Some more excerpts on the subject. I haven't seen much discussion about the role ecumenical Protestantism has played around here yet:

Expressive Pathfinders: The New York Modernists

The older America, whose voice and spirit were New England, has . . . gone beyond recall. Americans of British stock still are prevailingly the artists and thinkers of the land, but they work, each for himself, without common vision or ideals. They have no ethos any more. The older tradition has passed from a life into a memory.
--Horace M. Kallen, 1915 (Quoted in Kallen 1924: 104-105)

The Liberal Progressive and ecumenical Protestants leveled the intellectual barriers preventing the emergence of a universalist America. Politically, the identity of these Victorian humanitarians was secure: they were university educated and considered themselves a "better element," a historical advance guard that would lead mankind toward a higher stage of civilization. Yet such ethical progress obscured an underlying cultural confusion: their chief mode of self-expression remained a Milquetoast, genteel Christianity -- a meager symbolic repertoire.

Lacking this carrot, and beaten only by the stick of Liberal-Progressive moralism, American intellectuals would probably not have been so attracted to a project of cultural change. In this sense, the genteel Liberal-Progressive vision was limited. The task of completing the epic of American cosmopolitanism would ostensibly reside with a new generation. Under their tutelage, the logic of expressive individualism implicit in liberalism was driven to its theoretical endpoint. It would thenceforth be their imperative to carve out a subcultural communitas in which liberal apostates from the dominant ethnic community could regain a sense of community, wholeness, and enchantment. Thus it as that the New York avant-garde came to preside over the liquidation of Anglo-Protestant influence in progressive intellectual circles -- overseeing its replacement with cosmopolitan modernism.

Another excerpt:

This should be an interesting thread. We can finally discuss the true causes of our decline. This book should be on the must read list for every white American racialist.

Cosmopolitanism Institutionalized, 1930-1970

"Consider the dismany that provincial Protestants must have felt . . . most threatening of all was the inescapable recognition that the leaders who had customarily spoken for the Protestant masses . . . were giving way to faceless bureaucrats in the business world [and] cosmopolitan secularists in the universities."
-- John Higham, 1997

The period between 1900 and 1917 ushered in a great wave of cosmopolitan Americanism, articulated by the Liberal Progressives, ecumenical Protestants, and Young Intellectuals and based on the foundations of expressive liberty and cultural equality. The interwar period extended the thinking of these actors throughout the nation's intellectual stratum. In effect, the moral compass of the nation's elite received a magnetic shock that altered educated Americans' deepest sense of what it meant to be a good person. At the same time, a cosmopolitan aesthetic that priviliged expressive freedom linked American intellectuals, well-to-do consumers, and corporate businesspeople with the federal government. The new mood resulted in a stripped-down national identity consisting purely of the symbols of liberty and equality inherited from the Constitution. In this sense, the post-World War II United States would incarnate the liberal ideal of the transethnic, civic nation.

Cosmopolitan Thought and the Federal Government

World War II, as never before, generated an impressive amount of government-sponsered activity directed toward ameliorating relations between American ethnic and religious groups. Pluralist academics, together with their interfaith religious colleagues, churned out numerous pamphlets urging education as a remedy for intergroup tensions (Higham [1975] 1984). The Progressive Education Association's Committee on Intercultural Education (1937), the Common Council of American Unity, and the U.S. office of Education's "Americans All" broadcasts on the contributions of particular ethnic groups (1938-1939) represented the front end of this new effort (Savage 1999; Gleason 1992: 164-166; Glazer 1997: 88). That cosmopolitanism was integral to the new Americanism is evident from the spate of universalist works emerging in the 1940s and 1950s.

As early as 1943, Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Willkie penned a best-seller entitled One World, which bore the impress of cosmopolitan-humanist ideas of both Liberal-Progressive and ecumenical Protestant origin. His conclusions echo those of the post-World War I generation of Protestant elites: "We must come to a better understanding of what is happening in the East . . . of their loss of faith in Western imperialism and in the superiority of the white man," Willkie wrote (Willkie 1943: 89). He also shone the light on humanitarian reform on the United States itself, criticizing its failure to live up to its ethical standards while celebrating its new, streamlined identity based solely on the common denominator of liberalism:

Our nation is composed of no one race, faith, or cultural heritage. It is a grouping of some thirty peoples possessing varying religious concepts, philosophies, and historical backgrounds. They are linked together by their confidence in our democratic institutions as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution for themselves and their children. The keystone of our union of states is freedom (Willkie 1943: 157)

Although the liberal and religious egalitarianism of ecumenical Protestantism and Liberal Progressivism appears to have been the clearest influence on Willkie, elements of modernist thought, reminiscent of Bourne or Kallen were also apparent:

Minorities are rich assets of a democracy . . . minorities are the constant spring of new ideas, stimulating new thought and action, the constant source of vigour. Our way of living together in America is a strong but delicate fabric. It is made up of many threads . . . It serves as a cloak for the protection of poor and rich, of black and white, of Jew and gentile, of foreign- and native-born. Let us not tear it asunder. (Willkie 1943: 159-160, emphasis added)

Two decades later, an American of Irish Catholic origin felt confident enough to crown the postwar mood with a new catch-phrase, America is a "nation of immigrants." John F. Kennedy's short book bound together eighteenth- and nineteenth-century cosmopolitan utterances, disembedding them alongside invented traditions from the post-1930s period, like Emma Lazarus's poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty (Kennedy 1964: 1-3, 68, 77). Kennedy concluded with an attack on the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 and outlined his blueprint for the nation -- which displayed the same blend of pluralist cosmopolitanism and melting pot universalism that had characterized Progressive thought on American identity for some 40 years:

The ideal of the "melting pot" symbolized the process of blending many strains into a single nationality, and we have come to realize in modern times that the "melting pot" need not mean the end of particular ethnic identities or traditions. Only in the case of the Negro has the melting pot failed to bring a minority into the full stream of American life. (Kennedy 1964: 67)

Other titles soon caught the cosmopolitan spirit of the times. The best known include Carey McWilliam's Brothers under the Skin and Edward Steichen's 1950s photo exhibit in the Museum of Modern Art, The Family of Man. In David Hollinger's view, the scientific, humanistic, religious, and political discourse of the day was exuberantly universalistic and the new, international-style, United Nations building in New York was taken as a symbol of the universal nation, America, which would prefigure a new global solidarity (Hollinger 1965: 52-55).

Such sentiments are certainly present in John Higham's Strangers in the Land (1955), a critique of American nativism. In this important work, Higham was directly inspired by ecumenical Christianity and consensus liberalism. For example, he introduced his work with a universalist biblical passage redolent of the Interfaith movement. Looking back on Strangers in the Land some 30 yars later, Higham betrays a clear lineage to the cosmopolitanism of both the New York Intellectuals and the New Liberals influenced by the Liberal Progressives: "In the late 1930's I had become convinced, by reading European history and the antiwar novelists of that period, that nationalism was the bane of the modern world . . . I was drawn to the kind of progressive thought -- distinctly socialist rather than communist -- that looked forward to the fraternity of peoples rather than the solidarity of a class.

Several pages on, the Liberal-Progressive connection emerges into the open as Higham distances himself from 1960s radicalism, proffering that "the cosmopolitan strain [of American nationalism] was present in the Progressive movement" (Higham [1955] 1988: 339-340). In bringing cosmopolitan ideas into the mainstream, writers such as Higham were participating in an intellectual sea-change which Michael Lind claims prompted elites to recast the American narrative along universal lines. This national story embraced what Lind calls a "generic Christianity," in place of Protestantism, rejected both Anglo-Saxonism and Nordicity, and redefined America as a nation of immigrants. To hold the polity together, post-1930s elites looked to Gunnar Myrdal's "American Creed," an overarching ideology of liberal democracy shared by diverse ethnic groups (Lind 1995: 90).

TBC

The Process of Elite Institutionalization

The emergence of the American Creed as the centerpiece of American nationality pointed Anglo-Saxon and Protestant symbols toward the exit of the American national stage. This took place over the space of some 30 years, as large segments of the American elite appropriated the expressivist, cosmopolitan heritage of the modernist avant-garde and the egalitarian mantras of the Liberal Progressives and ecumenical Protestants. How might we explain the penetration of new ideas into these former ethnically conscious bastions of privilege? Mario Diani contends that social movements tend to succeed to the extent that leaders of a movement possess "social capital," in the form of social ties to the mass media, corporate cultural intermediaries, and the state intelligentsia -- where dominant interpretations of reality are generated (Diani 1997: 136).

In the American case, the steady post-1930s growth of the secular higher education system, mass media, and federal government helped to increase the social capital (in the form of influence and connections with the elite) of cosmopolitan movements -- whether Liberal Progressive, ecumenical Protestant, or expressive-modernist. The result was a thinning of American identity: the Anglo-Protestant ethnic core was abandoned, bringing the new ethical universals of liberty and equality to the fore. Accompanying the new consensus was a corresponding rise to predominance of the symbols of liberal universalism, exemplified by the nation of immigrants' narrative and the reinterpretation of the Statue of Liberty.

