Bernard Lewis as an Academic Ethnic Activist

In doing some research on Geert Wilders, I came across a recent article by Andrew G. Bostrom favorably describing Bernard Lewis’s views of Islam (“Geert Wilders and the Rise of Islamic Political Correctness,” Dec. 8, 2010). Bernard Lewis is the best known academic expert on the Muslim world, so his views carry quite a bit of weight. Bostrom quotes a 1954 essay of Lewis as follows:

I turn now from the accidental to the essential factors, to those deriving from the very nature of Islamic society, tradition, and thought. The first of these is the authoritarianism, perhaps we may even say the totalitarianism, of the Islamic political tradition… There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind, no councils or communes, no chambers of nobility or estates, no municipalities in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law…For the last thousand years, the political thinking of Islam has been dominated by such maxims as “tyranny is better than anarchy,” and “whose power is established, obedience to him is incumbent.”


Now I have no doubt at all that this Lewis’s views cited here are correct. But the fact is that Bernard Lewis is an exemplar of an academic who has used his gilt-edged reputation to further his ethnic goals. During the run up to the war in Iraq, Lewis was propagating a subtly different message–one quite influential in the Bush administration (to the point that Pres. Bush was seen with a marked-up version of one of Lewis’s papers among his briefing papers): Yes, Arab regimes were undemocratic, but, contrary to the above quote, that was not their essential nature. As reported in the Wall Street Journal in 2004,

After Sept. 11, a book by Mr. Lewis called “What Went Wrong?” was a best-seller that launched the historian, at age 85, as an unlikely celebrity. Witty and a colorful storyteller, he hit the talk-show and lecture circuits, arguing in favor of U.S. intervention in Iraq as a first step toward democratic transformation in the Mideast. Historically, tyranny was foreign to Islam, Mr. Lewis told audiences, while consensual government, if not elections, has deep roots in the Mideast. He said Iraq, with its oil wealth, prior British tutelage and long repression under Saddam Hussein, was the right place to start moving the Mideast toward an open political system.

The subterfuge here was to emphasize the mythical democratic and consensual tendencies of Islam being masked by a veneer of authoritarianism. Deep down there was a yearning for democracy and freedom. The war with Iraq was justified because it would unleash latent democratic tendencies at the heart of Islam–just a modicum of force would be sufficient to result in an avalanche of Arab democracy. Peace will reign in the Middle East. And, oh yes, all of Israel’s enemies will disappear.

(Never mind that democracy has not proved to be a cure for opposition to Israel, as the Hamas government in Gaza shows.)

It’s the same mindset of the psychoanalytic interpretations of the Frankfurt School when they came upon happy, well-adjusted White people who were proud of their families their ethnic group (see Ch. 5 of CofC). Their surface affection for their parents must be masking hatred toward their families, their ethnic confidence a sure sign there was inadequate personality lurking underneath somewhere.

It should come as no surprise that Lewis had close ties to prominent neocons beginning in the 1970s as well as close personal relationships with prominent military and political leaders in Israel.

During the run up to the war, Lewis was a mainstay in the neocon circuit in Washington—yet another in the long line of Jewish gurus that stretches from rabbinical sages surrounded by slavish followers to modern secular versions like Freud and Madoff. Israeli patriot Paul Wolfowitz exclaimed, “Bernard has taught how to understand the complex and important history of the Middle East, and use it to guide us where we will go next to build a better world for generations to come” (See here, p. 50). Lewis spread his wisdom throughout the Bush administration, with Dick Cheney being an avid pupil:

Iraq and its poster villain, Saddam Hussein, offered a unique opportunity for achieving this transformation in one bold stroke (remember “shock and awe”?) while regaining the offensive against the terrorists. So, it was no surprise that in the critical months of 2002 and 2003, while the Bush administration shunned deep thinking and banned State Department Arabists from its councils of power, Bernard Lewis was persona grata, delivering spine-stiffening lectures to Cheney over dinner in undisclosed locations. Abandoning his former scholarly caution, Lewis was among the earliest prominent voices after September 11 to press for a confrontation with Saddam, doing so in a series of op-ed pieces in The Wall Street Journal with titles like “A War of Resolve” and “Time for Toppling.” (See here.)

And of course, they got what they wanted–the destruction of Iraq and now they desperately want to the US to continue the crusade in Iran. Only this time, I don’t think anyone is going to buy the latent democracy bit.

