A Perfect Storm? Obama and the Zionist Power Configuration

/in /by

Understandably, many Americans had hoped that the incoming Obama administration would institute the promised changes away from the Bush policies of war and economic turmoil that have become so wearily familiar. That such hopes were misplaced is already clear.

Knowledgeable observers of course never held out any real expectation that America’s disastrous course over the last eight years would be reversed by a McCain, an Obama, or for that matter a Hillary Clinton victory. As the primaries turned into the election, it was always abundantly clear that the same powers were operating as usual behind the throne.

Paul Craig Roberts puts it aptly in a recent column, “Conned Again”: “Obama’s selection of Rahm Israel Emanuel as White House chief of staff is a signal that change ended with Obama’s election. The only thing different about the new administration will be the faces.”

As Roberts notes, many besides Emanuel are Jewish. Obama advisers include Richard Holbrooke, Madeline Albright, and Dennis Ross, a strong critic of Mearsheimer and Walt.

Scholar James Petras offers similar comments:

What makes these arguments untenable is the fact that Obama’s public pronouncements, his top policy advisers, and the likely policymakers in his government have openly defined a most bellicose foreign…. On the major issues of war, peace, the economic crisis and the savaging of the US wage and salaried class, Obama promises to extend and deepen the policies which the majority of Americans reject and repudiate.

See this for yourself. Obama clearly promises to do the neoconservatives’ bidding for Israel, as Israeli peace advocate Uri Avnery noted. Obama’s appearance before AIPAC, he wrote, was an appearance that “broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.” A good live image of this can be found in Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show clip that TOO has featured on its site for some months now.

Petras is a man worth reading. In two previous books, The Power of Israel in the United States (2006) and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants (2007), he lucidly outlined the power structure that controls Washington. (See my review of both books for The Occidental Quarterly here).

Now this productive retired professor has come out with a new book, Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of U.S. Power. As in his two previous books, he makes clear that changing the occupant of the White House won’t change US policy in the Middle East.

Petras’s key concept is the “Zionist Power Configuration,” or ZPC. It is a term we would do well to remember, for this power is more than just another lobby as claimed by Mearsheimer and Walt and President  Carter. Rather, the ZPC is

much more sinister, both as a transmission belt for the policies and interests of a colonial power hell-bent on domination in the Middle East, and as the most serious authoritarian threat to the democratic freedoms of Americans. No single individual who dares criticize Israeli policy can escape the long hand of the pro-Israel authoritarians. . . . Booksellers are picketed, editors are intimidated, university presses and distributors are threatened, university presidents are blackmailed, local and national candidates are browbeaten and smeared, meetings are cancelled and venues are pressured, faculty are fired or denied promotion, corporations are blacklisted, union pensions funds are raided, and theater performances and concerts are cancelled. And the list of repressive actions taken by these authoritarian Zionist organizations at the national and local levels runs on, arousing fear among some, anger among many more and a slowly burning resentment and growing awareness among the silent majority.

Obama is not going to challenge this power.

Bush took the nation to war against Iraq because, as Petras argues, “The Zionist elite in the Bush regime invented the pretext and the propaganda for war and most important, successfully designed and operationalized the US invasion of Iraq.” Now Petras can point out that Obama’s top advisers “have long and notorious links to the top echelons of the principal Zionist propaganda mills.” Members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations wrote the speech Obama gave in front of AIPAC and “formulate his Middle East policy.”

None of this is a secret. On the contrary, it is there for anyone with curiosity to see. Thus, “there was no ‘conspiracy’ or ‘cabal’ — the Zionist campaign was brazenly public, aggressive and reiterative,” in Petras’s words. Or, as reflected in the title of Stephen Sniegoski’s fine book on the neoconservatives, it is a “Transparent Cabal.”

So jettison those flimsy hopes that positive change will come with January snow showers. Instead, accept that Petras is right when he says that, based on Obama’s top policy advisers, contributors, speech writers and likely candidates for cabinet posts, “there is virtually no hope of ‘influencing from within’ or ‘applying popular pressure’ to change Obama’s slavish submission” to the ZPC.

After all, did the popular mandate to end the Iraq War by electing a Democratic House succeed? Not at all. As I wrote in my TOQ review of Petras’s books,

Due in large part to Jewish Lobby control over the Democratic Party, an unmistakable message was given to the country: “the strategy Bush actually committed to was that which was in line with Israel’s ‘strategic interest’ of extending its power and domination in the Middle East.” When new Democratic Congressional leader Nancy Pelosi hinted at holding back funding for Bush’s war, the Lobby sent a clear message against it, and Pelosi “swallowed the frog in silence.”

In reality, Pelosi had no need to feel particularly humiliated since, in Petras’s view, such kowtowing to the Lobby was expected. As a mere congresswoman, she had far less prestige than a president, two of whom Petras describes in his characteristic way: “Bush has the dubious distinction of being the President-most-servile-to-a-foreign-power in US history (exceeding his predecessor, ex-President Clinton, Zionist Emeritus)”(Petras is no kinder to Clinton’s wife Hillary, numbering her among one of the “Zionist-colonized Senators.”)

Again, we are fortunate to have explication of power relations as crystal clear as Petras gives us. That he is writing from the far Left shows that awareness of Jewish power spans the political spectrum:

The lesson is clear: the rise of Judeo-fascism represents a clear and present danger to our democratic freedoms in the United States. They do not come with black shirts and stiff-arm salutes. The public face is a clean-shaven, neck-tied attorney, real estate philanthropist or Ivy League professor. But there is rising anger and hostility in America against the ZPC, against its arrogant authoritarian communal attacks on our democratic values, to say nothing of our national interests. Sooner or later there will be a major backlash—and it will reflect badly on those who, through vocation or conviction, engage in the firings, censoring and intimidation campaigns against the American majority. The American people will not remember their cries of ‘anti-Semitism’; they will recall their role in sending thousands of American soldiers to their death in the Middle East in the interests of Israel, and how that war has diminished the United States’ image in the world, to say nothing of its economic well-being and democratic freedoms at home.

