Posts Tagged ‘Jewish power’
To any minority group, a U.S. Senate seat is like gold, and, in addition, Specter was powerful and influential, having served on numerous Senate committees and subcommittees. Oy, veh…
We Whites are in an increasingly perilous situation. More and more of our lives are at risk as the White percentage of the population declines worldwide. As Kevin MacDonald recently wrote about Anti-White Violence in South Africa, “A constant theme on this website is that Whites living in societies run by non-Whites are in physical danger. From the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution to contemporary Africa, the lesson is the same: Loss of political power means murder and mayhem directed against Whites by minorities with deep historical grudges.”
Given the challenges we face, it would seem only prudent that we accept offers of help from others willing to carry water for our cause.
Except I would rather decline the “help” proffered by faux-conservative Jews.
For example, on paper radio show host and best-selling author Michael Savage (born Michael Alan Weiner) sounds good for our cause, as Wiki testifies:
Savage has summarized his political philosophy in three words: borders, language, and culture. Some, including Savage himself, have characterized his views as conservative nationalism, while critics have characterized them as “fostering extremism or hatred.” He outspokenly opposes illegal immigration to the United States, supports the English-only movement and argues that Liberalism and Progressivism are degrading American culture.
An early Savage book from nearly twenty years ago, The Death of the White Male: The Case Against Affirmative Action
Savage’s big publishing break, however, came in 2003 when his book The Savage Nation
Next came The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Churches, Schools, and Military
Since this all sounds pretty good, what’s my beef? Basically, my beef is that Savage seems to me to fit into the mold of the controlled opposition. By that, I mean that the largely Jewish elite in America attempts to appease and distract Whites from successfully pursuing their best interests by co-opting a genuine White movement.
Someone like Rush Limbaugh perfectly fits the bill. He’ll hit many of the crucial issues that Whites embrace, but he will never get close to the core of the problem: Jews fomenting these anti-White movements.
The result is that Jews are prominent only on the left, but also on the (faux) conservative Right. I’m not even going to talk about the neocons. I want to talk about the culture warriors who are Jewish and have elbowed aside more genuine White activists like Pat Buchanan and the late Sam Francis.
Sure, Savage mocks a few Jews, prompting at least one group to call him a self-hating Jew. But does his oeuvre do anything to help us get to the Jewish core of this “culture of critique” that Savage only superficially attacks?
Here he gives his views on “Who assaulted the White race? Who set out to destroy the White people?” He blames four individuals, three of whom are Jews and all of whom are linked to the 1960s counterculture: Alan Ginsberg, Bella Abzug, William Kunstler, and Timothy Leary. But he never identifies them as Jews, and that’s as far as his “analysis” goes — perhaps all one can expect from mainstream talk radio.
Another example of a Jewish faux-conservative is Bernard Goldberg. His book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News
This tactic has been necessary for the Jewish group evolutionary strategy, for it fends off the normal outrage of a dispossessed and mocked host culture. As Kevin MacDonald noted in the TOO Blog on the issue of Jewish loyalty to Israel, “This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas.”
The Jewish culture of deceit indeed.
One of the more sophisticated examples of Jewish faux-conservatism comes in the person of former radical David Horowitz, whose conversion book DESTRUCTIVE GENERATION: Second Thoughts About the ’60s
Be that as it may, it really does nothing to absolve his work from the charge of subterfuge — in this case on behalf of Israel and the wider war on Islam. His book Indoctrination U.: The Left’s War Against Academic Freedom
I’ve been studying these Jewish faux-conservatives for some time now and am impressed with the way the mainstream media accepts them as authoritative, all the while going through the motions of labeling them as dangerous because of their “extreme” conservative views. In fact, however, they are all part of the game — members of the inner circle. And they can get away with far more than their Gentile counterparts.
Now comes a conundrum, wrapped in an enigma, slathered with lox and cream cheese (and maybe followed by a whiskey chaser): the case of one Andrew Breitbart, Internet phenomenon, and socially constructed Jew.
Last month, TIME magazine ran a long story on him, “Citizen Breitbart: The Web’s New Right-Wing Impresario.” Before knowing anything about the man, I thought the first part of the story sounded good, as he was attacking our rotten, anti-White liberal system:
“Their entire structure is writhing in diseased agony on the side of the road, and they don’t even realize it,” Breitbart says. But the left isn’t the only object of disdain. “I’m sick of this effete GOP nothing sandwich,” he adds, growing more animated. “As long as everyone is so pristine and socially registered, we’re going to lose.” . . .
Breitbart perceives himself as a new-media David out to slay old-media Goliaths. As he sees it, the left exercises its power not via mastery of the issues but through control of the entertainment industry, print and television journalism and government agencies that set social policy. “Politics,” he often says, “is downstream from culture. I want to change the cultural narrative.” . . .
Great, he’s on to Jewish cultural hegemony. I then wondered how far he would go.
Before I got an answer to that, I ran into this shocker:
Breitbart was raised in Brentwood, on Los Angeles’ privileged west side. The area is home to studio executives and producers, and the politics are Democratic. Breitbart was never fully comfortable in L.A.’s ’80s social milieu. His parents are Midwestern Jews. (His father ran a Santa Monica steak house.) They saw life differently than the other kids’ sophisticated dads and moms did. “My folks are from an older and very silent generation,” Breitbart says. “My dad is as conservative as William F. Buckley was, but without the same presentation.
Oh, so Breitbart gets a seat at the conservative table because his parents are from the Midwest?
The problem is, my J-Dar was not set off by the photo TIME magazine ran with the story:
Here’s another shot of him:
To my mind, that is not a Jewish face. In fact, it reminds me of some of the stock Irish actors Hollywood uses to denote an Irish face, such as that of Colm Meaney, who played Miles O’Brien on Star Trek: The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine.
Or John C. Reilly, who appeared in The Perfect Storm, among other films:
It seems my J-Dar was right; Breitbart is not really Jewish . . . sort of. TIME may have opted to go with a self-description, but Slate gives us more nuance. In “Big Breitbart: Andrew Breitbart is messing with you,” we learn that “He’s Irish-American by blood. His sister is Hispanic. Their father is Jewish. Their mother was born Midwestern Protestant.”
Well if this doesn’t open up a box of postmodern multicultural worms, I don’t know what does.
In one sense, Breitbart is treated like TIME tells us—as a powerful new Jewish media mogul. In other words, just more of the same old tired controlled “opposition.” Like James Howard Kunstler, he’ll talk a good game about the problems. (Kunstler is no conservative, but he attacks our parasitical bankers, etc.) But nowhere will he connect those problems to the Jews who cause them.
(Frankly, I’ve had the same feeling about Laurence Auster as well. In fact, just recently fellow-Jew Paul Gottfried accused him of the standard neocon crime of hating Muslims. Auster defends himself here.)
Getting back to Andrew Breitbart, his story has all the trappings of staged opposition. Plus he’s media savvy and full of self-confidence as well, two traits some have said Jews possess in generous amounts.
The TIME writer gushes that Breitbart “has become the Web’s most combative conservative impresario — part new-media mogul, part Barnumesque scamp. Last fall, he launched Big Government, the flagship of his wickedly right-of-center sites, which also include Big Hollywood, Big Journalism — which described the House’s March 21 passage of the health care reform bill as a ’socialist putsch’ — and the news aggregators Breitbart.com and Breitbart.tv.”
Then at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville in February
Breitbart introduced the star speaker, Sarah Palin, and delivered a rousing jeremiad of his own. Assailing national reporters for portraying the movement as “racist and homophobic,” he used the dais at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel to speak his version of truth to mainstream media power: “It’s not your business model that sucks. It’s you that sucks.”
So our “new-media David” intends to slay “old-media Goliaths”? Since we all know that media is heavily controlled by Jewish interests, Breitbart is going to compromise their interests, right?
I don’t think so. This is all part of Breitbart’s “Barnumesque scamp” routine, but it won’t fool media Jews. It has, apparently, fooled the goyim, just as the hyping of Sarah Palin is fooling them. James Edwards of The Political Cesspool has consistently exposed Palin for the controlled opposition dupe that she is. And to the extent we buy this hoax, we are “neoconned again.”
Still, as a White advocate, I’m a firm believer in the power and reality of race; it is not merely a social construct. If Breitbart was born White, then he’s White. There must be some remnants of that in him, no matter what his upbringing.
Indeed there are. For starters, instead of going to a top-tier university like his Jewish classmates, he went to Tulane University in New Orleans. And he drank heavily. “The social life at Tulane was splendid. ‘I was a drunk,’ says Breitbart, who estimates he spent five nights a week at New Orleans bars with fellow Delta Tau Delta fraternity members.”
And unlike many Jews, he actually liked Southerners, finding them “warm and smart and less neurotic than Californians.” And what to make of his statement “You’ve gone to Hebrew school, you’ve gone to Auschwitz, you go, Never again, Never again. Then you go to Tulane and you go, Maybe never again”?
While we can count on other Jewish faux-conservatives to faithfully cloak the identity and behavior of their fellow Tribe members, Breitbart may turn out to be a wild card — if he isn’t corrupted by the financial rewards of being a media star. And maybe this time the wild card will play in our favor.
The Occidental Observer, April 18, 2010
The Rise of Neo-Conservatism
So many negative consequences arose from the Civil Rights Movement that the Democratic Party won few subsequent elections. Its reputation as the anti-white party that idealized black criminals and sought America’s destruction was only briefly overcome when it nominated southerners like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.[81] America’s Jewish Establishment, now thoroughly coordinated by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, recognized, however, that the country’s complete destruction would prevent its defense of Israel.
To conserve America as a viable host, neo-conservatism was created in the pages of Commentary, an official publication of the American Jewish Committee, whose editor Norman Podhoretz mixed predictable Frankfurt School ideology with laissez-faire economics, bellicose advocacy of Israel, and devaluation of nature through anti-environmentalism, his other innovation.[82]
The nascent neo-conservative movement’s first significant candidate was Ronald Reagan, who had been front man for the successful efforts of Hollywood’s two most powerful Jews, super mogul Lew Wasserman and super mobster Sidney Korshak, to control organized labor in the film industry.[83] Reagan soon became the perfect American president for the Jewish Establishment, since he opened the borders, increasing Mexican immigration by 54 percent,[84] broke labor unions, and freed corporations from government oversight and regulation. Consequently income inequality began to rise for the first time since the New Deal, eventually reaching levels unseen since the Gilded Age, creating a new era of excess that lacked the previous one’s mitigating good taste.[85]
A defining feature of Reagan’s new economy was the replacement of manufacturing with financialization.[86] Instead of a broad-based industrial economy benefiting the many Americans who once made things the world needed, a far narrower group was now enriched by financial control of the world’s economy through multinational corporations and other vehicles that, though often based in the United States, had little affinity with or allegiance to its people.
Since financialization involves symbol manipulation, at which Jews excel, they were its disproportionate beneficiaries. Names like like Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, Andrew Fastow, and Jack Abramoff became notorious despite less attention to their ethnicity than the Jewish Establishment expected.[87] These Luftmenschen, those who create money out of air—the stuff that inflates bubbles, before they pop—are a phenomenon with a long history in the Jewish community.[88]
Their exploits paled before what was to come, however. In 2008 the financialized American economy was exposed to all as a gigantic Ponzi scheme that sucked money out of the world economy by selling subprime mortgage-based securities until their worthlessness was exposed.
Like all such pyramid schemes, more and more bodies were needed to postpone inevitable collapse. The marginally employed blacks and Hispanics of America’s crime-ridden ghettoes provided them, and the American Dream Downpayment Act and similar measures facilitated their movement into new homes. Suburban sprawl continued destroying the biologically rich landscapes of Florida, Arizona, and California until it could no longer be sustained. By 2006 it became evident that something had gone terribly wrong. Stores surrounded by expensive new homes needed security guards to prevent constant vandalism, a ghetto-bred habit of newly-minted suburbanites. Now those homes are empty, vandalized, and foreclosed.
None of this was seen or anticipated by investors around the world who once trusted securities backed by American mortgages. As a consequence the world economy faces its worst crisis since the great depression.[89] Before the full dimensions of the crisis were apparent, Alan Greenspan, America’s Federal Reserve chairman from 1987 to 2006, published a memoir celebrating both his Jewish roots and his responsibility for policies that caused the crisis. In Greenspan’s words:
The gains were especially significant among Hispanics and blacks, as increasing affluence as well as government encouragement of subprime mortgage programs enabled many members of minority groups to become first-time home buyers. The expansion of home ownership gave more people a stake in the future of our country and boded well for the cohesion of the nation, I thought. . . . I was aware that the loosening of mortgage credit terms for subprime borrowers increased financial risk, and that subsidized home ownership initiatives distort market outcomes. But I believed then, as now, that the benefits of broadened home ownership are worth the risk. Protection of property rights, so critical to a market economy, requires a critical mass of owners to sustain political support.[90]
Greenspan undoubtedly didn’t intend to create the financial black hole now sucking the world economy dry, but he was the primary architect of the hyper-financialization that made it possible.[91] His willful blindness to the impact of race on economics shows he learned no lessons from bad loans to African and other Third World countries that weakened America’s banks and left them vulnerable to the financial crisis of 1990, which contributed to George H. W. Bush’s defeat in 1992.[92] Bush’s son, who learned nothing either, went on to preside over a far worse economic meltdown.[93]
The Scots-Irish are finally united behind the Republican Party as they haven’t been with any party since before the Civil War, but it has done them no good. They’ve become increasingly impoverished relative to other groups under the Republicans,[94] and even when southern Democrats like Bill Clinton won elections, the financialized economic policy begun by Reagan and fully implemented by Greenspan changed little.[95] Their chief function now is cannon fodder in wars for Israel, which George W. Bush, a servile supporter of the Jewish Establishment despite his studied Scots-Irish manner, fully implemented in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. John Hagee and other Christian Zionists even pervert their traditional Protestantism into literal worship of Jews resembling cargo cults of primitive people that sacralize their rulers’ culture and anticipate the world’s end.[96]
The Jewish Establishment’s total control of both major American parties by 2008 was evident in their servile fidelity to its core values of unlimited non-white immigration and wars for Israel. The establishment’s wide geographic dispersal, affluence, and tight focus on collective interests enabled it to dominate campaign finance throughout the country.[97] Consequently the 2008 presidential campaign was a caricature of both parties’ worst features symbolized by the dance between them by Senator Joseph Lieberman, who represents the establishment far more reliably than Connecticut. Lieberman, the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate in 2000, campaigned for the Republicans in 2008 but was welcomed back by the Democrats following the election.
The ethnicity of the John McCain-Sarah Palin Republican ticket appealed to America’s Scots-Irish and southern English, but their campaign’s focus on fighting for Israel became so comically slavish it was eventually lampooned on television’s Saturday Night Live. In contrast, much of the initial appeal of Barack Obama to many Democrats, despite the slimmest of resumes, was a family background almost caricaturing rootless cosmopolitanism: Obama’s mother, a Kansas girl, sought out first a Kenyan and then an Indonesian to father her children.[98] Obama eventually sought roots his mother failed to provide in Chicago’s black community and proved to be a smart campaigner. He defeated John McCain, who was only able to carry Scots-Irish, southern white, and some German-American regions. Obama won everywhere else. The future course of his presidency is still unknown, but a hint came when his first significant appointment, that of his chief of staff, was the powerful Israeli-American congressman Rahm Emanuel.[99]
The End of Jewish Hegemony
It is evident that the Jewish hegemony has two pillars. One is the destruction of the ethnic consciousness and demographic viability of America’s white majority. The other is unconditional support for extreme ethnonationalism among the Jewish majority in Israel, a Herrenvolk democracy attaching no value to the rights and lives of Palestinians under its control.[100] In simple terms, it is for minorities and against the majority where it’s a permanent minority, and the reverse where it can be a majority. This seeming paradox is no contradiction for the current establishment. It is simply the current version of their traditional litmus test: is it good for the Jews?[101] In this case, however, what is good for the Jews threatens the welfare and very existence of America’s people in general and its white majority in particular.