I noted in an article on neocons that Lewis’s views

run counter to the huge cultural differences between the Middle East and the West that stem ultimately from very different evolutionary pressures. Lewis, as a cultural historian, is in a poor position to understand the deep structure of the cultural differences between Europe and the Middle East. He seems completely unaware of the differences in family and kinship structure between Europe and the Middle East, and he regards the difference in attitudes toward women as a mere cultural difference rather than as a marker for an entirely different social structure. (pp. 50-51)

It’s the same tendencies that are apparent in Judaism deriving from its Middle East roots and increasingly obvious as Israel heads more and more in the direction of a racialist, apartheid state dominated by fanatical religious and ethnonationalist Jews (see here). Democracy is certainly not high on their list of values.

But for Lewis, it’s more than just getting it wrong. As his comment during the 1950s shows, he is well aware of the essential difference between Islam and the West. His “discovery” of democratic impulses at the heart of Islam was completely fabricated to suit the Israeli geopolitical agenda; it was enthusiastically promoted by neocon Israeli patriots who had taken over the Bush administration; and it provided him with a moment of fame and adulation on the lecture circuit.

All in all, it’s another example illustrating the secrets of the success of Jewish activism: Lewis’s views were validated by his connection to an elite academic institution (Princeton). He had access to elite media (beginning with a 1970 Commentary article that argued that the Palestinians had no historical claim to a state). He was closely networked with other neocons who were already entrenched at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

It’s a recurrent problem that has already led to an enormously costly and bloody war and to a foreign policy that is disastrously skewed toward Israel. Moreover, the problem extends well beyond foreign policy because the success of Bernard Lewis reflects the dynamics of Jewish influence throughout the media, in politics, and in the academic world. This modus operandi is apparent in all of the  intellectual and political movements reviewed in The Culture of Critique.

Unless we have some fundamental changes whereby we can discuss Jewish interests openly and honestly in the elite media and in elite political and academic circles, there will be new versions of Bernard Lewis-type gurus confidently phrasing their ethnic interests in terms that are irresistible to the powerful and influential and amplified resoundingly in all the elite institutions throughout the culture. And it will happen again, and again, and again.

  • Print
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

44 Comments to "Bernard Lewis as an Academic Ethnic Activist"

  1. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    February 7, 2011 - 6:10 am | Permalink

    Bernard Lewis’s 1992 article in ‘Foreign Affairs’ called “Rethinking the Middle East.” advocated what he called “Lebanonization.” :- “[A] possibility,[…], is what has late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity.… Then state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.”

    Lewis was lying

    • Someday's Gravatar Someday
      February 7, 2011 - 6:43 am | Permalink

      To be clear, Lewis was lying about what he thought would happen. He knew that virtual civil war and fragmentation would follow once Saddam was toppled but he pretended to believe Iraq would become a stable democracy.

  2. December 14, 2010 - 12:43 am | Permalink

    Check-out the Wikipedia entry for Bernard Lewis, it will shock you. Because it captures the true essence of Bernard Lewis, in the same spirit that KMD does.


    Random Excerpts:

    The change in Lewis’ textual description of the Armenian massacres, and his signing of the petition against the Congressional resolution, was controversial among some historians and journalists, who suggested that Lewis was engaging in historical revisionism to serve his own political and personal interests

    When Lewis received the National Humanities Medal from US President George W. Bush in November 2006, the Armenian National Committee of America objected: “The President’s decision to honor the work of a known genocide denier — an academic mercenary whose politically motivated efforts to cover up the truth run counter to the very principles this award was established to honor — represents a true betrayal of the public trust.”

    Lewis’ views on the Armenian Genocide were criticized by a number of historians and sociologists.

    In response, Lewis argued that:

    “There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent it, which were not very successful.”

    Lewis stated that he believed “to make [the Armenian Genocide], a parallel with the Holocaust in Germany” was “rather absurd.” In an interview with Ha’aretz he stated:

    “ The deniers of Holocaust have a purpose: to prolong Nazism and to return to Nazi legislation. Nobody wants the ‘Young Turks’ back, and nobody wants to have back the Ottoman Law. What do the Armenians want? The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute.

    Writing in 2008, Lewis did not advocate imposing freedom and democracy on Islamic nations. “There are things you can’t impose. Freedom, for example. Or democracy. Democracy is a very strong medicine which has to be administered to the patient in small, gradually increasing doses. Otherwise, you risk killing the patient. In the main, the Muslims have to do it themselves.”

