Featured Articles

Media Watch: Explicit whiteness

Review of Stuff White People Like: A Definitive Guide to the Unique Taste of Millions, by Christian Lander. New York: Random House, 2008

From The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 4 (Winter 2008–2009). (Click here for information on subscriptions to TOQ.)

Does Christian Lander have our number? For a wide, mostly liberal swath of the white Western world, the answer is “yes.”

His observations about white tastes are so accurate, a goodly number of them apply even to this convert to white advocacy. (See also Kevin MacDonald’s TOO article on Lander.) While reading his book in the family room of my house on a fall Sunday, I was struck by how many of Lander’s items were within eyeshot: I was wearing New Balance shoes and a semi-ironic T-shirt (Items No. 94 and 84, respectively) after having gone for a run (Items No. 9 and 27), with an i-Pod around my neck (Item No. 40). There was a Sunday New York Times and several New Yorkers on the table next to me (Items No. 46 and 114, respectively), Netflix in the drawer below me (Item No. 39), a mug of coffee from earlier in the morning on the coffee table (Item No. 1), a bottle of water in my hand (Item No. 76), and, of course, a book—Stuff White People Like—in the other hand (Item No. 138).

Merely opening the garage door or walking upstairs would have put a dozen more items in range (Item No. 24, Wine; Item No. 31, Snowboarding; Item No. 61, Bicycles; Item No. 53, Dogs), and if I were to add the stuff preferred by just two or three family members or acquaintances, the entire list of “stuff white people like” would be covered, many times over.

Talk about busted. I started to wonder if Lander’s been spying on me, but this would have only branded me yet whiter (Item No. 126, Conspiracies; Item No. 149, Self-Importance).

I was a tad disappointed by my overall whiteness score (a mere 56 percent), but as I say, the “white people” in “Stuff White People Like” are the NPR-listening (Item No. 44), Volvo-driving set (oddly, Volvos are not on the list, but the Toyota Prius, Item No. 60, is) found in Manhattan and Brooklyn (Item No. 26) and small college towns in the Northeast. Lander leaves out working-class whites, many Christians, and political conservatives (excepting perhaps the “crunchy cons” identified by writer Rod Dreher). In other words, none of Jeff Foxworthy’s rednecks (Item No. 8, Barack Obama—White people like Barack Obama because they are afraid that if they don’t they will be considered racist; Item No. 118, the ACLU).

So who is Christian Lander? According to the book cover and interviews, he’s a left-leaning Ph.D. dropout now living in Los Angeles who once taught public speaking at Indiana University. It was his wildly popular blog, stuffwhitepeoplelike.com, that set the stage for his book.

Mr. Lander is not, at least wittingly, a white advocate. He expressed revulsion at the popularity of his observations among posters at Stormfront.org. But as with the honest observations about Jewish power in the anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters, sincere and principled gentiles from the hip left occasionally stumble onto the truth.

How can the following be denied?

Item No. 2: Religions Their Parents Don’t Belong To. White people will often say they are “spiritual” but not religious. This usually means they will believe in any religion that doesn’t involve Jesus.

Of course, Christianity is big for much of white America, just not the set Lander has focused his anthropology on. As for “I’m not religious, but I am spiritual,” I can attest that this is something I’ve heard many, many times—using those exact words—from whites in more-educated settings across the country. What these whites are saying is that it would be cool to practice heathen rituals in the forest, but that Bible study is starchy and repressive.

Item No. 7. Diversity. White people love ethnic diversity, but only as it relates to restaurants.

Naturally. (Here’s a Steve Sailer gem debunking the Restaurant Rationale for immigration.) Now that a white left-wing hipster has called them on it, how will all the other white left-wing hipsters react? Perhaps by dryly noting, “Oh, those Free Tibet stickers are so Number 7,” cluing other whites into their familiarity with Lander’s book. Being ahead of the curve is indeed very important to whites.

Item No. 11. Asian Girls.

No argument here, although anyone who’s ever laid eyes on Sean Lennon cannot seriously believe that the white/Asian mixture makes for attractive children.

Item No. 20. Being An Expert On Your Culture. White people are pretty conflicted about their culture. On one hand, they are proud of the art, literature, and film produced by white culture. On the other, they are very ashamed of all the bad things about white culture: the KKK, colonialism, slavery, Jim Crow laws, feudalism, and the treatment of Native Americans.