The Statue of Liberty myth provides a good case study of the shift to a post-WASP, consensus-liberal vision of America. In current parlance, the Statue of Liberty is viewed as a symbol of the openness of America to immigration, and the plague at its base by Emma Lazarus, which urges other nations to "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses," is believed to be organically connected to the statue and its liberal-universalist narrative. Unfortunately, reality is not so simple. Lazarus's poem was not present when the statue was inaugurated in October 1886. Nor did President Grover Clevland make any mention of the statue's significance for immigrants in his acceptance speech (Perea 1997a: 47).

Some Americans, especially Protestant clergymen, greated the gift of the statue cautiously. In addition, the statue was often viewed less as a beacon to immigrants than as a guardian of American purity. As for Emma Lazarus's oft-quoted poem, it was first erected on an interior wall of the immense statue in 1903 owing to the financial contribution of one Georgina Schulyer. Schulyer had donated the bronze plaque in memory of Lazarus, an obscure poet of Jewish ancestry whose work she admired. Not until the 1930s did the contemporary myth of the statue was a beacon to immigrants arise -- exactly the period in which the cosmopolitan ideas of America's organic intellectuals were starting to win wider elite acceptance. In turn, this attitude change prompted officials to relocate Lazarus's obscure poem to its current position at the base of the statue (Higham [1975] 1984: 73-78; Perea 1997a: 48-51).

The new doctrine rapidly established a foothold in the nation's school history texts. "The notion that America was a "melting pot" entered the majority of the texts during the forties," writes Frances FitzGerald. "In the forties and fifties, it was the catch phrase for all discussions of the immigrants, and the Statue of Liberty was the illustration beside them" (FitzGerald 1979: 80). I am not suggesting that Lazarus's ideas, or the statue's universalist interpretation, were entirely unacceptable prior to the 1930s. However, before this time, universalism had its place -- a place it was forced to share with Anglo-Protestant symbolism.

There is a difference between white and Aryan. You can be white by birth but you have to be Aryan by your actions.

This is not the impression that I am getting from the literature available on the subject. The truth is that most white Americans already define themselves racially in terms of their whiteness. Huntington covers the subject in his recent book on the subject. You should check it out. The term is also used in the census, if I recall.

"non-Hispanic white" is the census term. ugh. I'd rather be an Aryan. Or at least a White with capital letter.

There are a lot of people who say things like that. Very true. But its also true that this sort of deracialization is nowhere near as widespread as you are making it out to be, especially in the Southeast where I live. There are already millions of white Americans who sympathize with racialism and define themselves in racial terms. These white Americans have no real affection for people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton telling them that they are not entitled to their racial and cultural identity. An enormous amount of research has been done on this subject. You can read all about it in any decent university library.

White flight and polls on affirmative action and mex-invasion make it clear whites understand that coloreds are undesirable. But nobody steps forward to represent their interests, because those interests have been defined as illegimate, inherently illegitimate, by the jews controlling the media.

Ha! You should come to Alabama. I have honestly never come across a white person here who has identified himself as a "citizen of the world." In fact, I would go so far as to say that "United Nation" is something of an epithet around here.

It's like that around here, to a lesser extent. Alabama is about half nigger, one of hte blackest states in the country, second only to Alabama, i think. But about half college age kids go to college, and there they learn, especially the ones more likely from poor or rural backgrounds, that "educated" people are anti-racist. They eat this up. I grew up in the suburbs, but my impression after 6 years of rural living, is that there's an attitude among many young that they want to separate themselves from the other hicks, you can see this in clothing in particular.

That's your right. I simply disagree with your approach on this point. For instance, I first found my way into racialism after reading Buchanan's Death of the West because I was concerned about the future of America. Now I am sure there must be millions of white Americans who harbor similar concerns. But such people don't want to reinvent themselves as Aryans. They don't want to spend all day talking ad nauseum about how Hitler was right or why Christianity should be destroyed. They don't want to live under some fascist dictatorship that is going to take away their individual rights either.

Yes, I agree to an extent. You're making too much of our use of Aryan, it's not so much intended to make a point, as to link it as as synonym with white. I would say what you're saying from a different direction. I believe that, against the hey-kids-lets-go-to-the-stars, a political focus on the threat posed by niggers and the jews who loosed them is far more likely to work politically. So much of racialism is freaks talking about eugencs. Also, we or at least I and most people I work don't talk about Nazis that much. I've never dressed like one or used swastikas on VNN. I come from standard conservative background, and I came to this stuff from reading NR back in the 80s. I will say on the christian issue, I have tried to downplay that, but it simply is not possible. Christian behavior and mentality is a very large part of the problem. Every public christian teaches that racism is a sin. there's not getting around that. And the vast majority teaches that we must do everything we can to serve Israel. These are political facts that cannot be evaded.

