Featured Articles

Media Watch: Who’s a White Supremacist?

Few terms are more beloved by the media than “white supremacist.”  It conjures an image of a tattooed skinhead barking “sieg heil” or a gap-toothed Klansman at a lynching.  Proper people recoil in horror.

Every so often, a genuine moron pops up in the news who practically begs for the term, however many galaxies away he is from actual white advocacy. However, naming your child “Adolf Hitler” or the combination of a swastika tattoo and a vague threat against a public official are more likely signs of mental illness or a desire to shock the community than manifestation of a genuine concern about whites.

A major contributor to use of the term “white supremacist” and its grab-bag of related terms (neo-Nazi, hate group, supremacist group, racist, avowed racist, etc.) is the Southern Poverty Law Center, an increasingly discredited organization that, properly described, operates as an anti-white group.  “Anti-white hate group,” really, though I’m not expecting the media to call it that anytime soon.

Critics of a given presidential administration sometimes complain that this or that interest group practically has an office in the White House.  Likewise, the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t have a reporter’s desk in the middle of most American newsrooms so much as it’s got an editor’s suite, closed off by glass in the corner.

The media faithfully describes the SPLC as a “civil rights group” or a “watchdog group” and routinely sends its press releases to print without much more change than the addition of a reporter’s byline.

recent story in the Augusta Chronicle about the National Policy Institute (which is, in fact, a white advocacy organization) went a step beyond that by actually interviewing a spokesman for the group, Louis Andrews. But it still manages to describe the NPI as promoting “white supremacy.”

Reporter Stephanie Toone doesn’t say what about NPI “promotes white supremacy” and probably didn’t think too much before using the term.

Here’s another example: Pennsylvania reporter Michael Gorsenger bandies about “racist” and “white supremacist,” but it’s unclear to me how a flyer saying “Love Your Race” implies supremacy.  You can rest assured Mr. Gorsenger would not describe such a flyer distributed by the NAACP as “supremacist.”

I propose to Ms. Toone, Mr. Gorsenger and their colleagues in the media that they reconsider use of this term.  As we lawyers like to say, the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.

First, “supremacist” is not a very precise term.  What does it mean, exactly?

The implication is that a “supremacist” would have license to engage in any kind of abuse or debasement of another he fancied.  But I know of no white advocate who seeks that.  The term “white separatist” might actually describe the policy goal of some white advocates, but it still wouldn’t hurt to ask whether that is, in fact, his or her goal.

Most white advocates seek a general right of group self-determination that at most involves non-involvement with other racial groups, especially coercive involvement.  Forced busing, affirmative action, immigration and non-discrimination laws are all examples of coercion that are opposed by white advocates.

In other words, they wish to simply decline the demands of other racial groups. That’s “supremacy”?  That’s like calling a woman who refuses a man’s sexual advances a “female supremacist.”

Second, the term “supremacist” is deeply pejorative.  The Southern Poverty Law Center uses the term because they want to discredit white advocates and frighten its base into making large donations.  It works because it sounds scary.

But the media should not be in the business of adopting partisan terms.  The problem with “supremacist” is that it stops thought rather than encourages it — instantly, the reader or viewer’s blood runs cold — a “supremacist”!  Oh no!  The media should be using terms that accurately describe, not scare.  The goal should be to impart information, not further the agenda of one side of the debate.  “Supremacist” fails that test. 

I personally prefer “white advocate” or “white advocacy”.  These terms are good because they first eliminate the dishonesty or evasion problem presented by terms like “Western” or “conservative” or “traditional.”  These terms certainly have their place, but at the end of the day, there is a need for the honesty of presentation that goes with using the “W” word.  Also, the term “advocacy” flatly describes what’s going one:  a person or group who seeks the good of whites, as a group.  An editor can’t complain that the term “white advocate” hides an agenda.

I might also propose that black or Hispanic groups be called “black advocacy” or “Hispanic advocacy” groups, instead of the partisan-sounding “civil rights group.”  Really?  “La Raza” is concerned about everyone’s civil rights?  Please.

So what do the media ethics gurus have to say about slapping any white advocate with the “white supremacist” smear?  Intending to make a serious e-inquiry, I Googled up the famous Poynter Institute in Florida to see if I couldn’t find an expert willing to weigh in.

Take a look at this link, however, and you’ll see why I never bothered.

That’s right, the Poynter Institute has actually melded “ethics” with “diversity” in such a way as to suggest that “ethical” journalism is a booster for “diversity.”  Needless to say, I doubt the Poynter Institute will be taking up the unfairness of the term “white supremacist.”
[adrotate group=”1″]
I continue to be frustrated by the dilemma presented by filmmaker Craig Bodeker, who notes that on racial issues, whites are only allowed two positions:  total indifference, or crazy, mean racist.

I, too, object.  Whites are a unique group who face an array of problems that remain unaddressed in the popular media, culture and politics.  We need advocates.  When they appear, the media should describe them accurately.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Media Watch: Late Night too white, NYT’s Alessandra Stanley complains — Would she make the same complaint about Jews in the media?

Some whites might have thought that by casting a ballot for Barack Obama, they’d be treated to a few reverse turns on the vice-grip of white guilt in America. Even a few pro-white folks might have speculated an Obama win would serve to quiet the shrill attacks on whites as the source of all evil.

No such luck.  In fact, for some anti-white activists and media figures, it’s been just the opposite:  The election of Obama only underscores the need for the rest of white society to exit the stage.

And no corner of the culture is safe.  Alessandra Stanley, a critic for the New York Times, complains that on late-night TV, “every single host of a late-night network talk show is white, male and mainstream.  Still.”

We could stop for a moment and point out that this isn’t exactly a big group — from Jack Paar on, we’re talking about maybe 25 people.  We could note that Arsenio Hall, a black man, had a successful run as a late-night TV host in the 1990s.  We could note that comedians tend to be male.  We could note that the men who’ve ascended to these spots tend to be pretty funny, and that a focus on their race is unfair so long as they’re delivering the laughs.  And we could note that the world of entertainment overall is hardly a bastion of white exclusion.

But the biggest thing to note is that we’ve come to a place where the smallest of white redoubts gets hit with the diversity howitzer.  Jimmy Fallon takes over from Conan O’Brien, who in turn will replace Jay Leno, and, for the New York Times, it’s as if the Nazis are marching through Paris.

Read her complaint, and you’ll see that it’s not just the whiteness and maleness of the hosts that Stanley hates it’s their affirmation of white culture.  “Each night a network talk show repeats a ritual of civility that is both intimately familiar and a total fantasy — a relaxed Thanksgiving dinner where no daughter-in-law bolts from the table in tears…. At the close of each show they convince us that everything is all right in the world, and Mommy and Daddy still love each other.”