Rule of large nations by small ethnic groups is unsustainable and must eventually end, but that can take a long time. Manchus ruled China for 250 years until they were essentially absorbed and nearly extinct by the time they were overthrown in the nationalist revolution of 1911.[102] The vast demographic strength of the Chinese permitted them to readily outlast the Manchus, but white America, a valuable and distinctive part of earth’s human biodiversity, lacks that advantage.[103] Its population share of the nation it founded has fallen from 83 percent to 69 percent in just 20 years, a spiral of demographic disaster that continues to accelerate.[104] Such reduction of an ethnic group’s population resulting from overt acts by a hegemonic group constitutes genocide and must be stopped by any means necessary.
White survival requires a movement of national liberation that must begin now. It can come by force of arms, like Hezbollah’s liberation of Lebanon from the Israelis, or peacefully, like Gandhi’s defeat of the British Raj,[105] but it must come. Demonization of those fighting oppression indicates their effectiveness and is cause for honor rather than reproach.[106] Victory in this struggle may seem impossible now, but surprise is history’s nature. Help may even come from surprising places. Both Jewish[107] and gentile[108] authors discuss the phenomenon of Jewish revolutionary spirit, which helped create Establishment hegemony. It threatens established orders, but recent works by Jewish authors like Finkelstein[109] and Shamir[110] suggest that may include the present one.
Most importantly, white America must gain a sense of collective identity to survive. Otherwise it is just an unorganized mob of individuals vulnerable to any group like the current Establishment that has such an identity. American whites once had such identity in embryonic form, but that was weakened by regional divisions and finally destroyed by Frankfurt School propaganda in the 1960s. Even that identity was a folk development never supported by Anglo-American academic political philosophy, which was dominated by the Anglo-French Enlightenment and consequently universalist rather than particularist.[111]
Universalism permitted just two alternatives: world humanity consisting of either isolated individuals or a collective mass. So-called conservatives of the right favored the former and so-called liberals of the left favored the latter, but neither left room for ethnic identity. Alternatives celebrating particularity did develop in Europe to the east of France in reaction to Napoleon’s attempt to spread the Enlightenment by force, but their particularity focused on relatively recent epiphenomena of language and religion tending to divide Europeans rather than the biological fundamentals uniting them.[112] That philosophical turn, proscribed after 1945 for being on the losing side of the Second World War, is now reemerging in Europe as an antidote to the malaise of globalism.[113]
Some see this as a model for America, but there are problems despite much of value. The European new right tends to be hierarchical, anti-modern, anti-rationalist, and non-biological at a time when these would be fatal to white Americans. An acceptance of hierarchy[114] is the last message needed by white Americans crushed beneath a hostile hegemony’s iron heel, especially since proto-neo-conservative Leo Strauss used similar arguments to justify hegemony.[115] The new right’s anti-modern, anti-rationalist, and non-biological tendencies are equally problematic, since they reject not only modernity’s universalism but also the ultimate achievement of white European culture, modern science.
C. P. Snow identified these two sides of modernity in his Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution,[116] but for too long the universalistic one has dominated academia and public affairs.[117] That began to change when E. O. Wilson’s Sociobiology demonstrated clearly that humans are not exempt from the great advances being made in evolutionary biology and ecology.[118] In this model there are no longer biological universals, and therefore no human ones as well. Everything is particular, from the earth’s infinitely variable environments to its equally diverse biological groups, including human groups. In such groups individuals are important, but their well-being ultimately depends on that of their group and the barriers protecting its integrity.[119] Wilson subsequently called for respecting the full measure of earth’s biodiversity as God’s Creation, a model embracing rather than excluding religion.[120]
* * *
Architectural critic Charles Jencks dates the end of the modern age to 3:32 PM on July 15, 1972, when the Pruitt-Igoe housing project in St. Louis was deliberately dynamited because its black tenants had rendered it uninhabitable after just 17 years.[121] Its architectural award-winning high rises surrounded by gardens were similar to designs that helped Europeans reduce their human footprint, but they didn’t work for another race. Modernity is ultimately European culture, which other races often rightly reject and resist. Its zenith was 1969, when Neal Armstrong walked on the moon. White Americans still believed then that modernity could embrace and improve the lives of all human populations.[122] So 1972 is as good a date as any for when they lost that hope. Political philosophy fails to explain the subsequent postmodern age’s pervasive confusion. Only renewed appreciation of our planet’s great biodiversity, including human biodiversity, can do that. To paraphrase Patrick Henry: “If this be racism, make the most of it.”
Part 4 of 4
____________________________________________________________________
[81] Thomas Edsall and Mary Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics (New York: Norton, 1991); Matthew Lassiter, The Silent Majority: Suburban Politics in the Sunbelt South (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
[82] Gary Dorrien, The Neo-Conservative Mind: Politics, Culture, and the War of Ideology (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993).
[83] Connie Bruck, When Hollywood had a King: The Reign of Lew Wasserman, who Leveraged Talent into Power and Influence (New York: Random House, 2003); Gus Russo, Supermob: How Sidney Korshak and His Criminal Associates Became America’s Hidden Power Brokers (New York: Bloomsbury, 2006)
[84] World Almanac, The World Almanac and Book of Facts (Mahwah, N.J.: World Almanac Books, 2001).
[85] Philips, Wealth and Democracy; Reich, Supercapitalism.
[86] Phillips American Theocracy.
[87] Sachar, A History of the Jews in America; Frank Partnoy, Infectious Greed: How Deceit and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets (New York: Times Books, 2003); Lou Dubose and Jan Reid, The Hammer: Tom Delay; God, Money, and the Rise of the Republican Congress (New York: Public Affairs, 2004).
[88] Nathan Ausubel, Pictorial History of the Jewish People: From Bible Times to Our Own Day throughout the World (New York: Crown, 1953).
[89] Kevin Philips, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism (New York: Viking, 2008); Mark Zandi, Financial Shock: A 360 degree Look at the Subprime Mortgage Implosion and How to Avoid the Next Financial Crisis (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: F. T. Press, 2009).
[90] Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (New York: Penguin, 2007).
[91] Phillips American Theocracy.
[92] Steven Beckner, Back from the Brink: The Greenspan Years (New York: Wiley, 1996); Roy Smith, Comeback: The Restoration of American Banking Power in the New World Economy (Cambridge: Harvard Business School, 1993); Phillip Zweig, Wriston: Walter Wriston, Citibank, and the Rise and Fall of American Financial Supremacy (New York: Crown, 1995).
[93] Zandi, Financial Shock.
[94] Thomas Frank, What’s the Matter with Kansas: How Conservatives won the Heart of America (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004).
[95] Philips, Wealth and Democracy; American Theocracy.
[96] Phillips American Theocracy; Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby; Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal; Jonathan Smith and William Green, eds., The Harper Collins Dictionary of Religion (New York: Harper Collins, 1995).
[97] Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby.
[98] Franklin Foer, Election 2008: A Voter’s Guide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); Shelby Steele, A Bound Man: Why We are Excited about Barack Obama and Why He Can’t Win (New York: The Free Press, 2008).
[99] Michael Barone and Richard Cohen, The Almanac of American Politics: 2008 (Washington, D.C.: National Journal, 2007).
[100] Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).
[101] Elliot Rosenberg, But Were They Good for the Jews: Over 150 Historical Figures Viewed from a Jewish Perspective (Secaucus, N.J.: Birch Lane Press, 1997).
[102] Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: Norton, 1990).
[103] George McDaniel, ed., A Race against Time (Oakton, Va.: New Century Books, 2003).
[104] Barone and Cohen, The Almanac of American Politics: 2008; World Almanac 2001.
[105] Shamir, Masters of Discourse (Tel Aviv: Surge Books 2008).
[106] Douglas Rose, ed., The Emergence of David Duke and the Politics of Race (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992).
[107] Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter, Jews, Christians, and the New Left (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).
[108] E. Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (South Bend, Ind.: Fidelity Press, 2008).
[109] Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).
[110] Shamir, Masters of Discourse.
[111] Frederickson, Racism.
[112] George Mosse, The Culture of Western Europe (New York: Rand McNally, 1961); Oppenheimer, The Real Eve.
[113] Michael O’Meara, New Culture, New Right: Anti-liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1st Books, 2004).
[114] Tomislav Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right (Newport Beach, Cal.: The Noontide Press, 2004).
[115] Ted McAllister, Revolt Against Modernity: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and the Search for a Postliberal Order (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1996).
[116] C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1962).
[117] Gross and Levitt, Higher Superstition.
[118] Edward O. Wilson, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1975).
[119] Rhymer and Simberloff, “Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression.”
[120] Edward O. Wilson, The Future of Life (New York: Knopf, 2002) and The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth (New York: Norton, 2006).
[121] David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).
[122] Fred Siegel, The Future Once Happened Here: New York, D.C., L.A., and the Fate of America’s Big Cities (New York: The Free Press, 1997).
The Rise of Jewish Hegemony
Political and economic power in the Eisenhower years was still tightly held by a Greater New England establishment narrowly located in two places: (1) an axis from Fairfield County, Connecticut to Manhattan and (2) in and around Washington, D.C. But it soon began to be challenged by an increasingly powerful Jewish establishment, which lobbied against programs targeting the long involvement of its kin with communism and other subversive movements.[44]
Jewish influence on American thought had been significant since a virtual Jewish monopoly on motion pictures was established at the start of the twentieth century,[45] but it increased dramatically in the 1950s when television entered most homes and sharply reduced community discourse.[46] Jews were also influential in book publishing and dominant in many other areas that shaped culture from art criticism[47] to Broadway[48] and comics.[49] Most significantly, and facilitating the rest, they controlled the New York Times and the Washington Post, the most influential newspapers in America’s two power centers.[50] Media dominance also facilitated successful efforts of well-connected Jews in the scientific community like Franz Boas, Ashley Montagu (born Israel Ehrenberg), Richard Lewontin, and Stephen J. Gould to suppress research on human biodiversity.[51]
Since Israel’s 1948 founding, its interests have been the number one cause of America’s organized Jewish community. In 1956 the United States opposed and forced the withdrawal of an Israeli invasion into Egypt. In 1967 it fully supported Israel’s similar invasion and subsequent occupation of Egypt’s Sinai region despite a simultaneous Israeli attack on the United States Navy ship Liberty that killed 34 of its crew. Since then, the United States has given undeviating bipartisan support to Israel, despite increasingly outrageous actions that have provoked nearly unanimous condemnation by world opinion. When presidents like Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and George H. W. Bush, a Republican, made just tentative steps toward foreign policy evenhandedness, they suffered firestorms of media abuse and were limited to single terms.[52] More recently, Israel has even used the United States as a surrogate to attack and destroy Iraq, which was hostile to Israel but never a threat to America.[53]
Another measure of hegemony is economic power. By 1979 Jewish per capita income in the United States was 66 percent greater than that of the nation’s founding British-descended ethnic groups, which had even fallen 26 percent behind descendents of Japanese imported as Gilded Age cheap labor.[54] It is a cliché in academia and the media that America is run by “privileged white males,” disparagingly called WASPS (white Anglo-Saxon Protestants), but this doesn’t withstand scrutiny. In Los Angeles, for example, so-called WASPs are 16 percent behind Jews in median household income.[55] Mike Davis describes Los Angeles’s shift from WASP to Jewish hegemony in detail.[56]
The rise of Jewish hegemony is not like previous shifts of ethnic hegemony in America. Unlike past hegemonic groups, Jews are non-British and claim roots outside Europe despite long residence and significant ancestral origins there. They are also a much smaller group. British groups collectively constitute from 25 to 45 percent of America’s population, depending on the method of enumerating a now highly mixed population. Jews, in contrast, are just 2 percent. Jews are also widely dispersed across the country, unlike previous hegemonic ethnic groups, which were the largest population in regions encompassing multiple states. Jews are a majority in only certain neighborhoods of some metro areas, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, and Los Angeles.[57]
Jews and the New Left
Much of the Jewish hegemony’s power came from dominating America’s left, but the normal function of the left everywhere else is equalizing incomes and power between social classes, which would have been highly disadvantageous to Jews once they became America’s richest and most powerful ethnic group. The experience of National Socialism in Germany taught Jews to regard white working people not as a natural constituency to be organized, but as another “peasantry” capable of erupting into pogroms. The experience of Stalinism in the USSR showed Jews that orthodox Marxism was a golem that could escape their control. The solution was to create a New Left that would more reliably secure Jewish power and Jewish interests. The consequence is the seeming paradox of an America that has become ever more oligarchic as it moves further to the left.
The beginning of this shift can be traced to 1943, when the American Jewish Committee hired the Frankfurt School, a group of refugee German Jewish Marxists, as consultants on making America safe for Jews. Germany had long been a relatively safe place for its small but highly prosperous, influential, and assimilated Jewish community. But when National Socialism turned Germans violently against Jews, the Frankfurt School concluded that Jews could be safe only if traditional European culture and values were destroyed everywhere, including the United States. The Frankfurt School saw ethnic homogeneity as a danger to Jews, because they are more apparent as outsiders in homogeneous societies. Conversely, they saw ethnic diversity as good for Jews, because they are less conspicuous in such societies.
Unlike traditional Marxism, the Frankfurt School’s constituency was no longer the proletariat, but the “marginalized,” the “outsiders.” Classical Marxism’s images of heroic white proletarians were replaced by the image of Archie Bunker, “America’s favorite bigot,” who every Sunday delivered moronic tirades against the New Left’s constituencies: Jews and their symbolic and political proxies, namely, non-whites, homosexuals, feminists, and the abnormal and subnormal of all descriptions.
Unlike traditional Marxism, the Frankfurt School did not pursue social equality, but social inclusion, access, and upward mobility for Jews and their proxies. The civil rights movement worked to smash white working class communities and public education. Affirmative action effectively excluded numerous whites from the full range of social institutions their ancestors had created. Feminism and gay rights struck at the heart of cultural and biological relations between men and women, devalued children, and promoted narcissistic consumerism that made the rich richer.
Eventually America’s Central Intelligence Agency and Ford Foundation spread Frankfurt School ideology to its many satellite countries so the entire world would become safe for multi-national consumer capitalism.[58] In short, the New Left provided a remarkably functional ideology for entrenching Jews at the pinnacles of wealth and power and crowding out whites resisting Jewish hegemony or deviating from the Jewish agenda.[59]
Perhaps the New Left’s greatest success was its conversion of America’s greatest demographic cohort into its most effective subverters, namely the baby boomers born between 1946 and 1953 who came of age in the 1960s, the decade the Jewish Establishment’s hegemony was established.[60]
The Rising Tide of Color
The Civil Rights Movement opened doors for some African-Americans, especially those with some European ancestry. Ultimately, however, it probably shut far more. Its initial message of equal opportunity quickly shifted to equal results. Consequently affirmative action programs started in Richard Nixon’s administration forced manufacturers to hire thousands of poorly qualified blacks, [61] which quickly made the United States much less competitive just as international economic competition rose sharply. Its factories continued to pay unionized high wages comparable to those of Europe while making African-quality products even Americans wouldn’t buy.
