
the
product
of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity coincided with
optimistic ideas among elite liberal intellectuals about
an Anglo-Saxon future. Towards the end of the 19th
century, however, as America was coming to grips with
large-scale immigration from Southern and Eastern
Europe, such optimistic views of an Anglo-Saxon future
began to fade. A large number of the immigrants were
(correctly) seen as politically radical and socially

inassimilable
.

The decades leading up to the passage of the 1924
immigration law were a period of

ethnic defense
. Optimistic, liberal views on
immigration persisted among a small group of
intellectuals, but they were displaced politically. 
Among many intellectuals, Darwinism rather than
Lamarckism won the day.

The result was an effective alliance between the Boston,
Puritan-descended intellectual elite and rural Whites in
an effort to prevent being overwhelmed by this threat.
“Whenever the northeastern `WASP` elite make common cause with their
less prestigious but more numerous provincial kin,
Anglo-Protestant ethnic nationalism revives”.
(p.
26).



Kaufmann notes that business interests remained opposed
to immigration restriction. But he fails to mention the
very strong role that Jewish organizations



played

in delaying immigration restriction until the 1920s—long
after popular opinion demanded restriction.
For
example, writing in 1914, sociologist

Edward A. Ross

believed that liberal immigration policy was
exclusively a Jewish issue:

“Although theirs is but a
seventh of our net immigration, they led the fight on
the Immigration Commission`s bill. The power of the
million Jews in the Metropolis lined up the
Congressional delegation from New York in solid
opposition to the literacy test. The systematic campaign
in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments
for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by
and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National
Liberal Immigration League and its numerous
publications. From the paper before the commercial body
or the scientific association to the heavy treatise
produced with the aid of the Baron de Hirsch Fund, the
literature that proves the blessings of immigration to
all classes in America emanates from subtle Hebrew
brains.”
(E. A. Ross,
The Old World and the New: The Significance of Past and Present
Immigration to the American People
. 1914, 144–145)



Kaufmann attributes the desire to end immigration to the
realization that the new immigrants would not convert to
Protestantism and to the rise of



race theories
–although
he does not really discuss the latter.





This is a major failing. One of the most important
trends beginning around 1900 was the rise of Darwinism.
As I have noted



elsewhere
,
t
he early part of the 20th century was the high
water mark of Darwinism in the social sciences.  It
was common at that time to think that there were
important differences between the races ‑- that races
differed in intelligence and in moral qualities. 
Not only did races differ, but they were in competition
with each other for supremacy.  Schooled in the
theories of

Madison Grant
,

Lothrop Stoddard
, Henry Pratt
Fairchild, William Ripley, Gustav Le Bon, Charles
Davenport, and William McDougall, many among the
American elite viewed themselves as members of a
particular race and believed that racial homogeneity was
the sine qua non of every stable nation state. 
They regarded their racial group as uniquely talented
and possessed of a high moral sense.

But, more importantly, whatever the talents and
vulnerabilities of their race, they held it in the
highest importance to retain control over the lands they
had inherited as a result of the exploits of their
ancestors who had conquered the continent and tamed the
wilderness.  And despite the power that their race
held at the present, there was dark foreboding about the
future, reflected in the titles of some of the classic
works of the period: Grant`s The Passing of the Great
Race
and Stoddard`s The Rising Tide of Color
Against White World Supremacy
and The Revolt
Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under‑Man
.



Kaufmann`s lack of discussion of the eclipse of racial
Darwinism is a significant omission. It was a major



objective

of Jewish intellectual and political
movements, particularly



Boasian anthropology
.
By 1915 the Boasians controlled the American
Anthropological Association and held a two-thirds
majority on its Executive Board. By 1926 every major
department of anthropology was headed by Boas`s
students, the majority of whom were Jewish.

Kauffman quotes historian

John Higham
, who
noted
that, by the time of
the immigration enthusiasts` final victory in 1965, the
Boasian perspective had become standard academic wisdom.
The result was that
“it became
intellectually fashionable to discount the very
existence of persistent ethnic differences. The whole
reaction deprived popular race feelings of a powerful
ideological weapon.”


Thus the demise of Darwinism had major consequences. It
removed the only intellectually viable source of
opposition to cosmopolitan ideology and a cultural
pluralist model of America. In the absence of an
intellectually respectable defense, ethnic defense was
left to conservative religion and the popular folk
attitudes of the less educated. These were



no match

for the cosmopolitan intellectuals who quickly became
ensconced in all the elite institutions of the
US—especially the media and the academic world.



The Rise of Jewish Influence

The late 1930s saw the rise of the New York
Intellectuals, a movement that I

consider

among several influential Jewish
intellectual and political movements in my book
The Culture of
Critique.