What Stanley means to say is that 1950’s-style white America is a bad thing, and anything that resembles it should be whacked.  If you’re not doing crude, scatological Howard Stern-style humor or blue material a la Richard Pryor, you’re out of touch.  In other words, you’re white.

For an enemy of whiteness, Stanley is at least targeting correctly.  I have always been a huge fan of David Letterman, who is possibly one of the smoothest white men alive:  cool, unflappable, hilarious.  He’s also unafraid to engage in a little ethnic humor, as with his light mockery of Mujibur and Sirajul, the Bangladeshi owners of the tourist trap down the street from his studio.

Letterman’s not just funny — he’s definitively white in his demeanor, and that must drive some crazy.  Clearly, it drives Alessandra Stanley crazy.  All these white men Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Fallon are calm, well-dressed, and in complete control from center stage.  They’ve got a dapper style Fred Astaires of the monologue, conjuring images of dry martinis, steak dinners and rounds of golf with Ben Hogan.  Their humor allows them to poke fun at the world around them.  They’ve got power and they’re having fun.  It is, in short, an image of white men that our anti-white cultural elite despises. 

[adrotate group=”1″]

Stanley herself has been accused of having a (more than standard?) liberal bias, and is mistake-prone, according to gossip site Gawker.

None of this is surprising, and whatever her own ethnicity, it’s a safe bet that she’s cozy with the Jews who populate New York power circles and the Times.  With Wikipedia accuracy issues in mind, Stanley reports that she was once married to a journalist named Michael Specter and is friends with the Times’ Jill Abramson.

Needless to say, we won’t see Stanley complaining that in the entertainment industry, “almost every single writer, producer, owner is Jewish and hostile to whites.  Still.”

White men, don’t let the Alessandra Stanleys of our world hector you off the stage.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.

Jeff Gates’ Guilt by Association

Not many people think about Jews as much as I do. Decades of research have exposed me to a number of classic books on this topic, beginning with John Murray Cuddihy’s rollicking Ordeal of Civility. Next comes Paul Johnson’s A History of the Jews, or Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears. Or course readers of this site and The Occidental Quarterly well know about Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jews, which examines Jews through the lens of a group evolutionary strategy.

Then two years ago I discovered the work of retired scholar James Petras. His unvarnished prose is just the tonic for the Orwellian times in which we live. I even made a minor contribution to Petras scholarship in a review I wrote of two of his books, The Power of Israel in the United States and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants. (See also Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of U.S. Power.)

Now I believe I’ve run across a new book that might join the ranks of the above. Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War is written by Jeff Gates, a former counsel to the U.S. Senate. His first task is to explain how America lost control of its foreign policy to pro-Israeli elites and extremists. His brush, however, paints far more broadly, as this mixture of press releases shows:

In an account covering presidencies from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush, the author chronicles the influence wielded by pro-Israeli agents operating inside administrations over the past century regardless of party.

Harry Truman, a political product of organized crime from the 1920s, recognized Israel in 1948 over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall and the entire U.S. foreign policy and intelligence establishment.

Guilt by Association makes treason transparent. The corruption that plagues American politics is traced to an alliance with elites and extremists loyal to the Land of Israel. Unable to rid politics of campaign finance corruption, the U.S. finds its security imperiled by those skilled at deceiving America into waging wars for the Zionist state.

Tracing this corruption to criminal syndicates from the 1920s, Guilt by Association reveals how those skilled at displacing facts with beliefs wield clout from the shadows. Both deception and self-deceit play critical roles in enabling this criminality to expand its reach on a global scale. Guilt by Association documents how by operating in the realms of politics, media, academia, think tanks and popular culture corruption came to dominate politics, as shown by presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. Chronicling systemic corruption that predates these candidates by decades, the book explains how organized crime expanded worldwide while the U.S. discredited itself in the eyes of a global public astounded that Americans would tolerate such corruption to their own detriment. Featuring sophisticated analysis presented in layman’s language, Guilt by Association will transform political debate in the U.S. and beyond.

This chronicle of duplicity and trans-generational manipulation describes how dysfunctional personalities are identified and then positioned for elective office. Chronicling systemic corruption that predates the current presidential candidates by decades, Guilt by Association describes how organized crime expanded worldwide in plain view yet with legal impunity.

Praise for the book has been strong. For instance, Paul Findley, longtime former Congressman and one of the first casualties of the Zionist attack on lukewarm supporters of Israel, writes that the book is “Magnificent, timely, and persuasive.” Ambassador Andrew Killgore calls it “Brilliantly provocative,” while fellow Ambassador Ed Peck, Deputy Director, Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism, dubs it “explosively revelatory, powerful, compelling and certain to be highly contentious.” 

Gates does appear to be audacious in his goals. In Guilt, he appears to be offering us a tool for understanding the massive financial scandals and upsets much of the Western world is now enduring and he ties it to America’s going to war in the Middle East. “America’s post-war leadership embraced an alliance with an elitist and fundamentalist subculture within Judaism’s broader faith tradition.”

Nicely put about “Judaism’s broader faith tradition,” but what he has to say about that subculture is less charitable: “The Zionism chronicled in this account describes a transnational organized crime agenda featuring financial and political domination by elites and extremists.” For instance, America, Gates argues, is in Iraq now because “the war in Iraq is the product of a trans-generational syndicate skilled at displacing facts with (false) beliefs. Those masterful at manipulating thoughts and beliefs are also responsible for enabling organized crime to expand to a global scale.”

At first blush, this mental manipulation seems to be the trick whereby this subculture controls the majority. The “displacement of facts with beliefs” is responsible, in Gates’ view, for the American electorate and its representatives swallowing the lies about Saddam Hussein’s mythical weapons of mass destruction. What is the limit to our gullibility? Well, whatever “people can be deceived to believe.” Such as the “widely shared opinion that Israel is a democracy and an ally. All false and all induced beliefs.”

As a scholar and teacher of American film, an obvious example of this kind of manipulation comes readily to mind. In chapter one, Gates outlines his views on how today’s unconventional warfare “relies on game theory and the application of mathematical models to anticipate the response to staged provocations. Reactions become ‘perfectly predictable’ in the sense that they are foreseeable within an acceptable range of probabilities.” America’s (mistaken) response to 9/11 illustrates this. Years prior to those attacks, people’s minds had been exposed to scenarios of Arab enemies and terrorists, a signal example being the broad attention given to Harvard historian Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” thesis.

We also had the myriad neocon think tank studies suggesting that a “new Pearl Harbor” might serve as catalyst for a power reconfiguration in the Middle East. Gates steps back to put these disparate items into a frame he calls “a period of preparing the minds.” Here, of course, I thought of the pre-9/11 pop culture portrayals of events exceedingly similar to what transpired on September 11th. I was not alone. David Ray Griffin, for one, retired theologian and author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, drew our attention to a new show spun off from the popular series “The X-Files.” “In March 2001, the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which reportedly had 13 million viewers, was based on a rogue group within the US government crashing a remote-controlled 747 into the World Trade Center.” Don’t believe it? Watch the scene.