So, they make up for it by attempting to absorb the “authenticity” of any culture but their own. This regrettably goes far enough that whites feel compelled to adopt non-white (though rarely black) children from China and Guatemala, or move to dangerous corners of the globe where they sometimes get themselves killed in an attempt to prove their non-white authenticity. I call this the “Amy Biehl Syndrome,” after the blonde California woman who ventured to South Africa to help blacks and ended up being killed by them.

Not that I’m so immune myself: I’ve volunteered for job placement in the Bronx and ventured to the Palestinian town of Ramallah, where I took a certain pride in being mistaken for an Englishman, because “no Jew or American would ever come here,” as one local observed. As it turns out, my explorer impulse is only another item on the list of stuff white people like.

So is a book like Stuff White People Like good or bad for whites? On balance, my answer is “good.” I am not so concerned about what Lander considers the truly negative traits of whites: they’re anti-conformity hypocrites, they’re shallow, and they hate anyone not like them. The mere fact that he’s discussing whites as a group with generalized characteristics is subversive enough. No doubt some whites will be disappointed to realize that they’re not so unique after all, but might they come to embrace white groupness? Take an ironic pride in being white, which might then stoke an actual pride? Stop and wonder why it’s so taboo for them to even declare their whiteness?

[adrotate group=”1″]

Imagine that whites finally realize that prizing multiculturalism, diversity, and nature, and losing sleep over the fate of non-whites around the world, are specifically white things, and not universal values. The next step would be to point out that if whites, and only whites, practice these values, it puts us at a systematic disadvantage in our dealings with other races. If the other races take care of their own, and we don’t, but instead worry about their interests too, we will trade our birthrights—our wealth, our power, our homelands—for a mess of moral superiority. But these mere feelings will provide little solace to our dwindling, dispossessed progeny who will come to exist at the mercy of groups who will go on blaming us for their failures even after we become extinct.

Lander’s brand of ironic explicit whiteness may, of course, peter out as just another fad, but in a country where too many whites are petrified even to think of themselves as part of a unique human group with a right of self-determination, any ice-breaker is welcome. If you’re not inclined to be ashamed of your New Balances, how far off are the bigger thoughts about the state of your race?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist whose writing has appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A comment on Paul Gottfried’s review of Cultural Insurrections

Paul Gottfried is outside the mainstream of Jewish intellectuals in being associated with paleoconservatives rather than either the left or the neoconservative right. In my eyes, therefore, he is a force for relative good in a world where paleocons like Pat Buchanan have been relegated to the fringes of intellectual debate in the US and have long rap sheets at powerful, well-endowed organizations like the $PLC and the ADL.

Another reason I am predisposed to be positive about Gottfried is that he reviewed Cultural Insurrections respectfully, noting pointedly that there are completely different standards in discussing the activities and influence of other ethnic groups or religions. And he agrees with much of my analysis that Jews have in fact been deeply involved in erecting the culture of critique that now pervades the West.

Inevitably, however, despite a great many good things in Gottfried’s review, my reply must necessarily discuss points of disagreement. As Gottfried notes, he has previously reviewed Culture of Critique in Chronicles, and we went back and forth on it in print, with a final rejoinder by me on my website. (The entire thread is here.) He makes some of the same points in his recent review, but it’s worth discussing them again because we have both refined our arguments a bit in last decade.

Jewish IQ

The area of Jewish IQ has attracted quite a bit of research since my review in 1994. My estimate of an IQ of 115 for Ashkenazi Jews is higher than estimates based on more recent data. Richard Lynn’s work is exemplary: Lynn finds that Ashkenazi Jews in Britain and the US have average IQ’s of 110.7 and 110.4 respectively, and I am happy to accept those figures.

Assuming those averages, then one would expect there would be 4 times the proportion of Jews with >130 IQ and 6 times the proportion of Jews with >145 IQ. As Lynn notes, this goes some way to explaining Jewish overrepresentation among academic elites in the US and Britain (by factors of 7.0 and 7.6 respectively) and among winners of Nobel prizes (by factors of 8.0 and 12.3 respectively).

But none of these data shows that, as Gottfried phrases it, “Jews have a right to treat Euro-Americans as natural inferiors or as people probably unfit to sustain their civilization (or what remains of it) without a Jewish master class.”

In fact, even assuming those proportions, because Jews are such a small percentage of the population, there are far more European-Americans and native Brits with IQ’s above either 130 or 145. And, also consistent with my 1994 analysis, there are far more non-Jews among Nobel prize winners than Jews.

