Featured Articles

Eye on Hollywood: The Interpreter

Nicole Kidman is a stunning woman.  Standing at just under six feet tall and sporting strawberry blonde hair and blue eyes, she cuts an impressive figure.  Needless to say, she is white.  In her 2005 film The Interpreter, however, her heart clearly lies back in black Africa, where she once had an African lover involved in national politics.

Multilingual, fastidious, idealistic and dedicated to her work as a interpreter at the United Nations, Kidman’s character Silvia yearns to restore the hope that a once promising leader has destroyed in his nation of Matobo.  (The fictional leader President Edmond Zuwanie and the country bear a strong resemblance to real life leader Robert Mugabe and the disaster that is Zimbabwe, though in the film Zuwanie is played by an actor who is nearly white.)

This racial emphasis is important because Silvia wishes to kill Zuwanie for his transgressions against “her people” (and not just her family members that have been murdered).  Forcing Zuwanie to read from a book he had written years before, Silvia gazes at the accompanying picture of a small African boy and tenderly utters “That little boy was my country.”  To drive home this message, she closes the film by telling her almost-lover (Sean Penn), “I’m going home.”  “I never had time to tell you how much I miss Africa.”

Perhaps this is merely an interesting twist to a Hollywood romance.  On the other hand, it can be seen as a celluloid depiction of what Hollywood stars are doing with their real lives.  To wit, many not only agitate on behalf of oppressed non-whites (think Richard Gere and the Tibetans), some have actually adopted non-white children or had their own with non-white spouses.

For her part, Kidman and her then-husband Tom Cruise adopted two children, one, Connor Anthony Cruise, an African-American born on Jan. 17, 1995. This would have made Connor ten years old when The Interpreter was released, so perhaps Kidman’s sentiments in the film were drawn from this family link.

Director Steven Spielberg, of course, is the “godfather” of the movement, with two adopted African American children, Theo and Mikaela.  If Spielberg is the godfather of the movement, then Madonna should be its godmother.  In 2006 she adopted a young boy from Malawi in southeastern Africa.

Some stars, on the other hand, have their own children.  Nicolas Cage, for instance, met his Korean American wife Alice Kim when she was his waitress.  Cage was 40 at the time and Alice 20, and they now have a son, Kal-El.

For sheer theatrics, however, Angelina Jolie takes the cake.  While married to Billy Bob Thorton, she adopted “Maddox” from Cambodia. (Naturally, Maddox was named Hollywood’s best looking kid by  Life and Style magazine.) Then she adopted a six-month-old girl from Ethiopia, now named Zahara Marley Jolie-Pitt (Brad Pitt is Jolie’s current significant other).  Finally, she adopted a three-year-old boy from Vietnam, Pax Thien Jolie-Pitt.  When Jolie and Pitt had their own baby, Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, in Namibia in 2006, Pitt confirmed that their newly-born daughter would have a Namibian passport.

Jolie is no slouch when it comes to crossing borders: gossip columns are abuzz with talk of her rumored lesbian relationship with Japanese American model Jenny Shimizu.  (In turn, Shimizu has been heard to make claims that she was involved with Madonna at the same time she was with Jolie.) Perhaps we could call a film made from this relationship Guess Who’s Coming to Brokeback Mountain.

There is no question that in recent years Hollywood has widened its horizons when it comes to depicting its heroes, nearly all of whom were white in the past.  Whether there is any causal connection (in either direction) to the real-life racial crossings made by some of Hollywood’s biggest stars remains to be seen.  One point seems clear: Many in Hollywood have begun to believe Hollywood’s own propaganda.

Kidman, Madonna and Jolie, though, can certainly afford to live such exotic, non-traditional lives. But the working and middle class white girls who respond to this propaganda by imitating such behavior are rarely rewarded with red carpets and paparazzi.  Yet Hollywood, for its part, seems in no mood to show the downside of this kind of diversity.

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

Marrying someone from another race: So What?