An example that works even better for me is the big-budget film The Siege (1998). This action-packed thriller stars Denzel Washington as an FBI agent tracking Arab terrorists in New York. If Gates is right about this plot to “prepare the minds” of Americans for future events, then The Siege fits the mold. For instance, Arab terrorists blow up themselves and a busload of innocent passengers in broad daylight (think suicide bombers in Israel). Then comes an attack on a theater. Finally, we have a scene that is more than suggestive of the airliner hits on the Twin Towers. In The Siege, Arabs drive a van loaded with explosives into the FBI Counterterrorism Division at One Federal Plaza, raining debris down on New York streets.

Again, Gates is painting with a wide brush here. For example, the longest chapter deals with the deliberate Israel attack in 1967 on the American spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty. He also discusses John McCain’s connection to a Zionist cabal. Chapter 7 deals with “the new anti-Semitism,” followed by thoughts on Obama as President.  Gates is not confident that Obama will be his own man and break out of the Zionist grip that held his predecessors.

As Gates documents, Obama is but the product of the Jewish machine in Chicago, having been nurtured by Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. Further, his top three contributors were also Jews from the “Chicago Outfit”: Penny Pritzker, the Crown family (ne Krinsky) and George Soros. (Sticking with his crime lineage thesis, Gates claims that the Pritzker family dates from the Jewish syndicate of the 1920.)

Emanuel and Axelrod bear watching. Both emerged as young Democratic party activists in Chicago in 1984, just two years after AIPAC had taken down 22-year incumbent Congressman Paul Findley for his perceived lack of Zionist zeal. His replacement was Dick Durbin, “now #2 in the Senate leadership who shares a house in Washington with Chuck Schumer, now #3. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, from mobbed-up Nevada, is Mormon.” Though Gates doesn’t mention it here, Reid is married to a woman born to Jewish parents, which dovetails with accounts others have provided about such marital ties. For instance, in The Jewish Century Berkeley professor Yuri Slezkine notes the high proportion of intermarriage higher up the chain of command in the Bolshevik hierarchy. Bukharin and Molotov, to name two, were married to Jewish women.

Perhaps the most explosive claims made by Gates concern the nexus of Jewish involvement in both the pillage of Russian wealth in the 1990s and the ongoing economic meltdown in the West now. On his blog he asks “Is a multi-trillion dollar fraud being perpetrated on America by Lawrence Summers and the same transnational network that defrauded Russia of $1 trillion?”

Tracing the actions of Larry Summers over his time in the Clinton Administration and as President of Harvard, Gates argues that Summers used his status to legitimate the massive loan-for-shares fraud that created the oligarchs. His analysis resonates with what James Petras has also argued.

Petras claims that former President Clinton and his economic advisers such as Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs backed the regimes that allowed the plunder of Russian wealth. Because of these advisers’ positions at Harvard, that institution paid $26.5 million to settle a suit stemming from various improprieties associated with them. As one observer illustrates, however, it is the Jewish aspect of the entire scandal that stands out. The principals of this scandal were Jews, and they were allegedly protected by fellow Jew Summers.

The upshot of the scam was that the “reform” of the Russian economy “turned out to be one of the great larceny sprees in all history, and the Harvard boys weren’t all merely naive theoreticians.” The 45-year-old Shleifer, though Russian, nonetheless vacationed each year with Summers, which may explain why Shleifer has remained on the Harvard faculty.

This very much speaks to the effort Gates makes to bring the broader picture into focus. Thus, when we observe the common intersection of Jewish identity, networking and media power, for example, we can answer the question: “How did the defendants in the Russia project—Harvard, Shleifer, Hay and, though he was not charged with wrong-doing in the matter, Summers—convince the [New YorkTimes, the [Washington] Post and the Financial Times that the collapse of [Harvard’s] Russia Project was not a worthy story?” One answer is Jewish power.

Of course the Jewish identity of the Russian oligarchs has not always been readily highlighted, which may be deliberate. For example, when Yale law professor Amy Chua, author of the book World on Fire, mentioned this identity to a Jewish colleague who himself had participated in the “debacle” of Russian privatization , the professor dismissed her impatiently. Her Jewish husband, however, was more nonplussed—when Chua correctly noted that six out of the seven of Russia’s wealthiest oligarchs were Jews, her Jewish husband calmly quipped, “Just six?  So who’s the seventh guy?”

In the end, as Petras claims, “the unprecedented pillage” in Russia brought on by Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs’s and others’ “shock therapy” removed at least a trillion dollars from that long-suffering nation. Yet this was largely absent from any American discussions. Like Gates, Petras understands the importance of the fact that the ethnic connections going to the top of American society are important because of the combined power of Zionism, media and financial control. If it’s not good for the Jews, don’t mention it.

While most Americans have likely long since lost interest in the Russian story, their minds have become wonderfully focused by the stunning economic meltdown in America taking place before their very eyes. And as in Russia, so many of the central players, “good” (Obama’s new economic team) and bad (accused mega swindlers such as Madoff, Friedman and Karatz) are Jews.

In a TOO column last year, Kevin MacDonald pointed out two consequences of Jewish involvement in these financial scandals: “One is that crime does pay. Jews like the Sandlers and the Arnalls whose actions contributed to the current crisis made huge fortunes. Their money is now being used to further specifically Jewish political agendas.” Second, the Sandlers and the Arnalls “are a microcosm of Jewish political activism. The beneficiaries of their largess define the boundaries of acceptable politics in the US — from the far left to the neoconservative, pro-Israel, pro-immigration right.”

Given the reluctance of the (heavily Jewish) news media to make sense of all this, it is ironic that we can find confirmation in a skit from (heavily Jewish) Saturday Night Live. The skit makes fun of the prominent role Jews played in the financial meltdown, spoofing Herbert and Marion Sandler, Congressman Barney Frank, and even George Soros. Here’s the unadulterated original version.

It would seem that the SNL skit corroborates Gates’ own conclusions about Jewish fraud. Just as Russian state shares ended up in the hands of the oligarchs, in America they are headed for large firms that are predominantly Jewish. “As in Russia, both the advisers and the new owners qualify for Israeli citizenship. Summers had a hand in both bailouts. As President-elect Obama scrambles to stabilize the financial system, will his pledge of clarity and transparency include an account of how—and by whom—he was advised to capitalize a transnational Ashkenazi oligarchy?”

To be sure, Gates’ claims are vast and there is a bit of Da Vinci Code breathlessness to them. But consider this a preliminary consideration of important topics that need to be understood. If Gates is right to link them through an overarching network of Ashkenazi Jews, then we might begin to unravel many of the mysteries Gates takes on. After all, many of us have seen the “disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, pop culture, politics, academia and think tanks,” and we can also verify the heavy Jewish presence in all of them.