There can be no hiding the ominous insinuations in the above. A Jewish reader may well come away from it sensing an anti-Semitic pogrom in the distance. Petras adds to this fear by contrasting the tiny numbers of the ZPC with the vast numbers of the majority:

Ultimately, the Zionist Power Configuration, despite its wealth and current dominance over US Middle East policy, knows that it represents less than 1% of the population: Its membership is an elite without a mass base. They have power only as long as the other 99% of the population is inactive, manipulated or intimidated to serve Israel’s interests.

The Perfect Storm?

It is far too early, however, for the American majority to suspect it may have a chance to painlessly throw off the ZPC yoke. Surely any elite that has manipulated the United States to the extent it has must also have taken into account resistance, both real and potential.

Consider then something I wrote in a previous column: “A separate point to note here is the brazenness with which American Jews in power put other Jews in top slots.” With such a small base, it is only logical that the ZPC must maximize leverage by controlling top positions, most especially those with the power and authority to exercise force, particularly lethal force.

The position of Secretary of Homeland Security is such an obvious position. Further, it can operate almost without restrictions by declaring something to be “a terrorist threat.” That position is currently occupied by Michael Chertoff, a Jew. Ditto for our current Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, another powerful American who “just happens to be” a committed Jew.

Have a look at the military structure as well. As an online biography states, “Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum serves as Chief, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia. He is the senior uniformed National Guard officer responsible for formulating, developing and coordinating all policies, programs and plans affecting more than a half a million Army and Air National Guard personnel.” And he is Jewish.

Another site relates that “When he assumed the duties of assistant commandant of the Marine Corps in September 2005, [Robert] Magnus, 59, became second-in-command of 180,000 Marines and one of only five four-star generals in the Corps.” Also Jewish.

Finally, a recent military shakeup resulted in a Jewish pilot being tapped for U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff. One begins to feel that this is all just a little too convenient, particularly when considering that the U.S. military is not known as a popular destination for American Jews.

Petras also caught this irony, stating that “less than 2/10 of one percent (0.2 percent) of the US soldiers in Iraq were Jewish and probably very few of those were on the front lines. More young American Jews volunteer to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces.” This very much recalls Pat Buchanan’s claim that should America prosecute the first war on Iraq in favor of Israeli interests, the fighting would be done by kids “with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown,” a comment which made the ADL very unhappy.

With such top positions of command and control occupied by American Jews, many of them highly committed to the fate of Israel, are we witnessing the coming together of forces that could create a “perfect storm” of retribution against majority Americans who might question or threaten this power structure?

Accounts from Petras and others suggest that we might be.

Jews as allies

/1 Comment/in /by

At a meeting recently the question was raised as to the appropriate relationship that European-Americans ought to maintain with Jews. On certain issues, it was said, we really are natural allies with them, and therefore we should work together to advance common goals. And it was argued we should avoid antagonizing Jews since (a) such provocation won’t gain us anything and (b) would handicap us all in achieving those common goals. It has also been pointed out that Jews are “whites”, as opposed to blacks. And are not Jews, or at least Ashkenazi Jews, European as well?

Okay, we have to go back to basics here. How are we to categorize ourselves? And them?

Ethnic categorization (e.g., calling ourselves European-Americans) is complicated by the fact that ethnic group membership is not an absolute but rather consists a whole series of concentric circles, ordered according to closeness of biological kinship. At the center is one’s immediate family; in the next circle, one’s extended family, and so on up through one’s more or less easily categorizable “ethnic group” or “ethny”, such as Irish. Next might be Scots-Irish. And beyond that is a “circle” labeled “European”. Well, you see where this is going.

Until mid-20th century, the United States was largely WASP dominated. (The same could be said of Canada, with due recognition of French dominance of Quebec and other subgroups’ dominance locally). But, especially since 1965, our largely Northern European and WASP majority has undergone a rather rapid dispossession and will shortly be a minority both demographic and politically. Oddly enough, the great majority of European-Americans are largely unaware of the forces that brought about that dispossession.

Well, do we include Jews among those European-Americans? One reason not to identify them as European-Americans is that Jews and Jewish culture were not targeted by the intellectual and political upheavals that led to the dispossession of European-Americans. Indeed, as Kevin MacDonald has shown in his book The Culture of Critique, the Cultural Marxists who first planned, then infiltrated our many institutions (universities, the media, political parties, think-tanks, etc.) were disproportionately Jews. More importantly, they identified as Jews and conceived of their activities as achieving specifically Jewish agendas. And their first and foremost agenda has been the dispossession of European America. This is a major argument for our self-categorization, in the present context, as European-Americans — a “circle” that would not include Jews. 

Of course, not all Jews have been part of this destructive effort. Many Jews no doubt just go about their daily lives without being fully conscious of all that has gone on. But the fact is that the entire organized Jewish community and the entire Jewish political spectrum from the radical left to neoconservative right actively sought massive immigration of non-Europeans, and they were a necessary condition for the ultimate success of these efforts. This implies that the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of Jews approved of destroying the dominance of the one-time majority.