In fact, if we take an IQ of 145 as a cutoff for genius and assume that Jews were around 3.4% of the White US population in 1950, there were nearly 4 times more non-Jewish White geniuses in the US than Jewish geniuses. If we use 130 as a benchmark for at least vastly easing the path to upward mobility, there were over 6 times more non-Jewish Whites in this category than Jews. And there would have been a much greater disparity in England where Jews were less than 1% of the population.

Europeans certainly do not need Jews to develop or maintain their civilization.The successful erection of the culture of critique is much more about ethnic networking and dominating key points in the cultural food chain — especially elite academic institutions and the media — than it is about IQ.

For example, even correcting for IQ, Jews are massively overrepresented at Ivy League universities compared to Whites. In 1998, Jews represented around 25–33% of Harvard undergraduates compared to around 25% non-Jewish Whites. In 2000 the Jewish population was around 3% of the non-Hispanic White population. On the basis of IQ, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or  4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio was at most 1 to 1. But even this may underestimate the gap because it’s hard to believe that all Harvard students have at least an IQ of 130. Could it be that that Jared Kushner’s route to Harvard is not at all unusual for Jews these days?

And what, then, to make of Jewish representation of 60% in studies of the American media elite? (See here.) Pretty clearly, IQ has very little to do with it. This is entirely compatible with Merlin Miller’s recent TOO article on Hollywood where he notes that Jewish graduates of USC’s film production program were able to achieve much more with the  same credentials than their non-Jewish counterparts.

Indeed, the larger point is that the rise of the West happened without any significant Jewish contribution. The age of Spanish conquest and exploration began in the same year that the Jews were expelled from Spain and not long after the Inquisition was launched in 1481. During this period, Spain became the wealthiest and most powerful country in Europe. Eventually, the main competitors with Spain were Western European countries — especially England — that had expelled Jews in the Middle Ages.

The “rise of the Jews” — Albert Lindemann’s term resulted ultimately from a Jewish population explosion among Hasidic and other fundamentalist Jews in Eastern Europe. But Eastern Europe remained a relative backwater compared to Western Europe and America despite the fact that, as Yuri Slezkine has shown, Jews completely dominated the economic and cultural life in those areas, at least until World War II.

Jewish Hostility toward the Peoples and Culture of the West

Gottfried writes, “I am also skeptical about the possibility of extrapolating from the way a particular Jewish subculture has behaved in the U.S., Canada, and parts of Europe in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries to how Jews have conducted themselves everywhere at all times.”

But I am not making any such claim. Each country must be analyzed separately, and one can never make generalizations across time and place without examining the data.

Nevertheless, an important aspect of traditional Jewish attitudes has been animosity toward the wider, non-Jewish culture. In reviewing Cultural Insurrections, Gottfried presumably noticed Chapter 2 — my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, subtitled “Jews as a hostile elite in the USSR.” That essay reviews Jewish hostility toward non-Jewish national cultures throughout Eastern and Central Europe beginning in the latter 19th century and extending into the mass murders of cultural non-conformists of the Soviet period.Cultural subversion was also an important theme of the essays on Henry Ford and The International Jew which also appear in Cultural Insurrections.

The first chapter of Culture of Critique also traces a long history of Jewish hostility toward the people and culture of surrounding societies — Muslim, Christian and pagan — beginning in the ancient world. For the most part this hostility remained within the confines of the Jewish community — especially inJewish religious writing. But this was due solely to the undeveloped state of the media and the self-segregation or exclusion of Jews from the wider society.

However, when Jews did enter the wider society, as in 15th-century Spain, the radical critiques of Jewish intellectuals appeared in the most prestigious academic and popular media. This has been the pattern in the contemporary history of the West, at least since the mid-19th century.

The point is that we should not minimize the tendency for Jews to create movements that are highly critical of the people and culture of non-Jews. One shouldn’t over-generalize this to all Jews. Paul Gottfried is certainly an exception, and he is doubtless correct that this tendency was at least muted in the contingent of German Jews who came to America in the mid-19th century. (In Germany, however, the association of Jews with cultural criticism was an important ingredient in anti-Jewish attitudes from the late 19th century up until the rise of National Socialism.)

Nevertheless, despite their relative lack of hostility, it should be noted that German Jews like Jacob SchiffLouis Marshall, and Louis Brandeis were effective activists on behalf of Jewish causes that were at least arguably not in the interests of the United States or its non-Jewish citizens. For example, Jewish activists led by the American Jewish Committee influenced US immigration policy so that Eastern European Jews were allowed to immigrate two decades after the American public opposed further immigration. This group also successfully influenced US foreign policy to oppose Russia until the triumph of the Bolsheviks, and Brandeis was an influential Zionist.