    Edward Said considered that Lewis treats Islam as a monolithic entity without the nuance of its plurality, internal dynamics, and historical complexities, and accused him of “demagogy and downright ignorance.”

    In his 2009 book, Juan Cole:

    “ Lewis’s beliefs about Iran are even more bizarre than Ahmadinejad’s about Israel, but unfortunately he had the ear of the Bush administration. Of course, nothing came of his ridiculous prophecy, which said more about the irrational anxieties of Western ultra-Zionists than about Iranian political reality.”

    Michael Santomauro

  3. arthurdecco's Gravatar arthurdecco
    December 13, 2010 - 10:38 pm | Permalink

    Can you tell me what’s “creepy” about Liam’s post Mr. Maylor?

    And can you explain to me who the “We” in the following quotation are: “We simply want to preserve and protect White culture.”

    It is YOU I find a teensy bit “creepy”, Mr Maylor, thanks to your penchant for speaking with the Royal “We” and your preference for making things up to argue Against.

    Or For,

    depending on which side is to your personal advantage.

    • Glen's Gravatar Glen
      December 13, 2010 - 11:10 pm | Permalink

      The original comment has been removed. Jeffs comment (and mine) was in response to this, not Liam’s comment. The webmaster should have removed all three comments.

    • Jeff Maylor's Gravatar Jeff Maylor
      December 13, 2010 - 11:35 pm | Permalink

      Yes, just to be clear my post had nothing to do with what Liam said at all. It was another post that is gone now.

  4. Liam's Gravatar Liam
    December 12, 2010 - 8:35 pm | Permalink

    I can handle criticism of my country, the United States of America—even having descended from patriots in the Revolutionary War.

    I can deal with criticism of Christianity, my birth inheritance, as manifested in past or present times.

    God and Country!

    Can those who self-identify, openly or in secret, from the beginning, or at a later date, as “Jews” handle and deal with criticism of the country called Israel, or their Torah-based, Talmud-clarified “faith” (though many are amazingly often secular)? Well, which is it? Religion? Ethnicity? Nationality? Or perceived category???

    Can they be proud of the good, and critical of the bad?

    I know most are nodding their heads.

    And which is it, again? I’m descended from European ancestors, and am pleased with the positive (that I can still learn about, not perverted by Jewish communist editors and publishers), but I am not a citizen of any other ancestral country—just the good ol’ US of A. That is where my earthly, citizenship-based loyalty lies.

    If the long-standing, negative influences from Zionists in the U.S. were suddenly removed, would it be like a bad caffeine-withdrawal headache, painful but short-lived? (with perhaps a lingering malaise for some while)

    Or would it condemn the organism to death, as if a razor-tipped, quad-pointed arrow tip was yanked from a vital area, leaving a shredded, gaping wound? (blood, electric pain and death chills enveloping)

    What is the nature of the problem, and how deeply entwined, and damaging is the invasion?

    How far can a gangrenous infection spread, or malignant, aggressive cancer, before a human being is overcome?

    To leave it alone, is to witness agonizing death.

    To excise it, is at certain advanced stages, a different, still-killing, blow.

    It’s nice to see Jewish readers of MSM articles supporting a more rational, tolerant “Israel” over there, but what will it take to give me back my stolen inheritance here, in the USA? For far too many willingly embrace the lies which benefit them, individually and as a whole, at my expense and of those around me.

    And I know there are hands behind you, warping you, just as Christians. But it’s not Christians I’ve discovered lurking behind so much that is wrong, and who have perpetrated so much harm upon me and others, especially the young and innocent. You are fully, actively complicit in a comprehensive assault on all aspects of life. Nothing of my gentile ways was sacred. Nothing was spared.

  5. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    December 12, 2010 - 2:33 pm | Permalink

    “In the 1950s the Arabs were interested in western style nationalism, now they just want to annihilate us.”

    There’s more to it than just Israel now though. For thirty years the Saudis have been spending their oil money promoting radical Islam around the world and it’s been bearing fruit all over the place – even places like Thailand and the Phillipines.

    Israel may have been the catalyst but it’s taken on a life of its own now.

  6. Someday's Gravatar Someday
    December 12, 2010 - 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Lewis’ real objective was to put the Clean Break strategy of dissolving Arab countries into harmless squabbling tribal groups. He knew it would be easy once central authority was removed because Iraq was riven with sectarian and ethnic tensions . They’ll always claim to be trying to to make things more peaceful and democratic but siccing their enemies into ethnic conflict with each other is what Jews are all about.