There have been some Jews who have opposed non-European immigration.  Steven Steinlight is a good example. Steinlight’s motives are entirely Jewish, showing that at least some Jews see Jewish self-interest in opposing mass immigration:

Privately [American Jewish leaders] express grave concern that unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western Europe. There’s particular fear about the impact on Jewish security, as well as American support for Israel, of the rapid growth of the Muslim population. At the conclusion of meetings with national leaders, several told me, “You’re 1000 percent right, but I can’t go out and say it yet.”

Steinlight even argues that massive immigration in general is bad for Jews “Massive immigration will obliterate Jewish power by shrinking our percentage of the population — to a fraction of 1% in 20 years.”

Steinlight is definitely a Jew who is on page with the interests of European-Americans to stop non-European immigration. The problem is that he has not been successful in changing the immigration policies of the organized Jewish community.

Another thing that might help getting some Jews onboard with European-American interests is to emphasize ethnic commonalities. Certainly Ashkenazi Jews, while often having distinctive (to the initiated) physical traits (“family traits”), do often look pretty “European.” The DNA evidence accumulated so far suggests that, in fact, they do carry some European genes. A currently popular scenario is that male Jewish traders, carrying their own Y-chromosome DNA and percolating up into Europe during medieval times, did take at least some non-Jewish women (perhaps European) as wives but thereafter reverted back to a closed, highly endogamous community (i.e., they married pretty much exclusively among themselves). The Y-chromosome data indicates that about one mating in 200 resulted from Jewish women with non-Jewish men—a rate that would be compatible with a 35–40% non-Jewish representation in the Ashkenazi gene pool.

The key phrase is “endogamous community.” The Jewish community until recently remained endogamous while occupying unusual economic niches (e.g., “tax farmers”) which set them apart from and in conflict with indigenous populations. It also promoted eugenic selection for high intelligence. All of this has been well documented by Kevin MacDonald and confirmed in many important facets by Yuri Slezkine. The result has been a long history of inter-ethnic conflict in Europe, with the Lukacs–Gramsci inspired culture of critique only the latest and most successful episode (i.e., successful for Jewish Cultural Marxists).

About half of American Jews are now marrying out. Conceivably, his trend could lead to a gradual loss of Jewish distinctiveness as they blend into the European-American population, although there are a lot of reasons to think that this won’t happen. But it does mean that a lot of Jews now have non-Jewish relatives, and they have children and grandchildren with varying degrees of Jewish ethnicity and varying degrees of Jewish identification. Such people may constitute a pool of potential allies because their ethnic interests and identities overlap with ours.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But the reality is that there remain severe conflicts of interest between European-Americans and pretty much all of the organized Jewish community. This is illustrated by Jewish neocon control over American foreign policy during the Bush Administration, Jewish influence on immigration policy, and Jewish influence over the Democratic Party— the party that was described in a recent editorial on this website as “the party of  the minorities, government workers, sexual non-conformists, and diverse beneficiaries of the leftist entitlement culture.”

This suggests a reasonable policy to take. When a few individual Jews act for our ethny’s benefit or for the benefit of all humanity (but not at our expense), there is no reason not to appreciate their existence, to cooperate with them and to be friendly with them. Jews have no problem in being friendly with non-Jews, such as Christian Zionists, whenever doing so is “good for the Jews.” We can do the same: whatever is good for European-Americans.

But since blood is thicker than water, there is always the possibility of “righteous” Jews reverting to in-group favoritism, especially in a crunch. And there is always the threat of “moles.” So for that reason Jews can hardly be considered “family” to whom we open up our hearts and pocketbooks completely. Nor should we divulge to them our identities when loss of confidentiality could threaten our livelihoods. “Arms length” is a useful concept.

Moreover, Jews who align themselves with organizations or publications that explicitly promote the interests of European-Americans should be willing to acknowledge the role of the organized Jewish community in the dispossession of European America. They should also acknowledge that the policies of the organized Jewish community at the present time are definitely opposed to the interests of European Americans.

Thus, Jews who want to be considered our allies should direct most of their activism to changing the direction of the organized Jewish community. Just as Joe Lieberman was the emissary of the McCain campaign to the traditionally Democratic Jewish community, there is every reason to think that Jews would be far more effective in producing change in the organized Jewish community than non-Jews. Such efforts, especially if they were successful, would be the surest sign of their sincerity and good will.

On the other hand, the absence of a commitment to change the Jewish community or refusing to acknowledge the historical role of the organized Jewish community in producing our present malaise invites the skepticism that the Jews involved in pro-European-American movements are simply trying to make these movements safe for Jews in the event that such movements gain traction. It’s a fall-back plan and an escape hatch if things start to get sticky.

Moreover, when pro-European-American groups feel it judicious to be silent about the role of the organized Jewish community in our current malaise, this must be seen as an expression of Jewish power. Much of our task on behalf of European-American civilization and our people is the promotion of historical understanding. Many Jews will inevitably find an honest discussion of the history of European abdication threatening because of the prominent role of Jews revealed by any objective account of that history. However, silence on the role of Jews in our current malaise forces these groups to live in a sort of a-historical present—avoiding a realistic discussion of the past and preventing any attempt to understand this past in an objective manner.

This forces these pro-European movements into a major departure from all other ethnic activist movements we are aware of, including Judaism: Ethnic identity and commitment are deeply interwoven with an understanding of history. Indeed, Jews’ understanding of their own history as victims of Europeans is an important wellspring of Jewish identity and Jewish activism against European-Americans. As Paul Johnson said in describing the philosophy of Walter Benjamin, a Jewish cultural Marxist: “Politics [is] not merely a fierce physical struggle to control the present, and so the future, but an intellectual battle to control the record of the past.”