Racial intermarriage, or “miscegenation”, raises an important question which, even only recently, seemed to have the following answer:

First, too close inbreeding can be disastrous health-wise for offspring, due to the possible inheritance and pairing of identical, unhealthy, recessive alleles (genes) at the same spot on a chromosome, one from each parent. But it has been unclear how much out-breeding was necessary and/or desirable. Marrying at least beyond lst or 2nd cousins seemed essential for avoiding the above “inbreeding depression”, but was there such a thing as too much out-breeding? The answer was yes for the case of breeding between species, e.g., horses + donkeys producing sterile mules. But what about breeding outside one’s ethny or race? The only problems there seemed to be the likelihood of intercultural incompatibilities, the removal of family wealth and land to beyond the extended family and ethny, and, in the extreme, the destruction of human diversity through homogenization. On the other hand, people such as presidential candidate Barack Obama, actress Halle Berry, or Canada’s Governor General Michaëlle Jean have seemed illustrative of certain benefits of race mixing, and of hypergamy (marrying up) — and possibly smarter children for a disadvantaged race.

This month the journal Science (yes, the great one) published what, from the multi-cultural/racial viewpoint, can only be described as a bombshell.

It is a paper on 160,811 Icelandic marriages over several centuries, by Agnar Helgason et al, showing that in biological terms, marrying either closer to or out beyond the optimum 3rd or 4th cousin reduces the number children per family and the number of grandchildren.  Both number of children and the life span of the children are reduced when couples are 2nd cousins or closer. The authors do not rule out 100% the possibility of some unknown “socioeconomic” factor in all this, but social class was definitely not it. Since they found a statistically significant difference between marriages at the levels of 6th and 7th cousins, biological factors (of which such spouses would not likely be conscious) seem most probable.

So what?

The only practical implication drawn by these Icelandic authors is that because of urbanization (and presumably multi-cultural diversity, as well, outside Iceland) there is a relative increase in distantly related couples today, and this should slow population growth.

[adrotate group=”1″]

We might add another: If any parent or grandparent out there wishes to see the continued survival of his/her family or ethny, especially during the present period of below replacement level fertility for Euro-ethnies, they ought to encourage their children to marry not too far afield in terms of kinship. Marrying a 3rd or 4th cousin would be ideal, and for heavens sake avoid other races — or even ethnies unless, like many European ethnies, they are not very distant kinship-wise.

Perhaps of equal importance, this paper has legitimized the preference for ethnic and racial similarity in marital choice, which still is sometimes openly expressed in newspaper ads by people looking to meet potential mates, and which can be achieved indirectly by the increasing residential segregation in the US.

The paper helps to de-legitimize the effort of Hollywood and its celebrities in promoting inter-racial breeding.

Here, arguably for the first time, is a scientifically supported biological basis for the supposedly “racist” objection to one’s daughter marrying “one.”

Anthony Hilton is Associate Professor of Psychology (Ret.) at Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

ProPublica, or ProJudaica?

The journalism world is abuzz over an ambitious plan to reinvigorate investigative journalism through a group called “ProPublica,” described as a would-be staff of 24 in-depth reporters based in New York whose work will appear on-line, but possibly also in big dailies, as well. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post provides the most recent update on the journalist resumes now flooding in. (See Digging for Support in Kurtz’s Media Notes, Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2008.)

Months ago, Slate’s Jack Shafer cast a sharply critical eye on the ProPublica enterprise, asking whether the major funders, Herb and Marion Sandler, will create a firewall between their own deeply Democratic leanings and the journalism.

The Sandlers, Bay Area billionaires who made their fortune in finance, have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats.  That’s enough to make a conservative or a skeptic wary about their intentions in setting up “ProPublica.”

But as Businessweek reports, the Sandlers aren’t just big fans of Democrats — they’re big fans of Jewish causes, and have given handsomely to those projects, as well.  And naturally, both are Jewish.

[adrotate group=”1″]

So don’t look for “ProPublica” to dive too deeply into every issue bearing on America’s future.  Not only can it be expected to take a generally liberal slant in its “investigations,” it can be expected to steer clear of any fair examination of Jewish influence over domestic or foreign policy.

In this, “ProPublica” is no different from just about every form of media in America, from the “MSM” (mainstream media) to supposedly conservative newspaper like The Washington Times or opinion journals like National Review and The Weekly Standard.  It’s yet another laughable pretense of unrestrained journalistic fearlessness.  A journalist hoping to truly bite all hands can’t be fed by any of them.

Most conservatives, and many American whites, are convinced that the media is hopelessly liberal.  It might enhance their understanding to look a little deeper at the ethnic motivations behind that trend.

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

Eye on Hollywood: The System is Not Broken

I’m afraid this column will not be overly original today. Rather, I will point to the same phenomenon so many others throughout the blogosphere have been discussing: the ongoing dispossession of white men in this world of ours.