Kaufmann claims that the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish influences in the New York
Intellectuals were equal and influenced each other in
dialectical fashion. But I provide several reasons for
preferring my view in the


longer version

of this essay: the opinion of other scholars of the role
of the Jewish presence among the New York Intellectuals;
evidence that the Jewish New York Intellectuals had a
strong Jewish identity; the anti-nationalist tendencies
of Jewish intellectuals in other countries, and the fact
that the organized Jewish community not only funded the
activities of the New York Intellectuals, Boasian
anthropology, and the Frankfurt School, but also spent
lavishly to promote these ideas in schools and the mass
media.

Kaufmann also fails to recognize that many of the basic
ideas of the New York Intellectuals derived from other
Jewish intellectual movements, particularly
psychoanalysis and the Frankfurt School. For example,
the elitist, anti-populist attitudes of the Frankfurt
School paralleled the attitudes of the New York
Intellectuals and likely influenced them, and indeed
some of the New York Intellectuals are also associated
with the Frankfurt School (see Ch. 5 of
C of C).

Common themes in this body of writing are hostility to
American populism, the need for leadership by an elite
cadre of intellectuals, and the belief that concerns
about ethnic displacement and the rise of the power of
ethnic minorities are irrational and indicative of
psychiatric disorder.

This point should be emphasized. The New York
Intellectuals and the

Frankfurt School
developed a
widely disseminated theory, based on psychoanalysis
(itself a Jewish intellectual movement,
see Ch. 4 of Cof C), in which
concerns by Anglo-Saxons about their ethnic displacement
and the rise of power of ethnic minorities were
indications of psychopathology. Although this theory
lacked empirical support, and would have been viewed as
ridiculous had Darwinism survived in the social
sciences, the displacement of Whites had developed an
intellectually respectable and therefore powerful
rationale.

The ideology of White suicide was therefore not just a
self-destructive heritage of the ideals of the
Enlightenment, but included a large injection of
psychoanalysis and Marxism as formulated by the
Frankfurt School and disseminated by the New York
Intellectuals.

As Kaufmann notes (p. 165), a
critical source of the success of the New York
Intellectuals was that they were welcomed by elite
universities and the media. The New York Intellectuals
achieved
“cultural hegemony”
(p. 166); they had captured
America from the top-down, leaving American dominant
ethnicity
“rudderless. It was now only a question of time before
cosmopolitanism would achieve the institutional inertia
necessary for it to triumph as a mass phenomenon”

(p. 166). The American dominant ethnicity was left

defenseless
because of the triumph of Boasian
anthropology and the demise of Darwinism in the social
sciences.

Kaufmann also stresses the rise of national media with
liberal values, resulting in broad exposure to
“the New
York/Washington/Hollywood elite”
(p. 189), with the
result that
“increased exposure to social idealism brought on by
higher education and, vicariously, by a higher-educated
media, socialized a larger proportion of Americans into
a liberal worldview”.
(p. 190).


Although he emphasizes the role of the media in the
decline of Anglo-Saxon America and mentions the very
large Jewish overrepresentation in the media, Kaufmann
fails to consider how this might affect the



attitudes championed

by the media. . My review of this topic is




here

under the heading
“Jews and the Media: Ways of Seeing,”
I note that ethnic Jews
have a very large influence on the media — far larger
than any other identifiable group. And I show that the



attitudes promoted

by Jews in the media are influenced by their Jewish
identity. 
The fact that the media championed values that



facilitated

the demise of Anglo-Saxon America therefore may be seen
as a consequence of Jewish influence.




Conclusion: The Fall of the
Anglo-Saxons

Kaufmann charts the decline of
Anglo-Saxons and the rise of the Jews in all areas of
the American elite, from university departments of
political science to the federal civil service. “For
twenty years, the de-WASP-ing of the ruling elite in
America has proceeded at a breathtaking pace.”

Kaufmann cites the important study 
of Lerner et al. (American Elites,
1996) showing that by the1990s there were
“roughly the same
proportion of WASPs and Jews at the elite levels of the
federal civil service, and a greater proportion of
Jewish elites among corporate lawyers.”
Jews
outnumbered Anglo-Saxons 58–21 among elites in
television, 48 to 25 among
“public interest”
elites, and 40 to 21 among legal elites. The same study
found that, “in stark contrast to the Jews, WASPs were not overrepresented within
the ranks of the national elite.”

Given that Jews constituted less than 3% of the
population, these are very high overrepresentations
indeed. In contrast, White Protestants became
underrepresented in corporate elites by the 1980s, and
there was a steady decline in their political power in
Congress.

Even people of mixed European heritage now tend to
identify with the non-Anglo-Saxon side of the family.
For example, people of Italian-Scottish descent chose to
identify themselves as Italian by a 3-1 ratio. There was
also a heavy decline in White associational patterns and
social capital, as described by

Robert Putnam
: Elks, Shriners, Jaycees, Masons all suffered
major declines.

Kaufmann is also correct in noting the gap between elite
and non-elite White opinion.
 Kaufmann
emphasizes the class difference among Whites:
“We may even
surmise a long-run scenario in which lower-status whites
retreat to a rural, interior ethnic `homeland,` while
upper-status whites pursue their modern lifestyle
orientation in the nation`s more dynamic, increasingly
hybridized, white-minority cities”
(pp. 262–263). 