Even worse, it prevents these organizations from making explicit attempts to oppose the very real power that the organized Jewish community and other strongly identified Jews continue to exert in a wide range of areas in opposition to the interests of European-Americans. Again, the best role for Jews in these movements is to be vocal critics of the Jewish community and its role in the dispossession of European-Americans. But the unfortunate reality is that, just like mainstream politicians forced to never mention the power of the Israel Lobby, these pro-European-American groups end up ignoring the 800-lb gorilla in their midst — a wonderful comment on Jewish power in America.

In guarded optimism, we might look to the future and hope that some influential Jews will be able to look at this history without their ethnic blinders and come to see their own best interests lie with a renewed European America.

Memo to the Republican Party: You are a party of European-Americans. Accept it or die.

/in , , /by

In the wake of the Republican defeat, there is the inevitable soul searching and jockeying for control. The project of defining the Republicans is quite a bit harder than for the Democrats. The Democrats don’t have an identity problem, at least since they got rid of the Southern contingent and unions (apart from government unions) began to be fairly irrelevant. They’re the party of the minorities, government workers, sexual non-conformists, and diverse beneficiaries of the leftist entitlement culture. These people all get along with each other and have no problem supporting each others’ pet projects, notwithstanding the little falling-out between the cultural leftists and the minorities over the California ballot proposition banning same-sex marriage. At least they can agree on looking forward to a post-European future.

But who are the Republicans? Even though 90% of their votes come from European-Americans, these are people who really aren’t on the same page at all. So after each major defeat it’s a Herculean effort to try to keep it all together. You’ve got the big business–globalist–Wall Street Journal–open borders–free trade crowd (the ones with the money). These people actually get along quite well with the neocons whose main agenda is to make the world safe for Israel and are liberals in every other way, especially on immigration. Then there’s the libertarians — people far too principled to find any reason to oppose the mass immigration that has gutted the America they grew up in and not seeming to realize that the people coming here are definitely not on page with their vision of America.

And there is the Republican base — working class and middleclass whites with various ideologies, mainly Christianity. They are remnants of the Reagan coalition and they were critical to the electoral victories of George W. Bush.

There is an obvious incompatibility here. There is deep anxiety in the Republican base because immigration has transformed the country and, along with free trade policies, gutted the labor market. But, as Pat Buchanan notes, the Republican Party is “hooked on K Street cash.” So in the end, the money people get their way on the big issues like free trade and immigration, and then they nominate someone like Sarah Palin to a figurehead position to try to patch things up with the base.

It didn’t work this time around, since enough European-Americans defected to the Democrats to seal McCain’s fate. Indeed, the amazing thing is that more European-Americans didn’t defect from the Republicans given that the Bush administration was arguably the worst presidential administration in history. And they managed to cap it off by presiding over the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. This indicates that European-American identity politics is already a reality in the Republican vote.

But the European-American defectors from the Republicans can’t possibly be happy with the multicultural–sexual deviate–leftist entitlement Democrats. They are likely to return to the Republicans if there is any reasonable excuse for doing so. As a result, one counsel among the Republicans will be to simply stay the course.

There is every reason to think that this might work, at least for an election or two. It’s quite easy to imagine a Republican candidate reclaiming essentially the same electoral victory George W. Bush achieved in 2004 in better economic circumstances. In fact, it probably would have happened this year, except for all of the headwinds of the Bush presidency.

But the problem with that strategy is that it can only work for one or two more presidential election cycles at most. The European-American percentage of the electorate is continuing to decline—around 70% in this election and is slated to continue to drop ever further. (This percentage is based on excluding non-European-Americans such as Jews and Muslims from CNN’s count of white voters — a correction that certainly makes sense given that their interests and their voting patterns are not at all similar to those of European-Americans.) Amnesty for illegal immigrants and continuing high levels of legal immigration will erode the European-American majority even further—and quickly.

Republicans can’t expect to continue to win national elections much longer. There is a ceiling effect for the percentage of European-Americans who might be induced to vote for the Republicans. Some European-Americans are so immersed in the leftist counterculture that there is no hope that they would ever abandon the Democrats. A great many other educated European-Americans are part of the hopelessly liberal educational establishment or they are government  workers. Many benefit from the leftist entitlement zeitgeist themselves.  And many, especially the young, have become multicultural zombies, having grown up with MTV and intellectually seduced by their college professors. These people may well become Republicans when they get a family and start looking for a mainly white suburb where they feel comfortable with the schools, but by then they’ll be part of a permanent electoral minority.

It’s difficult to say what this ceiling might be. Around 60% of European-Americans voted for Bush in 2004. But even if 70% of European-Americans voted Republican, it would not be enough to win an election when European-Americans make up 65% of the electorate. And that will happen very soon — probably by 2012.

In this election, overwhelming percentages of all the minorities voted for Obama—ranging from wealthy and middle class Jews and Asians to impoverished blacks and Latinos. If Hillary Clinton had been the Democratic candidate, this tendency would have been somewhat muted, but there would have been a similar general pattern. In fact, greater percentages of minorities voted Democrat in this election with a non-white candidate than when, as in all previous elections, the choice was between two European-Americans. The message is clear: An unambiguous assertion that the Democrats are the party of the ethnic minorities draws a greater percentage of minority votes.

Of course, the globalists and neocons urge the Republicans to solve their problem by trying to appeal to minorities. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute writes, “If the Republican Party cannot make significant, lasting inroads into … minority voting populations, it has a long-term disaster on its hands.”