Productivity growth, a respectable 2.7 percent during the 1960–1967 period before affirmative action, fell to –0.1 percent during the 1973–1979 period after it, a level far below that of other industrial nations and a condition from which America has never fully recovered.[62] A result was deindustrialization and mass factory closures that resulted in manufacturing job losses for blacks 112 percent higher than for other ethnic groups.[63] Cities with large black populations like Detroit were hit hardest and turned into urban wastelands aptly named the Rust Belt.[64] Meanwhile Japanese companies, more insightful about human capital, located their new American auto plants in predominantly Scots-Irish rural areas and had few of the quality control problems endemic to Detroit.[65]
Since Mexicans were also favored by affirmative action, America became an enormous magnet for their legal and illegal immigration, which was encouraged by the 1965 Hart-Celler immigration bill.[66] It ended restrictions on immigration enacted by Progressives in the 1920s and opened the United States to massive Third World immigration.[67] Mexicans worked more productively and for lower wages than blacks, consequently driving them out of most non-governmental jobs. Since opportunities for government jobs were limited, independent black economic institutions had withered after desegregation and affirmative action, and other jobs had increasingly dried up, more blacks than ever before were left, in the words of the emblematic Otis Redding song, “sittin’ on the dock of the bay wastin’ time.”[68] In the process, America quickly gained a second non-white population even larger than that of blacks,[69] a change welcomed by the Jewish Establishment, which contributed significantly to passing the Hart-Celler bill and viewed eliminating America’s white majority as a requirement for its survival.[70]
In the same period, blacks were forced into predominantly white public schools in a busing program that sought to help blacks through exposure to white culture.[71] That was the theory, at least. In practice, cultural influence went mostly the other way.[72] Before long, American public schools, once among the best in the world, were among the worst.[73] Destruction of America’s rural landscapes by urban sprawl has many causes, but one of the most significant and least acknowledged is a desperate search for communities and schools distant from urban centers with large black populations.[74]
In the early 1970s the idea of “multiculturalism” was popularized in Canada as a term for equity between Anglophone and Francophone populations, but in American schools by the 1990s it had come to mean establishment of Frankfurt School ideology as a quasi-religion from kindergarten to college.[75] It claims to promote diversity even while idealizing cultural and biological hybridization, which destroy diversity.[76]
American multicultural education is obsessed with obliterating learning gaps between races, which are among the world’s most stable phenomena since they vary little across vastly different physical, cultural, and economic environments.[77] In every racial hierarchy, so-called yellow Northeast Asians are invariably at the top, white Europeans are slightly lower, followed by a variety of brown groups, with black Africans and Australoids at the bottom.[78] These results from standardized achievement tests are reasonably good measures of future economic success, even though they fail to measure such factors as creativity and imagination. A biological cause for any other phenomenon exhibiting such inter-environmental stability would be immediately acknowledged.[79] American multicultural ideology, however, blames it on “privileged racist whites.”[80]
Part 3 of 4
____________________________________________________________
[44] Stewart Svonkin, Jews against Prejudice: American Jews and the Fight for Civil Liberties (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).
[45] Neal Gabler, An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Crown, 1988).
[46] George Kennan, Around the Cragged Hill: A Personal and Political Philosophy (New York: Norton, 1993).
[47] Florence Rubenfeld, Clement Greenberg: A Life (New York: Scribner, 1997).
[48] Michael Kantor and Laurence Maslon, Broadway: The American Musical (New York: Bulfinch, 2004).
[49] Gerard Jones, Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book (New York: Basic Books, 2004).
[50] Sachar, A History of the Jews in America.
[51] Degler 1991; Carleton Putnam, Race and Reality: A Search for Solutions (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1967); Tucker 1994
[52] Stephen Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel (Norfolk, Va.: Enigma Editions, 2008).
[53] John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2007).
[54] Reynolds Farley, “The Common Destiny of Blacks and Whites: Observations about the Social and Economic Status of the Races,” in Herbert Hill and James Jones, Jr., eds., Race in America: The Struggle for Equality (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993).
[55] James Allen and Eugene Turner, The Ethnic Quilt: Population Diversity in Southern California (Northridge, Cal.: The Center for Geographical Studies, 1997).
[56] Mike Davis, City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles (New York: Verso, 1990).
[57] J. Allen and E. Turner, We the People: An Atlas of America’s Ethnic Diversity (New York: Macmillan, 1988); S. Lieberson and M. Waters, From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1988).
[58] Volker Berghahn, America and the Intellectual Cold Wars in Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001); Peter Coleman, The Liberal Conspiracy: The Congress for Cultural Freedom and the Struggle for the Mind of Postwar Europe (New York: Free Press, 1989); Paul Gottfried, The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium (Colombia: University of Missouri Press, 2005); Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007).
[59] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1998).
[60] Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage (New York: Bantam Books, 1987).
[61] Hugh Graham, The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).
[62] W. Baumol, S. Blackman, and E. Wolff, Productivity and American Leadership: The Long View (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1989); William Wolman and Anne Colamosca, The Judas Economy: The Triumph of Capital and the Betrayal of Work (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1997).
[63] Norman Glickman and Douglas Woodward, The New Competitors: How Foreign Investors are Changing the US Economy (New York: Basic Books, 1989).
[64] Neal Peirce and Jerry Hagstrom, The Book of America: Inside Fifty States Today (New York: Norton, 1983).
[65] David Gelsanliter, Jump Start: Japan Comes to the Heartland (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990).
[66] David Reimers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985); Sachar, A History of the Jews in America.
[67] Reimers, Still the Golden Door and David Reimers, Unwelcome Strangers: American Identity and the Turn against Immigration (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).
[68] Myron Magnet, The Dream and the Nightmare: The Sixties Legacy to the Underclass (New York: Morrow, 1993).
[69] Allen and Turner, The Ethnic Quilt; Graham, The Civil Rights Era; Lynn and Vanhannen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality; Reimers, Unwelcome Strangers.
[70] Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster (New York: Random House, 1995); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.
[71] Richard Kluger, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education, the Epochal Supreme Court Decision that Outlawed Segregation, and of Black America’s Century Long Struggle for Equality under the Law (New York: Vintage, 1975).
[72] Nelson George, Hip Hop America (New York: Viking, 1998).
[73] Myron Lieberman, Public Education: An Autopsy (Cambridge: Harvard, 1993); Magnet, The Dream and the Nightmare; Harold Stevenson and James Stigler, The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education (New York: Touchstone, 1992); Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997).
[74] Kevin Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism (Princeton: Princeton, 2005).
[75] James Banks and C. Banks, eds., Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education (New York: Macmillan, 1995); Nathan Glazer, We are all Multiculturalists Now (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997); Philip Gleason, Speaking of Diversity: Language and Ethnicity in Twentieth-Century America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992); Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique.
[76] Judith Rhymer and Daniel Simberloff, “Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 27 (1996): 83–109.
[77] Lynn and Vanhanen, IQ and Global Inequality; Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior.
[78] Rushton, Race, Evolution, and Behavior; Lynn and Vanhannen, IQ and Global Inequality.
[79] Paul Gross and Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994).
[80] Banks and Banks, Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education; Gary Orfield and Susan Eaton, Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education (New York: The Free Press, 1996).
Judaism — A Transhumanistic Religion of Power
How Judaism is like getting jumped into a gang:
The ritual of getting jumped into a gang goes like this: the group beats the crap out of you, then if they decide you took it well, then they are all your “gang brothers” or whatever. They’re your best friends, and I would imagine a new gang member is “showered” with congratulations.
A Jewish baby boy also goes through the ritual of Punishment/Pain at birth, and then “showered with gifts” at 13 years old. They are made to understand that “membership has its privileges.” Deep in the psyche there is a memory of the extremely painful cutting. This lets them know “who’s the boss.”
Anybody who says babies don’t feel that, and/or they don’t remember it, is deluded. It’s like saying the fish doesn’t feel the hook. It’s a typical “break you down, build you back up,” cycle, not unlike military basic training.
There is a broad concept called “trans-humanism.” I believe the reason that Jewry has surpassed Christendom in global power, is because Jewry has encouraged trans-humanist enhancements in its members, while Christian ministers have feared competition for their collection plates.
What is Transhumanism?
From Wikipedia:
Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities. The movement regards aspects of the human condition, such as disability, suffering, disease, aging, and involuntary death as unnecessary and undesirable. Transhumanists look to biotechnologies and other emerging technologies for these purposes. Dangers, as well as benefits, are also of concern to the transhumanist movement.
The term “transhumanism” is symbolized by H+ or h+ and is often used as a synonym for “human enhancement”. Although the first known use of the term dates from 1957, the contemporary meaning is a product of the 1980s when futurists in the United States began to organize what has since grown into the transhumanist movement. Transhumanist thinkers predict that human beings may eventually be able to transform themselves into beings with such greatly expanded abilities as to merit the label “posthuman.” Transhumanism is therefore sometimes referred to as “posthumanism” or a form of transformational activism influenced by posthumanist ideals.
The transhumanist vision of a transformed future humanity has attracted many supporters and detractors from a wide range of perspectives. Transhumanism has been described by one critic, Francis Fukuyama, as the world’s most dangerous idea, while one proponent, Ronald Bailey, counters that it is the “movement that epitomizes the most daring, courageous, imaginative, and idealistic aspirations of humanity.”
Arno Breker's "Bereitschaft" ("Readiness")
A very familiar example of trans-humanism is bodybuilding, or physical conditioning in general. This of course was eventually permitted by Christianity, and you had the “muscular Christians.”
My own father was a prime example. He was a YMCA director and all-around athlete, from gymnastics to soccer to skiing to swimming.
However, there was an implicit sense that there were “normal methods” of self-improvement, like the weight room, and then there were the methods of “the weirdos,” the “non-Western” styles of self-improvement, such as the housewives in the leotards doing yoga.
Power is Good, Weakness is Evil
Eventually I became so enamored of the possibility of self improvement that I lost all taboos. Anything that made me more powerful, I decided, was good.
For years I listened to Jay Hughes’ “Change Surfer Radio,” and didn’t realize to what degree I myself was a transhumanist. I dismissed the term as “for weirdos” because it sounded too much like “transsexual.” When Jay Hughes talked about the Terminator movies as extreme examples of transhumanism, it suddenly made sense.
Hughes also talked about “breeding 160 IQ perfect Nordics, and this might not be a good thing for a radically democratic society. Rich people might breed themselves into Aryan overlords.”
Don’t laugh — we already have the technology. All it takes is for someone who isn’t held back by the “implicit Christian minister” wagging his index finger, saying, “that’s too weird.”
The whole aspect of Christianity that says, “Don’t go there,” is why the Middle Ages was “1,000 years without a bath.” Bathing was considered “ungodly,” i.e., “transhumanist.” It was paganistic, unnecessary self-improvement for the pious.
If there is a trigger in your brain that says, “Nah, that’s too weird.” That’s the same impulse that told us not to take a bath for 1,000 years. Dissassemble that implanted, alien circuit and throw it away.
Turn on a new circuit, one that’s already in your brain. It’s the one that says, “anything that gives me power, is good.”
The dominance of the current order depends on “implicit Christianity” that’s been implanted in us since Sunday school. It’s that in you which shrinks from the Will to Power, from a fanatic, obsessive striving for dominance.
If words like “power, fanatic, obsessive, dominance” bother you, that’s the implicit Christian minister in the back of your head. Turn him off. Imagine in your mind that he’s wagging his finger at you. Laugh at him, and then take him like a rag doll and throw him out of your brain.
In his place, put Arnold Schwarzenegger saying in his Austrian accent, “That which makes me more powerful, is good. That which weakens me, is bad.”
Learn from the Enemy
I figured this out from studying the enemy. Leftist Jews have taken great advantage of this “implicit Christian” impulse, even while practicing transhumanism and a religion of power themselves. Their power lies in controlling us.
This doesn’t mean someone like Tim Wise doesn’t “believe” in what he preaches. He has to. To hypnotize someone, you have to believe it yourself. He’s able to believe in something, that he knows is a “beneficial fraud,” or a “noble lie.”
Let us ask what Tim Wise thinks is “bad.” From the paragraph below we see “dominance” on the part of Whites is his “ultimate evil.” Good whites will “roll over and show their belly.” Good Jews do the opposite, of course.
Good (Christian) whites avoid that “weird transhumanism” stuff. Good (Christian) whites don’t want to “dominate” because we’re all equal now. Even secular liberal types claim that seeking dominance just “perpetuates the cycle of dominance.” Well, duh. It’s not going away. Anybody who voluntary gives up striving for dominance is going to end up a slave . . . literally. Even if they are able to live all peaceful and hippie now in the woods of Oregon, if we get an ANC style colored government in the US, there will be as much peace for them as there is for the Whites of the former Rhodesia.
If Rhodesia/Zimbabwe is a bad outcome, then anything that leads to that is bad, or perhaps downright evil. Volunteering to submit is EVIL. It’s the wrong decision, in every way. The Christian minister, or the Tim Wise, telling you to “give up your power,” is your executioner.
So what is good? Let’s ask Arnold again:
“That which makes me more powerful, is good. That which weakens me, is bad.”
I watch Jews. I saw how they live in Boston. They are really into everything that Christians were discouraged from doing. Self-enhancement, selfishness, collective-mindedness. Sure they are a bunch of neurotics, but if you laugh at Woody Allen, you’re missing the Jew who’s taken over your culture. I’m sure as hell not laughing.
We can learn from the enemy, what ideals to have, by seeing what they fear. Tim Wise gave away the store when he wrote the below paragraph, my comments in parentheses:
http://www.laprogressive.com/rankism/obama-black-voters-and-the-myth-of-reverse-racism/
But for members of groups that have not been subordinated to “think with their skin” or their racial identity is quite a bit different, and more problematic. For dominant group members to engage in racial bonding only makes sense as a way to maintain dominance [to maintain a sane society where 14 year old white girls don't get pregnant or infected with HIV from black males]. It can’t be about “getting a piece of the pie,” since such persons already have access to it, and pieces galore; rather, it has to be about preventing others from getting their [pieces of white flesh], from taking parts of the pie to which the dominant group had come to feel entitled (of course. We own ourselves as a Racial Family. No other races may claim a piece of us) It is not to seek a place at the table, but to seek to secure the table you already have from the intrusion of others [just as we prevent intrusion into our own homes, so we prevent intrusion into our gene pool and the piece of the Planet Earth our race needs to survive]. White bonding, in other words, amounts to racism because it is redundant: it amounts to having those who are already largely in control, secure that control in perpetuity. It results in the maintenance of racial inequity [Blaming us for inequalities in natural endownment], unequal opportunity and massive disparities in access and life chances [Welcome to Planet Earth]. Black and brown bonding, on the other hand, is about gaining access [and sustaining Jewish Dominance as the gate-openers for the blacks and browns and rulers over whites], securing a spot, and collectively lifting up members of subordinated communities to a place where they can compete as equals with those who have always been in charge [can they compete as equals if they aren't equals?]. There is nothing supremacist or racist about that at all, unless one presumes that–as Jesse Jackson and others have long said–there is no fundamental difference between a “Welcome” mat and a “No Trespassing” sign [synagogues and Jewish yeshiva schools display the latter].