I don't think its so much a lack of whiteness as it is a sense that there is something inherently wrong with being white. And that is why we should be telling these people who believe its wrong to hate other races that self-hatred is the most destructive form of hatred there is.

At first I thought you were chain-yanking or simply being dishonest about this. Maybe you're just young and confused. The problem here genuinely is systemic. You know that the left uses the system-is-guilty argument dishonestly, but it really is the truth in this case. You go out and try to get a column placed in which you tell whites to feel good about their race, and love themselves and celelbrate their history,. You can't do it. The System is rigged against it. The only person I ever heard of writing even quasi-racial columns for a mainstream publication was Sam Francis, and he was soon fired. The cost of writing honestly about race is living on a shoestring in rural Missouri, as I do -- very happily, I'm not complaining in the least -- or doing it as a hobby, as Jared Taylor does. Of course, the difference I must insist on is that I'm honest about race AND jews, whereas Taylor is afraid to address the jewish issue, and pretends jews are just another white ethnic group, although he knows better (he's a friend of Kevin MacDonald's).

I have to disagree with you on this one. I wouldn't put it that way. The studies that I have seen on the subject suggest to me that the Jews are in control of something in between one-fourth to one-third of the elite mass media in the United States. They have substantial influence within the mass media but they are certainly not predominant. You can say they control some sectors of the mass media, such as Hollywood, but that is about it.

I can only emit a bitter laugh. This isn't one of those things you get by book knowledge. They absolutely are predominant in the media -- just try to criticize them. This is something you'll learn from experience, and if you don't, then you aren't hitting them where it hurts.

That's true. But IMHO you are focusing too much on the Jews. You are only grasping part of the story here. You are ignoring the role our Protestant elites have played in redefining America as a cosmopolitan nation.

No, I'm aware of that. I know how Protestantism declined, and how groups like the Quakers destroyed urban ethnic neighborhoods out of fear of Catholics. But the jews are far more powerful than the WASP elite, which hardly even exists anymore, apart from individual families. The Wasps provide the figureheads, and a good portion of the "outer party" elite such as profit at Halliburton, but they aren't the ones setting the agenda. How many WASPS wrote up that PNAC paper that preceded the lies that led to the Iraq invasion? None. The jews put a WASP or Irish Catholic face on it, but they're the effective agent.

But are they really responsible for the cosmopolitan culture? Its undoubtedly true that they played a major part in it but they never could have risen to the level they are at today had it not been the degeneration of the Protestant elite.

There's a lot and I don't have all the answers. I've sophisticated my views with what I've read from Jimmy Cantrell and E. Michael Jones. But I still thin, in the 20th century, KM's Culture of Critique explains better than anything else what's going on. I saw a pic of a ADL letter back in I think the thirties by which they wrote to the american booksellers associatio about their desire to suppress a book by Grant, I think it was. If I had it handy, I'd post it. I really believe you greatly underestimate the power of the jews in setting the Line that people are afraid to depart from. Read some David Horowitz -- the jews are unbelievabley connected. "Discourse" in America is basically a big jewish family squabble. The only white group with any kind of network is Irish Catholics, and theirs isn't 1/100th as powerful. Writers from other groups must accommodate themselves in order to get published. This is why you dont' get the stats simply by looking up ownership. I mean, let's say you're a conservative writer with a family. Let's say you're a goy working at National Review. And you disagree on thw ar in Iraq. Where are you going to run? How can you possibly survive and make money and support your family? By printing an occasional article in Buchanan's mag? No way. Things can only survive in a matrix. And the jews completely control that matrix. They have the advertising the real estate the big papers the banks - -and anything else rises up, they unite as one to crush it. Thus the physical majority cowers in its own country. And the jews elect a new people by immigration -- and nobody even knows that they were responsible.

LOL I know. I believe they have been denouncing Bill O'Reilly lately for telling some Jew to go back to Israel. I can only wonder how they are going to react to the Merchant of Venice that is about to come out, considering how they reacted to the Passion.

They go back and forth between claiming the play is antisemitic and philosemitic. I don't know about the movie.

You can easily go back and search my posts on the subject. I must have said a million times that the problem is not so much the Jews as it is whites. We simply don't have the sort of infrastructure we need to get out message out. That is what we should be focusing on creating. Its a waste of time to argue about WW2 all day on the internet.

YOU do that! I don't do it myself, not least because I don't know that much about the details. I believe I know the essentials, the what and why of the war, beyond that, who cares? What I know is that when I read what Hitler and Goebbels said about jews, it meshes precisely with the way jews behave today.