Apart from the fact that such a strategy amounts to surrender for European America, the problem with this is that it’s really hard to see how the Republicans could have reached out to minorities any more than they did. McCain is the poster boy for amnesty for illegal aliens, and he said nothing against legal immigration. For his efforts, he received around 30% of the Latino vote. He said nothing to oppose affirmative action, and he studiously avoided linking Obama to Rev. Jeremiah Wright because he didn’t want to offend blacks. For his efforts, he received less than 5% of the black vote. McCain surrounded himself with neocon operatives with a long history of allegiance to Israel. For his efforts, he received just over 20% of Jewish votes. McCain even discouraged any mention of Obama’s Muslim-sounding middle name.

So what more are Republicans supposed to do? The simple fact is that the coalition of minorities in a powerful Democratic Party is their best strategy for achieving their dream of a post-European America, and there is nothing that the Republicans can do to change that.

The only long term choice that makes any sense for the Republicans is to acknowledge that they are a party of European-Americans and that the purpose of their party is to further the interests of European-Americans.

First and foremost, they must publicly state that it is a legitimate interest of European-Americans to prevent themselves from becoming a minority in a country where substantial percentages of non-Europeans — blacks, Latinos, and Jews — have historic grudges against them. And they should advocate policies aimed at improving the status of their base — middleclass and working class European-Americans.

Nothing short of adopting a European-American identity will do. It might be possible for the Republicans to adopt a Sarah Palinesque identity of Christianity and traditional small town values. But even if they do, they would still have to oppose legal and illegal immigration in order to remain a majority. The left has shown repeatedly that they will label as racist any criticism of immigration—even those based on economic or ecological arguments. And they would surely do so if a party composed almost exclusively of European-Americans advocated an end to immigration. It won’t matter what surface ideology they adopt.

Fundamentally, the Republicans have to be able to say to the New York Times, the SPLC, the ADL, the NAACP, and La Raza: “We are the party of European-Americans and we wish to remain a majority. We are advocates for our people in the exactly the same way that other groups are advocates for their people.”

The Republicans would certainly lose some of their constituencies if they did this. The neocons would be in high dudgeon, although they are nothing if not pragmatic in pursuing their main goal of helping Israel. And the globalists might leave. But neither of these constituencies is numerically significant.

And on the plus side, the new Republican Party would doubtless gain the allegiance of a lot of European-Americans who voted for the Democrats in 2008 while holding their noses.

Of course, the Republicans won’t do this. Not for nothing did Sam Francis call them the Stupid Party. For one thing, the Republicans would have to find new sources of funding. But more importantly, very few people can withstand the accusation of being called a racist by the mainstream media. Conservative commentators like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly studiously avoid saying anything that could be construed as “racist”; nor do they dare to oppose the massive legal immigration that will  make them a permanent electoral minority even if we stopped illegal immigration immediately; nor do they openly advocate for European America even though the vast majority of their audience are European-Americans who would love for them to do just that.

Nevertheless, despite their timidity (or their concern with keeping their advertizers), the bottom line is that advocacy for their own people is entirely legitimate and intellectually unassailable.

But unless Republicans become the explicit party of European-Americans, they will surely die — quite soon, and right before our eyes.

The Ethnic Gap Revisited

/2 Comments/in /by

In my October 29 editorial titled “Maximize the Racial Divide,” I hoped for a large and clear polarization of the racial vote, such as the black candidate winning with as little as 40% of the European vote (excluding Jews) and fully 80%of the non-European vote — a racial gap far exceeding any other gap based on gender, age, income, or region. Such a gap would clearly demonstrate that race was the most important factor determining how people voted.

This electoral divide was the subject of my analysis of the 2000 election titled “The Ethnic Gap” that appeared in the first issue of The Occidental Quarterly.

Based on the initial results of the 2008 election I am happy to report that my hopes were essentially fulfilled, and the “Ethnic Gap” is alive and well, and as determinative as it was in 2000. It seems that the economy didn’t trump race in this election after all, in spite of what the pundits might claim. All the greatest economic crisis of the last 70 years did was restrict the Ethnic Gap to the same importance and level of influence it had in the 2000 election.

In 2000 whites were 72% of the population but were 80.7% of the voters (down from 90% in 1976). In that election, whites gave Bush 54.8% of their 81.5 million votes, or about 44.7 million votes. In 2008 whites are about 67% of the population but comprised 74% of the voters, and they gave McCain 55% of their 89.8 million votes, or about 49.4 million votes.

But what is important to us is the European vote, which excludes Jews as well as whites from North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. I assume that if 74% of the voters were white, then Europeans can be estimated to be 69% of the voters and non-European whites to be 5%. This 5% can be broken down further into 3% Jews and 2% other non-European whites. This means that 31% of the total voters were non-European.

The following analysis is based on the results of the CNN National Exit Poll but corrected for these assumptions — that is, it is corrected for the assumption that Europeans are actually 69% of the electorate and that non-Europeans classified as white make up 5% of the electorate. It is also based on the assumption that non-European people classified as white voted 80% for Obama. This is based on exit poll data for Jews indicating that 77–78% of Jews voted for Obama and on the plausible theory that Obama would have a strong appeal to Muslim Americans.

With these assumptions, the results show that the European vote split approximately 59/40 for McCain. (49,484,867 Europeans voted for McCain; this is 40.79% of all votes and 59.12% of European votes; 33,628,843 Europeans voted for Obama; this is 27.72% of all votes and 40.17% of European votes. The balance of white voters voted for minor parties.)

[adrotate group=”1″]

Another way to look at it is that Obama’s 52.6% of the total vote was derived from 40.17% of the European vote and from 80.26% of the non-European vote. On the other hand, McCain’s 46.5% of the total vote consisted of 59.12% of the European vote and 18.42% of the non-European vote.