Visually, this is obvious at every turn, beginning with the coronation of America’s first black president. Just in case this is not visually arresting enough, the new United States Attorney General is also African America, replacing the Jewish Michael Mukasey, who in turn replaced the Hispanic Alberto Gonzales. For good measure, even the Republican Party elected its first black National Committee Chairman, former Lt. Governor of Maryland Michael Steele. (Vdare’s Patrick Cleburne says all you need to know about Steele.)

Eric Holder                                  Michael Steele

How do we explain the fast-growing black presence in government, popular culture, and so on? While the fruits of the Civil Rights era account for some of this move toward center stage, the fact remains that in a socio-economic sense, blacks have yet to accumulate the resources needed to rise in American society. What then is behind their rise?

Likely, most readers of The Occidental Observer are familiar with the litany of names associated with rigorous accounts of lower black IQ and higher crime rates compared to whites. Jared Taylor and his crew do excellent work on this at American Renaissance. Scholars such as Richard Lynn (bio is here), Philippe Rushton (see his bio here), Michael Levin, and Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray have meticulously documented race differences in a variety of critical areas. The facts of highly elevated rates of black crime are documented in The Color of Crime.

My guess is that TOO readers are on page when it comes to race realism, so you will not be surprised by the consistent failure of blacks anywhere in the world to excel in intellectual tasks, let alone to build anything resembling a thriving black civilization. So again, how do we explain their recent success in America?

If you agree with my assertion that black intelligence does not account for their recent rise, you might assert that it’s political. With Obama’s victory, we can find political moves to improve the overall situation of blacks. Take, for example, this demand for a non-white Obama press office.

I belong to the school which argues that it is the century-long effort Jewish groups have made to promote blacks at the expense of whites that accounts for our current situation. This argument is hardly a new one, having been expounded at length by scholars such as Hasia Diner and David Levering Lewis. Both support the thesis that German Jews (the first large group of Jewish immigrants to America) fought anti-Semitism by supporting the black struggle against racism. In other words, they fought anti-Semitism “by proxy” in Diner’s words and “by remote control” in Lewis’s words.

In my view, this account is simplistic. While it does refute claims of totally altruistic motives for Jewish agitation on behalf of blacks, it fails to appreciate the larger goals of Jewish Americans. They were not merely interested in defeating anti-Semitism so that they could participate comfortably in American life. They were waging a massive war on Majority Americans, the results of which we see all around us today.

Let’s focus on how Jews have employed blacks as foot soldiers in one front of this war. Further, let’s focus on only on one segment of that front, leaving aside for now Jewish efforts on behalf of blacks in education, the law, etc. Let’s look at Hollywood, an empire Jews created and still dominate. By the end of the 1960s, the white Protestant elite and the large Catholic ethnic groups in America had lost the culture wars. Joe McCarthy and the other conservative forces that had kept Hollywood in check had disappeared, with the result that Jewish Hollywood was unleashed to embark on its campaign to displace white America.

Nowhere was this more obvious than with respect to the evolution of the black image in film.

An account of black images in film since the 1960s would be a book-length project, but the outlines are clear. Once we got to the 1990s, our book would have plump chapters on the rise of various African American stars joining the only previous black man of note in Hollywood, Sidney Poitier. The black stars are now household names:  Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson, and so on. Young people today no doubt take black Hollywood stardom for granted, but the fact is it is a recent phenomenon.

To fit the confines of this short column, let me point to a timely and representative Eddie Murphy film, one that resonates with the rise to power of Barack Obama and nicely illuminates the battle lines of the Jewish war—by black proxy—on white America.

In the year Bill Clinton was first elected, 1992, Eddie Murphy appeared in a film called The Distinguished Gentleman. Murphy played a con man fortunate enough to share a name with the just-deceased U.S. Congressman, Jeff Johnson. Taking advantage of the value of name recognition, Thomas Jefferson Johnson (Murphy) shortens his name and runs for Congress. (Presciently, his entire campaign consists of a promise for “change” — a pledge we would hear repeatedly from a real African American politician in 2008.) Interested only in the easy perks of the job, Johnson is woefully ignorant of the election process and the workings of Washington. Fortunately, he is aided in the campaign by a Jewish retiree from New York and wins the election. (The two even banter in Yiddish at one point.)