    Iran will be hit; dissolve into ethnic conflict; break apart.

  7. Diana's Gravatar Diana
    December 12, 2010 - 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Posting information about how the real Israel acts and the disproportionate influence of the tribe on US foreign policy is not a bizarre conspiracy theory but facts that should disturb anyone.

  8. Jeff Maylor's Gravatar Jeff Maylor
    December 12, 2010 - 1:16 am | Permalink

    Der weiße Man, yes there was definitely an upsurge in those strange posts after he was outed. The plan seems to be to portray White Advocacy as an illness. Their approach has always been to say there is no such thing as a rational, balanced argument for White culture. Such a thing cannot be allowed to exist. Why? Because they can’t defeat it.

    I think we should be optimistic. What they are telegraphing is that the only type of opponent they can defeat is the so-called Hollywood Nazi, the caricature of White advocacy, the neo-nazi, and the fringe lunatic that dreams of blowing up the world. What does any of that have to do with White culture? Nothing. Whites don’t blow up the world system, we make it work.

    So the strategy seems focused on a few major themes. First, exploit any divisions within White culture, such as class or gender rivalry. Second, promote a Marxist view of White advocacy — a state-centric view of White culture that copies the Oriental model of despotism. Third, associate it with cranky fringe theories, such as bizarre conspiracy theories or dystopian anti-technology rants or sociopathic personalities.

    Of course, all of that is intended to destroy White Advocacy from within (the oldest communist trick in the world) and to avoid the arguments they can’t deal with – the rational, healthy, natural desire for White culture to flourish

  9. Der weiße Man's Gravatar Der weiße Man
    December 11, 2010 - 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Jeff, after “Der weiße Engel” was exposed as being another sock puppet for “Adam” the troll (an ID that is of course another of many used by the tribe’s trolls) we’ve seen a bit of an upsurge in the type of posts hinting that WN is some form of aberration or illness and that everything we see is just chance, the result of of an all powerful advancing technological system. Because of course the jews are not to blame for anything. They’re just people taking advantage of what’s already there, lol. More and more whites are waking up to what the real system is and who is running it. If this weren’t true, the trolls wouldn’t be here.

  10. Diana's Gravatar Diana
    December 11, 2010 - 12:56 pm | Permalink

    continued from above.

    . . Iraq, and have pushed for war on Iran.

    Some links on these subjects:

    Kemal Ataturk, the Donmeh Jews and Turkey

    Netanyahu, and other neo-cons and the Clean Break Papers

    Israel’s War on Lebanon

    Lebanon, after Israeli Occupation Ends

    Neocons Pushing for War on Iran Then

    and more recently

  11. Diana's Gravatar Diana
    December 11, 2010 - 10:50 am | Permalink

    White advocay has nothing to gain from an anti-Muslim stance or a pro one for that matter. We would not be in the MIddle East except for Israel, the so-called defense of which has triggered anti-Western Islamic rage.
    The MId east conflict is about the displacement of Palestine from their homeland, Palestine by the Jews, the destruction of the state of Iraq as detailed by Netanyahu papers, the repeated assault on Lebanon by Israel.
    In the 1950s the Arabs were interested in western style nationalism, now they just want to annihilate us. It never made any sense diplomatically to support Israel. It only isolated the US on the world stage.
    Meanwhile “‘Jewish intellectuals” such as Bernard Lewis suddently discover the beauty of Muslim civilization. Can’t very well exclude the Muslims form the multi-cult agenda can we know? It would look funny.
    There are many divisons inthe Middle East and the Jewish neo-cons have worked them all, including supporting the Kurdish minority in Iraq.
    Actually the early 20th century secularization of Turkey was led by Kemal Ataturk, a Jew. Interesting. A now Turkey is supposed to be a European country, a convenient entry point for all of Islam.
    Leave the people in the MIddle East to sort out their own conflicts.
    Israel is the world’s 3rd largest exporter of arms. It has been involved in arming conflicts all over the world. How is this in white’s interest?

    It was Israeli neo-cons that destroyed

  12. Philip's Gravatar Philip
    December 10, 2010 - 6:38 pm | Permalink

    “The treaty was signed with Sadat, not Mubarak.”

    Agreed. But that’s not the point.