The reason that infrastructure doesn't exist is in large measure because the System suppresses it. Denies it ads. Sues it for classified ads with dubious adjectives. Denies it distribution on its newsstands. Burns its publications (fireboming of IHR warehouse), or destroys them if they're free (campus consevative, not even racist, publications). There's a reason everything out there looks and smells and feels the same, and it's not because people wouldn't like something different - proof is the alexa ratings of non-jew sources on the Internet - which the jews are rapidly trying to shut down by technical and legal means. The ADL is paid to indoctrinate the FBI. If that isn't a measure of jew power, I don't know what is.

Its not what the Jews think that should concern us. We should be concerned about how white America sees us.

The jews can speak to America a million at a time. We have to do it more like one at a time. Control of tv is control of reality in most people's minds.

Ever hear of Bill Paxton?

I have seen Taylor on MSNBC several times now. il ragno was pointing out just the other day about how William Donahue of the Catholic League named the Jew on national television. LOL even O'Reilly, hard as it may be to believe, has denounced the ADL as an "extremist organization."

There are definitely Jews out there who engage in that sort of rhetoric. I see all sorts of antiracist books written by such people all the time. You have probably never heard of the vast majority of them. Check out "Critical Race Theory," for instance.

I don't recall Paxton. Taylor doesn't name the jew. What good has he done in over a decade of agitating? He's put that DOJ's stats in accurate perspective. That is something. But is leading a group anywhere? I don't see any movement. He's just cycling, repeating the same things whites already prove by their behavior they know instinctively. The place the education is needed is the jewish question, and that's where he very pointedly draws up.

Yes, O'Reilly and Donohue did name the jew, fairly well, for pretty much the first time. Yes, I'm well familiar with the whole load of garbagey race theory and abolish-the-whites etc. They're just manufacturing a new bogus social science, to give themselves more sinecures at our expense.

The point is that the concept that Whites exist and have rights is Systemicallky denied. It matters not the form, it's always just plain "hate." And that makes sense. Because the minute whites are allwoed to have valid racial concerns, biological facts and inevitabilities come into play, and it becomes obvious to the meanest intelligence that separation is the only answer.

The Protestant stuff is interesting and significant. but the concepts of pluralism and multiculturalism came from jew Kallen, and the claim that race does not exist was spread by jew Boas. See how the one guy cites Kennedy on the "Nation of Immigrants" - but that meme was put out there by the jews, and they were the ones that published a book with that title in the early sixties, as i recall. the story of the twentieth century is the jews buying up the papers, taking over the new radio/tv mass media, spreading their pseudosciences through academia, creating their jewish lobbies -- and slowly but surely drawing nearly all political power into their lap.

I do appreciate these long clips from the books, they're very good stuff. I've got to dig up this book that touches on the same, by Ann Douglas, written back in the seventies. "Feminization of American Culture," i think was the title. It covers the decline of protestantism from hard-core puritanism into social gospel. Her thesis is the men ran off to do business, leaving the priests to cater to the women, and together they took over the spiritual role in the home and in general feminized things. Basically making them soft and liberal. And this in time became social gospel, with all the guilt-tripping and do-gooding that evolved naturally into multiculturalism and diversity and the rest of the garbage. the jew Rothbard has a lot of intelligent stuff to say about this.

"non-Hispanic white" is the census term. ugh. I'd rather be an Aryan. Or at least a White with capital letter.

I think I will stick with "white guy" or "Southerner" or just "American." Call me old-fashioned. Aryan also sounds too Nazi for my tastes.

White flight and polls on affirmative action and mex-invasion make it clear whites understand that coloreds are undesirable.

That's the entire point. You are overestimating the role of the mass media and underestimating the significance of culture. The mass media may say that "diversity is our strength" and "we are a nation of immigrants" but millions of white Americans are just not buying it. Americans are not as stupid as some people have made them out to be.

American Whiteness: Dominant Ethnicity Resurgent?

"He commutes to L.A., but he's got a house in the Valley . . . / He says "Honey . . . with the crime and the smog these days this ain't no place for children," / So he packs his bags, to try his hand, this might be his last chance / He's gone Country, back to his roots . . .
--Popular Country and Western Hit, "Gone Country," Alan Jackson, Witten by Robert Lee McDill, 1994

Dominant ethnicity has not disappeared in the United States though it has been relegated to a marginal position in American society. Furthermore, nondominant Anglo-Protestant ethnicity persists as an important demographic presence in the United States. Nearly 20 percent of the American population claims some British ancestry, close to half the population are white Protestants, and whites make up over two-thirds of the total. . . .