On the whole, this film is structured as a “culture of critique” view of Majority American society, which means mainstream gentile society is subjected to withering criticism at all times. All whites in high-status positions are shown to be deeply flawed or hypocritical. This stance calls to mind the thesis of Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique in which he identified a “very deep antipathy to the entire gentile-dominated social order.” Jews on the left —like much of the Hollywood elite— were described as viewing this social order as “an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society.” The Distinguished Gentleman creates this image on screen.

For instance, the film opens with a reception for the original Congressman Johnson, surrounded by throngs of white supporters. Soon, however, the good Congressman is shown in flagrante delicto with his white secretary, an act which brings on his death by heart attack. (His long-suffering wife later propositions the new Congressman Johnson, trotting out the tired canard that Southern white women cannot resist black men.) Clearly, black political power means power over white women.

As the only black man in attendance at the reception, Murphy’s character Johnson is mistaken for a waiter, a sign of the pervasive racism of whites. In fact, Murphy is a con man, one who employs a fellow African American and a Hispanic to extort money from a philandering white company president. Once in Washington, Johnson quickly realizes that all the white congressman and lobbyists surrounding him are con men like himself—only the stakes are far higher. So Johnson sets out to enrich himself by playing the game.

The images of the white male legislators and lobbyists are predictable—they are corrupt, immoral, racist fools. Opposite these white frauds is a cast of aggrieved multicultural peoples—blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, Asians—the whole rainbow coalition.

At every turn, the image of the white is negative. Fat cat gun lovers are shown stupidly hunting ducks with semi-automatic rifles. A white taxi driver ogling street walkers rear-ends Johnson’s car and then shamelessly leaves the scene of the accident.

The moral center of the film, unsurprisingly, is a black man, a theme that was still original in 1992 but by now is de rigueur (and should be passé). The black man is a preacher intent on doing what is right. His idealism has rubbed off on his niece, an intelligent, incorruptible African American lawyer activist who becomes romantically involved with Johnson. (One of her fellow activists is Ira Schecter, a humble and unassuming Jewish do-gooder.)

Exposure to her and her preacher uncle forces Johnson to find conscience. While grappling with this new conscience, he backslides when the stakes get high, but then he risks losing his girlfriend. Finally, he decides on one last scam in the service of doing justice. In a Congressional hearing room, he exposes the white male chairman and greedy white lobbyists, humiliating them in the process.

Then, in the final scene, comes a dialogue I had missed when I saw the film a decade ago. About to be drummed out of Congress for the antics he employed, Johnson and his girlfriend are seen walking away from the Capitol. Lamenting his loss of power, the girlfriend asks what he’s going to do now that he cannot run again for Congress. Pondering his options, Johnson hits on an idea: “I’m gonna run for President!” Remember, this was 1992.

How do we tie this film in with Jewish activism?

First, as I have tried to show elsewhere, Hollywood is a thoroughly Jewish milieu, controlled today more than ever by Jews. No other group—most particularly blacks—has a fraction of the power Jews have to create celluloid imagery. Thus, we need to know what attitudes Jews have toward non-Jews to explain the images they create. As MacDonald again says in the preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique, the heavily Jewish media elite sees to it that Western culture “is presented as sick and evil compared to other cultures.”

Hollywood insider Ben Stein confirmed that argument, writing, “People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be.” He too pointed to the heavy representation of his fellow Jews in Hollywood and other media.

While that speaks to the general case of media distaste for mainstream American culture, the specific case of the black rise to stardom amidst the fall of corrupt majority culture is the story at hand. And here I argue that the recent spate of movies with blacks at the moral center is but part of the larger campaign Jews have waged against whites by using blacks.

MacDonald addressed this in his chapter “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” which appeared in Race and the American Prospect, writing, “The emotional intensity of Jewish involvement in the black-Jewish alliance is mirrored in Jewish involvement in altering U.S. immigration policy; both of these movements had strong overtones of hatred against the entire white, Christian culture of the U.S., which was viewed as anti-Jewish and profoundly immoral.”

This hatred of whites and their culture is routine in Hollywood fare. The Distinguished Gentleman was not the first time Murphy was tasked with playing the role of an underclass black man who exposes the alleged pervasive immorality of majority culture. In 1983, he did a similar job of humiliating elite white males and replacing them in Trading Places. In fact, the theme has become so common now that it is a genre unto itself. Watch, for instance, the 1988 Caddyshack II or the 1991 Addams Family Values. Or watch ninety-five percent of ALL of Denzel Washington’s films, from Crimson Tide (1995) to Remember the Titans (2000) to Déjà vu (2006).