Weakness . . . in us . . . is evil. Weakness leads to Zimbabwe. It leads to Nushawn Williams infecting a dozen white teenaged girls with AIDS and impregnating 6 of them, and of course this has happened a million times over since 1997.
To overcome our implanted programming, our “implicit Christianity,” we have to kill the Christian minister in our subconscious, and replace him with a religion of power.
The Jewish rabbi in the back of the head of every Jew is always saying, “Is it good for the Jews?”
We need a new superego, a new divine-consciousness, that says Yes to power and dominance, rather than shrinking from it like a coward. We must end the vestigial “thousand years without a bath” thinking and cultivate a transhumanist religion of power.
Now I’ve got more reason to like Steve Sailer. He recently showed again on his VDARE blog why I’ve recommended him so strongly. Recall my two columns last year recommending his work—see here and here. I really think he does a great job at quantitatively showing how Jews have become the new elite in our society. And he does a pretty good job at pointing to some Jewish behavior that the MSM doesn’t always want to acknowledge.
His blog here paints a pretty clear picture again. His column is a comment David Brooks NYTimes column extolling the virtues of the new meritocracy compared to the bad old days when the WASPs ran the country. Brooks claims that “we have opened up opportunities for women, African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics and members of many other groups.”
In reality, however, the big winners from this “meritocracy” are Jews. Sailer points out that
In 2009, 35% of the Forbes 400 are from one ethnic group that makes up only 2% of the population. So, is “The Power Elite” really that much more diverse today?
If you break down Brooks’ list — “African-Americans, Jews, Italians, Poles, Hispanics”– by membership in the 2009 Forbes 400, you come up with:
African-Americans: 1 (Oprah) , Jews: 141, Italians: 14 , Poles (and all other Eastern Europeans): 6, Hispanics: 2
Similarly, if you look at the 2009 Atlantic 50 ranking of most influential pundits, it’s half Jewish, versus 2% black and 0.5% Hispanic.
In other words, this increased “meritocratic diversity” among the elites that Brooks is writing about essentially consists of the rise of Jews over the last century.
The fact is that the new order is reasonably seen as less of a meritocracy than a new form of clubbishness where ethnic ties among Jews ease the way into top positions. Ethnic cohesion is certainly the main story of the Jewish academic and intellectual elite that constructed the Culture of Critique in the academic world, and the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the media elite mentioned by Sailer suggests it’s the same story there. Indeed, Jews are vastly overrepresented as students in elite academic institutions even controlling for IQ.
This new elite based on ethnic networking is at least as corrupt as the old WASP elite and its family ties. The new elite reacts with angry aggression and charges of “anti-Semitism” if one even mentions that they are in fact an elite.
The old elite had a sense of civic responsibility and national interest. As Sailer notes, the new elite seems to care nothing about the long term success of the society as a whole:
The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analysis is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.
But the terrifying reality is that the Jewish ascendancy remains hostile to the traditional people and culture of America. Jews continue to earn like Episcopalians (actually more than Episcopalians) and vote like Puerto Ricans. They are the financial backbone of the Democratic Party and its coalition of non-White ethnic groups. (83% voted for Obama.) The organized Jewish community is a major pillar of support for massive, non-White immigration that will add 100 million non-Whites to the US in the next few decades.
The new elite is definitely not about conserving America for the long term success of the society as a whole. It’s about ethnic paranoia, ancient hatreds, and the desire to completely transform the society at the expense of its traditional people–elite and non-elite alike—at whatever the cost to the society as a whole. Hey, when it falls apart, just take the money and run to Israel.
Sailer makes it pretty clear that Brooks was not connecting the obvious dots: Since Jews took over America, things have definitely changed for the worse for White Americans.
The Occidental Observer Blog, February 23, 2010
Israeli officials, neoconservatives, and Zionists are pushing relentlessly for the military destruction or internal overthrow of Iran. The drumbeat of anti-Iranian propaganda on television, in the print media, from Jews and government officials, while not yet as intense as anti-Iraq propaganda prior to the 2003 invasion of Mesopotamia, is ceaseless and mounting.
Iranians (or Persians), the largest ethnic group in Iran, are not Semites. Unlike Jews and Arabs, they are Indo-Europeans. Iranians have a distinguished Aryan past. Many Iranian “minorities” also have Indo-European origins or speak Indo-European languages. As elsewhere across the highly admixed Eurasian borderlands, the racial and ethnic picture in Iran is highly complex and a millennium and a half of Islamic religious and cultural overlay further differentiates the populace from Europeans. Nevertheless, in biocultural terms, the people of the West and Iranians share common Indo-European and proto-Indo European roots.
Whites and Jews do not.
Bloodlust
Pat Buchanan wrote recently that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) “is surely aware a US clash with Iran, with him at the president’s side, could assure his re-election. Last week, Reid whistled through the Senate, by voice vote, a bill to put us on that escalator. Senate bill 2799 would punish any company exporting gasoline to Iran. Though swimming in oil, Iran has a limited refining capacity and must import 40 percent of the gas to operate its cars and trucks and heat its homes. And cutting off a country’s oil or gas is a proven path to war.” (Reid, who is white, has a Jewish wife and children.)
In contemporary politics it’s always six of one, half dozen of the other. Rather than military attack, Buchanan therefore favors current US policy: “US interests would seem to dictate supporting those elements in Iran who wish to be rid of the regime and re-engage the West”—elements he describes as “the leaders of the Green Movement who have stood up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah.”
In other words, Buchanan and the establishment Left prefer a clandestine coup d’état (”regime change”) engineered by the secret police agencies and governments of the ex-West on behalf of Israel.
Prior to the 1991 Gulf “War,” Israel’s disinformation machine depicted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as a tyrant and a danger to the world. According to ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, “The Mossad activated every asset it had, in every place possible, from volunteer agents in Amnesty International to fully bought members of the US Congress.” The same process is at work now, with “Holocaust denier” Ahmadinejad-Hitler replacing Saddam-Hitler as the embodiment of ultimate evil.
Iranian girl
Two years ago, in an article in The New Yorker (July 7, 2008), Jewish journalist Seymour Hersh revealed secret Buchanan-Obama style US subversion inside Iran, including murders, creation of minority ethnic strife, and political meddling designed to overthrow the government there. Although Hersh’s account covered Bush Administration-Congressional Democratic policy, things have not changed under unitary Obama-Reid-Pelosi Democratic dominance. (US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D.-Calif.], a Catholic Italian-American, has a Jewish son-in-law and Jewish grandchildren.)
Jewry and Israel are guilty as well. The Times (London) reported:
Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli Prime Minister, in a speech at the weekend, alluded to a report in The Times on Saturday that Mossad was waging a covert war of assassinations across the Middle East, targeting Hamas and Iranian officials.
“There are a huge range of options between a full military attack and accepting a nuclear Iran,” Mr Olmert said. “There are other means that, together with other things happening, and they are happening [emphasis added], can create a result that would not allow the Iranians to reach what they are trying to reach.” (February 16, 2010)
The January 20, 2010 Jewish assassination of Hamas member Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, again according to the Times (February 21, 2010), occurred within the “context” of anti-Iranian policy. Since the murder had been deceptively arranged to look like a natural death, it was only discovered because the government of Dubai is not as controlled as the ex-Western governments that quietly facilitated the killers’ movements.
“The mission was not regarded as unduly complicated or risky,” the Times reported. According to an Israeli source, the killers were “very much aware of the CCTV [closed-circuit television surveillance cameras] in Dubai” that led to their being discovered—though not captured or punished. They got away scot-free. It’s creepy reading and watching [video] how the swarm of psychopaths glued themselves to their unwitting victim, especially knowing our government is in league with them, and that Dubai is but the small tip of a very large iceberg.(1)
It would appear that Jewish elements are accustomed to operating with impunity in ex-Western nations possessing far more advanced police systems and technological capabilities than Dubai. Indeed, how could it be otherwise, when Jewish and Israeli firms are so deeply enmeshed in providing, staffing, and training the public and private “security” apparatus in those countries? Jews anticipated that, like the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, Dubai officials would be unable or unwilling to reconstruct and assemble the multiple CCTV images of their operation into one account.
Conclusion
Neither coup d’état nor invasion is acceptable.(2) The fact that the Iranian nuclear program is being used as a pretext for the Great Power assault compounds the evil, for Israel bristles with weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, acquired with the criminal connivance of officials in France, Norway, and the United States, and concealed from public view by cooperative media establishments.
From a strategic and fiscal perspective, the destruction of Iran is folly. It is not in our interests. It is iniquitous. But our corrupt and self-absorbed ruling class is not known for prudence, self-restraint, adherence to law, or morality. Even if its impetuous hatred ultimately brings our own house crashing down around our heads like the Twin Towers, there is nothing whites can do about it.
Only dissent by a Jewish minority can eventually alter the course of events, because only Jews have primary influence in such matters. Everyone else is merely along for the ride, remaining silent or choosing which Jewish faction to support on the basis of expediency, obedience, conformity, or normative preference. Precluded by a totalitarian political and cultural regime from making independent contributions to an artificially circumscribed “debate,” and certainly prevented from advancing non-Jewish interests or values, Gentile ideological and policy input must remain derivative, marginal, and uninspiring, à la Jimmy Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt, etc.
The internal Jewish schism over Middle East policy that seems to be forming will take time to develop—too much time, it appears, to spare the Iranians, who, as a minor power, will likely be destroyed either by a subterranean coup d’état or neoconservative military violence.
From the standpoint of history, race, and community, our primary interests align more closely with (more or less) Indo-European Islamic Iranians than with anti-white Jews, Israelis, and ex-Western governments currently riding high at everyone else’s expense. There is no evidence that Iranians desire the extermination of our people.
2. Israel Defense Forces website, “U.S. Army Chief: ‘Iran attack option on the table,’” Feb. 14, 2010.
In the 1972 movie Cabaret, based on the musical by Jewish team John Kander and Fred Ebb, the English expatriate homosexual Brian Roberts (played by Michael York) is horrified when fellow residents of his boarding house explain to him the international conspiracy of Jewish Communists and bankers that they learned about in the pages of the National Socialist Völkischer Beobachter. Indignantly, he denounces them as an “international conspiracy of horses’ asses.”
There is a reason why all would-be “right-thinking” people must be programmed to dismiss such “conspiracies,” for evidence of them surfaces with such depressing regularity that people must be trained not to take notice of it.
The cooperation between Jewish Communists and Jewish capitalists is even more evident in the entertainment business. What follows is just a footnote to my article on “The Teenage Rebellion,” but it serves as a good example of the kinds of connections to which Jews wish to blind us.
While the alien-produced Teenage Rebellion was being imported from the United States to the United Kingdom, the UK branch of the tribe produced a British version of the subversive 1955 American film Blackboard Jungle. This 1961 film was called Spare the Rod.
The film portrays new teacher Max Bygraves who arrives at a tough East London school to find that his modern education methods are not welcome. Sadistic master Gregory (Geoffrey Keen) grabs the rod and thrashes pupils at the slightest sight of trouble, supported by hesitant Headmaster Jenkins (Donald Pleasance). Bygraves eventually makes good progress with the pupils but is fired after a school riot caused by Keen’s brutality.
Now what’s really interesting about this film is not its story of teenage rebellion and adult sadism, but the entertainment outlet that released it. The DVD of Spare the Rod was released by Odeon Entertainment.
I decided to look into the history of Odeon Entertainment, and I discovered that is was created in 1928 by the Jew Oscar Deutsch. Odeon publicists claim that the name of the company is an acronym for “Oscar Deutsch Entertains Our Nation.”
But Oscar Deutsch was doing more than entertaining our nation. He was subverting it too, while he and his nation profited handsomely all the while from our decline.
The picture becomes clearer when we note that Oscar Deutsch was a relative of the Soviet spy Arnold Deutsch, who was the handler of the “Cambridge Five” spy network. While Arnold was controlling Burges, Philby, Maclean, Blunt, and Cairncross, he would often pop in to see Oscar on Friday night Sabbath diners.
Oscar — who was president of his local synagogue, by the way — provided more than spiritual succor and kosher cooking for cousin Arnold. He also gave him employment, in the hope of extending his visa to spy longer in Britain (see The Mitrokhin Archive by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, p. 103).
Oscar Deutsch died in 1941. Arnold Deutsch was dead by 1942. After Oscar’s death, his company was sold to the Rank Corporation, and eventually his brand name ended up on the DVD of Spare the Rod. Neither Deutsch could have had a hand in the production of Spare the Rod. That is not my point.
My point is simply this: Can anyone seriously believe that Oscar, the capitalist religious Jew, and Arnold, the Communist atheist Jew, did not coordinate their activities around the Sabbath table?
Is it just a coincidence that on both sides of the Atlantic, an entertainment industry dominated by Jews like Oscar Deutsch advances a leftist political agenda defined by Jews like Arnold Deutsch?
Sorry, but I don’t believe in coincidences like that. You’d have to be a horse’s ass.
Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman
President Barack Obama said at a New Hampshire high school recently, “When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices.”
This simple statement became the pretext for national and international headlines decrying the President’s language about Sin City. Moralists had a field day. “Enough is enough!” Jewish Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D.-Nev.) said in a statement. “President Obama needs to stop picking on Las Vegas.”
“Picking on.” Again.
Las Vegas, it seems, is near and dear to the hearts of the ruling class. Small wonder. Not only is traffic in sin highly remunerative, but places like Vegas furnish rich opportunities for crime and blackmail by insiders. Those with privileged access can selectively manipulate and destroy careers with the type of inside dirt such places are custom made to uncover or create.
Among those squawking the loudest over Obama’s unobjectionable comments was Las Vegas’ longtime Jewish mayor, Oscar Goodman. “An apology won’t be acceptable this time,” he told TV reporters. “I don’t know where his vendetta comes from . . . He didn’t learn his lesson the first time . . . When he comes [to Las Vegas], I’ll do everything I can to give him the boot back to Washington and to visit his failures back there. And I gotta tell you this . . . this president is a real . . . slow . . . learner.” [Brief video clip.]
If any white politician had made that remark there would have been immediate, serious repercussions rather than respectful silence. After all, wouldn’t the predictable uproar underscore the sensitivity surrounding remarks dredging up hurtful stereotypes involving the subject of race? We can be sure that any white speaker would have been hysterically condemned by the media throughout the United States and overseas, and would instantly have been compelled to do the White Groveling Act.
Goodman’s statement is strange, and the media non-response to it is also strange. The mayor over many years as an attorney dealt with mobsters who were psychopaths, so he had to watch his tongue often. One of them was implicated in the murder of a federal judge. A mere criminal defense attorney like Goodman is much lower on the totem pole than that. Moreover, Goodman is a successful lawyer-politician. Not only did he enunciate the key words of his statement (”real slow learner”) very distinctly, but he preceded them with the statement, “And I gotta tell you this, and everybody says I shouldn’t say it [emphasis added], but I gotta tell you the way it is . . .” In other words, Goodman ran the incendiary comment past advisors before making it on camera.
Goodman’s background is instructive. Born in Philadelphia in 1939, he graduated from The Haverford School, an exclusive Main Line boys’ academy founded in 1884 to educate the sons of Haverford College professors. (Haverford College was originally a Quaker school.) Prominent graduates of The Haverford School include Marine Corps General Smedley Butler (”the Fighting Quaker”), illustrator Maxfield Parrish, one of Thomas Alva Edison’s sons, and astronaut Pete Conrad. Jewish billionaire Ronald Perelman (Revlon, Marvel Comics) graduated from The Haverford School three years after Goodman. Goodman subsequently attended Haverford College before obtaining his law degree from the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania in 1964.