Examining recent migration trends in large metropolitan areas, demographer William Frey concludes that native born whites (as well as blacks) are tending to leave high-immigration metro areas. "When one ranks the greatest-gaining immigrant magnets and the greatest-gaining domestic migration magnets, there is only one city on both lists," remarks Frey. California and New York, the highest immigration states, attracted two million and one million immigrants, respectively, during the 1990s. However, the metro areas of thse states were the greatest domestic migration losers, with New York City and Los Angeles each losing an enormous 1.5 million domestic migrants in the eight years after 1990. Metropolitan areas in the Southeast and non-California "New" West were the biggest gainers, with fully 71 percent of the New West's growth originating in California and 65 percent of the Southeast's from New York and New Jersey (Frey and DeVol 2000: 19-21).

Some domestic migrants are mobile, lifestyle-oriented, and culturally liberal (Frey 2000: 2). But this is only part of the story. Take the "rural renaissance" of the 1990s, which reversed a long-term decline in rural population. This phenomenon was largerly powered by the "white flight" of lower-status whites with children from high-immigration metropolitan areas, where a majority of residents aged 18-35, as well as a majority of service and blue-collar employees, are now non-Hispanic whites (Frey 1996: 758-759; 1998: 230).

The nature of the flow of native-born whites out of high-immigration metros tends to support our basic contention that whites with higher status (i.e., education, wealth) are more cosmopolitan in their outlook than their lower-status counterparts. 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. This suggests that white, "Anglo" ethnic identity will become an increasingly rural and lower-status discourse, holding little sway over the main currents in American politics."

Kaufmann, pp.258-263

But nobody steps forward to represent their interests, because those interests have been defined as illegimate, inherently illegitimate, by the jews controlling the media.

This is inaccurate:

1.) It was the American Protestant elite that redefined America as a cosmopolitan nation.
2.) The Jews do not control the media.
3.) Nazism played a decisive role in discrediting American racialism.

From a previous post on the subject:

AY: Have you ever actually read MacDonald? I rather doubt it, yet you're quick to dismiss him because his analysis (which is based on direct quotes from Jewish sources) contradicts your pre-conceived notions. How does one "misrepresent" a source when one quotes the source verbatim (and not individual sentences ripped out of context, but entire pages of text).

I have read MacDonald. I got CoCC right here. But I have also read many of MacDonald's sources, so I know his readers are not getting the full story. From one of my previous posts:

FTB: No. I do not have any problem with MacDonald per se. That is why I set up the Jewish Studies forum, for we could have discussions about the Jews along academics lines, without the sort of Anglo-Kike Atlantic BritZog-USZog conspiracy theory bile that is regurgitated over at VNN. The problem that I have with Linder is that he A.) abuses MacDonald's work and B.) really isn't that well read on the subject. He doesn't know what he is talking about, in other words.

I have MacDonald's Culture of Critique right here on my desk. Now if anyone else has that book, flip to page 333. That is the first page of MacDonald's bibliography. Glance through that, if you will. MacDonald cites page after page of what are called over at VNN "court historians" or "establishment sources." Probably a majority of the works he cites come from Jewish authors. Yet I am ridiculed myself, constantly, for relying upon the same sources that MacDonald himself cites! But anyway, lets continue. Turn to page 340 of CoCC. Check out the following citation:

Degler, C. (1991). In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press

Alright. Lets continue. Now flip to page 343. You will find this citation on that page:

Goldberg, J.J. (1996). Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Moving along. Go to page 351. Notice the following citation?

Lichter, S.R., Rothman, S., & Lichter, L.S. (1986). The Media Elite. Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler

Okay. Look on page 360 now.

Shapiro, E.S. (1992). A Time for Healing: American Jewry since World War II. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

I have all of these sources right here. I have read all of them for myself. There are plenty of others that I have read over the past two years but I have since returned those to the library. Something tells me Linder hasn't done that. And that is because if he had actually done so, then he would know that what says over and over again is false.

Here is an interesting excerpt from J.J. Goldberg's book Jewish Power that is cited by MacDonald. This material is taken from Chapter 11 of that book, We Have Met the Enemy, and it Is Us: Jews and the Media. Alright. Now that I have gotten everyone's attention, let us proceed.

Thou shall not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people; neither shalt thou stand idly by the blood of thy neighbor: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke my neighbor; and not bear sin because of him
-- Leviticus 19:16-17

IN 1939, it is said, New York Times published Arthur Hays Sulzberger went to visit Franklin Roosevelt in the White House and urged him not to name Felix Frankfurter to the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Benjamin Cardozo. Putting yet another Jew on the court -- in addition to the already sitting Justice Louis Brandeis -- might fuel public anti-Semitism, Sulzberger told the President.