As I wrote in my previous column, Richard Faussette claimed with respect to unchecked non-white immigration that “the system is not broken.” Similarly, I would argue, the Hollywood system is not broken. It produces the plethora of anti-white films that it does because Hollywood Jews are bent on massively critiquing white society . . . and working furiously to physically replace us. What we see on screen, then, is the template for what is actually taking place. Morgan Freeman was the President in Deep Impact; Barack Obama is now the real President.

Edgar Steele recently lamented that “We had no idea that we were about to trade places with the Black man.” Yes, and the Asian man (and woman), and Hispanic man (and woman), and at the top the Jewish man (and woman). Look at the people around Obama, from Rahm Israel Emanuel on down.

The case of heretofore underachieving African Americans suddenly springing to positions of power and prominence is about the hardest to explain on its own terms. As one reviewer of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique concluded, MacDonald’s insights were right because “It is very rare for fundamental concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there has been something more than natural change.”

It is ALL more than natural changes. Much of it has to do with vigorous Jewish activism to put blacks where whites once stood. This, as I’ve discussed above, is perhaps nowhere more common than in current Hollywood fare. After all, as one observer wrote, “The way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated back to us every day.” Yes, Spielberg and Brooks and Mazursky and the Coen Brothers and a thousand others Jews making movies.

James Petras: Another Powerful Voice on the Neocons

Any number of prominent commentators have pointed to the power of the Israel Lobby in the United States, and to one degree or another they have noted that Jews compose the bulk of the segment of the Lobby known as neoconservatives.  Opinions about this Lobby and Jewish neoconservatives range from pungent to calm and reasoned, with a pundit like Pat Buchanan representing one end of the spectrum and former President Jimmy Carter or scholars Mearsheimer and Walt and Kevin MacDonald the other.

Now we have the entry of an eminent American scholar who gives Buchanan a run for title of most strident anti-neoconservative: James Petras.

James Petras is a retired Bartle Professor of sociology at Binghamton University.  A well-known Marxist, he is the author of the sizzling 2006 book The Power of Israel in the United States.   How his approach compares to that of Carter, et al. is of some interest.

Carter, of course, has raised the hackles of many because of the arguments he makes in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.  For instance, he claims that the United States exhibits “undeviating backing of Israel” and that “because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned” and “voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media.”

This echoes the thesis of Mearsheimer and Walt, whose The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has powerfully critiqued the existence and goals of what they define as “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.” It also echoes much of the thinking in MacDonald’s Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement, where he describes  neoconservatism as “a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel.”

Pat Buchanan adopted a far more belligerent tone in his seminal cover story in The American Conservative back in early 2003.  Entitled “Whose War?,” it answered that the pre-planned attack on Iraq following 9/11 was instigated by a “neoconservative clique.”  Ratcheting up the rhetoric, Buchanan went on to write, “We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars.”

Petras adopts a similar tone but expands Buchanan’s arguments into a book-length exposé, arguing persuasively that the Zionist project to subvert American sovereignty has succeeded, much to the detriment of many non-Israelis: “The tyranny of Israel over the US has grave consequences for world peace and war, the stability and instability of the world economy, and for the future of democracy in the US.”

Like other critics of neoconservative influence, Petras emphasizes the Jewish identity of so many in the campaign, including unofficial political advisers who organized an array of groups to prosecute the Zionist agenda.  He goes further, however, in positing a far more extensive network of Zionist activists:

While the design and execution of the US war strategy was in the hands of Zionist civilian militarists in the Pentagon, they were only able to succeed because of the powerful support exercised by Sharon’s acolytes in the major Jewish organizations in the US.  The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, and the thousands of their activists—doctors, dentists, philanthropists, real estate magnates, financiers, journalists, media moguls, and academics—acted in concert with key Jewish politicians and ideologues to press the case for a war because, they would argue, it was in the interest of the State of Israel. . . .

Closely echoing the arguments of Kevin MacDonald about Jewish intellectual “movements,” Petras drives home the point that “the ZPC’s [Zionist Power Configuration’s] formal and informal structure has a crucial dynamic element to it: each power center interacts with the rest, creating a constant ‘movement’ and activity, which converges and energizes both leaders and followers” (p. 47).