These are matters of war and peace, prosperity and poverty. Many of the same people responsible for the economic meltdown are either still there, or worse, being brought into the Obama team. And last week’s battle over the appointment of Chas Freeman is over, pointing to increased risks that moves for more war in the Middle East will proceed unchecked. (See also here and here.)

Since many of you no longer rely on traditional venues for gathering accurate information about our world, it is worth the effort to get and read Gates’ book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. Then judge for yourself.

Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Dysgenics of a Communist Killing Field: The Croatian Bleiburg

In the study of communist terror different methods from different fields have been applied, ranging from the fields of political science, historiography, philosophy, to international justice. An impressive number of books about communist crimes have enabled observers to grasp this unique phenomenon of the twentieth century, which inevitably brings about a large and emotional outcry, followed by constant haggling about different body counts. Whether it is former communist Cambodia, or former communist Poland, in the minds of many citizens of former communist countries, communism is a synonym for an inhumane political system.

Despite the fall of communism as an ideological and political-legal system, the communist ideas of egalitarianism and the belief in permanent economic progress are still alive, albeit in other forms and under different names, and even amidst people who describe themselves as anticommunists. Perhaps the reason for that lies in the fact that the ideas of equality, internationalism (‘globalism’) and economic growth may be more easily achievable, or at least appear to be more easily achievable, in the liberal, capitalist West than in the former ‘real-socialist’ countries in the East.

Little effort has been made so far to analyze the communist system within the framework of modern genetics. As discussed below, communist terror was at least at times disproportionately directed at the upper classes. From a genetic perspective, this suggests that it had dysgenic effects on the gene pool of victim populations — that is, by removing the upper classes, there would be a general lowering of the genetic quality of the population.

According to Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, the average IQ for European countries ranges from 90 to 100. They find that the average IQ for Croats is a meager 90. Why such a modest IQ for Croats?

Besides possibly lowering IQ, one might also ask the question: Did communism in the former Soviet Union, or for that matter in the former communist Yugoslavia, gave birth to a unique subspecies of people predisposed to communism?  Did it give rise to people who would fit into and feel comfortable in a largely bureaucratic regime with little scope for personal freedom?

In fact, the description of communist lifestyle has already been well described by former Russian dissident and novelist, Alexander Zinoviev in his Homo Sovieticus, (1982). Zinoviev introduced the term homo sovieticus into the study of communist pathology, albeit more as a literary metaphor than as a term for a specific anthropological species. Seen from the perspective of sociobiology, Zinoviev’s homo sovieticus is not only a literary figure reflecting a distinctive life style or an allegory for communized masses in the former Soviet Union or the former Yugoslavia. It is a peculiar biological sub-creature of modern mass democracies.

Zinoviev was well aware that communism directly appeals to the lowest instincts of each human being, and therefore that communism is an ideal system for future mass societies facing shrinking natural resources. Unlike the erratic free market system, communism provides workers with a complete sense of psychological security and economic predictability, however Spartan their living and working conditions may be. Only by deciphering such a communized mindset will Western observers be able to comprehend strange feelings of “Yugo-nostalgia” or fond memories of Stalin in post-communist Eastern Europe — even among former victims of communism and despite the terrible legacy of Gulag and Kolyma. The communist workers motto, so often analyzed by Zinoviev, summarizes it best: “Nobody can pay me as little as little I can work.”

The Aristocide of Bleiburg and other communist killing fields

The Croatian Bleiburg (see also here and here) is a name of a mass killing field in southern Austria. In mid-May 1945 hundreds of thousands of fleeing ethnic German and Croatian civilians and soldiers surrendered to the British — only to be turned over promptly to the advancing and victorious Yugoslav communist troops. Subsequently, the term ‘Bleiburg’ became a metaphor for the Croatian holocaust and is widely used in contemporary Croatia by those who suffered under the communist rule, long after WWII. In the collective memory of Croats the word ‘Bleiburg’ means an absolute biological catastrophe whose historical, psychophysical and anthropological (and craniometrical?) consequences are yet to be evaluated. The word Bleiburg means to Croats what the word Katyn means to Poles, or what Auschwitz means to Jews. Although the true body count of Bleiburg is subject to emotional disputes, one thing remains certain: Bleiburg meant the violent disappearance of the Croat middle class in 1945.

The word “aristocide” first entered into the English vocabulary thanks to Nathaniel Weyl, a former American Communist of Jewish origin, who became a celebrity in the fifties after converting to a radical anticommunist and a denouncer of his former communist comrades. In his essay “Envy and Aristocide,”  Weyl describes how envy prompts less intelligent people to criminal behavior and malice.

Weyl’s concept of aristocide makes it easier to comprehend the real reasons for the sanguinary behavior of Yugoslav Communists, who, in the aftermath of WWII, carried out gigantic killings against civilians of the Croatian, Serbian and the ethnic German middle class. In their incessant purges the Yugoslav secret police, the OZNA and the UDBA, were not only motivated by ideological reasons, i.e., the famed ‘class struggle,’ but rather by primordial emotions of envy and knowledge that many anticommunist and nationalist Croat intellectuals, were more handsome, more intelligent, or had more moral integrity than themselves. A German general and intelligence officer,Lothar von Rendulic, who had a keen understanding of the communist guerilla mindset in the Balkans, describes cannibal-like practices of the Yugoslav partisans against German Wehrmacht soldiers, and how German soldiers begged him for transfers from the Balkan front to the Eastern Front. (Gekämpft-gesiegt-geschlagen, 1952). It is a great pity that many of such books have been translated neither into Croatian nor into English.

[adrotate group=”1″]

In his important book Future Human Evolution, John Glad has pointed out that communist genocides had a direct impact on the decline of cultural and economic growth of the new nations of Eastern Europe because a large number of intelligent people were simply wiped out and could not pass on their genes to their offspring. One can say that all East European nations were subjected to considerable depletion of their gene pool.

Here lies the trap of the tantalizing ideology of egalitarianism and its most glaring offshoot, communism: These ideologies teach that all people are equal, which logically entails a conclusion that anybody can be replaceable and expendable at will and that his or her replica can easily be reproduced in another social environment.  There is an old Yugoslav communistic proverb, still alive in Croatia’s public life that says:  “No one is indispensable!”

Similar theses of ‘indispensability’ and ‘expendability’ had been earlier put forward by the Soviet pseudo- scientist  Trofim Lysenko, who argued that wheat can be grown in Antarctica and that intelligent citizens can be cranked out according to the communist party Five-Year Plan.