As the incident is retold, perhaps apocryphally, Roosevelt replied that it might also fuel anti-Semitism to have a Jew running the New York Times, and then he threw Sulzberger out of his office.

No single element of American Jewish power is more tangled in myth and mystery than the relationship between Jews and the media. Nowhere is the gulf wider between the way Jews see themselves and the way their neighbors see them.

Put more starkly, the gap in perception is this: non-Jews commonly see the mass media as a key stronghold of Jewish power, a major source of whatever influence Jews wield in American society. Jews, by contrast -- especially affiliated, activist Jews -- commonly describe the media as a major source of anti-Jewish bias.

The two views seem like polar opposites, either-or propositions, thesis and antithesis. They cannot both be true. And yet, to a degree, they are.

It is true that Jews are represented in the media business in numbers far out of proportion to their share of the population. Studies hae shown that while Jews make up little more than 5 percent of the working press nationwide -- hardly more than their share of the population -- they make up one fourth or more of the writers, editors, and producers in America's "elite media," including network news divisions, the top newsweeklies and the four leading daily papers (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal).

Goldberg, pp.279-280

Conclusion: In other words, Jews are disproportionately represented in the mass media, but its nothing on the scale that Linder and others have asserted. Even amongst the elite media, Jews are not numerically predominant.

This is an even more important excerpt from Degler's book. As the gallery can see, MacDonald cites Degler as his principal source in the decline of the concept of race within American Anthropology in CoCC. But those who have not read this book for themselves are missing out on an important part of the story -- the role the rise of Nazism played in the decline of American racialism. Now lets take a look at Degler's book:

"Changes in the ethnic makeup of the social science community and in the political and social atmosphere constitute a large part of the explanation for the shift in outlook on race, but not the full explanation. The onset of the Great Depression in the early 1930s surely influenced thinking about social causality as well. Samelson, for example, believes it pushed psychologists toward a more leftist political and social outlook, an ideology that had traditionally played down race and biology while emphasizing the social sources of human differences. Whatever may have brought the change about, a 1939 survey of psychologists clearly documented the shift. The author of the survey remarked that though at one time it had been held that tests "measured biological differences" among various groups, "practically no one now believes this." One historian has contended that the stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression made it difficult for ordinary citizens and social scientists alike to see a clear correlation between economic status and intelligence, since any person could, and many worthies did, go under in the debacle. In such circumstances it was not difficult to look to the social environment as the cause of poverty rather than to innate deficiencies within a group or individual. It became plausible to believe now, as it may not have been in more prosperous times, that the standard complainsts about the status of African-Americans were better explained by reference to the times and circumstances, rather than to the effects of race and biology.

Along with the Depression, too, came the fateful news from Germany that the Nazis were putting into practice in an increasingly horrible way eugenic ideas about race purity and population improvement. Some American eugenicists welcomed the early efforts of the Germans to sterilize and otherwise control people thought to be eugenically deficient. Paul Popenoe, for example, a popularizer of eugenics, defended the Nazi program to geneticist L.C.Dunn as late as January 1934, contending that the program was not racially motivated. The aim, he insisted, was to eliminate all "undesirable elements among the Aryans, whatever these are, than to hit any of the non-Aryan groups," he assured Dunn. That year, however, over 56,000 persons were sterilized in Germany for mental and other defects; by the middle of 1936, the total had reached 150,000. As late as 1936, after a lengthy visit to Germany, one scholar defended in a leading American sociological journal the German efforts to improve "the biological and racial qualities of the German people . . .These measures," she contended, "are not arbitrary experiments." From her own observation in Germany she was "convinced that the [sterilization] law is administered in entire fairness and with all considerations for the individual . . . and for his family."

Soon thereafter, however, even the last-ditch defenders of eugenics began to recognize the enormity of the Nazi program as it escalated into the murderous horror of the Holocaust. When asked after the war why he thought eugenics died so quickly in the United States, a wiser Paul Popenoe said that "the major factor . . . was undoubtedly Hitlerism." Geneticists and social scientists alike went public in opposition to the Nazi racial assaults; Franz Boas, not surprisingly, was in the vanguard of the movement to mobilize social scientists in opposition to the Nazis. One measure of Boas's activities and of the reaction of American social scientists to the Nazi racist theories and actions was the passage, by a unanimous vote, of a resolution denouncing racism at the 1938 meeting of the American Anthropological Association. The resolution recognized races as physical entities, but went on to say that "psychological and cultural" meanings, "if they exist, have not been ascertained by science." Anthropology, the resolution continued, provided no scientific grounds for discrimination against "any people on the ground of racial inferiority, religious affiliation, or linguistic heritage." As one leading psychologist observed in 1940, the "passing of such a resolution by a scientific body is unusual." It was an early but not the last indication of the impact Nazi practices had on American scholarly thinking about race and biology in human affairs. That impact can hardly be overestimated in explaining why during the 1930s and 1940s concepts and terms like "heredity," "biological influences," and "instinct" dropped below the horizon in social science."

