A Southern Sympathizer Ponders Lott, Moran, Derbyshire, MacDonald

March 17, 2003

NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON`T want your name
and/or email address published when sending VDARE
email.

A
Reader Asks – Bush Wants Regime Change Where?

From: Southern
Sympathizer

Last Christmastime,
you were nice enough to publish my

letter
about the

lynching
of Trent Lott. I asked: how come a kindly
reference to a centenarian politician, who two
generations ago took a stand in defense of the ethnic
interests of White Southerners, can destroy, in 2002,
the Senate Republican Leader – while at the same time
the Republican Administration is launching a war that is
most obviously (and arguably only) in the interests of
the most consciously

ethnocentric
state in modern history?

Now the lynch mob
is back in

action
– not least, of course, at the “Goldberg
Review
” –

screaming
for the political

life
of  James Moran (D-Va) whose fault was to
state, politely, that "if it were not for the strong
support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq,
we would not be doing this.”
(Washington
Post
, March 11).

Apparently
mentioning ethnic influences on American politics is a
privilege to be permitted only to a

few
.

What a collection
our political leaders are!  Can anyone imagine that any
normal group of men, of any ethnic group or class, would
accept from their companions the groveling and shrieking
our elected representatives deem appropriate, when
confronted with adversity?

However, it happens
that a succinct discussion of Jewish influence in
American politics is now available. Very courageously,
The American Conservative magazine has published
an

essay
by

John Derbyshire
discussing the thesis of social
psychologist Kevin MacDonald`s extraordinary

books
: that the behavior of Jewish groups can be
analyzed in terms of evolutionary strategy. In
particular, MacDonald has written extensively on the
Jewish role in making U.S.
immigration policy

Derbyshire,
inevitably, flinches:


“Plainly, getting the
Jew thing was a sort of occupational hazard of
conservative journalism in the United States, an
exceptionally lethal one, which the career-wise writer
should strive to avoid.”

But he does raise
the key question concerning Jewish influence:


“…if it is true, we
must believe that 97 percent of the U.S. population
ended up dancing to the tune of the other three
percent.”

This is precisely
what MacDonald`s books are created to explain. As
MacDonald says in the

reply
he has been obliged to post on his own

website
:


“Jewish groups have
made any critical discussion of Jewish issues off
limits, and that`s vitally important because, yes, Jews
are a very powerful group.”

Specifically,
MacDonald cites the looming Iraq war:


“…a war that is being
fomented by Jewish neo-conservative activists based in
the Bush administration, congressional lobbying
organizations, and the media…”

and, generally,
modern political discussion:


“the most important
Jewish contributions to culture were facilitated not
only by high IQ but by closely cooperating, mutually
reinforcing groups of Jews who were centered around
charismatic leaders and excluded dissenters.”

Poor Derbyshire,
understandably, feels obliged to conclude his article
with some ritual ululations about the evils of
MacDonald. And MacDonald, naturally, responds in kind:


“It does occur to me
that writing critiques of evolutionary psychology and
dismissing those who criticize Jews might be one way to
attain social status among the predominantly Jewish
neo-conservative elite that dominates so much of the
conservative media.”

But the fact is,
MacDonald`s books are written in prudent but
almost-inaccessible sociologese. By his lucid summary,
and by provoking Kevin MacDonald into lucid response,
John Derbyshire has massively facilitated public
discussion on this key issue.

Salient questions
remain:

1] Why was not
this extremely valuable piece not published in
Derbyshire`s normal home: National (a.k.a.
Goldberg) Review?

2] And why was not
MacDonald given the normal courtesy of replying in
The American Conservative
to what in fact became a
personal attack?