    “Won’t matter who’s in power or what form of government is in place”

    Not true. Lebanon is a case in point.

    “Democracy will never come to the arabs, anyway. They don’t respect it.”

    Actually, Israel and the U.S. elite have been trying to reverse the election in Gaza.

    • Jim's Gravatar Jim
      December 10, 2010 - 7:09 pm | Permalink

      Anyway, Israel is the root of all the dysfunction. There was a time when the US tried to strike a genuine balance with Egypt (and the arab world) and Israel, but that was 50 years ago. What the lobby did was convince a substantial number of Americans in the ’60’s that the US can’t survive without Israel, which is insane, since we did just fine without them for the previous 175+ years.

  13. ethnonationalism's Gravatar ethnonationalism
    December 10, 2010 - 6:27 pm | Permalink

    “Islamic political tradition” does not exist.
    Muslims are not a unified group.
    Ethnic divisions between Muslim peoples are very strong.

    Albanian Muslims forced 100.000 Slavic-speaking Muslims from Kosovo in the late 1990s.
    In Macedonia, Slavic Muslims and Turks are banned from entering Albanian mosques.
    In Saudi Arabia, Arab women are prohibited from marrying non-Arabs except with a special dispensation from the King.

    Various ethnic groups that practice Islam have different political traditions.

    People tend to equate Arabs with Islam, which is nonsense…
    Arab Christians share all the same traditions and mentality like their Muslim brethren.
    And Albanian Muslims are closer to Albanian Christians, than to Arabs or Turks. Indeed, Albanian ethnic identity has been much stronger that their religious divisions. Albanians of different religions freely intermarry, and they all share the same tribal mentality and traditions.

    The Mideast conflict is not a religious conflict between Judaism and Islam or Christianity. It is an ethnic conflict between Jews and Arabs.
    Jewish neocons would like to show the conflict as a religious conflict, or a conflict between “democracy” and “totalitarianism”, in order to recruit those moron Christian Zionists for their cause.

    • December 11, 2010 - 4:05 pm | Permalink

      Excellent analysis. That is the sort of insight that gets one banned from Stormfront, that and examining the Israeli-connection to 9-11

    • Silver's Gravatar Silver
      December 11, 2010 - 11:49 pm | Permalink

      “Islamic political tradition” does not exist.
      Muslims are not a unified group.
      Ethnic divisions between Muslim peoples are very strong.

      True. But there is also a tradition that Muslims ought to be unified, which finds ready justification in Koranic passages. Thus political Islam is always a threat. (Even the mild-mannered Izetbegovic felt compelled to author an Islamic political manifesto, for example.)

      Of course, as you say, blood is thicker than scripture, so amid a cultural milieu that disvalues religious tradition per se, the Islamic threat is somewhat lessened.

  14. Philip's Gravatar Philip
    December 10, 2010 - 1:45 pm | Permalink

    “He [Bernard Lewis] knows this as he has debated many Muslims so it all depends on what he means by Islamic.”

    What he means by Islamic is whatever meaning serves Israel’s interest at the time. But Lewis, Cheney, et cetera never wanted democracy in Iraq. That was rhetorical camouflage. They at first wanted a Sunni coup to topple Saddam — didn’t work. The second best option was a war to put in power a compliant Shiite. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani insisted on elections though, and he was deemed to powerful to get crossways with.

  15. Philip's Gravatar Philip
    December 10, 2010 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

    “Because, because after Israel, Egypt is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid (during peacetime.)”

    You’ve just conceded my point. Furthermore, Egypt (like Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Gulf States, and more) shares enmity toward states (and political movements) such as Iran. Read the WikiLeaks documents.

    • Jim's Gravatar Jim
      December 10, 2010 - 4:08 pm | Permalink

      The treaty was signed with Sadat, not Mubarak. Won’t matter who’s in power or what form of government is in place…The US usually buys their way with poor countries. Democracy will never come to the arabs, anyway. They don’t respect it.

  16. Bigmo's Gravatar Bigmo
    December 10, 2010 - 1:11 pm | Permalink

    I am not a White advocate but I am not against it either. I just pointed out that Lewis is saying what many WESTERN Historians have said. That many aspects of Shariah law came OUTSIDE of Islam either from the Romans or from the Persians or from the Jews. Most WESTERN historians believe Sunni/Shia jurisprudence was manufactured two centuries after the Koran came. Lewis knows this very well. He is well acquainted with the works of Goldziher and Schacht and Juynboll. So Lewis is being deceitful but he ain’t lying. Finally, the internet is a global forum and so whats ubnormal about different points of view? I like Macdonald’s work and read his articles regularly but he is an expert on Jewish activism and not Islam.