Mob lawyer humor
Upon graduation Goodman moved to Las Vegas, where he established a law practice and for 35 years represented many of America’s most vicious gangsters: Meyer Lansky, Fat Herbie Blitzstein, Lefty Rosenthal, Tony the Ant Spilotro, and Philadelphia crime bosses Nicodemo Scarfo and Phil Leonetti. Goodman also represented Arab-American drug trafficker Jamiel Chagra, implicated in the assassination of federal judge John H. Wood and the attempted murder of a US prosecutor. Thanks to Goodman, Chagra walked, although everyone around him went to prison, including his wife and brother (an attorney).
Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith authored a biography, Of Rats and Men: Oscar Goodman’s Life from Mob Mouthpiece to Mayor of Las Vegas (2003) and the mayor starred as himself in Italian-American director Martin Scorsese’s 1995 gangster flick Casino.
Las Vegas voters, predictable democrats, took one look at Oscar Goodman’s resume and said, “He’s the kind of man we want representing us!” In 1999, Goodman swept 69% of the electorate, in 2003 86%, and in 2007 84%.
Goodman told a class of fourth graders that if he was stranded on a desert island he’d most desire “a showgirl and a bottle of Bombay Sapphire Gin” (a brand of liquor he’s been paid to pitch) and that one of his hobbies was “drinking.” “I’m the George Washington of mayors,” he told the press, refusing to apologize afterward. “I cannot tell a lie. If they didn’t want the answer, the kid shouldn’t have asked the question.” Obama could more justifiably have responded similarly to the uproar over his own school statements in New Hampshire.
Let's hope her HIV "stays in Vegas."
Goodman photographed a topless model for Playboy’s website. The Russian-born girl, 40 years his junior, had been Playmate of the Month in January 2001. In 2003 the mayor suggested legalizing prostitution to generate revenue. This de facto meant prostituting primarily white, Mexican, black, and Asian girls. (Prostitution is currently legal in Nevada outside Las Vegas.) During the first ten months of that year, Las Vegas police arrested 127 prostitutes under 18 years of age; 368 other hookers (a different group) tested positive for HIV.
Another Goodman brainstorm was to propose whippings and canings for children who misbehave. “I’m dead serious,” he said on TV. On the same program he advocated cutting off the thumbs—on television—of people who deface public property with graffiti. Funny—I distinctly remember the American Jewish Committee’s Commentary magazine demonizing Saudi Arabia in the 1980s for allegedly endorsing similar behavior.
Trained attorney Goodman also objected to a Tom Clancy video game set in Las Vegas. Sounding like Abraham Foxman of the ADL or “civil libertarians” Alan Dershowitz and Cass Sunstein, he said, “It may be something that’s not entitled to free speech (protection). . . . I will ask . . . whether or not we can stop it.”
Will anyone seriously contend that this upper-class, Our Crowd member, and longtime pol, who’s rubbed shoulders with the most vicious and powerful underworld scum as well as the country’s elite, isn’t fully cognizant of the implications of what he said about America’s African president? According to an Amazon reviewer who says he attended grade school with Goodman’s biographer and dined with the mayor, the latter’s first big defense case in Las Vegas revealed an “ease at interacting across the tracks to Las Vegas’s old, black West Side [that later] served him so well.” Nothing about Goodman suggests he doesn’t know exactly what he’s doing when he calls the President, with careful emphasis, a “real . . . slow . . . learner.”
Goodman poses for HEEB magazine story "The First Jewish President?"
To top off this entire farce, the half-Kenyan Obama was not even sincere when he made his original statement. His unctuous political rhetoric was aimed squarely at dingbat Middle Americans. “There is no place better to have fun than Vegas, one of our country’s great destinations,” he subsequently said.
By doing so, Obama essentially apologized to Goodman and Berkley for their public bullying and Goodman’s racist insult! How like the Old Plantation! You know that Jews owned slaves, don’t you? You know that Jews were among the biggest slave traders?
Jews must say a prayer each night: “Thank you, g-d, that America doesn’t have reporters, editors, and media barons who treat Jews the way they treat goyim—particularly white people!”
By Anonymous Attorney
Vdare.com, February 4, 2010
It’s long been rough going for Kevin MacDonald, the California State University/Long Beach psychology professor whose writings on “implicit whiteness”, Jewish influence and other topics have brought on SPLC ($PLC) investigations, faculty denunciations and, he blogs recently, classroom disruptors.
It’s a price to be paid in a time when advocacy for whites has become, bar none, America’s most towering taboo. The good professor might have to dip into the materials on “psychological stress caused by ostracism” floating around his office somewhere.
Here are some students bragging about efforts to have him removed from his teaching position, with a focus on his recent support for a Third Party effort:
“Senior English major Doug Kauffman was one of the students who led the demonstration in MacDonald’s class last Tuesday.
“‘We planned this [demonstration] at least a month in advance; the goal would be to have every student just get up and walk out,’ Kauffman said.
“Marylou Cabral, a senior art education major and participant in the demonstration, commented on the student’s reactions.
“‘Many seemed appalled, and I think a few even left,’ Cabral said. ‘Our goal is to let students know about [MacDonald’s] involvement in Freedom 14 and other neo-Nazi groups. We feel that the students need to know what they’re getting into.’
“Both Kauffman and Cabral are students at CSULB and members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), a Marxist and Leninist organization that advocates revolutionary change and progressive reform.
[Students call for removal of psychology professor: Tenured professor Kevin MacDonald says he just wants to teach, regardless of his political views, by David Cowan, Daily 49er, January 31, 2010]
But if they’re going to fire Kevin MacDonald, logically they should take care of a few other professors while they’re at it:
Jensen [Email him] is a journalism professor at the University of Texas whose hatred of whites practically radiates from his body. He once declared, in a book titled Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege, that “I don’t think white people should love their whiteness. Better for everyone, I think, that we take a shot first at hating it”. Imagine the reaction if a professor had substituted “blackness“ for “whiteness”! Jensen went on: “I want to live in a world where I can at least imagine that someday I will be able to stop being white.” [VDARE.com note: Jensen appeared previously on VDARE.com when he denounced Thanksgiving.]
Jews have a term for this: the self-hating Jew. Whites also apparently have a name for it: tenured journalism professor. (And we wonder why the MSM takes the stances it does).
As can be seen from his website, Jensen isn’t shy about his extreme anti-white stance, or his political involvement. Yet I’m unaware of any students disrupting his class, fellow faculty members denouncing him, or Heidi Beirich camping out near his house and going through his garbage.
And a white student required to take one of Jensen’s classes might just have a legitimate concern: is this guy going to flunk me in the name of punishing the evil white race?
So what’s the difference between Kevin MacDonald and Robert Jensen?
Setting aside scholarship quality or pedagogical skill, it’s that they’re on opposite sides of the race issue in America. Jensen’s on the “right” side, and finds himself nesting cozily in Austin. MacDonald is on the “wrong” side, and finds himself the target of countless attacks.
Ignatiev, a history professor at the Massachusetts College of Art, is founder of a journal [Email them]( called Race Traitor Motto: treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity) and a fellow at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute. He wrote in the Harvard Magazine that “abolishing the white race” is “so desirable that some may find it hard to believe” that anyone other than “committed white supremacists” would oppose it.[ Abolish the White Race, September-October 2002 ]
Well, sure—your typical Republican member of Congress isn’t exactly standing in the way of that plan. But Ignatiev does put it awfully bluntly.
Again, might not a white student in his class feel a little uncomfortable? If so, none have called any attention to the problem.
Gregory Jay [Email him] is an English professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. How that qualifies him to bash whites as the source of all the world’s evil, I’m not sure. But he does.
Jay is a proponent of “whiteness studies”, which as you might guess, does not have anything to do with appreciation of white people or their cultures. In an essay titled “Who Invented White People?”, [PDF]he calls “whiteness” an insane delusion with no scientific foundation, asserts that we’re all mongrels, and insists that whites benefit from unearned privilege.
If “race does not exist”, would Professor Jay consider dumping affirmative action? And have you ever heard any of the “race does not exist” crowd direct this at blacks or Hispanics, lecturing them that “blackness is a social construct” or that being a Hispanic or a Latino is a “delusion“ and that La Raza should pack up and go home?
Funny, haven’t heard that.
And again—it goes without saying that Gregory Jay isn’t having his classes disrupted or fellow faculty members holding somber meetings on what to do about his obvious anti-white racism.
In the past, CSULB’s president, F. King Alexander, [Email him]and its Academic Senate have issued statements distancing themselves from MacDonald. But to its credit, the school currently appears to be backing his freedom to research and write on the topics of interest to him. “Academic freedom, free speech… we don’t change that”, a university spokeswoman told me over the phone.
CSULB is also making it known that such disruptions violate university policy. Campus police are aware of the situation and are ready to respond to calls (562-985-5049 OR 911).
My advice to the disruptors: try debating the issues instead. Give speeches on your own time. Write letters. Blog for the socialist blogs.
Heck, invite Jensen, Ignatiev and Jay for a university-wide anti-white forum. I’m pretty sure nobody will be there to disrupt it.
Guy White has a new post about White Nationalism and anti-Semitism that mentions me and brings up several topics of relevance to this website. As usual, what Guy says contains a grain of truth, but he likes to paint in broad strokes. He also tends to come at White Nationalism from a Jewish perspective.
Here’s my own two cents:
1. There are White Nationalists who can be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths. They openly proclaim their intention to exterminate the Jews. Unlike Guy White, I am not convinced a majority of White Nationalists (or even a significant minority) share this point of view. In 9 out of 10 cases, it is mere saber rattling and more-radical-than-thou rhetorical posturing. If these people were truly genocidal, they would have the courage to carry out their convictions.
2. It is equally true that a significant number of Jews are batshit crazy. They are unreachable. These people are driven by an animus against Whites and intend to do us harm. Unlike the WNs, these people often have the wealth, power, or influence to act on their resentments. The death of Howard Zinn a few days ago was a small reminder that such malicious Jews (individual fire starters) are out there.
3. Yes, it is true that anti-Semites often say stupid things on the internet. I cited that in my first post as one of the reasons why I started this website. There is a world of difference though between powerless commentators on obscure blogs and the harm done to Whites by Jewish organizations like the ADL, AJC, or HIAS who have the ear of Congress and the President of the United States.
4. There is no valid comparison between radical anti-Semites on fringe right-wing websites and the Jewish political pundits and commentators that dominate mainstream American public discourse. You can’t compare a David Brooks, Paul Krugman, or Jeffrey Goldberg to a WhitePrideWorldWide or HeilHitler 14/88 on VNN Forum.
5. I’m a reasonable man. If Jews changed their behavior, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. I don’t write about Eskimos because they mind their own business and have never attempted to “transform” the culture and racial attitudes of White Americans. We don’t write about the Amish, Navajo, Shakers, Sioux or countless other American minority groups for the same reason.
6. Jews are resented because of their actions. Over the past two months, I have monitored them on this website. We’ve seen Jews try to manhandle the Pope, censor racialists at C-SPAN, push Obamacare through Congress, poison German youth with hip hop music, align with Hispanics to push “comprehensive immigration reform,” peddle anti-racist intrepretations of American history, demonize Whites on MLK day, demonize Sarah Palin, censor comments at The Huff Post, open our borders to a tidal wave of Haitian immigrants, etc.
7. I totally reject the victimization theory. Jews have never been victimized in the United States. I can’t think of a single anti-Jewish federal, state, or local law ever passed in America since the ratification of the Constitution. In theory, we shouldn’t have a Jewish problem. Jews were welcomed to America with open arms and have been wildly successful here. They have absolutely no valid reason to hate this country or wish to displace its people. Yet we still have Jews like Howard Zinn.
8. White Nationalism emerged in the mid-1970s in reaction to the demise of the Jim Crow South. Historically speaking, American racialism hasn’t been anti-Semitic. That changed in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement when the extent of Jewish involvement in pushing anti-racism and integration became unmistakably clear.
9. White Americans are the victims, not Jews. Thousands of Americans lost their lives in the Second World War fighting Hitler’s armies. White Americans liberated the Jews from the Third Reich.
How did they repay us? By marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma with MLK, redefining America as a “nation of immigrants,” fomenting Communism, destroying racial theory, opening our borders to a tidal wave of Third World immigration, demonizing White racial consciousness, and so on. We’ve given Israel literally billions of dollars in tribute.
In return for what? Nothing but hatred and contempt for “White racism.” Ever more obscene and radical demands to purge our heritage of anything that smacks of whiteness. American Jews are the most ungrateful people who have ever lived. They have made themselves at home in our house, a nation created by Whites for Whites, and libel us as moral lepers!
10. Why on Earth should White Nationalists like the Jews? No people in the world have done us more harm or loathe us with more malice. This was the case even before White Nationalism existed. Irrational WNs blame the Jews for everything that is wrong with America because of the Jewish omnipresence in almost every degenerate cultural trend.
The worst Jews can say about White Nationalists is that they have been the victims of some unkind comments by anonymous posters on the internet. That is nothing compared to the real harm that Jews inflict upon Whites on a daily basis which we are chronicling here.
Antisemitica, February 2, 2010
Kevin MacDonald: Casting pearls before swine?
On January 26, 2010, a new campaign of intellectual and political persecution was launched against Kevin MacDonald, Professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach. The express goal of this campaign is to get Professor MacDonald fired from his job because of his research and political convictions.
Professor MacDonald’s research threatens the cultural and political hegemony of the organized Jewish community by exposing their ongoing subversion of Western civilization. This research has made Professor MacDonald a target of persecution by Jewish individuals, organizations, front groups, and their dupes for nearly a decade.
This persecution has intensified of late because of Professor MacDonald’s affiliation with the newly-formed American Third Position political party, which threatens Jewish hegemony by explicitly representing the interests of white Americans, who are being culturally and politically dispossessed by Jews and their non-white allies.
Student agitators affiliated with Jewish front groups called “Students Fight Back” and the “Party for Socialism and Liberation” entered Professor MacDonald’s classrooms on the first day of the Spring semester and passed out propaganda to induce students to drop his classes. The agitators also threatened to circulate a petition calling for Professor MacDonald’s dismissal.
See Douglas Kauffman, “Long Beach students boycott fascist professor Kevin MacDonald,” on the website of the Party for Socialism and Libertation and Sonia Scherr’s “Student Activists Confront Anti-Semitic California Prof” on the website of Professor MacDonald’s long-time persecutors the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Professor MacDonald has commented on the latest round of harassment on The Occidental Observer Blog: “The multi-cultural left’s broad definitions of ‘racism’ — and aggressive tactics” and “The academic left’s involvement in politics.”
Professor MacDonald’s enemies try to cloak their radical agenda in standard liberal pieties, but whether from cynicism or mere stupidity, their attempts are so clumsy that any child can see through them.
For instance, one of the agitators, Marylou Cabral, is concerned that Professor MacDonald’s research and political commitments might color his teaching. The fact that she does not apply the same standards to politically engaged leftist professors, indeed to entire politically engaged disciplines — women’s studies, black studies, gay and lesbian studies, etc. — shows that her objection is not to academic political engagement per se, but merely to Professor MacDonald’s views.