In these cases, their motivation was not so much hostility toward the US as simply their perception of Jewish interests. On the other hand, Franz Boas, a German Jew with a great deal of animosity toward Prussian culture, was a seminal figure in erecting the culture of critique in America. And then there’s the Frankfurt School of German-Jewish émigrés who, after being expelled from National Socialist Germany, brought to America their poisonous ideology that the group allegiances of non-Jews is a sign of psychopathology.

But in any case, there has been a clear tendency for at least some groups of strongly identified Jews to create influential intellectual movements that subject non-Jewish society to radical critique, and Gottfried seems to agree with this.

As reviewed in The Culture of Critique, the psychological basis for this is straightforward: Members of strongly identified ingroups tend to have negative views of outgroups, especially outgroups seen as historical enemies. And for many activist Jews — the ones who end up having so much influence on culture, Western history begins with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans, fast forwards to marauding Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, and expulsions from Western Europe, and culminates in Czarist persecutions, Henry Ford, and the Holocaust.

In saying that, I am agreeing with Gottfried that the animosity of Jewish intellectual movements is firmly rooted in their perception of history. (Ironically perhaps, this makes Gottfried much more on board with the general thrust of my writing than the review by “Garnet James Wolseley” that appeared in The Occidental Quarterly. See my reply.) I do not use the phrase “resource competition” to describe conflicts between Jews and non-Jews in Culture of Critique. The use of this phrase stems from my earlier books on historical patterns of Jewish behavior (e.g., the tendency of Jews to make alliances with oppressive elites) and historical anti-Semitism (e.g., hatred toward Jews competing for similar economic niches).

Culture of Critique formulates the conflict quite differently. The main framework is the psychology of ingroup/outgroup conflict, and there is little question that historical grudges have played a major role in that. Indeed, the theme of Jewish historical grudges is prominent in Chapter 1 of Cultural Insurrections: “Background Traits for Jewish Activism.”

Incidentally, others who have thought long and hard about Jews have come to a similar conclusion about the role of Jewish hatred as a motivating force. Consider Pat Buchanan’s pointed analogy between the hatred that is driving the persecution of John Demjanjuk and the hatred that drove the crucifixion of Christ: “The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.”

This is clearly a barely veiled reference to the “blood libel” of classic Catholic theology. But the point here is that the persecution of Demjanjuk is motivated by hatred and revenge for historical grievances— exactly the motives that Gottfried and I are ascribing to the creators of the culture of critique.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But having said that, there is little question that besides hatred and revenge, another very important part of the equation is displacement and domination. As I noted in my recent VDARE.com article on the Jewish left, it is more than the hostility of former ghetto dwellers suddenly released into the modern Western world — the phenomenon that was described so well by John Murray Cuddihy.It is about displacement and domination:

The displacement of the genteel white Protestant culture at Columbia that [Mark] Rudd hated is part of the general displacement of non-Jewish whites. … There is no doubt it was bent on a similar displacement of white elites. All of its policies led inexorably in that direction. To a considerable extent, the current malaise of whites in the US can be directly traced to the triumph of the attitudes of the New Left—especially non-white immigration, the rise of multiculturalism, and the steady erosion of whites as a percentage of the electorate.

Ultimately, it is about resources — political, economic, and cultural. When Whites become a minority in the US as a result of the mass immigration unleashed by Jewish activism and the culture of critique, they will come to realize how devastatingly true this  is.

I also agree with Gottfried that other historically aggrieved groups have been hostile toward societies seen as oppressing them. The only difference is that, as Gottfried, notes, Jews are so much better at this game than other groups —  much better at becoming an influential component of elite and popular culture.

There is no question that African Americans have legitimate historical grudges against the American past. However, there can be little doubt that, by themselves, they would not have had much of an influence in erecting a culture of critique. The culture of critique was successful because it emanated from Harvard, Hollywood, well-connected law firms, and the New York Times — the most prestigious academic and media institutions.

But of course this is exactly why we have to concentrate on Jewish influence, not Black influence or Latino influence, much less Huguenot influence.

Biological Reductionism?

In commenting on this general ethnic tendency, Gottfried states that “although friend-enemy distinctions are evident here, it is doubtful that these dividing lines operate strictly according to biological conditioning.” And again: “What MacDonald highlights looks like unfriendly behavior; and one may certainly question the biological reductionism used to explain it.”