This thesis, namely that the social-economic environment engenders miracles, is still widespread, albeit in its softer version in multiracial America. The liberal philosophy of the “nurture factor” seems to be an ideal tool for petty criminals, maladaptive individuals, and especially for people of lower intelligence, who, as a rule, for their own physical and moral shortcomings, always blame “somebody else.” The formula for such procrustean ethics becomes transparent in the lexical and juridical fraud known as “affirmative action” in the USA, which is in essence a carbon copy of what multicultural communist Yugoslavia termed the “republican key quota.” This Yugoslavian version of affirmative action meant that each former Yugoslav constituent communist republic was obliged to furnish its own share of communist hacks to receive federal perks.

From the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, communist revolutionaries targeted the pre-revolutionary elites — Russian aristocrats, the Christian clergy, the ethnically German middle class, and all those whose intelligence and knowledge were above average. Because  of this, communism, with its teachings of equality, is still highly appreciated by large masses of dispossessed individuals, and particularly by frustrated intellectuals because it stresses the dogma of “equal opportunity with equal results.”

Studies should be made as to the exact number of the Croat urban population killed by the Yugoslav communists after 1945. Maybe forensic studies of the barren bones scattered in numerous unknown graves and pits all over southern Austria, Slovenia and Croatia could reveal interesting data on the decline in IQ among Croats today. A French author, Christopher Dolbeau, goes to great lengths to provide the names of countless Croatian artists and scientists who perished in Communist genocides in 1945 and after (writers: John Softa, Marijan Marijasevic, Marijan Blazic, Bonaventura Radonic, Kerubin Segvic, Yerko Skracic, Vladimir Jurcic; poets: Stanko Vitkovic, Branko Klaric, Vinko Kos, Gabriel Cvitan; journalists: Mijo Bzik, Agathe von Hausberger, John Maronic, Vilim Peros, Daniel Uvanovic, Tias Mortigjija, etc. If we add to these names the names of Croatian engineers, technicians, military officers, priests — all classes of people with higher than average IQs, the figure of human losses among Croat intellectuals in the aftermath of WWII is frightening indeed (Croatie, Sentinelle de l’Occident, 2005).

By its nature communism, and to a large extent modern liberalism, encourage mediocrity and lack of initiative, because everyone who sticks out above the average is quickly castigated for “bourgeois, fascist deviation.” Based on the rough estimates of human losses in Yugoslavia, one could also speculate about subsequent political events in Yugoslavia, including the unnecessary war between two similar peoples the,   Serbs and Croats in 1991 — which was to a large extent orchestrated by ex-communist Serb and Croat apparatchiks respectively. In addition, Croatia had also its  “silent Bleiburg,” — that is, the voluntary departure to Western countries of over one million Croats, from 1945 to 1990.

Under the romantic assumption that this biological disaster had not occurred, Croatia may well have made today some significant achievements in certain fields of science — and not just in the field of sport or in the soccer field. The same goes for all East European countries, except for one detail: Croats, Estonians, Lithuanians are small peoples and the time needed to replenish their gene pool lasts historically longer.

One can advance another hypothesis. The Yugoslav crisis in 1990 and the subsequent savage interethnic killings would have probably not taken place with highly intelligent and highly educated non-communist and non-fascist politicians such as the late Serb Milan Stojadinovic (who left in 1945 for Argentina) and his Croat counterpart Vlatko Macek (who left the same year for America). Conversely, if one had a quick glance at the phenotype of the leaders in both in Croatia and Serbia in 1991 one is struck that they were all once avid participants of the same Yugoslav communist mindset.

Murder and persecution of intelligent people leads to economic slowdown. Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) was once the main wheat exporting country in Africa. Today it must import food, because of its inept government. Algeria was once the breadbasket of France; now, although being one of the main world exporters of natural gas and oil, it depends on huge food imports. It is no wonder that the so-called Soviet miracle — most notably the launching of the space rocket Sputnik into the orbit, was due to the work of captured German scientists. It is still an unspoken truth in Croatia today that the so- called “Yugoslav miracle of the 60’s,” was due to German slave workers (i.e., captured ethnic Germans and German POWs, 1945–50).

Under the assumption that Croatia had preserved its genetic stock and that the tragedy of Bleiburg had not occurred, under the assumption that hundreds of thousands of Croats had not emigrated to Western countries, one cannot rule out that Croatia would be by now a dynamic country with 8 to 10 million people (approximately twice its current population), with completely different political elites and political values. Thus, even today, the framing of public opinion in Croatia remains the privilege of sons and daughters of former communist stalwarts whose past won’t pass away.

Sociobiological analyses may be looked at with derision by the liberal media. However, each individual knows deadly well which tribe or ingroup he belongs to when “push comes to shove” — which one is his real in-group. Should he fail to acknowledge his racial or ethnic kinsmen or his “territorial imperative,” “the Other” won’t hesitate to remind him of it. It may sound cynical, but a significant number of Croats discovered their nationalist credo only in 1990 — when the perception of the communist and the Serb threat had begun looming large on the horizon. A discovery of such ‘negative identity’ may tomorrow await Americans, which could then make the ex-Yugoslav example look like a kindergarten brawl.

Subconsciously, all races are aware of that old Latin proverb that “a man’s character lies in his face” (in facie legitur homo). And Friedrich Nietzsche was even blunter when he recalled the ancient European wisdom “monstrum in anime, monstrum in fronte (monster by spirit, monster in head). Translated into English: a political crook is recognizable by his facial expression.

Tom Sunic (see www.tomsunic.info and http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/) is an author, translator, former US professor of political science, and a former Croat diplomat.

Charles Freeman’s disloyalty allegations

Charles Freeman’s withdrawal from his appointment as head of the National Intelligence Council has attracted a great deal of comment. But the most amazing parts of his statement are the least commented on. To wit:

I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country.

This is a rather unvarnished statement of disloyalty. Indeed, Freeman’s comment bears more than a passing resemblance to Pat Buchanan’s famous comments on the neoconservatives who engineered the US invasion of Iraq on behalf of Israel:

They charge us with anti-Semitism—i.e., a hatred of Jews for their faith, heritage, or ancestry. False. The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a “passionate attachment” to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what’s good for Israel is good for America.

And in case anyone missed it, Freeman made the accusation of disloyalty twice more:

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government — in this case, the government of Israel. …

I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

And yet, coverage of the Freeman withdrawal in the mainstream media has ignored these allegations. (In fact, as Andrew Sullivan noted, the MSM basically ignored the issue entirely.) The Washington Post article (posted also at the Los Angeles Times website) summarized the situation by saying only that “Freeman had come under fire for statements he had made criticizing Israeli policies and for his past connections to Saudi and Chinese interests.” It quoted Freeman’s statement that he did not believe that the NIC “could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack” but left out the rest of Freeman’s sentence: “by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country.”

The Post’s editorial on the subject bordered on the bizarre, claiming that any suggestion that the Lobby was behind the failed appointment was nothing more than a “conspiracy theory.” Please!