In a book not reaching two hundred pages, Petras goes on to discuss the connection between Israel and 9/11, analyzes the Libby Affair, unmasks Seymour Hersh and Noam Chomsky as Jewish protectors of Zionism, examines the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, and exposes Danish editor “Flemming Rose” of the Muhammad caricature cartoon confrontation as a Mossad asset.  He also argues that the Jewish Lobby, not Big Oil, fabricated the bogus Iraqi weapons of mass destruction threat.

An astute student of power politics, Petras examines how Zionists virulently attack critics, often under cover of “respectable” media such as The New York Times.  (These “swarm” attacks were aptly described in an essay by Israeli anti-Zionist Israel Shamir.)

As if he hadn’t taken on enough work, Petras returned with a new book in 2007, Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants.  Here, Petras expands the scope of his charges, making the (Marxist) case that Finance Capital dominates America (and by extension much of the world).  Critically, Petras highlights the overlap between our financial rulers and those agitating on behalf of Israeli interests; a high percentage of both are Jews.

Petras points to the historically Jewish firm of Goldman Sachs and its “unprecedented” presence in the flow of representatives from Wall Street to Washington.  Lest one make a partisan argument for Republican dominance here, Petras quotes a financial newspaper as saying “Neither Mr. Bush nor Goldman have been criticized by Democrats for holding too many powerful jobs in part because the investment bank also has deep ties to the Democrats.”  How deep?  “Goldman represented the biggest single donor base to the Democrats” prior to the 2006 mid-term elections.

This 2007 book also allows Petras the benefit of hindsight, which he uses to update his discussion of the 2006 Israel attack on Lebanon and to illustrate how Zionist power worked to negate the peace initiative of James Baker and his Iraq Study Group.

Displaying a simmering rage, Petras caustically offers an example of the Israeli-tail-wagging-the-American-dog nature of the relationship between the two countries:

. . . Israel and its US Lobby were and are largely unmoved by the death and injury of US soldiers in Iraq and the squandering of the US taxpayers’ money.  This has been reinforced by the fact 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. (p. 118)

In my last column, I quoted Evan Goldstein as believing that the Jewish neocons were in it “for the long haul; they have been at this for decades.”  Petras agrees, noting that “Israel’s hegemonic position has endured under both Democratic and Republican presidencies for almost half a century.  In other words it is a structural historical relation, not one based on personalities, or particular transitory policy making configurations.”

As far-reaching as Petras’s two books are, they deal with only a portion of the vast spread of Jewish power throughout the world.  This power affects far more than foreign policy in the Middle East or the operations of Finance Capitalism, as Petras realizes.  “The power of Israel is based on that of the Diaspora, the highly structured and politically and economically powerful Jewish networks which have direct and indirect access to the centers of power and propaganda in the most powerful imperial country in the world.”

This Jewish Diaspora is energetic and shows no sign of relaxing.  Its dazzling display of power in Washington during the last two administrations is but one of its many command performances.

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

Arun Gandhi: Another Casualty of Jewish Censorship

Just how unable are we to discuss Jews and their attitudes and behavior? An amazing admission from the Washington Post’s ombudsman recently tells it:  very unable.  As in, don’t even think about it, or you’ll lose your job.
Deborah Howell, in a Sunday center-of-the-page column, responded to the controversy surrounding an online column by Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, which was solicited by the Washington Post’s online “On Faith” website for reactions to the PBS series “The Jewish Americans” (no need to wonder about where that presentation was coming from, trust me).  Gandhi?  That’s right.  The grandson of the Gandhi.
Gandhi’s sin?  The question put to the panelists, of which he was a member (but now may be removed), was, “PBS is airing a series on ‘The Jewish Americans.’ We know what ‘Jewish identity’ has meant in the past.  What will it mean in the future?  How does a minority religion retain its roots and embrace change?”  Gandhi’s response, said Howell, included the following:

Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the Holocaust experience… It is a very good example of how a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends…The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger. . . . The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. . . . We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.