  17. Bigmo's Gravatar Bigmo
    December 10, 2010 - 9:39 am | Permalink

    Actually Lewis is right because there has been a totalitarian aspect to Islamic history (politically) but also the first Caliph Abu Bakr was chosen by vote and so was the second and third to a lesser degree. He knows this as he has debated many Muslims so it all depends on what he means by “Islamic”. Or maybe he seperates the Quran from Islamic history since terms like Shariah Law and Caliphate and Conquest has no mentioning in the Quran but plays prominent role in Islamic jurisprudence. This is because , like Judaism, Islam has evolved into a DUAL revelation. The Quran and what is called the Sunnah (oral tradition). So Lewish is playing with words. Macdonald just couldn’t get it because he knows Judaism but seems somewhat ignorant about Islam ,or Islamic history, depending on how you define Islam.

  18. Glen's Gravatar Glen
    December 10, 2010 - 7:40 am | Permalink

    The whole dynamic between Jews and Muslims is a fascinating contemporary aspect of Judaism as a GES. You have 80% of Jews who (as liberals) support Islamic immigration to the West – ostensibly because because they think a cohesive white nation can quickly revert to a fascistic anti-Semitic regime that poses an existential threat to the Tribe.

    That these Jews regard all whites as proto-Nazis, who are potentially far more dangerous to Jews than Muslims, is proven by the fact they lobby for the influx of a group who regard killing Jews as a holy sacrament.

    Whites really need to get their heads around this: most Jews actually prefer some Islamic fundamentalist cut-throat to be granted US citizenship than a middle aged white woman. They are aware of the bloody history of Islamic anti-Semitism (as they are of ALL anti-Semitism), but decades of Holocaust mania has taught them that NOTHING is as big a threat to Jewish survival as white group cohesion.

    Meanwhile, you have the other 20% of Jews (the neocons) for whom the penny has dropped that foaming at the mouth Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from the Middle East and Africa might perhaps be slightly more dangerous for Jews than the detested traditional white people of the West. Hence their willingness to oppose Islamic immigration (and creeping sharia law) in the West.

    These Jews still hate the traditional people and culture of the West, but have decided to deal with the more menacing and urgent threat first. of course, if this threat was removed these Jews would quickly reconcile with the liberal Jews and proceed in a common tenacious assault on whites.

    • Silver's Gravatar Silver
      December 11, 2010 - 11:38 pm | Permalink

      Glen, no, what you need to get your head around is that Jews within living memory have experienced whites/aryan persecution that resulted in mass murder (even if one wishes to dispute the numbers or methods employed), whereas there is no record of comparable attempts in Islamic societies. (Unless you go back to the founding of Islam when Mo’ and his pals duked it out with various Jewish tribes in Arabia.) People go with what they know best. At this point, Islamic persecution is more theoretical, so it seems less threatening. That, combined with a longstanding, reflexive Jewish commitment to non-discrimination (self-deceiving or not), explains lax Jewish attitudes towards Islamic immigration (and Islamic presence) better than some diligent calculation of all the various factors — certainly so for the average Jew on the street. As you say, a faction, some 20% (or whatever the number is; you’re just going by Republican voters, which isn’t the best guide) has cottoned on to the implications for the long-term. That they are today a minority faction doesn’t mean they will remain one; nor does it mean that

      These Jews still hate the traditional people and culture of the West,

      which is a pure article of faith if I’ve ever seen one. (Again, who started it?)

    • Glen's Gravatar Glen
      December 12, 2010 - 12:37 am | Permalink

      ‘Glen, no, what you need to get your head around is that Jews within living memory have experienced whites/aryan persecution that resulted in mass murder (even if one wishes to dispute the numbers or methods employed), whereas there is no record of comparable attempts in Islamic societies.’

      And how many mass murders of Jews in living memory were carried out by white Americans, British, Dutch, Swedish, Danes, Norwegians, Russians, Spanish, Italians, Australians, New Zealanders, and South Africans? Answer NONE.

      That people from nations like these – despite having sacrificed hundreds of thousands of their own people to fight Hitler – get blamed by the likes of you for the mass murder of Jews only shows how your historical perspective has been warped by Jewish propaganda.