Another agitator, Douglas Kauffman, said: “Our campus is one of the most diverse in the country, and that really flies in the face of having a Nazi as a professor.” Student Shavanda Williams echoed these sentiments, asking: “Why is he here if he has these white supremacist ideas?”
Genuine liberals should find such statements dismaying. After all, “liberal education” is not supposed to mean education by a bunch of dogmatic liberals who all think alike. Liberal education is an education that expands the horizons of students by exposing them to a variety of different viewpoints.
Thus, although it really is not fair to characterize Professor MacDonald as a Nazi or a white supremacist, even if he were, the presence of a faculty member with such unusual viewpoints would make CSLB more intellectually diverse
Of course Kauffman, Cabral, & co. are not liberals. They are left-wing totalitarians. For them, “diversity” is merely a euphemism for the stigmatization and dispossession of whites by Jews and non-whites.
“Diversity” does not mean diversity of opinion. It means black leftists, lesbian leftists, Asian leftists, mestizo leftists, feminist leftists, etc. all working under the tutelage of Jewish leftists to root out every possible form of white racial consciousness.
“Diversity” does not mean that all races and ethnic groups should take pride in themselves and watch out for their interests. No, when whites do that, it is not “diversity,” it is “hate.” And the fanatical persecution of “hate” is what leftists call “tolerance” — and, presumably, “love” (they are all just snarling and sputtering with love).
Before Kevin MacDonald is nailed to the cross of tolerance, I hope we will hear some voices of protest from the genuine liberals — faculty, administrators, and students — at his university and in academia at large. Academia being what it is, we can’t expect anything much better than sincere liberals. But genuine liberalism should be enough to protect Kevin MacDonald’s freedom to think, write, teach, and exercise his political rights as he sees fit.
We will be watching.
Sam Francis (1947 – 2005)
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it ought to be obvious that the dominant powers and authorities in the United States and other Western countries are either indifferent to the accelerating racial and cultural dispossession of the historic peoples of America and Europe or are actually in favor of it.
–Samuel Francis in Race and the American Prospect
Among the many good things that paleoconservative Sam Francis left to us was his analysis of the “managerial elite.” Francis drew his understanding of this concept from James Burnham, who in the 1930s moved beyond his Marxist views to offer a competing theory known as the theory of the managerial revolution. In this view, as traditional capitalism and its ruling class passed from the scene, managers—or more properly “technocrats”—would replace them (p. 384). More specifically, it would include “administrators, experts, directing engineers, production executives, propaganda specialists, [and] technocrats” (p. 385).
(All numbered quotes are drawn from Francis’s “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization,”in Race and the American Prospect. See here and here for further reading.)
Francis laid out the problem starkly:
. . . the realities of twentieth and twenty-first century power that do in fact explain what must be one of the most significant and astonishing truths of human history—that an entire ruling class has abandoned and in effect declared war upon the very population and civilization from which it is itself drawn. (p.377)
Further, he noted, these assaults on whites “are not the results of democratic majority rule or popular consent” (p.377).
What explains it then? Francis argued that the classical theory of elites, along with James Burnham’s theory of the managerial revolution, do the job (p. 378). “The two essential characteristics of an elite-ruling class are what may be called Unity and Dominance—unity in that it needs to cohere around its interest and to agree on what its interests are and (in general) how to pursue them, and dominance in that it must be able to make its interests prevail over those of rival groups” (p. 382).
As Francis saw it,
The major common interest that unites the managerial class is its need to extend and perpetuate the demand for the skills and functions on which its power and social rewards depend. The managers pursue that interest by seeking to ensure that the mass organizations they control, which require the skills and functions that only the managers can provide, are preserved and extended. Large corporations must displace and dominate small businesses. A large, centralized, bureaucratic state must displace and dominate small, localized, and decentralized government. Mass media and communications conglomerates and mass universities must displace and dominate smaller, local newspapers, publishers, colleges, and schools. Moreover, the elites that controlled these older and smaller institutions must also be displaced as the ruling class of the larger society and their ideology and cultural values discredited and rejected. (p. 386)
Francis clearly advanced the argument that the managers of these larger institutions are responsible for the destruction of the traditional white societies that came before them. Those old elites “championed traditional religious and moral beliefs and institutions, the importance of the patriarchal family and local community, and the value of national, regional, racial, and ethnic identity, as well as the virtues of the capitalist ethnic—hard work, frugality, personal honesty and integrity, individual initiative, postponement of gratification” (p. 388).
If he was right, then we need not search for another primary cause of the collapse of traditional Western societies. In particular, he offered a competing view to that of Kevin MacDonald and his idea that Jews had unleashed a “culture of critique” on white societies. For Francis, the existence of such a withering critique is not in question; rather, for Francis, the source was and is the managerial elite.
“The managerial ideology,” he wrote, “also demonized the old elite and its institutions and values as ‘obsolete,’ ‘backward,’ ‘repressive,’ ‘exploitative,’ and ‘narrow-minded’” (p. 389). Thus, it had no compunction about destroying the traditional family, local community and religion, or traditional cultural and moral codes. Nor did it have a need for ethnic or racial identities (as far as whites were concerned). In fact, the whole nation-state was superfluous (p. 390).
(I might interject here that since Francis was talking about a historical process not driven by particular racial or ethnic concerns, we would expect similar results from non-white regions which have incorporated the techno-bureaucratic system Francis discussed. Japan and other Asian nations would now fit this mold, yet we observe not even the stirring of any desire to dispossess traditional same-race elites. With a combined population of nearly 200 million, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have substantially adopted modern corporate-bureaucratic structures, yet this has affected their racial composition not at all. China, with its one-billion-plus population, remains overwhelming Han Chinese and also shows no signs of changing.)
That Francis does not attribute this powerful attack on traditional society to be the work of Jews does not mean he saw no role for Jews. On the contrary, he had a very idiosyncratic interpretation of the role Jews played.
In his section “The Agenda of Dispossession,” Francis acknowledged the detailed work done by Kevin MacDonald to document the Jewish role in the dispossession of whites. But for Francis, the Jewish aspiration to cultural and political supremacy over whites is merely fortuitous, for “the Jewish agenda and that of the managerial elite are in this respect perfectly congruent with each other.”
Now a man of Francis’s rare intelligence and insight is not about to downplay the vast role played by Jews in America today. Rather than attributing dominance to this group, however, he takes an alternative tack: “Jews within the managerial elite serve as the cultural vanguard of the managerial class. . . . perform[ing] a support function” (p. 397).
So we’ve reached the crux of the issue: Are Jews subordinate to the (implied) white managerial elite, or are they dominant? This very question divides white nationalists to this day.
Here I will argue that Francis’s belief in Jewish subordination was wrong, but it was intentionally wrong. Put another way, in “Why the American Ruling Class Betrays Its Race and Civilization” and in his other writings, he was writing esoterically because he knew the consequences of writing too candidly about Jewish power.
Consider that Francis noted the new role of managerial bureaucrats in government and the political parties in displacing the previous White, non-Jewish power holders. This new governmental domination is mirrored by that occurring in the universities, foundation, think tanks, national newspapers and magazines, as well as visual mass media. But hasn’t Jewish dominance in these spheres has been so massively documented (by MacDonald, for example) that it would seem “managerial elite” is practically synonymous with “Jewish elite”?
When reading the following list proffered by Francis, does not the informed reader perforce construct a mental image of Jewish dominance: “public bureaucracies, mass labor unions, political parties, mass media, financial institutions, universities, foundations, and other organizations that were immense in size, scale, and technical complexity . . .” (p. 385).
Two institutions that might fall outside the immediate ken of Jewish domination are large corporations involved in manufacturing, and the military (although the last time I checked, Norton Schwartz headed the US Air Force, becoming the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, head of the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, the assistant commandant of the Marines. This is according to The Jewish Forward.)
Unless it wasn’t clear before, the recent economic meltdown has largely proven the dominance of Wall St. capital over individual corporations, particularly those in manufacturing (see this blog for a short description). As for the military, the heavily Jewish neoconservatives have successfully made the US military subordinate to their will. Again, both of these claims need not be demonstrated here for they have been demonstrated so well in other familiar and accessible places.
Francis also listed non-white ethnic and racial groups which are encouraged to openly pursue their own interests, such as the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus and so on. In a footnote, he acknowledged the contribution to Race and the American Prospect made by Kevin MacDonald on the Jewish creation and control of the NAACP. As editor of the book, Francis simply cannot plead ignorance. In the same way that MacDonald shows how the NAACP was a front group in the Jewish assault on white society, so too can we show that many of the other managerial groups cited by Francis have been dominated by Jews. Jews were not and are not merely performing a support function.
A good friend who is following these debates sums up the situation well: “Jewish influence is so pervasive and powerful that other factors can hardly be said to be truly independent. It is not now possible to live in a vacuum, a world that is unaffected by their influence.”
He continues:
I’d like to know what force is larger and more menacing than they are? The only even remotely plausible candidates would quite simply have to be secret societies, because there is no force that is possible to detect in the daylight that is bigger, more powerful, or more menacing. And secret societies are of course notoriously difficult to trace or, in some cases (like the Illuminati) even to prove that they exist. So, to the extent that the Jews are not the tool/pawn of some larger force that is very difficult to verify, it is reasonable to conclude that the Jews are the greatest power in the world today (and the world of the past hundred years). I certainly haven’t seen anything in Francis’s work that has convinced me otherwise.
A similarly well-informed friend adds,
Furthermore, Jews socialize to create a certain elite—the “beheading” of the natural elite. [See my own essay on that topic here.] Their ability to control discourse [as in Israel Shamir’s Masters of Discourse], both through media domination and by destroying individuals such as Irving, Rudolf, Zundel, or organizations like the IHR (they firebombed it), completely distorts public discourse.
It is pointless to argue with philo-Semites of any stripe. Even philo-Semites would be different in the absence of Jews: they’d have to identify a different god to worship and center their lives around!
Again, this position is a common one among those who have studied The Jewish Question at length. Such observers—properly, in my view—have little patience with theories that posit Jews as supporting actors or as people who are overtaken by impersonal forces that supposedly ride herd over us humans.
Sam Francis died nearly five years ago, so he missed the continued rise of the Zionists and neocons, and the transparently Jewish-backed elevation of a non-White to the Presidency, and the present econmic tumult, with its famed minority mortgage meltdown, the bankruptcy of General Motors, and the bailouts to Wall St., followed by the obscene bonuses paid to those bankers. Had he lived, he may indeed have begun to write more openly about The Jewish Problem.
Personally, I sympathize greatly with someone in a situation such as his. He played by the rules, earning advanced degrees at good universities, then went quietly to work in the halls of power, all the while honing his writing skills.
When the time came, he moved to an editorial position at The Washington Times, but as Joe Sobran noted, Sam “stayed at the Times for nine years until he was abruptly fired for speaking (on his own time) at an American Renaissance Conference. The comments in his speech were not at issue. The newspaper objected to his having appeared at the gathering.”
Francis knew the line he was walking and did his best to stay honest to himself and to his readers. He also knew the risks—and paid for taking them.
Still, he had critics among white nationalists who felt he should have done more to expose the threat emanating from the Jewish quarter. One of critics was Victor J. Gerhard, Esq. who posted on VNN this exchange with Francis. Chided for not naming Jews, Francis replied, “You simply cannot go much further than I have already gone and expect to be published at all in anything like mainstream media.”
Gerhard upped the ante, however, demanding of Francis:
Join those on the radical right who are not afraid to tell the whole truth. I am not asking you to do ANYTHING I have not done. I lost my job as an Attorney, I have friends going to jail on made up charges, I’ve had my phone tapped, I get the super search at every airport, but I am a FREE MAN! I also write columns — they don’t get published mainstream, but thousands of people read them. You could do a hundred times better.
I realize this is a lot to ask, but screw the money and respectability. What do I want? White Power! Your entire body of work does little to counter an anti-Jewish explanation of American Politics. I believe almost all you have written; yet it contradicts most of MacDonald not at all. Your writings try to explain why and how this managerial elite became so alienated and hostile to traditional America. It partially explains the alienation, but does little to explain the hostility, the outright hatred, that these elites have for people who are basically members of their family. Only a non-White group could have such hatred for Whites, and such an obsession with their destruction. Only by understanding that the most influential part of the managerial elite is Jewish can one finally understand this contradiction in your work. [emphasis added]
Sam shot back:
I don’t deny that Jews have power — certainly in the media and cultural centers generally and in politics through funding, staffing etc. But Jews are not the ruling class in this country (at least not yet). As in many other societies they form a satellite that provides services for the ruling class (tax collecting in Poland, e.g.), but I think they have little interest in becoming the actual ruling class because they have no interest in that as long as their interests are secured.
My entire body of writings over the last 20-25 years is an explanation of how I disagree with and have a somewhat different view of the world than what is frankly a monomaniacal obsession with an omnipotent Jew. [emphasis in the original]
Again, I appreciate that Francis was in a difficult situation. John Derbyshire described it quite well in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com, asserting:
So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: First, I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.
Note that he never says anything about the truth value of such hypothetical remarks; presumably, even true ones that reflect poorly on the Jews would succeed in getting one banished. That is the point.
The fact is, tactics aimed at the protection and advancement of Whites tried till now have not succeeded. They have failed. Consider again the scope of the problem, outlined here by an incredulous Peter Brimelow:
This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland in the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . . What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power.
As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people? . . . How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control?”
The answer is that the founding stock—and two hundred million other Euro-Americans—have come under the rule of an alien elite, along with the multitude of non-White minorities which that elite has recruited.
A serious study of this process will reveal that rather than the Managerial Revolution as postulated by Burnham or Francis being responsible, it has been a race-centered progression instituted by organized Jewry and by Jews individually. I think of it as a “promote-punish-purge” process in which perceived Jewish interests are always paramount.
Francis was purged because his writings were pro-white, an unacceptable position to Jews because only THEY among powerful groups may promote group integrity. From the time German Jews arrived in America during the 1800s, they have actively pursued this “promote-punish-purge” campaign, boosting Jewish power and influence, while undermining and destroying that of their current main nemesis, Whites.
The list of those pro-Whites punished and purged is long, and it is hard to reconcile the vehemence of the attacks against them with the desire of the managerial elite to gain and hold power. Ford, Lindbergh, Coughlin, Pound, Eliot, McCarthy, Carto, Pierce, Oliver, Duke, Dickson, Robertson, Buchanan, Sobran, Irving, Gibson, MacDonald. This list goes on.
Meanwhile, the enemies of Whites—mainly drawn from the ranks of White liberals—have been assiduously promoted for over a century. Ted Kennedy, the public face of the 1965 immigration law betrayal, is but an example.
Had Sam Francis been given his threescore years and ten, I suspect he would have come over to the side of more white nationalists on the Jewish Question and I think he would have done so publicly.
Is it not our duty, then, to honor Dr. Francis’s memory by addressing forthrightly the chief problem facing us today?
I got an email this morning from a conservative reader. The headline was “Amconmag Goes Neocon.” It appears that someone has signed me up on a conservative email list. I don’t think the author will mind me sharing its contents:
It’s official
Ron Unz, the Jewish owner of the American Conservative, has become a mestizo apologist.