The New York Times article included some of Freeman’s very negative comments on the Israel Lobby, but also included the denial of any influence by a spokesman for AIPAC:

Mr. Freeman blamed pro-Israel groups for the controversy, saying the “tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.”

Joshua Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a lobbying group, said Tuesday that his organization had not taken a formal position on Mr. Freeman’s selection and had not lobbied Congress members to oppose it.

Again, no mention of disloyalty. And although both the New York Times and theWashington Post took Block at his word in denying AIPAC’s involvement, Block was lying through his teeth. According to Stephen Walt, despite claiming that it had no role in the affair, AIPAC “leaned hard on some key senators behind-the-scenes and is now bragging that Obama is a ‘pushover.’”

But even Walt’s blog skirted the disloyalty issue. (In my review of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby, I criticized them for going soft on the disloyalty issue.)

The only mention of the disloyalty issue I have been able to find in the MSM is Melanie Phillips’ column in The Spectator (London) titled “Exit, Spraying Venom.” Phillips quotes Freeman’s “passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country” comment, describing his comments as a whole as a “gross libel against American Jews, through its false and malevolent accusation of untoward and uniquely powerful and damaging political power.” Phillips concludes:

Given the unhinged hatred towards Israel and the Jews coursing through the west, which was given rocket fuel in the US by the Walt/Mearsheimer travesty which invested Jewish conspiracy theory with a wholly spurious aura of academic respectability, it was inevitable that if Freeman bit the dust the Jews would be blamed.

Wow! Clearly Phillips is the one who is unhinged. But not for the first time. She has been quoted as believing while “individual Palestinians may deserve compassion, their cause amounts to Holocaust denial as a national project.”

In making his charges of disloyalty, Freeman’s comments must be understood as indicting not only the usual suspects, such as AIPAC and Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum (current home of Steve Rosen, the former AIPAC operative who is being tried for espionage on behalf of Israel and was the first to flag Freeman’s appointment). Minimally, Freeman is also indicting the Jewish Senators and Congressmen who pushed hard on this issue. (Non-Jewish politicians like Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, who took up the Lobby’s cause in Congress, are guilty of nothing more than mundane things like subservience, cowardice, and the desire to be reelected.) The Jewish names mentioned most prominently in the Congressional campaign against Freeman have been three Zionist stalwarts:Sen. Charles SchumerRep. Steve Israel and Sen. Joe Lieberman.

It is noteworthy that Schumer and Israel expressed their complaints to Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff. Emanuel has been described as “a fierce partisan of Israel” who volunteered to aid the Israel Defense Force during the 1991 Gulf War. He was doubtless a sympathetic ear.

[adrotate group=”1″]

One wonders why the ADL has not made a statement on Freeman’s comments. It may well be that the entire organized Jewish community hopes for a quick death for this incident — the less said the better at this point. This same logic would explain why the disloyalty issue is not discussed in the MSM: Disloyalty is a very grave charge that the goyim shouldn’t even be thinking about. As Steven Waltpoints out, lobbies live in the dark and die in the light of day. It’s hard to imagine Abe Foxman complaining that Freeman’s accusation of disloyalty is yet another anti-Jewish canard when it’s not very difficult for even the most braindead among us to see that there is a whole lot of truth in it.

It is important to realize the gravity of the charge of Jewish disloyalty. It is a charge that has repeatedly surfaced throughout Jewish history beginning in the Book of Exodus where Pharaoh says: “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there befalleth us any war, they also join themselves unto our enemies, and fight against us, and get them up out of the land” (Exod. 1:9–10).

The first example I am aware of in American history was the successful campaign by Jewish organizations to abrogate a trade agreement with Russia during the Taft Administration in 1911. In promoting the bill, Jewish spokesmen favored formulations in which the problem was couched as an American problem rather than as a problem for American Jews (even though the difficulties for American Jews were only a pretext for a campaign that was actually directed at changing the status of Russian Jews).

Similarly, as I noted in my last column, Jews around the world have been advised to frame the Iranian threat to Israel as a global problem, not simply as a problem for Israel.

The charge of disloyalty stems from a very simple fact: Jews sometimes have interests as Jews that are not the same as the interests of the society as a whole.And because the organized Jewish community has often had power far beyond its numbers, there is a very real possibility that Jewish influence would compromise the interests of the society as a whole. We have already seen this in the successful neoconservative promotion of the war in Iraq —  the focus of Buchanan’s ire (and by now proved beyond a shadow of a doubt with an avalanche of other treatises on the subject). Of course, right now, the conflict revolves around Israel and the “existential threat” it sees in Iran.

The interesting thing now is what will happen to Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the Director of National Intelligence and the person who appointed Freeman.  Blair not only defended Freeman to the bitter end, his stated views on Iranian nuclear capability are very much opposed by Israel (and hence the Israel Lobby). On March 10, Blair noted that  “The overall situation — and the intelligence community agrees on this — [is] that Iran has not decided to press forward . . . to have a nuclear weapon on top of a ballistic missile.” This conflicts with the Israeli perspective. In commenting on the disparity in views, Blair stated that “the Israelis are far more concerned about [Iran’s nuclear capability], and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view.”

Blair is implying that the Israeli and the American views are not the same. Horrors! This is doubtless a grave offense in the eyes of the Israel Lobby — a group that seemingly cannot even imagine that Israel and the US may have different interests.

Clearly, the Lobby still has some work left to rid the government of people with ideas that differ from theirs. But they expended quite a bit of energy and credibility with the heavy-handed tactics they used in torpedoing Freeman and enforcing their version of foreign policy orthodoxy. Their next battle may be even more difficult.

The good news is that the machinations of the Lobby are more open than ever. The vast majority of the debate happened on the Internet. The MSM was late in reporting it, and in the end it left out critical details. This is yet another nail in the coffin of the credibility of the MSM, and it means that people who are serious about understanding current events are going to rely even less on it. People will read the New York Times not for “all the news that’s fit to print,” but to try to understand why the Times left out what it did. Sadly, this indictment of the MSM also applies to mainstream conservative pundits such as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh.

It is noteworthy that, as J. J. Goldberg has pointed out, the Obama Administration has initiated foreign policy positions that are quite different than the Bush Administration, including high-level negotiations with Syria, approving the dialogue between the British and  the political wing of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and steps that might be interpreted as a more conciliatory approach to Iran.Already, Zionist hardliners like Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America are up in arms about Hillary Clinton’s “troubling transformation.”

While it is too early to see where this is heading, whatever happens is going to be all over the Internet. That is a major problem for the Lobby — and one that will only get worse in the future.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

A Tale of Two Disasters (in Black and White): New Orleans vs. Fargo

While watching the evening news the other night and seeing the heroic efforts of Fargo, ND citizens working together to halt the rising flood waters of the Red River and contain the damage to their community, the reaction on the part of this community seemed vastly divergent from the community reaction of New Orleans during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina — the broadcast images of the responses to the flooding disasters that hit opposite ends of the U.S. couldn’t be more different.