What this means is that the Ethnic Gap is as large and determinative as it was in 2000 in spite of strong competition from the greatest economic crisis of the last 70 years. Without that crisis, and given the non-European identity of the democratic candidate, it would certainly have been much greater than it was in 2000, and probably would have given McCain the victory.

European-Americans did not elect Obama. They voted overwhelmingly against him, voting for McCain by a margin that would be termed a landslide victory if it applied to the total electorate. The American electorate remains deeply divided on race, despite the claims that this election proves that everything about race has changed in this country, that race is no longer a consideration in elections, and that we are now all united in our support for a president of color who will lead us on a path that will transcend race — that will be the end of our race.

The racial change heralded by this election is not a deep change in racial attitudes, concerns or preferences, but an ongoing demographic change in the racial composition of the population and electorate. That is the difference between the results of this election and what the results would have been in a similar contest as recently as eight years ago.

So European-Americans and Europeans around the world, our racial kinsmen in Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, should not be dismayed or discouraged by what they are told by their elites — the triumphalist spin spouted by multiracialists, racial Marxists and non-European peoples the world over, that the once-great European people of America have been overthrown, that we have been transformed by a racial revolution that has overcome racial considerations and loyalties and cast them, and us, forever into the dustbin of history.

Quite the opposite, they should take heart. The fact is we are still here, and we have not changed, and we have not surrendered. We have not collapsed like the South Africans in 1994. The great majority of us still vote for the interests of our race, with strong racial preferences and concerns, in spite of strong competition from other major issues and problems.

What has changed, and is changing, are the racial proportions of our population. That is the transformation that is taking place: our replacement and dispossession by demographic change. This is the same transformation that is happening in most of the other European homelands. It is not a transformation of our values and loyalties, our beliefs and spirit. We have survived this test intact, and as a result will be more ready than ever for the tests to come.

Richard McCulloch’s website is at www.racialcompact.com.

First thoughts on the election

/in /by

It would seem to be the worst of all possible results—an Obama presidency and much larger Democratic majorities in Congress. What can’t be erased is the picture of adoring white faces in the crowd at Grant Park in Chicago during Obama’s victory speech. They  were the faces of people who had just been granted racial deliverance. Hanging on his every word, on the verge of tears of joy.

Granted, these pathetic white people do not represent the majority of white people. The CNN exit poll data indicate that 55% of whites  voted for McCain, including 57% of white males and 53% of white females. In the 2004 election,58% of whites voted for Bush. (As Richard McCulloch points out, these are low estimates because non-European whites, especially Jews and Muslims that voted overwhelmingly for Obama, are included in the white count.)

The only white age group to vote for Obama was the 18–29 year old category—a category still under the sway of the educational system and filled with youthful idealism. 54% of them voted for Obama. Quite a few of them will grow out of it by the time they are 30—much sooner if they begin to see that the job market is stacked against them and that the Obama administration is pushing quotas.

But the bottom line is that McCain could not hold the advantage that Bush enjoyed in 2004 among whites, especially working class whites. This is doubtless due to the extreme unpopularity of the  Bush administration—an administration that not only gave us the disastrous neocon war in Iraq but also did absolutely nothing to win the affection of its base by standing up on issues like immigration.

And the McCain campaign labored under the economic crisis that, in the public’s mind at least, was linked to the Bush administration. There is no question that a lot of white people put their economic fears ahead of anything else. In an economy where good jobs with good benefits are increasingly difficult to find for working class people, one has to sympathize. This is another area where the Bush administration did nothing to help its natural constituency.

Nevertheless, the Republican Party remains a white party. Whites represented around 90% of Republican votes cast in this election. Minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama (95% of blacks, 66% of Latinos, 61% of Asians). (TheLA Times says only 30% of Latinos voted for McCain — this despite McCain being the Republican poster boy for amnesty for illegals.) So much for Karl Rove’s idea of expanding the Republican vote by favoring mass immigration of non-whites.

In  fact, the big change between 2004 and 2008 is that much higher percentages of minorities voted for Obama than voted for Kerry. (Kerry was supported by 88% blacks, 53% Latino, 56% Asian). This shift in the direction of the Democrats is quite a bit greater than the shift among white people. Even though whites were less racially polarized in this election, the minorities were more polarized. There is little question that the Democrats have become the party of the minorities.

And the electorate itself was less white (77% in 2004, 74% in 2008). The clock keeps ticking.

In a previous editorial, we suggested that if Obama were to achieve a landslide victory, it would lead to immediate and drastic change desired by the far left. The landslide did not materialize, and no one is suggesting a mandate for drastic change. We suspect that the new administration will tread lightly and attempt to retain its white constituency by not openly advocating quotas or other issues that needlessly alienate whites. That is perhaps their best strategy for retaining power for two terms.

But such a strategy must go up against increased expectations among blacks and other minorities that their time has come. The problem for Obama and the Democrats is that white discrimination against blacks and Latinos is pretty much irrelevant to their achievement patterns. Group differences in IQ and impulse control are far larger contributors, and Obama’s election is not going to change these traits.

So in the end, the only way that Obama can satisfy his black and Latino constituents is to get results by implementing programs like quota-style affirmative action and transfer payments that will alienate whites in droves.

A true post-racial leader would fight discrimination while working to convince blacks and Latinos to accept their lower socio-economic positions as an inevitable outcome of a free market. But quite obviously, the probability of that happening is right up there with pigs flying and hell freezing over.