Kaufmann quotes

Michael Lind
:
“during the years
that the political class has been almost unanimously in
favor of present or 
higher levels of legal immigration, an
overwhelming majority of Americans of all races have
favored restriction, a fact that speaks volumes about
the alienation of the American ascendancy from the
majority`s interests and 
concerns … like free-market globalism,
immigration is an issue that pits the affluent top 20
percent against the wage-earning majority below.”

(p. 273).

Congruent with the argument in
The Culture of
Critique,
Kaufmann proposes that once the new value
set was institutionalized, it became the focus of


status competition
within the boundaries set by
these movements (p. 247). Kaufmann rejects the logical
possibility that Anglo-Saxon decline was caused by the
rise of long-subordinate social groups, for example
blacks. But, as I have noted, he does not even consider
Jewish influence

or ambitions
as a factor.

A final lapse in Kaufmann`s argument: he never mentions

coercion and the penalties
that are imposed on
people who dissent from the elite cosmopolitan
consensus. The fact is, Whites who violate these
strictures are

severely censured
— a phenomenon with which I have
considerable

personal
experience
.

Kaufmann presents the views of elite Whites who are
cooperating in the demise of their own people as nothing
more than the enlightened opinions of an intellectual
and moral elite. But it is far more than that. Since the
1960s, Whites who depart from the consensus of
cosmopolitanism have been penalized in a wide variety of
ways — from
lack of
access
to the mainstream media,
to firing from their jobs, to social opprobrium.
Conversely, those who collaborate are rewarded.
 This revolution
is neither peaceful nor bloodless.

Moreover, the same forces which
have legitimated and institutionalized the cosmopolitan
zeitgeist for Whites are endeavoring to make this
revolution permanent by enacting
“hate” laws prohibiting the


expression of ideas
that conflict with their version
of reality. For example, the organized Jewish community
is

deeply involved

in advocating restrictions on free speech in America
and throughout the West. The result is that
conservatives are forced to couch their ideas in the
Universalist language of cosmopolitanism. Kaufmann
points out those even measures of White ethnic defense
such as Official English measures and immigration
restriction have had to be couched in the language of

civic universalism
.

Shamefully, Kaufmann himself is entirely on board with
the idea that cosmopolitanism will have to resort to
social controls to make its victory permanent:
“Institutional pressure must be brought to bear on ethnic revival
[of Whites],
prompting the communitarian impulse to discharge itself
along liberal lines”
(p. 301).

This shows that although the cosmopolitan revolution
took advantage of pre-existing Anglo-Saxon tendencies
toward individualism, in the end the institutional
structure that is being pursued after attaining power is
profoundly anti-individualist. America remains somewhat
of a laggard in these trends because of the First
Amendment, but other Western societies, lacking such
formal declarations of individual rights, have succumbed
to a stifling political correctness that essentially
legislates the triumph of cosmopolitanism – and Western
suicide.



If a robust Darwinian intellectual elite had remained in
place despite the assaults of the Boasians, the
Frankfurt School, the Marxists, and the New York
Intellectuals, the cosmopolitan revolution never would
have occurred. The Anglo-Saxon movement of ethnic
defense culminating in the immigration law of 1924 would
have become institutionalized. A robust, sophisticated
Darwinian culture would have provided a powerful
argument for ethnic defense. Critically, such a


 
defense
would have emphasized creating a culture in which
individualism was seen as a valuable Anglo-Saxon ethnic
trait — as was the case during the 18th and
19th centuries. Immigration policy would have
been carefully formulated to ensure that immigrants were
similar to the founding stock and to ensure the
continued dominance of peoples prone to individualism —
just as American immigration policy was in fact crafted
until 1965. This ethnic defense would have been
energized by the sociobiological revolution of the 1970s
and the firm mathematical grounding for the
understanding that all peoples have



ethnic genetic interests
.



Instead, in cosmopolitan post-America, even the
sociobiological revolution has been stripped of its most
dangerous and powerful ideas. As Frank Salter



has shown
,
the revolution in population genetics of the1970s
demonstrated very clearly that people controlling a
piece of land have a huge genetic interest in preserving
their control–but this finding has been suppressed and
misinterpreted by people at the top of the academic
hierarchy.



This suppression must continue–because cosmopolitanism
has a hopelessly shaky intellectual basis. Built on
theories that were motivated far more by ethnic
interests of the rising elite of Jewish intellectuals
than by a respect for scientific truth, cosmopolitanism
has no choice but to secure its future by



coercion.

And for the Anglo-Saxon Americans–indeed all
Christian-stock Americans–this substitution of cultures
 is a
disaster of cataclysmic proportions.


Kevin MacDonald [email
him
]
is professor of psychology
at California State University–Long Beach and a frequent
contributor to

The
Occidental Observer
. For
his website, click

here.