American Conservative now reads like the neocon Weekly Standard in support of open borders
This is not surprising, considering:
Buchanan and Taki no longer have anything to do at all with the American Conservative
Ron Unz opposed Prop. 187 in California (a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from using social services)
A link was provided to a new article by Ron Unz, the Jewish owner of The American Conservative, called “His-Panic: The Myth of Immigrant Crime.” Razib Khan of Gene Expression assisted Unz with the technical data. After visiting the site, I noticed that it is the cover story of the March issue. Personally, I’ve never written a single word about Hispanic crime at this website. VDARE and Amren have addressed the issue and should respond to Unz in some fashion.
In addition to “His-Panic,” there is another headline article called “Open Arms, Open Doors” from The Washington Post that argues U.S. immigration policy is killing Haitians and that the best way to help them is to let millions of starving refugees flood into the United States. What’s that doing in a paleoconservative magazine? Some of you might recall that last month Unz published Peter Hitchen’s “Far Wrong” hit piece on the BNP. You don’t need a crystal ball to see where this is going.
The choice of “His-Panic” as the title of the headline article in the new TAC is revealing. Geraldo Rivera (the Jewish/Puerto Rican liberal journalist) has a book called His-Panic: Why Americans Fear Hispanics in the U.S. I knew the term sounded familar. I want to say that the neocon Linda Chavez has also written something under that label.
After hearing this, I think most White Nationalists will have the same reaction. A cardinal belief of White Nationalism is that Jews control the media and that their collective influence has pushed America in a more liberal, anti-racist direction. An important corollary is that Jews should be totally excluded from our media and organizations. This is why Amren’s inclusion of Jews has stirred so much controversy within the racialist community.
As The American Conservative goes the way of National Review, a few chastened paleos might learn something from this experience. Even if you disagree with White Nationalism, you can’t build viable conservative institutions with Jews in leading positions of influence. It never pans out. The idea that Jews could be relied upon to restore a healthy White Christian America was always absurd.
Unfortunately, I doubt this episode will put an end to that fanciful notion on the Alternative Right.
Occidental Dissent, January 26, 2010
Casey Johnson
Lesbian heiress, socialite, and Hollywood celeb Casey Johnson, 30, was found dead in the bedroom of her West Hollywood home on January 4, 2010. Jewish gossip website TMZ reported that Johnson, last heard from on December 29, 2009, had been dead for several days before her body was discovered by a maid. A coroner’s toxicology report has yet to be issued, but foul play is not suspected. Johnson suffered from diabetes and had a history of drug abuse.
Casey Johnson’s death provides a convenient window into the seamy underbelly of the contemporary WASP “elite.”
A Squalid Life
According to the Daily Mail (UK):
Yesterday it was revealed that Ms Johnson lived her final days in squalor in a rubbish-strewn slum with no electricity, water or gas, and rats in her swimming pool. Cut off from her family fortune, the 30-year-old Johnson & Johnson heiress’s privileged life spiralled out of control into a drug-fuelled hell. She reportedly lived without basic utilities at her rented home because she couldn’t afford to pay the bills and kept her Porsche hidden in the garage to prevent it from being repossessed. “There are dirty dishes everywhere and rotting food. There is graffiti on the walls. The pool looks like a swamp,” the source told the New York Post. Ms Johnson is thought to have been dead for up to seven days before her body was found.
Photo captions read “Squalid: Conditions were said to be ’slumlike’ inside Casey Johnson’s LA home” and “Infested: The grounds of the home, which was crawling with rats.”
A Hollywood socialite, Johnson appeared as herself on the cable television programs E! True Hollywood Story and The Fabulous Life of . . . Her friends included Hilton sisters Paris and Nicky (Hilton Hotels), Nicole Richie, and Susan (Penn) Gutfreund, a former beauty queen and flight attendant who married the Jewish “King of Wall Street,” John Gutfreund. The Gutfreunds are believed to be the model for the Bavardages in Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities. They live at 834 Park Avenue in the same building as Casey’s father Woody Johnson and Rupert Murdoch and his Chinese wife—the building where Casey grew up.
Father Robert Wood “Woody” Johnson IV (1947- ) is best known as the owner of the New York Jets football franchise, which he purchased for more than half a billion dollars in 2000 from the estate of Jewish oil tycoon Leon Hess (Amerada Hess Corp.).
According to Vanity Fair (note the explicit racism casually directed even at white members of the social “elite”):
Casey went to the Chapin School, the tony Manhattan private school, then to Marymount, a Catholic girls’ school, and finally to high school with Paris Hilton at Dwight. Hilton never graduated from the school known to some New York preppies as Dumb White Idiots Getting High Together, but Casey did, and she went on to Brown University.
She dropped out during her freshman year.
For three years Casey dated Jewish “nightclub promoter-turned-marketer” Mike Heller, and worked for and remained life-long friends with Lizzie Grubman, the daughter of wealthy entertainment attorney Allen Grubman.
Lizzie Grubman, a publicist with a celebrity clientele, is a woman of some interest. In 2001, after being asked by a security guard to remove her Mercedes SUV from a fire lane outside a busy nightclub in the Hamptons, Grubman notoriously smashed the vehicle into a crowd, badly injuring 16 people. She was charged with multiple felonies and faced up to eight years in prison. However, she served only 37 days in jail. She allegedly also received special treatment from the cops, who did not conduct a breathalyzer test.
Multiple accounts of the incident report that Grubman, prior to plowing into the crowd, yelled at the security guard, “Fuck you, white trash!” Grubman’s career and social standing have not suffered permanent damage from the affair.
In a 2006 interview with Johnson, Vanity Fair reported:
“The stupidest mistake of my life,” was to turn down [Paris] Hilton’s invitation to be her co-star on The Simple Life. Nicole Richie—Paris’s third choice, some say, after her sister, Nicky, and Casey—got the job instead and has parlayed it into a promising career. Casey’s ‘dream’ was to be an actress, but a serious one. “I kick myself in the butt every day,” she says of the lost opportunity to jump-start an acting career.
Casey Johnson will primarily be remembered for hard partying, adolescent-style feuds, and numerous lesbian affairs. One flame was Jewish film executive and former Yahoo! CEO Terry Semel’s daughter Courtenay Semel (formerly the girlfriend of Lindsay Lohan), who set Casey’s hair on fire during a fight.
In November 2009 Casey was charged with grand theft for stealing $200,000 worth of jewelry and clothing from another ex-lover, model Jasmine Lennard, leaving a used vibrator on the bed. Immediately prior to her death Casey and “reality TV”/skin magazine celebrity Tila Tequila announced their engagement to be married. Tequila was born Tila Nguyen in Singapore to Vietnamese parents who subsequently moved to Houston.
Casey Johnson also lavished time and money on non-white children’s charities including
the sherp Orphanage, in Kenya, and the Malawi Project, a group that Madonna helped establish to support children who have lost their families to aids. Casey says the work has helped give her focus. “It’s so boring to do nothing. Believe me, I’ve tried it. It’s, like, how many days a week can you actually go shopping? You get burned out. And you feel like shit. You think, What have I ever done to alter this world? What will people say?
A Distinguished Legacy
Casey’s great-great-grandfather, Robert Wood Johnson (1845-1910), with brothers James Wood and Edward Mead Johnson, co-founded pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson in 1885-86. Edward left the company in 1897 to found drug company Mead Johnson. (This Johnson family should not to be confused with the similarly-named heirs of the privately-owned S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., a home care products company [Pledge, Windex] headquartered in Racine, Wisconsin, founded the same year, who remain active in their family firm.)
Today New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson, maker of prescription pharmaceuticals, medical devices, Band-Aids, Tylenol, Baby Shampoo, and Acuvue disposable contact lenses, is one of the world’s largest corporations. The company’s major innovations include antiseptic individually-wrapped surgical dressings, the first aid kit, and duct tape. An early investor in China, the company opened its second production facility there in 1993.
Casey’s great-grandfather, thrice-married Robert Wood Johnson, Jr. (called “the General” due to his administrative service as a brigadier general during WWII) (1893-1968), headed the company from 1932 to 1963, building it into the international powerhouse it is today.
Though slight of build, because of his intensely competitive spirit he became a swimmer, horseman, and tennis player. He flew all the early types of airplanes, including the original single-motor biplane, the monoplane, and the Autogiro, as helicopters were first called. He also liked to race his oceangoing sloop and won a case full of cups. (Waldemar Neilsen, The Golden Donors [1985], 117)
Johnson established a Sound Government Program within Johnson & Johnson that encouraged dozens of employees to serve in elective and appointive offices in state and local government. His passion for corporate decentralization meant that purchased subsidiaries operated under virtually autonomous bosses, and his conviction that if you “make your top managers rich, they will make you even richer” created many millionaires.
The General died in 1968, leaving the bulk of his $400 million fortune to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, today the fifth largest foundation in the country and eighth largest in the world.
Father Robert Wood “Woody” Johnson IV
Casey was the daughter of New York Jets owner Woody Johnson and his first wife Nancy Sale (Frey) Johnson (known as Sale), a model from St. Louis. The couple had three daughters: Casey, Jamie and Daisy.
Robert Johnson’s second wife is former actress Suzanne Ircha Johnson, by whom he has two sons, Robert Wood Johnson V (2006- ) and Jack Johnson (2008- ). Both boys were born before the couple was married. Woody Johnson also has at least one other former mistress (excuse me—”girlfriend”), Erika Mariani.
Woody has been described by a sportswriter as “a slender, bespectacled man who reveres Galileo, yet occasionally goes heli-skiing in the Canadian Rockies. He is more knowledgeable about the complexities of the Human Genome Project than the nickel defense. He knows actors and celebrities better than he knows his fellow NFL owners.”
He worked for the family corporation as a young man with the expectation that he would one day join the firm as an executive. However, in 1965 his grandfather, “the General,” ousted his father, president of domestic operations Robert Wood Johnson III (1920-1970) (Casey’s grandfather), from the firm following a family quarrel. Subsequently, Johnson III, an alcoholic, died of cancer at the age of 50 and his son Woody no longer had a future with the corporation. Today Johnson & Johnson is not family owned or run.
Woody had five brothers and sisters (Robert III’s children—Casey’s uncles and aunt). Two brothers died in 1975—one in a motorcycle accident and one from a cocaine overdose. Sister Elizabeth Ross “Libet” Johnson has been married and divorced five times and also had a string of boyfriends. In 2003 she established an orphanage for Cambodian children in Phnom Penh for $10 to $15 million. Libet also cares for a Cambodian boy she moved to the United States.
As a philanthropist, “[Woody] Johnson, whose wealth comes from a combination of inheritance and investments, remains active in the push for diabetes research, but his big push in recent years has been finding a cure for lupus, which strikes black men and women far more often than whites”—a cause to which he has donated millions of dollars.
Mother Nancy Sale (Frey) Johnson Rashad
Casey’s stepfather was Negro ex-football star, television sportscaster, and convert-to-Islam Ahmad Rashad (born Robert Earl Moore), whom Sale Johnson married after her divorce from Woody. Sale is Rashad’s fourth wife. By this marriage Casey acquired five black step brothers and sisters, four born (by various wives) in, and one out of, wedlock.
In 2007, after a failed attempt to adopt a Cambodian girl, Casey Johnson adopted a white-looking daughter from Kazakhstan, Ava-Monroe. Hotel heiress Nicky Hilton was the child’s godmother. In early 2009, in the words of one website, “Sale Johnson took custody of Casey’s young adopted daughter Ava, because Casey was living with the child, in squalor, and under the influence of drugs in her L.A. home. Woody Johnson and Sale ceased all financial assistance to Casey at that time, and Casey became estranged from both of her parents.”
Cousin Jamie Johnson
James Wittenborn “Jamie” Johnson (1979- ) has previously been profiled on this site.
Suzanna Andrews noted in Vanity Fair, “Next to Casey, the best-known Johnson of her generation is Jamie, whose documentary Born Rich probed the psyches of the young and set-for-life. Jamie comes from the scandalous side of the family—the one descended from the General’s brother, Seward, whose marriage to his Polish chambermaid, Barbara “Basia” Piasecka, sparked an embarrassing three-year inheritance battle.”
Older readers may remember the case, which garnered enormous publicity and was the subject of books by two Jewish authors, Barbara Goldsmith’s Johnson v. Johnson (1987) and David Margolick’s Undue Influence: The Epic Battle for the Johnson & Johnson Fortune (1993).
“Seward,” the son of company founder Robert Wood Johnson and brother of the General (Robert Wood Johnson, Jr.), was J(ohn) Seward Johnson (1895-1983). He had six children by two wives before marrying his Polish maid in 1971. Forty-two years his junior, she wound up with the bulk of his fortune.
One of Seward’s children was Jamie’s father, James Loring Johnson, who once funded a documentary attacking white rule in South Africa. Another child (Jamie’s aunt) was Mary Lea Johnson Richards (d. 1990), the wife of Jewish producer Marty Richards. They produced the homosexual Broadway play La Cage Aux Folles and the anti-white movie The Boys from Brazil (1978).
Jamie Johnson’s first documentary, Born Rich (HBO 2003), described by the New York Times as “biting the hand that feeds him, on film,” splattered mud on his father and grandfather. “Mr. Johnson, who grew up with his older sisters and brother on a luxurious New Jersey estate with servants and horses, said he didn’t find out he was rich until he was 10 years old and a friend at school found his father listed in Forbes magazine as one of the 400 wealthiest men in America. In the film, Mr. Johnson portrays his family as almost comically out of touch with reality.”
After his second film on the same subject, The One Per Cent (2006), was broadcast on Cinemax, a Jewish reporter for the Wall Street Journal, Robert Frank, described Jamie as “the rich man’s Michael Moore.” “Jamie follows his father from the croquet court to family meetings asking about the film and his family’s wealth. His father tries to answer his questions on several occasions, but eventually gives up, walking out of one interview with his head in his hands saying, ‘I can’t take any more. It’s too much for me.’” Jewish Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, in one of his last interviews before his death, accused Johnson of advocating socialism and abruptly walked out.
But, Frank notes, “Mr. Johnson insists he’s not opposed to wealth—including his own.”
The author of a regular column about the rich in Vanity Fair, Jamie Johnson will presumably analyze his cousin’s life and death in an upcoming issue.
Conclusion
The Establishment pretends that non-Jewish whites constitute a cohesive elite that controls the United States. As a Mexican employee of Village Voice Media sneered while denigrating factual statements about white dispossession, “You know, because all those white men and women in Congress, the Senate, and 95-some percent of American legislative bodies just don’t cut it!”
An examination of the Johnson family reveals that whites in the Jewish Establishment are white in name only. They symbolize the downfall and subjugation of the race to which their ancestors belonged.
The public “influence” of Casey’s father, or her cousin Jamie Johnson, for example, exists only as long as it promotes the goals of the dominant anti-white elite. Woody Johnson’s two most notable public roles have been membership in the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and serving as the fourth largest contributor to the presidential campaigns of Zionist George W. Bush. This is not “leadership,” but irresponsible followership.
Contrast the Johnsons’ aimless hedonism, conformism, and unseemly desperation to be socially accepted with the coldly calculated, tightly coordinated behavior of their Jewish counterparts who ruthlessly shoved the U.S. into the Middle East to serve Zionist interests. Jews are a purposive, cohesive ethnic elite; aimless, directionless whites are raceless. Indeed, if they were not, they would be unceremoniously and pitilessly destroyed—as everyone knows.
Casey’s adopted Kazakhstani daughter, Ava-Monroe, was named after her idol, half-Norwegian strumpet Marilyn Monroe, who degradingly served the same alien racial and social groups in her day as the Johnsons do today.