In the end, we think that in the long run Obama’s election will indeed contribute to the racial polarization of the country. Our day will come.

Stalinism lives — in the CSULB Women’s Studies Department

/in /by

The Women’s Studies Department at California State University–Long Beach finally put out a statement on my work. I say “finally” because a long list of other departments put out statements last Spring, culminating in a resolution by the CSULB Academic Senate that quotes from these statements.

After awhile, the statements by the departments have a familiar ring. The general plan is something like: We strongly believe in free speech and academic freedom, but we deplore MacDonald’s shoddy scholarship and his bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic conclusions.

The Women’s Studies statement is in line with this, but it does depart a bit from the script. It is worth commenting on because it reveals quite a bit about the state of the academy.

The statement starts with an unabashed assertion that the purpose of the Women’s Studies Department is leftist political activism:

The field of Women’s Studies is committed to the creation and promotion of research and teaching that challenges racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and related bigotries that undermine the possibility for all populations to exist free from discrimination, deprivation, hostility, violence and marginalization. Women’s Studies is dedicated to analyzing and critiquing social institutions that support or promote oppressive conditions against any targeted populations. Informed by feminist methodology and feminist theory, the core mission of Women’s Studies is to promote positive social transformation that eradicates the full range of bigoted institutions that prevent people from realizing the highest possibilities for their lives.

The media has at times pointed out the tendency for professors to be on the left. But this goes well beyond that. Their whole purpose is social transformation in the direction of a leftist utopia. (See also their webpage.) This is Antonio Gramsci’s march through the institutions with a vengeance. And it shows that people like me who see value in the traditional peoples and culture of the West have a very long way to go. The culture of the radical, transformational left is thoroughly ensconced in the university, dominating entire departments in the social sciences and humanities.

This culture of the left is constantly spouted in classrooms by professors such as those in the CSULB Women’s Studies Department. At the same time that students are inundated with politically correct propaganda from the left, every attempt is made to silence professors who have different points of view. My troubles on campus began when the SPLC pressured the university about my writing and associations. A major concern was that I was teaching things in my child development course that contradicted the SPLC’s positions on issues like race differences in intelligence. It didn’t matter that my views and what I taught were entirely consistent with mainstream research and with what my textbook says. Their point of view was that MacDonald should not be teaching any course where he might be spouting opinions disapproved by these arbiters of truth.

And the university went along with the SPLC: I had to agree to stop teaching race differences in intelligence or they would not allow me to teach the course. And no one at the university from top to bottom had any problem with that. Leftist hegemony indeed.

The Women’s Studies statement goes on as follows:

Further, Women’s Studies rejects any claims to a natural, biological or essential basis for social hierarchies that impute lesser or greater social value to designated populations. As such, the mission of Women’s Studies and the ethical and political impulse of feminism stand in direct contrast to the fields of socio-biology, evolutionary biology and by association, the work of Professor Kevin Macdonald.

In other words, they know the truth and are entitled to act on the basis of this knowledge. It’s the same philosophy as the Spanish Inquisition or Stalin’s show trials for intellectual deviation. Such a statement should be astounding in any academic environment, but there’s nary a peep from my colleagues. When I went into academic research I was under the naïve impression that truth is not supposed to be assumed but sought after. What we find now is that entire fields are rejected out of hand because they might yield inconvenient results. If the results conflict with their political agenda, they can be safely rejected out of hand. No research needed.

This should be underlined and repeated. The Women’s Studies Department is not really going after me. They are going after any academic discipline that they see as producing or likely to produce inconvenient results. Indeed, they go on as follows:

Challenging Professor MacDonald’s work in isolation from the fields of study that grant him legitimacy runs the risk of individualizing him and his research as exceptional and unsupported by the academy. This is not the case. Professor MacDonald works in fields that are considered to be legitimate by academic standards, and unfortunately, research into the genetic basis for the social value of racial and ethnic groups, women and homosexuals continues under the auspices of many fields of study.

The problem is not “shoddy research.” The problem is that the research has academic legitimacy and continues to appear in scholarly journals and in books published by academic publishers. Obviously, this must not be allowed to continue. They conclude by asking a series of questions:

What are the social, political, intellectual and academic conditions that enable racially supremacist research to be conducted, funded, and legitimated in today’s academy? What do we do in our fields of study to counter racially supremacist ideas? How do we shape our research and teaching to undermine the social conditions that make racial supremacy possible? How does our work contribute to transforming the academy and the larger society to counter racial supremacy and bigotry?

Their last question is key: “How does our work contribute to transforming the academy and the larger society to counter racial supremacy and bigotry?” In their ideal world, entire academic disciplines would be proscribed—expunged from the academy—if they produce results that conflict with their dogmas.

It’s just like in the USSR. When the results of genetic science conflicted with Lysenkoism, so much the worse for genetics. Purge the academy.

The academic left is now in charge. When the left was on the defensive during the McCarthy era, they were strong advocates of free speech and academic freedom. Now that they have the power, there’s a very different tone. Indeed, as noted in a TOO editorial, the left has been strong supporters of “hate speech” laws in Europe and Canada, and these same forces have advocated getting rid of tenure at universities. When that happens, I’ll be the first to go. And no one at the university—least of all Women’s Studies—will lose any sleep over it.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

KevinMacDonald.net


Maximize the Racial Divide

/in /by

Our project, our purpose, our goal and our cause is to save our race. But we in the white racial activist community, by ourselves, lack the power to save our race — to save it from its dispossession, from the loss of its homelands, from the loss of its independence, from its subjugation to alien rule and domination, from its reduction to minority status, from its destruction and ultimate extinction.

