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?