I see a lot of similarities between us. Her life makes me sad. I don’t think she was very happy. She was just very, very complicated and sort of a deep person, and nobody realized that. They thought she was some dumb blonde, and she wasn’t. She was a smart, smart broad. And I think that sometimes people look at me and think, Oh, Casey Johnson, she’s stupid, she’s blonde, she’s an heiress.
And now she’s dead, her short, unhappy life over forever.
In the New York Times, David Brooks (a Jewish Op-Ed columnist) observes that Americans have never been more sour about the future of their country. 61% of Americans believe their country is in decline. Only 27% of Americans believe their children will be better off than they are. Job satisfaction is at a record low. The Tea Party movement is more popular than either major political party.
Naturally, Brooks is “not a fan of this movement” but sees its “potential to shape the coming decade.” He notes that “every single idea associated with the educated class has grown more unpopular over the past year.” For our purposes, it is worth noting that the “educated classes” (the media, public policy, and academic elites) have never been more disproportionately Jewish than they are today.
A majority of White Americans have grown disgusted with Jewish influence in our culture, but have yet to connect the dots. They don’t see the Jewish economists behind globalism or the Jewish advocacy groups behind abortion. There is no discussion of the issue in the MSM. It remains to be seen whether or not White Nationalists will capitalize on this opportunity.
From Antisemitica, January 5, 2010
A point in favor of the philo-Semites emerged this morning. In light of my pledge of fairness, I felt compelled to report it. Jewish attitudes toward immigration are more complex than White Nationalists have imagined. If the CIS/Zogby data is accurate, the typical Jew is at odds with the Jewish leadership on immigration.
- 61% of Jews do not believe legal immigration should be increased or that illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship. 16% of Jews support amnesty and increasing legal immigration.
- 69% of Catholics do not believe legal immigration should be increased or that illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship. 12% of Catholics support amnesty and increasing legal immigration.
- 75% of Evangelical Protestants do not believe legal immigration should be increased or that illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship. 7% of Evangelical Protestants support amnesty and increasing legal immigration.
- 73% of mainline Protestants do not believe legal immigration should be increased or that illegal aliens should be given a path to citizenship. 10% of mainline Protestants support amnesty and increasing legal immigration.
- 50% of Jews believe the total number of immigrants is “too high,” 22% believe it is “just right,” 5% believe it is “too low,” and 23% are “not sure.”
- 69% of Catholics believe the total number of immigrants is “too high,” 14% believe it is “just right,” 4% believe it is “too low,” and 14% of “not sure.”
- 72% of mainline Protestants believe the total number of immigrants is “too high,” 11% believe it is “just right,” and 2% believe it is “too low.”
- 78% of Evangelical Protestants believe the total number of immigrants is “too high,” 9% believe it is “just right,” and 3% believe it is “too low,” and 10% are “not sure.”
There is a lot of meat in this study. Several more questions were asked. The overall picture that emerges is that Jews are more likely to support amnesty and immigration than other religious groups, but the Jewish rank-and-file (like Protestants, Evangelicals and Catholics) is at odds with the Jewish leadership on immigration. Most American Jews do not seem to support the inundation of the United States by third world immigrants.
From Antisemitica, December 31, 2009
Human Events has named Dick Cheney as their Conservative of the Year. They found John Bolton to write the article, the only person more insane than receiver of the award.
How is it, therefore, that someone who has no political ambitions can cause so much angst at the White House and in the mainstream news media? The irrefutable answer is that what Cheney is saying, primarily on foreign policy, defense and anti-terrorism, makes sense to more and more American citizens growing increasingly worried by the Obama Administration’s insouciance when U.S. national interests are threatened, both at home and abroad. Since the only real, long-term way to deal with persuasive positions on substantive policy matters is to refute them with sounder policy arguments, it is not hard to understand why the Obama White House is near panic. Where are they going to go to find a better policy inside his administration?
Bolton’s last two articles for Human Events? “Time for an Israeli Strike?” and “Reinventing Conservatism,” an article with a title that indicates he will be dealing with many topics but in which he calls for a belligerent foreign policy without mentioning any other issue. He gives away what conservatism has devolved into.
The con game works like this. Human Events publishes Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter for social conservatives and those of us who hate political correctness. They publish Thomas Sowell for the small government and libertarian crowd. And they publish foaming at the mouth neo-cons like Bolton. The right wing establishment sometimes even excites us by supporting Charles Murray. But when Bush and the Republicans had power, the neo-cons were the only ones who got what they wanted. I give them credit for Alito and Roberts, but that’s it.
And the right wing masses are no better. Go to Free Republic and contrast how the commentators treat Joe Lieberman and Pat Buchanan. The first is pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay marriage, has a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO union thugs, and gets an F from the NRA. But he supports a pro-Israel foreign policy. Buchanan is an anti-war conservative with protectionist sympathies who is the most un-PC person that appears on TV.
In this random post about Lieberman, most of the commentators can’t stop going on about what a great guy he is. Some respectfully pointed out that he’s not actually a conservative, but nobody except one poster who claims Lieberman will weaken the GOP goes beyond that.
Now look at the first ten comments on this thread of an article by Buchanan.
Poster #1
Pat’s stuck in the 1950s.
#3
Pat Buchanan can go…. well, I can’t SAY what he can go do or I’ll get Banned from FR!
#5
When will he just go away…
#6
When will Pat just go away?
We can use Occam’s Razor to understand what’s going on here; everyone with any brains has either been
A) brainwashed by liberalism.
B) become a biorealist or at least a libertarian
The only ones left to post on Free Republic are those too stupid to either be brainwashed or think for themselves.
I’ll also repeat my idea that masses of white people have channeled the anger they have about what non-whites have done to this country towards innocent Iraqis and Palestinians as well as anybody that their government may get their hands on and torture. Still, it’s doubtful that they would be clamoring to defend South Korea against the North if they weren’t led in that direction. The fact that they are so easily pulled wherever the Neo-cons want to go is explained by their low IQs. The leaders are little more than Israeli nationalists and careerists.
From HBD Books, December 23, 2009
VDARE.com is again running their wonderful War on Christmas series, begun in 1999. Various contributors there document how an overwhelmingly Christian America which for centuries celebrated Christmas as both a religious and cultural holiday has in recent years moved vigorously first to quash religious observance of Christmas in the public square and is now mopping up the remaining secular symbols.
While much has been written and reported about this assault, few want to situate the attack on Christmas within a larger set of conflicts between Jews and white Christians. But to understand the hostility toward Christmas in America, one must do just that, as Jewish Townhall.com columnist Burt Prelutsky bluntly did in his 2004 column “The Jewish Grinch who stole Christmas.”
The blame for the brisk departure of Christmas observations in so many parts of American life now, Prelutsky argued, can be blamed on “my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront. . . . But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society — it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. “
One could spend a year, from one Christmas to the next, reading about the Gentile-Jewish basis of the War on Christmas. Some accounts are scholarly, while others are more popular. Some overtly point to the religious split as the source of the hostility, while others cautiously skirt around the issue.
Rush Limbaugh’s younger brother David is at pains not to name the source of the powerful anti-Christian bias he sees in our culture. Thus, in his 2003 work Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity
The same can be said for Bill O’Reilly — another culture warrior on the good side of the War on Christmas who never mentions the Jewish angle. But I love his poster anyway, even though he doesn’t want to say whom he is really fighting against. This silence is, of course, a wonderful comment on Jewish power in America.
Incidentally, the Jewish dominance of Hollywood is so obvious and undeniable that Los Angeles Times’ columnist Joel Stein recently announced it. What else can you say when all eight major film studios are run by Jews. And Abe Foxman seems to agree. So I guess it’s okay for us at TOO to say it.
But, according to Foxman, these Hollywood Jewish executives just “happen to be Jewish,” as if the Jewishness of Hollywood really doesn’t make any difference. But of course it does, and the War on Christmas is Exhibit A for that proposition.
In The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World
Lind goes as far as anyone in this book to frame the conflict:
The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.
Needless to say, this emphasis on the Frankfurt school moves the discussion in the same direction as Kevin MacDonald does in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
Perhaps one of the best books on this Kulturkampf is Fox News Channel host John Gibson’s 2005 The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought
He does this by bookending his tale with stories about Christians and Jews. In his preface, he relates the pain a Christian father recently experienced upon learning that his four-year-old son had learned to paint a menorah in preschool but not a Christmas tree. This was because the school had no “Christmas” tree, only a “friendship” tree. In contrast, the school displayed large drawings of menorahs with big block letters spelling out HAPPY HANUKKAH. It’s pretty clear which culture is dominant these days.
Gibson closes the book with a debate with Ira Glasser of the ACLU, displaying the “hairsplitting” style of argumentation that Glasser so forcefully wielded in a debate. “Hairsplitting,” of course, could just as easily be what many people mean when they say reasoning is “Talmudic.”
Finally, if one is so inclined, a perusal of law professor Stephen M. Feldman’s Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (Critical America Series)
In everyday parlance, this debate is often referred to as the one over “A Neutral Public Square,” and it has been going on for a long time. “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” were not always ubiquitous greetings at the end of December. For instance, back in 1952, George S. Kaufman appeared on a popular television show one week before Christmas and was asked what he wanted for the holiday. He replied, “Let’s make this one program on which no one sings ‘Silent Night.’” The response from the audience (largely Gentile, one would presume) was fast and furious: Kaufman was removed from the show.
Fast-forward to 1982 and the popular Saturday Night Live could feature a skit called “Merry Christmas, Dammit!” This skit portrayed the relationship between Donny and Marie Osmond, two non-Jewish sibling pop singers, as incestuous, and the Virgin Mary was described as “that virgin chick” in a jazzed up version of “Silent Night.” Eddie Murphy — in his popular “Gumby” guise — reads children’s story in which Santa tears out the lungs of one of his elves because the elf asked for a sip of Santa’s hot chocolate. He ends the skit by saying “And to everyone out there — a merry Christmas! And to my producer, my director, my manager, and my lawyer — Happy Hanukkah, boys!” Obviously sensibilities had changed by then, and the people calling the shots were Jews.
Indeed, Jewish aversion to Christian symbols has resulted in a much more neutral public arena. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg, in his much under-appreciated 1993 work The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State
Religious symbols and forms of expression that Jews find threatening have been almost completely eliminated from schools and other public institutions. Suits brought by the ACLU, an organization whose leadership and membership are predominantly Jewish, secured federal court decisions banning officially sanctioned prayer in the public schools and crèches and other religious displays in parks and public buildings.
Writer Mark Steyn light-heartedly described how Jews created a gradual division between religious and secular Christmas symbols, making America a society where “Jesus, Mary and Joseph are for home and for church; Santa, Rudolph and Frosty the Snowman—the great secular trinity—are for everybody.” He continues:
It’s 1934 . . . and it falls to a Jew to introduce Tin Pan Alley’s first Christmas pop standard. Isidore Israel Itkowitz—or Eddie Cantor—doesn’t much like the song, but his wife talks him into it:
‘He’s making a list
And checking it twice,
He’s gonna find out
Who’s naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town . . .’
In just 60 years, those words have become as familiar to most Americans as the Pledge of Allegiance. ‘Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer’ has gone down in his-to-ree in only 45 years. He’s not just for Episcopalians and Catholics—and who better to teach little girls ‘that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity’ regardless of the color of their nose? Johnny Marks had such a hit—it’s one of the biggest sellers of all time—that he founded his own publishing house, St Nicholas Music, and devoted the rest of his life to composing seasonal songs, from ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree’ to a beautiful setting of Longfellow’s Civil War poem, ‘I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day’. . . . In the New World, the most potent Americana—observational or aspirational—is created by Jews. Perhaps the Yankees took the sleigh rides and winter wonderlands for granted, but you had to have grown up in the lowest East Side ghetto to see that
It’s a happy feeling nothing in the world can buy
As they pass around the coffee and the
pumpkin pie . . .
Jule Styne . . . was born in the Jewish slums of Bethnal Green and liked to say that it was coming from that background that made him understand the dreams of ordinary Americans. With Sammy Cahn, he wrote:
Oh, the weather outside is frightful
But the fire is so delightful
And since we’ve no place to go
Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!
. . . Irving Berlin understood. . . . Today, the calendar turns to Berlin anthems, to ‘Easter Parade’; and ‘God Bless America’ and ‘White Christmas’. They had white Christmases in Temun, Siberia, where he was born, but it’s not about the weather: a white Russian Christmas wouldn’t be the same. . . . (See M. Steyn, “A Triumph of Miscegenation,” The Spectator, December 17/24, 1994.)
Of course, this “compromise” to take Christ out of popular culture was a great victory for Jews, for it allowed the hostility many Jews felt toward a Christian majority to find vent without the Gentiles really noticing. Philip Roth, however, knew exactly what it meant:
The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas.’ The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ—the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity—and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ—down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ‘em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus.
Sadly, Jews have been able to translate this hatred of Christ and his birthday into increasingly scandalous imagery, thanks to their domination of Hollywood and TV studios. The progression of Christmas images from overwhelmingly positive to secular and even vicious imagery is something I’ll discuss—and show—in my next column in a few days.
Merry Christmas!
From The Occidental Observer, December 21, 2008
"Obey us, or we'll weep!"
“Ha’aretz says U.S. officials face ‘pro-Israel’ background check”
Stephen M. Walt
Foreign Policy, December 4, 2009
There is an amazing story in Ha’aretz today on the “pro-Israel” litmus test that determines who is permitted to serve in the United States government. Here’s the sort of lede you’re not likely to read in the New York Times or Washington Post:
Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.
In the case of Obama’s government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing “another leftist” offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel.”
The story goes on to rehearse what happened to Chas Freeman (whose appointment was derailed by the Israel lobby because he voiced a few mild criticisms of Israel’s behavior) and reports that similar complaints are now being raised against the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel. Even more bizarrely, the Zionist Organization of America and other right-wing Jewish groups are complaining about the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal to direct the Office to Combat and Monitor Anti-Semitism. Why? Apparently she’s been involved with J Street and other “leftwing” organizations that ZOA et al deem insufficiently ardent in their support for the Jewish state, and has suggested that progressive forces need to be more vocal in advancing the peace process.
One has to feel a certain sympathy for Ms. Rosenthal, who is forced to defend her own appointment by telling an interviewer:
“I love Israel. I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely.”
These are fine sentiments, but isn’t it odd that she has to defend her qualifications for a position in the U.S. government by saying how much she “loves” a foreign country? For an American official in her position, what matters is that she loves America, and that she believes anti-Semitism is a hateful philosophy that should be opposed vigorously. Whether she loves Israel or France or Thailand or Namibia, etc., is irrelevant. (And yes, it’s entirely possible to loathe anti-Semitism and not love Israel).
But the real lesson of all these episodes is the effect of this litmus test on the foreign policy community more broadly. Groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel, and Rosenthal because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on. And it works. Even if the lobby doesn’t manage to block every single appointment, they can make any administration think twice about a potentially “controversial” choice and use the threat to stifle open discourse among virtually all members of the mainstream foreign policy community (and certainly anyone who aspires to public service in Washington).
The result, of course, is the U.S. Middle East policy (and U.S. foreign policy more generally) is reserved for those who are either steadfastly devoted to the “special relationship” or who have been intimidated into silence. The result? U.S. policy remains in the hands of the same set of “experts” whose policies for the past seventeen years (or more) have been a steady recipe for failure. If a few more Americans read Ha’aretz, they might start to figure this out.