Since it is beyond our power, and beyond our control, to save our race, we look to something else beyond us, far greater than us, to help us.

The only human agency we can look for, and hope for, to save us, is the existence of something inherent and latent, but presently mostly suppressed or inactive, in our race. The existence of such a power is the necessary precondition for any possibility of saving our race. Only such a power could give us something we could direct, that we could work with, sufficient to save our race.

Thus everything we hope to achieve is based on the assumption that this power does exist. This latent power is an embedded sense of racial group identity and loyalty.

This sense of racial group loyalty is not distributed equally throughout all our race. It is essentially absent in many while in others it is so strong as to already be manifest and active, as in the white activist community. We must hope that it would be potentially strong enough in the majority of our race to be able to save us.

Ultimately all our hopes for the salvation of our race depend on this — to find that, when our backs are to the wall things will change. We have to believe that whites are like the lion in the old Disney cartoon Lambert the Sheepish Lion. The lion has always acted like a sheep, and always thought it was a sheep. But when the moment demands it, he is a lion after all.

In effect, our hopes are based on the assumption that enough of our race have the lion of racial loyalty somewhere inside them, and our mission is to bring it to life and direct it.

We look with both hope and despair for signs of this latent racial force that could save us. This power is generally so suppressed and hidden that evidence for it is usually indirect and circumstantial, often no more than fleeting hints. Yet it is the substance behind what Kevin MacDonald has termed “implicit whiteness” and what our opponents decry as unconscious racism.

What is needed is something to activate this untapped racial force, to make it snap on a mass scale. What could set in motion a rising tide of racial consciousness and sense of racial group identity and loyalty?

There are many things that can do this at the individual level, and we have all heard many stories of individual racial enlightenment. But this election could potentially be that very something that could trigger this power at the mass level.

Never has race been so conspicuous and prominent a factor as in this election. This is generally ignored or denied or minimized, like the 800 pound gorilla in the room that everyone pretends isn’t there. But it is the dominant undercurrent of the election, with all intelligent observers on all sides knowing it, even if they pretend otherwise.

That is the reason passions are running much higher in this election than usual, and why record voter turnouts are expected. It could be, as it has been described, a racially transforming moment for our society and country, and the world.

Our opponents hope the transforming moment will be for them, but we can also hope that it will be for us. A racially polarizing moment could be a transforming event, elevating the implicit and unconscious white racial identity to the explicit and conscious level.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The best thing that can happen for us in this election is that it produces a degree of racial polarization sufficient to serve as the activating trigger for that latent sense of racial group consciousness and loyalty.

This can be accomplished by an unprecedented racial gap in voting patterns that is clear for all to see, and especially if it is so great as to carry the white candidate to victory against all the odds and predictions, against all the disparity in money, against his own lack of racial appeal and loyalty, and against the wishes and plans and agenda of the dominant elite in the power structure who have been working so successfully for our dispossession and destruction over the last century.

If not sufficient to produce a white electoral victory, we should hope that the racial voting gap will still be large enough to show that the black winner won with the smallest share of the gentile European vote of any previous winner in our country’s history.

It is possible that in this election cycle the black candidate could win with as little as 42% of the white vote, which would mean that he won with less than 40% of the gentile European vote. Such a percentage would be particularly striking given the natural tendency to vote for the Democrats in the wake of the catastrophic Bush administration and during economic hard times.

We should prefer that the awakening of our race will be achieved by a great victory that encourages and empowers them with the display of their united power. But if that fails, then our awakening could still be achieved if the racial voting gap is large enough to shock whites with the realization of their racial dispossession in the electoral process, with their loss of political control and independence.

So win or lose we must hope for the maximum racial voting gap, and a resulting racial polarization as clear as the different racial reactions to the verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

What is important in this election, whichever candidate wins, is that our race wins. Winning for us can be defined as the largest and clearest possible racial voting gap, such as the black candidate winning half the proportion of European gentile votes as the other votes, such as 40% of the European gentile vote and 80% or more of the others. If this happens then our race will have demonstrated an unprecedented degree of racial electoral unity, and this in itself will be its victory.

The point is we can still win this election if the white candidate loses, if the racial polarization resulting from a large racial voting gap is sufficient to awaken the racial consciousness of our people. If the black candidate wins we will need this newly awakened sense of racial unity and power to check the anti-white agenda and ideology of the radical left that he will bring to the executive branch. We will need all the help we can get.

In “Picking Up the Pieces,” Part 5 of the PBS series Making Sense of the Sixties , televised January 23, 1991, Doug McAdam, professor of Sociology at Stanford University, stated:

I remember going to the last above ground Weatherman convention [in 1969], and sitting in a room and the question that was debated was, “Was it or was it not the duty of every good revolutionary to kill all newborn white babies.” At that point it seemed like a relevant framing of an issue, the logic being, “Hey look, through no fault of their own these white kids were going to grow up to be part of an oppressive racial establishment internationally, and so really your duty is to kill newborn white babies.” I remember one guy kind of tentatively and apologetically suggesting that that seemed like it may be contradictory to the larger humanitarian aims of the movement, and being kind of booed down.

The Racial Marxist ideology, mentality and agenda of the people who were booing in that room in 1969, perhaps including Weatherman co-founder William Ayers, will be strongly represented in an Obama presidency, allied, now as then, with the radical black racial ideologies represented then by such groups as the Black Panthers.

Our race, and especially white racial activists, will be entering much more perilous times. We must only hope that something will snap in the collective mind of our race, like Lambert, and awaken the lion within to rise to the challenge.

Richard McCulloch’s website is at www.racialcompact.com.