In a recent two-part column in this forum, Hereward Lindsay wrote that “Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies.” Allow me to offer three examples of this. That all three come from vastly different places only points to the central truth Lindsay identifies.
First, consider the United States Air Force, a group which is heavily white, with a strong evangelical presence. Per Lindsay’s maxim, a Jew saw this as a threat, as a recent article in the Jewish Forward makes clear: “One of the primary critics of the Air Force has been Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and a Jewish graduate of the Air Force Academy. Last March, Weinstein’s organization sued the federal government to combat what it calls creeping evangelism in the armed forces, arguing that it violated the constitution.”
The Air Force Academy, incidentally, is located in Colorado Springs, CO, home to so many major Evangelical groups that it has earned the nickname “the Protestant Vatican.” One might credit Mr. Weinstein, then, with the courage to go to the heart of the particularistic problem.
A separate point to note here is the brazenness with which American Jews in power put other Jews in top slots. The above story from The Forward makes it sound like Jews are hardly represented in America’s armed forces, but the facts speak otherwise about a group that is only about 2% of the U.S. population:
With his appointment, Schwartz becomes the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, who heads the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, who is the assistant commandant of the Marines.
The writer tries to dismiss the obvious—that a Jew now in charge of the service that is most likely to act against Iran is an unlikely coincidence—by passing it off as some nutty Iranian conspiracy mongering. But of course it is too much to be a coincidence, just like the odds are heavily against both our Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General “just happening” to be committed Jews.
Next, blogger Steve Sailer writes about the actions of one Franca Eckert Coen, “an Italian Jew in an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic city who lives in an apartment filled with Jewish art [who] was in charge of multicultural policy under the former mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni. Ms. Coen recalled a year when Chinese celebrated their New Year with dragons around the Day of Epiphany.”
Sailer, alluding to Coen’s goal of diluting the Italian Catholic nature of Italian society, closes with a quip that mirrors Lindsay’s maxim above:
Do you ever get the impression that Kevin MacDonald has secretly bought a controlling interest in the New York Times and is rewriting its articles to make them prove his theories correct?
Sailer, in reviewing a NYT’s article on diversity in Italy, sarcastically titled his blog “Italy lagging lamentably on de-Italianification.” As he paraphrases:
Wouldn’t the whole world be better off if Italy weren’t so damn Italian? I mean, what has Italian culture ever contributed to anything? When will the Italians get with the program and adopt the Universal Globoculture? The New York Times wants to know!
Just by quoting Ms. Coen, Sailer achieves his point about Jews in fact working to deconstruct nationalistic, particularistic societies:
The newspapers said the Chinese were against Christianity,” she said. “So we held a public event on the Campidoglio about Chinese culture and the New Year celebration, and now we have a Chinese parade each year.
“It was the same with the Sikhs,” she added. “We had a public event after 2001. We also organized tours of the Capitoline Museums for immigrants. Then we asked them to do something. The Poles, for example, had someone play Polish music at the museum.”
“Little things,” she called them. “They can overcome big fears. I saw all these immigrants become a little bit Italian citizens. Culture is crucial to give people here a chance to see that to be foreign is to bring a different ethnic life to the city, that diversity is a positive.”
Evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald spelled out Lindsay’s formula about Jews in a longer version. While we’ve seen it in the final book of his trilogy on Jews, The Culture of Critique, a quote from his essay in the compilation Race and the American Prospect will suffice. In “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” he writes:
Consistent with what we know of the psychology of ethnocentrism, this implies that a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals and activists involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the non-Jewish power structure, perceived as anti-Jewish and deeply immoral. This hatred is typically combined with the specific complaint that the pre-World War II U.S. culture was deeply anti-Jewish. A particular focus of Jewish anger was the Immigration Law of 1924, which closed off immigration of Eastern European Jews to the U.S. There is no question that the 1924 law was partly motivated by a consensus in the U.S. opposed to the political radicalism and clannish ways of the recent Jewish immigrants. The emotional intensity of Jewish involvement in the black-Jewish alliance is mirrored in Jewish involvement in altering U.S. immigration policy; both of these movements had strong overtones of hatred against the entire white, Christian culture of the U.S., which was viewed as anti-Jewish and profoundly immoral (emphasis added).