Recent news accounts of Fargo, ND showed countless volunteers (men, women and children) filling sand bags, working together like the intricate parts of a Swiss clock, valiantly trying to contain the flood waters of the Red River that is expected to crest at some 43 feet. Now the citizens are battling blizzard conditions that threaten the sandbag levees.

The willpower of these citizens to overcome extreme weather conditions and preserve their homes, schools and businesses showed remarkable courage not to mention a tireless work ethic.

One resident, 57-year-old Gary Lacher (quoted in today’s New York Times) said,

You lie down, you look at the clock, you listen for every sound, and you look at the clock again and five minutes has passed… and you start to think through it all again — did I do enough?

The volunteerism was not lost on President Obama, who noted in his weekly radio address:

In the Fargodome, thousands of people gathered not to watch a football game or a rodeo, but to fill sandbags. Volunteers filled 2.5 million of them in just five days, working against the clock, day and night, with tired arms and aching backs. Others braved freezing temperatures, gusting winds, and falling snow to build levees along the river’s banks to help protect against waters that have exceeded record levels.

In this North Dakota community of about 90,000, the cooperative determination of neighbors helping one another to contain the flood waters was in vivid contrast — literally in black and white — to the listless aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that hitNew Orleans in 2005. National Guardsmen were deployed to maintain order and keep the locals from preying on one another.

The atmosphere conveyed in the televised images of the Fargodome reminds one of a beehive: Community residents assisting each other, filling sandbag after sandbag, to salvage their flood-threatened community. Compare this to the images of displaced “victims” befouling the Superdome while waiting for federal assistance as volunteers from around the country descended on New Orleans to help the displaced.

[adrotate group=”1″]

In New Orleans, the response in the wake of Katrina included widespread looting and violence aimed at rescuers. The National Guard imposed curfews to stem violence while the “victims” complained about the lack of federal emergency assistance. The citizens of one disaster-struck community rolled up their sleeves and got to work while residents of another devastated area had to be cared for and policed. (Maryland SWAT teams were assigned to Maryland firefighters who assisted in New Orleans recovery operations in the weeks following Katrina to protect the lives and equipment of these volunteers.)

The challenge of rising flood waters in Fargo was met with energetic assistance, care, cooperation, and fortitude to prevail and limit the damage from near-record flood levels, while the situation in New Orleans was largely one of stagnation, mounting trash, looting, lethargic helpless “victims” waiting to be rescued from rooftops, and abandonment.

Here’s an excellent video of Rush Limbaugh comparing the Katrina victims to the victims of flooding in Iowa and Illinois in 2008. It makes the same point we are once again seeing unfolding in Fargo: “I want to see the murders, I want to see the looting,  …I see devastation that dwarfs the devastation of what happened in New Orleans…. I don’t see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don’t see a bunch of people shooting cops … When I look at Iowa, when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America ….”

Although Limbaugh never once mentions race, the implicit racial comparison couldn’t be more obvious. Let’s make it explicit. This is a racial tale in black and white.

Once again, despite the deluge of negative images of whites and positive images of blacks emanating from Hollywood, media images from the real world feed into implicit stereotypes of whites as cooperative, efficient, and self-reliant. At the same time the images from Katrina and the recent police murders in Oakland continue to feed into the negative stereotypes that whites have of blacks. In particular, the public support given the the black man who murdered four white policemen will continue to reverberate with whites for a long time. Reality intrudes on the constant propaganda emanating from the liberal media.

What a difference communities and populations can make in dealing with the challenges of crisis and circumstance: constructive resolve vs. chaotic disorder.

Kevin Lamb, a freelance writer, is a former library assistant for Newsweek, managing editor of Human Events, and assistant editor of the Evans-Novak Political Report. He is the managing editor of The Social Contract.

How Jews See Themselves, 2008

Any group that expects to survive into the long term future should be aware of current trends and how they will influence the group. Jews take such planning quite seriously. The Jewish People Policy Planning Institute has assumed the role of long term planning for the Jewish people, not only in Israel but also the Diaspora. The JPPPI is an independent think tank that reports to the Israeli government and has close ties with other Jewish organizations. Its mission is “to promote the thriving of the Jewish people via professional strategic thinking and planning on issues of primary concern to world Jewry. JPPPI’s work is based on deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people with Israel as its core state.”

The chairman of the Board of Directors of JPPPI from 2002 until early 2009 was Dennis Ross — the same Dennis Ross who has played a major role in US policy in the Middle East in the Bush I and Clinton administrations and was director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy — a hard-line pro-Israel lobbying group. Ross gave up his position with the JPPPI after he was named as the Obama administration’s top envoy to the Middle East, a position where he will be able to influence policy on Iran and other issues deemed vital to Israel. (Ross remains a “Consultant” at WINEP.)

It is noteworthy that no one complains when Ross is appointed to such an important US foreign policy position despite his close ties to Israel and the Israel Lobby; but there is major hysteria when people point out that Charles Freeman (Obama’s nominee for the head of the National Intelligence Council) has an association with a group funded by Saudi Arabia.

The JPPPI’s report Facing Tomorrow 2008 is a sort of State of the Union document for Judaism — a description of the state of Judaism and what challenges are on the horizon. In scope and intention, it reminds one of the National Policy Institute’s report “The State of White America.”

Not surprisingly, there is great concern about Iran as an “existential threat” — presumably a major area of interest for the former chairman of JPPPI’s Board of Directors in his new position in the US State Department.

The Jewish people must, as the highest priority, develop an appropriate response to the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel and to global stability as a whole. While there is no ambiguity about the need to do so in Israel, it is necessary to mobilize Jewish opinion around the world as well. The American Jewish community cannot be intimidated either by a post Iraq syndrome in the United States, or by the false and pernicious allegations of Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, or former President Carter.

Jews around the world are encouraged to mobilize to combat the threat to Israel represented by Iran. The assumption is that Jews have common interests as Jews no matter what country they happen to live in. One is reminded of other eras when Jews have put up a unified front against a particular country because of specific Jewish interests. For example, the organized Jewish community opposed Russia from 1881 to 1917 — a position that led to charges of disloyalty in several countries.

One might think that such a view would leave Jews in the Diaspora open to the charge of disloyalty, but the problem is easily finessed: Jews in the Diaspora are told to frame Israel’s concerns about Iran as a global threat, not simply as a threat to Israel.

The report advocates putting pressure on China, Russia, and moderate Arab states in order to develop the widest possible coalition: “For instance, currently, the US negotiates with China, bilaterally and multilaterally on both currency issues and on Iran, without linking the two issues. Perhaps they need to be linked.” The message is that Jews in the US should pressure the US government to use any leverage it has with China to develop a coalition against Iran.