Degler, pp.202-203

Conclusion: The rise of Nazism played a decisive role in the decline of American racialism.

OK.......We have a tabloid called The Aryan Alternative.

It seems that the problem many have with the title Aryan Alternative is that White people will be unable to relate to it.

The simple solution would be to “explain and define” the tabloid’s title, Aryan Alternative, in a paragraph or two on the front page.

I suggest a contest for our writers.

To see who can come-up with the most concise and definitive description of the terms “Aryan Alternative.” The reward would be that their work would always have a place of honor on the front page of The Aryan Alternative.

"American" is a social identity. Its our social identity. Its who we are. I for one am not willing to surrender it. Perhaps you would rather have the Jews speaking on behalf of the "Americans."

There is no "our" or "we". Nobody is behind you. White America has always been a hodgepodge of European ethnicities, who for the most part put aside their differences to live together. If you ask us to preserve the current American social idenity, we would have to refuse. In fact, if we could only prevent the death of our entire race as it is, with no actual improvement mentally or spiritually, let it die then.

This is crucial to your failure to comprehend what I meant in that quote about the average American not being worth the price of bullets for the most part. He was not inheritly born this way, to be sure(though William Gayley Simpson provided a wealth of information on American mental illness as a result of poor breeding habits). This is the LEVEL HE HAS BEEN REDUCED TO. Man as an economic unit, existing only to produce and consume and entertain himself in between, is utterly worthless. The sanctity of life is reduced to the same level as some poor bastard in sub-Saharan Africa. We want to ELEVATE ALL WHITES. Not simply Americans, British, or any few nationalities. In fact, people in poorer European nations are often more wealthy in intangible benefits; they are more idealistic and concerned with the problems around them than decadent Westerners. And for this reason we appeal to them first.

When Americans' negligence causes their standard of living to slide into the abyss, we will throw the offer on the table again. Till then, we do not care about "their" media-induced perception of history.

I see Mr. Cut & Paste himself has decided to grace our board once again.....

wonderful.

(insomnia? try reading some of Fake's posts - they'll put you to sleep faster than a conk on the noggin with a 3-lb. sledge).

That's the entire point. You are overestimating the role of the mass media and underestimating the significance of culture. The mass media may say that "diversity is our strength" and "we are a nation of immigrants" but millions of white Americans are just not buying it. Americans are not as stupid as some people have made them out to be.

The mass media produced the "civil rights" revolution that destroyed American freedom and is erasing Southern cultural heritage and blending white genes as fast as it can. White Americans may not be buying it as rapidly as the mass media would like, but as in the former Soviet Union, the point is they have no way to resist it. Those white people aren't moving out of California because they want to. It has nothing to do with stupidity, and everythign to do with Systemic control leveraged by tightly organized and extremely well funded jews. It's not merely that they're competing and winning, at this point it's that they're maintaining their position by crushing any opposition, right down to the level of terminology. You can publish a nice paper with articles written by former journalists and at least one PhD (I refer to our own budding effort) - doesn't matter, it's just "hate."

...
"American" was an okay cultural identity once but it's been hijacked by the enemies of our race. Time to admit it, I think.

It breaks my heart to admit this FranzJoseph... but you are right on target.
I am an American Christian Patriot. However, the America I am loyal to is an America where Whites are proud of their race and heritage... not this current abomination of Jew destruction. And the Christianity I practice includes the belief that the Jews are the “Children of Satan.”

There is a difference between white and Aryan. You can be white by birth but you have to be Aryan by your actions.

That is my position as well. As a group... we must differentiate ourselves from Whites who have become afraid to be White. All Aryans are White... but not all Whites are Aryans.
In any case... we need as many unifying characteristics for our group as possible.
I would say that choosing the name "Aryan" is an excellent start.

Calling ourselves Aryan is bold. It tells the Jews and their surrogates that we are not afraid to be White... and we are not afraid to promote White interests.

Good move Alex.

It breaks my heart to admit this FranzJoseph... but you are right on target.
I am an American Christian Patriot. However, the America I am loyal to is an America where Whites are proud of their race and heritage... not this current abomination of Jew destruction. And the Christianity I practice includes the belief that the Jews are the “Children of Satan.”

That's all well and good, but that form of Christianity you speak of really has no roots in European tradition. Unless you are a traditional Catholic SPX or Orthodox.