This year I’ve been reading a decidedly non-racialist account of the black-Jewish alliance, written by Culture Wars editor E. Michael Jones. While I cannot agree with his insistence that the religious/spiritual is primary in this struggle, I do find much of great value in his wide-ranging writing.
In the March issue (Vol. 27, No. 4), Jones addresses the founding of the NAACP and the role played by “revolutionary” Jews. Jones has long been at work on a book about the revolutionary Jew, and it now seems to be available as a colossal book of over 1,000 pages, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History.
Jones begins with a useful overview: “The founding of the NAACP marked the beginning of Jewish impact on American life. . . . The NAACP was a Jewish organization, run by a board with no black representatives. . . Harold Cruse [said it was created] ‘to fight anti-Semitism by remote control.'”
Jones shows how these revolutionary Jews (“Spingarn argued for violent insurrection”) recruited a black face for the movement, and thus W.E.B. Du Bois became the public face for the NAACP. What is interesting is not just the fact that such Jews used blacks as a battering ram against white rule and independence, at the same time they prevented blacks from forming a nationalistic, particularistic society of their own.
To wit, they mercilessly attack Booker T. Washington and his movement, using Du Bois as the main agent. Washington was destroyed by a manufactured “scandal”: “Washington, the leading black figure in America, was now associated with voyeurism and the fatal sin of sexual attraction to white women.”
Jones sums up his essay thus: “Du Bois’s job at the NAACP was to delegitimatize any Negro leader whom the New York German Jewish elite found unacceptable.”
In the June issue, Jones explains how “Du Bois moved on to his second job; the destruction of Marcus Garvey.” (The April and May issues deal with the Leo Frank Affair. Southerners especially might be interested to read how Jewish animus against the “nationalistic, particularistic society” that was the South motivated the long assault on that part of white America.)
Interestingly, from Jones’s writing, I find more modern parallels. For instance, Jones writes that “Du Bois’s job was to promote integration and destroy any black leadership in competition with the NAACP.” Isn’t that what we saw Jews doing with William F. Buckley and his attack on “anti-Semites,” as suggested by Murray Friedman in his book The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy?
In a bombshell revelation, Jones writes of the (in)famous An American Dilemma,
Friedman claims that Myrdal ‘was neither Jewish nor American,’ but, even after indicating that Myrdal did not in fact write Dilemma, he fails to tell us that people like University of Chicago sociologist Louis Wirth, who wrote large sections of Dilemma, was both, and that Myrdal had been brought in to give credibility to what was largely a Jewish project, because, as Friedman himself points out, “the scholarly critique of society that evolved into sociology had, like psychoanalysis, earned the reputation of being a Jewish science (emphasis added).”
Then, in a key passage, Jones writes:
The NAACP was interested in ‘integration,’ especially in the South, because they understood that integration would mean the end of the South as an independent culture. The same was true of all of the other ‘white’ ethnic groups in the North. As Harold Cruse later pointed out, the Jews were interested in the integration of every ethnic group but their own, and in the Negro, people like [Jew] Louis Marshall, now on the board of the NAACP and still smarting from his defeat at the hands of Southerners like Tom Watson, had found the vehicle for that subversion.
Jones goes on to document the destruction of black nationalist Marcus Garvey, who had started a steamship line to repatriate blacks back to Africa:
Once Garvey cited the NAACP as one of the conspirators determined to bring him down, it was only a matter of time before he would bring the Jews into the same picture. Garvey’s suspicion that he was the victim of an NAACP/Jewish-inspired conspiracy was strengthened when he learned that the presiding judge at his trial was Julian Mack, in Friedman’s words, “a member of the German-Jewish aristocracy who also served on the board of the NAACP.” When Garvey’s motion to have Judge Mack dismissed for conflict of interest was denied, he became even more convinced that he was the victim of an ‘international frame-up,’ declaring: “I am being punished for the crime of the Jew Silverstone [an agent for the line]. I was prosecuted by Maxwell Mattuck, another Jew, and I am to be sentenced by Judge Julian Mack, the eminent Jewish jurist. Truly I may say ‘I was going to Jericho and fell among the thieves.'”
Garvey got the maximum sentence of five years, integration became the norm, and here we are where we are today.
See also Part II of this article.
Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.