      As I say, Jews don’t make a distinction – in the ethnocentric bipolarity of their worldview ALL whites are proto-Nazis who are guilty of the Holocaust, and deserve to have their societies reengineered in the interests of the Tribe. If this does not indicate an indiscriminate hostility to the traditional people and culture of West then what does?

      If you say that Jews DON’T hate the traditional people and culture of the West then explain to me why they have been at the vanguard of pushing mass non-white immigration to fundamentally transform the racial composition and culture of Western nations. Is this an act of love in your view?

      If whites lobbied fanatically to make Israel a multicultural society where Jews were destined to become a minority with ever diminishing political power – would you regard this as an act of love by whites?

      The Judeo-Bolsheviks murdered between 20 and 30 million Eastern Europeans within living memory. Jews HAVE expressed a hatred for Europeans in orgies of genocidal violence. The population of the Baltic States lost a third of their population. Do these nations have a right to lobby for the transformation of Israeli society because Jewish culture and civilisation has proven itself to be a deadly threat to the existence of Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians? (Again, who started it?)

  19. Glen's Gravatar Glen
    December 10, 2010 - 6:41 am | Permalink

    Either Moshie from the SPLC is having fun here…or a lunatic has broken out of the psych ward and gained access to a computer. Either way this comment is plain STOOPID.

  20. Philip's Gravatar Philip
    December 10, 2010 - 6:33 am | Permalink

    The U.S. and Israel do not seriously want the results of democratic elections in the Muslim countries of the Middle East. Every time there are democratic elections the wrong people win or wind up with a share of power. And those people are anti-imperialists. It has happened repeatedly: Lebanon, the occupied territories, Iran, Iraq, Algeria. If democratic elections were held in the key country of Egypt, American-backed Hosni Mubarak would be gone.

    • Jeff Maylor's Gravatar Jeff Maylor
      December 10, 2010 - 7:25 am | Permalink

      Philip is your main concern the prospects of White culture or is your main interest Arabs and how they are doing? You post a lot of pro-Palestinian stuff. If you main concern is promoting the welfare of Arabs, this may not be the go-to site for you. I wish them and all people well, but our main focus is helping preserve and promote White culture, not bashing the US and spewing pro-Muslim rhetoric.

    • Jim's Gravatar Jim
      December 10, 2010 - 9:10 am | Permalink

      I’m skeptical of your assessment of a democratic Egypt, Philip. Why? Because, because after Israel, Egypt is the biggest recipient of US foreign aid (during peacetime.) Why? Because we’ve paid them not to fight with Israel since 1979. (How’s that for a dysfunctional relationship.)

    • Tom's Gravatar Tom
      December 10, 2010 - 9:13 am | Permalink

      Sounds like D(R)onnie Deutsch or Pat Buchanan. :)

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      December 10, 2010 - 11:39 am | Permalink

      Hosni Mubarak would be gone, and so would the Copts.

      …much as ‘democracy’ has done for the Christians in Iraq. Not that Mubarak is a friend of the Copts, but he at least has some restraint…

  21. Jeff Maylor's Gravatar Jeff Maylor
    December 10, 2010 - 5:24 am | Permalink

    Well the above comment is creepy. I still wonder if these weird comments are related. I keep seeing the same general approach over and over: The attempt to portray White Advocacy as some kind of strange aberration.

    We simply want to preserve and protect White culture. This approach of pretending to represent White interests while spewing silly conspiracy theories or hateful rhetoric is the one used above. Needless to say it has nothing to do with White Advocacy.

    • Der weiße Engel's Gravatar Der weiße Engel
      December 12, 2010 - 2:09 am | Permalink

      Jeff “I’m using my real Jewish name” Maylor: “Well the above comment is creepy.”

      LOL. Yep, sure is! (That’s not too surprising though, considering the author admits he is a slimy kike.) :-D

  22. Wandrin's Gravatar Wandrin
    December 10, 2010 - 3:41 am | Permalink

    I think Lewis is important in another way as well in that i think his work on jews in the Turkish empire is how they see things panning out in Europe if they succeed in engineering a muslim majority.

    What they miss is the Turks were competing with the European empires and needed jewish help. If Europeans are removed from the equation then the situation becomes more like Arabia than Turkey which i think will end badly for them.

    “how can anyone hope to change the narrative?”

    Imagine an old hellfire preacher raging against fornication to his congregation and people heeding him. Now imagine he gets caught in a brothel. Next sunday when he rages against fornication what happens? People don’t listen. If people think preachers are hypocrites they don’t listen.