The report is quite clear that the influential writings of former President Carter and professors Mearsheimer and Walt are major obstacles.  As I have noted before, these critics of Israel are important because they are associated with elite institutions, and their critique is sober, factually based, and constitutes a moral indictment of Israel. We can expect more attacks on these figures in the future.

Relatedly, the report recommends that Diaspora Jewry do its utmost to undermine the moral critique of Israel. Jews must combat portrayals of Israel as a state that is “colonialist, violates human rights, and engaged in unacceptable behavior that could be described as Apartheid and even Nazism.”  Diaspora Jews should also combat charges of dual loyalty.  Amazingly, despite the assumption of common Jewish interests no matter what country they live in, without any sense of irony the report notes that Dennis Ross — Exhibit A on the dual loyalty issue — will soon be publishing a book on these issues.

And Ross isn’t the only high level American diplomat involved in this report for an Israeli think tank: Stuart Eizenstat is the author of a major section on “Mega-Trends in the Next Five Years which will Impact on World Jewry and Israel.”

The situation is exactly the same as the involvement of prominent American neocons (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser) in the notorious “A Clean Break” report for an Israeli think tank. This report, which advocated regime change in the Middle East by many of the architects of the American invasion of Iraq, was also presented to the Israeli government.

There is deep concern about Jewish identification, marriage, and fertility. Jews have the lowest birth rate in the world (1.5–1.7). In the Diaspora, “there is a slow, steady, seemingly inexorable decline in an already diminished population.” In Israel, the Jewish population is increasing but the Arab Israelis and Palestinians are increasing faster. “Between the Mediterranean and the Jordan Sea, there may be a majority of Palestinians by mid-century. Time is not on Israel’s side.” Nevertheless it is important to “Ensure that the borders of the State of Israel guarantee a clear Jewish majority.”

The solution is to encourage fertility not only by aiding and promoting Jewish births, but by funding programs that strengthen Jewish identification:

Massive investment should be undertaken to improve knowledge and transmission of Jewish identity through expanding existing and new networks of Jewish schools, and the best forms of informal education such as Birthright, camps, youth movements, adolescent education and adult education.

All of these policies would be viewed as unvarnished racism if adopted by Europeans or the European Diaspora.

The report on geopolitical trends by Stuart Eizenstat is quite blunt, noting the decline of the West and the emergence of a multipolar world with the rise of China and India. Israel must ready itself for a world no longer dominated by the US, but Eizenstat projects that the US will be primus inter pares for at least another generation. There is also concern that because of the debacle in Iraq, the US will not be willing to provide the “unconditional support” for Israel that it has in the past.

[adrotate group=”1″]

A similar JPPPI publication is its Report 2008. This report makes many of these same points asFacing Tomorrow 2008 but also analyzes the position of Jews in the US. It is quite frank on Jewish power and the status of American Jews. Jews are important political players in the US. Despite their relatively small numbers, Jews are important in part because of “the economic resources they bring to bear on the candidates of their choices … [and] their prominence in American culture and society.” Well said.

Moreover, the Report notes that

while Jews tend to be wealthier than most Americans, they identify their long-term interests with liberal policies, and are regularly moved by the perception that the Democrats are the standard bearer of a number of traditionally Jewish ethical concerns. (This latter contention is of course  profoundly contested by Jewish Republicans, among whom are to be counted a large number of leading Jewish thinkers and intellectuals.)

The idea that Jewish support for liberal causes stems from ethical concerns is profoundly problematic from other perspectives as well. The ethical hypothesis is ludicrous given that American Jews also support a racialist, apartheid, expansionist Israel. (See here for a discussion of Jewish ethics as fundamentally about what is “good for the Jews.”) Indeed, the Report notes that because both Democrats and Republicans are committed to Israel, Jewish voting is more determined by other factors. In other words, since there is no disagreement in American politics regarding unconditional support for Israel, Jews are free to vote their other ethnic interests — in particular the disestablishment of white America.

My view is that the Jewish commitment to liberal politics and the Democratic Party stems from their fear of and animosity toward an America dominated by white Christians. As Elliott Abrams has stated, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts” (p. 86).

It may indeed be rational for Jews to seek a rapprochement with white America, given that non-white minorities, especially Muslims, are unlikely to share the Jewish commitment to Israel. But the main stumbling block remains a psychological one: Can activist Jews overcome their gut feelings of hostility toward the West?

Indeed, although not mentioned in the Report, the summary presented to the Israeli cabinet recommended “Enhanced ties between Jewish communities and the Hispanic and Afro-American communities in the US.” Implicitly, the idea is that just as Jews must prepare for the emergence of China and India as world powers, Jews must be prepared for the decline of white America.

Of course, it is no secret that the organized Jewish community has spearheaded the mass immigration of non-whites and that they have have forged close ties with blacks, Latinos, and other minority groups in the US. As I noted elsewhere:

In recent years Jewish organizations have made alliances with other non-white ethnic activist organizations. For example, groups such as the AJCommittee and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington have formed coalitions with organizations such as the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). A prominent aspect of this effort is the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, co-founded by Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of the North American Boards of Rabbis. The Foundation is closely tied to the World Jewish Congress which cosponsors the Foundation’s Washington, DC office and several of its programs. Typical of the Foundation’s efforts was a meeting in August, 2003 of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Jewish Congressional Delegation, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the meeting was co-sponsored by the World Jewish Congress. The Foundation’s many programs include organizing the Congressional Jewish/Black Caucus, the Corporate Diversity Award, given to “a major Fortune 500 company committed to building a diverse work force,” the Annual Latino/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, the Annual Black/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, and the Annual Interethnic Congressional Leadership Forum. The latter project organizes an annual meeting of the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, the World Jewish Congress, and the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.

Quite clearly the various non-European ethnic groups are developing close ties and Jewish organizations are taking the lead in this effort.

Finally, it should be noted that there is no self-criticism in these reports — no angst about the ethics of Israel’s horrific actions in Gaza or the erection of the racialist, apartheid state of Israel. Nor is there any self-examination of the power of Jews in American politics, particularly the issue of disloyalty as it pertains to the Israel Lobby.

The portrait of Judaism is therefore part and parcel of creating a positive Jewish self-image. This one-dimensional “Jews-have-no-warts” image is a useful fiction for a group with such a large agenda in conflict with the interests of so many other peoples — from white Americans and other European-descended peoples to Iran and the Arab world.

It is an image that is aggressively enforced by Jewish activist organizations such as the ADL. A large part of Jewish power is the ability to create and enforce a positive image of Jews that is quite independent of the reality of aggressive Jewish pursuit of group interests.

The rest of us need not see the Jewish community in quite such a one-dimensional manner.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.