Needless to say, any suggestion that Jews have done anything untoward creates a hysterical reaction, even when the suggestor is the grandson of a veritable god of pacifism.  Under Jewish pressure, Gandhi resigned from his post at the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence at the University of Rochester.  How’s that for Jewish commitment to peace?
As for Howell, she simply condemns Gandhi’s article, without any specific refutation, and declares that “the piece should not have been published.”  End of story.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But of course, for racially conscious whites and others, the Washington Post’s censorship of criticism of Jews is not the end of the story.  The criticisms should be made, heard, and weighed for credibility.  The course of action chosen by the Post — and those calling for Gandhi’s head — creates a dangerous corking of legitimate discussion.  That same corking has contributed to unchecked policies of open immigration and Middle East warfare, both of which have hurt whites — to say nothing of Palestinian suffering.

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

NPR’s Not-So-Fresh Air

“Fresh Air,” the midday talk show out of Philadelphia and broadcast on National Public Radio, is hosted by Terry Gross, a bookish liberal who tends toward typical NPR fare: Jazz, the Holocaust, poetry and poets, more jazz, and more Holocaust. Her inquisitive but sympathetic tone gives the feel of a comfortable but animated coffeehouse chat.

Like so many of her NPR colleagues, Gross is Jewish, and her guests are also frequently Jewish. For those aware of the extent of Jewish influence in the media, this comes as little surprise.

But the January 24, 2008 episode of her program provided a singularly pungent example of the insular nature of Jewish media influence.

Her guest that day was Jacob Weisberg, the powerful editor of the online journal Slate (an enterprise also heavily dominated by Jews), who was on to discuss his most recent book about George W. Bush. (His The Ultimate George W. Bushisms: Bush at War (with the English Language) offered us the always-amusing “Bushisms.”)

As described by Weisberg, a central theme of his book was an examination of Bush’s Christian faith. As one might expect, it was not a positive assessment. Weisberg accused Bush of being insincere and calculating in his professions of evangelical Christianity. He also accused Bush of being simplistic and unbending as a result of his faith.

The first point may have merit, while the second is an unfair linking of Christian faith with rigid simple-mindedness (a favorite theme for Jews). But what struck me as I listened was Weisberg’s complete license to delve so deeply into Bush’s religion — a delving that, if aimed at a Jew, would immediately be denounced as anti-Semitism.

Weisberg went so far as to describe one evangelical as a “Jesus freak” (listen to hear Weisberg’s defense of the term). One need only imagine the reaction if a Christian commentator made a similarly derisive remark about a fervent Jew.

Later, Weisberg and Gross discussed the causes for the failure of the Bush administration (a failure I certainly wouldn’t dispute). Rigid and simplistic Christianity? Possibly. The overwhelmingly Jewish “neoconservative” movement and its aims? Not mentioned once.

This despite the fact that it is now well known that Jewish neocons were a critical force in producing the pressure and disinformation that led Bush to his most disastrous decision — the decision to invade Iraq. All of these neocons have a very strong Jewish identification, and some of them (e.g., Douglas Feith and Elliott Abrams) are deeply involved in Jewish religious activism and have strong ties to the religious right in Israel. As depicted in Christiane Amanpour’s God’s Jewish Warriors, many of the most aggressively ethnocentric Jews are religious fanatics who are fighting to expand Israel as a Biblical imperative. These fanatics and their neocons supporters have been central to the Bush administration’s effort to restructure the politics of the Middle East in favor of Israel. If one wants to blame religion for the Bush administration’s failures, one could more plausibly blame Jewish religious fanatics.

And on it went: the Christian faiths of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are, Weisberg boldly noted, valid reasons not to vote for them. Suffice it to say that Feith’s and Abrams’ Judaism won’t even be mentioned, much less offered as a reason to criticize their actions in the Bush administration.

The arrogance was something to behold. It was as if Gross and Weisberg had deputized themselves as psychoanalysts and were subjecting white Christian gentiles to an in-depth couch examination — minus the couch. The two of them spoke as if that entire portion of the population weren’t even there to hear them (and probably many weren’t). And needless to say, Jews and their motivations were not discussed at all.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Yet in a country where the white gentile population remains scattered and largely oblivious to its treatment by Jews, Gross and Weisberg need not worry about an angry reaction any time soon. Nobody will call for the firing of Terry Gross a la Don Imus or demand that Jacob Weisberg be removed as editor of Slate. And many white gentiles listening to NPR no doubt absorbed the themes pushed by Gross and Weisberg without once considering that they have their own motivations that go beyond mere objective analysis.

America’s traditional majority could use a healthy blast of fresh air, yes — but the fresh air needed is an awareness of the ethnic competition underlying so much of our media content.

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