    The enemy narrative isn’t the important bit. The important bit is our people *listen* to them.

    Their narrative is a secular religion built on lies and contradictions. The way to bring down a religion is to constantly attack the double standards of the priesthood.
    – attack the anti-white double standards of the politicians
    – attack the anti-white double standards of the media
    – attack the anti-white double standards of the educators

    Every political point should be an attack on one of the double standards of the multicult.

    [The current media war on the Catholic church over abusive priests is a perfect example of this in action (although the church deserves it in this case it’s still a good example of the tactic).]

    anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-white

    • Tom's Gravatar Tom
      December 10, 2010 - 9:11 am | Permalink

      What I don’t get is why the Roman Catholics are so obviously allied with the Jews in Congress.

      You can see it in the Senate where the Roman Catholics & Jews have a core vote of about 40 to 41 US Senators. The Roman Catholics even vote against their own announced interests in support of the Jews agenda. It’s pathetic.

      On the other hand the Roman Catholics do get their pound of flesh from the Jews on immigration issues which favor Roman Catholic immigration both legal & illegal i.e. Mexico, Latin America etc.

      Someone could write a book about the Jew & Roman Catholic political alliance in Congress.

  23. nicholas barbosa's Gravatar nicholas barbosa
    December 10, 2010 - 2:59 am | Permalink


  24. Venona's Gravatar Venona
    December 9, 2010 - 8:45 pm | Permalink

    Bernard Lewis is also author of “The Muslim Discovery of Europe,” which as one can imagine does not portray Europeans in a particularly flattering light. A sample excerpt:

    “Muslims displayed an extraordinary reluctance, grounded in law as well as tradition, to travel in Christian Europe. The reasons are not difficult to find. One obvious difference is that western Europe, unlike Asia and Africa, had little to offer and few attractions.”

    • Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
      December 9, 2010 - 9:24 pm | Permalink

      That’s just part of their typical game plan—the “Dark Ages” were an abyss, the Crusaders were mindless fanatics in an enlightened Levant, the Byzantines were brutal and superstitious compared to the Abbasids and/or Turks, the Arabs saved classical learning, the Chinese were the most sophisticated ancient civilization, the colonization was a genocide… these are all the vein of spurious nonsense meant to undermine confidence in our own society and traditions. Its a psychological attack, that opens the door for all kind of foolishness to fill the gap.

  25. Glen's Gravatar Glen
    December 9, 2010 - 7:49 pm | Permalink

    The Andrew G. Bostom that you mention is himself an interesting case of Jewish ethnic activism and guruism. His original career as a Professor of Medicine at Brown University has been eclipsed by his subsequent incarnation as the neoconservatives favourite expert on Islamic anti-Semitism – a field of expertise totally unrelated to his academic background. He’s now a regular on the neocon circuit participating in panel discussions with David Horowitz, Robert Spencer et al. That a Professor of Medicine suddenly felt compelled to devote his energies to a cause related to broader Jewish interests is another indication of Jewish ethnocentrism in action.

    • Glen's Gravatar Glen
      December 9, 2010 - 8:02 pm | Permalink

      Having said this, his books, particularly ‘The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History’ (2008) is worthwhile reading.

  26. Tom's Gravatar Tom
    December 9, 2010 - 7:30 pm | Permalink

    Lewis is another old American name the Jews are determined to ruin. I can think of a half dozen really greasy Jews, besides Bernard, with the last name of Lewis, without giving it much thought.

    I will say this, these Jews like Lewis are driven. What’s going on inside their heads, that drives them toward goals they set is beyond me.

    Could it be the Jews see themselves as being on a mission from God?

  27. Athanasius's Gravatar Athanasius
    December 9, 2010 - 6:43 pm | Permalink

    How can there be a discussion when Jews dominate the narrative by inserting themselves into both sides of every debate? It’s my understanding that once upon a time, all of the Polish, Italian, Russian, Greek, etc., immigrants who came to this country at the turn of the last century demanded standardized testing so they could gain admission to elite universities. Now, those standardized tests may well be used to keep some whites (regardless of ethnicity) out of elite universities, but they by no means can justify one’s worthiness to be admitted. As long as that is the case, and as long as the keys to the city are held by universities that bestow them on people hostile to tradition and Western culture, how can anyone hope to change the narrative?

Comments are closed.