My theory is that the tendency for hostility toward outgroups is indeed a psychological universal stemming from our evolutionary past, although it is doubtless true that Jews are far more motivated by ingroup/outgroup distinctions than typical Westerners — what I term Jewish “hyper-ethnocentrism.” But even so, invoking the evolutionary psychology of group competition certainly does not make me a biological reductionist.

I wish that Gottfried had read and commented on “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism” — another chapter in Cultural Insurrections and one that I think is perhaps the most important in the book. (This is the academic version of that chapter.)

Viewed as a whole, my work is much more about culture than it is about biology— else why write a book titled The Culture of Critique? Hostility toward outgroups is indeed a biological universal, but the result is that Jewish intellectual movements then create a culture that is hostile to White people, their culture and their history. This culture of critique then has important consequences because culture is able to have a strong influence on human behavior for the reasons described in “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism”:

The culture of critique has become the explicit culture of the West, endlessly repeated in media messages but packaged differently for people of different levels of intelligence and education, and for people with different interests and from different subcultures. The message of this paper is that by programming the higher areas of the brain, this explicit culture is able to control the implicit ethnocentric tendencies of white people. … It’s the explicit culture, stupid!

Whatever else one might call me, ‘biological reductionist’ is not one of them. (Nor is it likely that anyone who has seen me would call me “small-boned.” And, for the record, I am not a clinical psychologist: Evolutionary/developmental/personality psychologist would be more or less accurate.

What’s Wrong with White People?

Finally, we come to perhaps the most important and difficult point — the fact that, as Gottfried says, “the majority group, including those who describe themselves as ‘conservatives,’ have lost their cotton-picking minds.” I completely agree with this, and it is certainly something that I have thought a lot about.

For starters, this is why I have always phrased my claims about Jewish influence as a necessary condition rather than a sufficient condition.

Secondly, I have emphasized how the reward and punishment structure of multi-cultural America provides a great many opportunities for self-interested Whites who  have no concern for their own people. Gottfried does a good job in recounting my emphasis on goyish careerists who flock to neocon think tanks, with the result that American conservatism is pretty much non-existent. (The “conservative” Heritage Foundation recently advocated a massive increase in H1B visas in the middle of a recession. Sometimes it seems as if “conservatives” and liberals are competing to see which group can speed up the displacement of Whites the fastest.)

But it’s not just about careerism in a world where Jews are a very substantial component of the American elite. As Gottfried notes, it’s also about White guilt. But here Gottfried ignores the chapters of Cultural Insurrections where I develop my ideas on the psychological tendencies of Whites that make them predisposed to support the culture of critique, particularly “What Makes Western Culture Unique?” and “Psychology and White Ethnocentrism.” This builds on earlier work, particularly the Preface to the Paperback Edition of Culture of Critique.

In general, my view is that these cultural transformations are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science) and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of Europe. At the psychological level, I have proposed that because Whites evolved in small groups where individual reputation rather than kinship relatedness was of the upmost importance, Whites are more prone to guilt for transgressing social norms. One’s reputation rather than one’s place in a kinship structure became of exaggerated importance for Europeans.

Christian Lander’s Stuff White People Like has the following example showing the powerful sense of guilt at transgressing social norms that seems to haunt most whites, even for trivial things like not recycling:

If you are in a situation where a white person produces an empty bottle, watch their actions. They will first say ‘where’s the recycling?’ If you say ‘we don’t recycle,’ prepare for some awkwardness. They will make a move to throw the bottle away, they will hesitate, and then ultimately throw the bottle away. But after they return look in their eyes. All they can see is the bottle lasting forever in a landfill, trapping small animals. It will eat at them for days, at this point you should say ‘I’m just kidding, the recycling is under the sink. Can you fish out that bottle?’ And they will do it 100% of the time!

Following the social norm of recycling is motivated by avoiding guilt that will “eat at them for days.” White people are easily shamed if they think they are violating a social norm. It’s easy to see how this was adaptive in small groups that we evolved in. where your place in the kinship structure was less important than your reputation as a team player. But when the most important social norms in the West demand suicidal behavior by whites, upholding them becomes a pathology.

Recently, I have expanded on these ideas in my essay on how the Puritans erected a home-grown culture of critique in 19th-century America. There I discuss the psychology of moralistic self-punishment exemplified at the extreme by the Puritans and their intellectual descendants, but also apparent in a great many other whites.

Gottfried is correct that the culture of critique could have developed without Jews in 20th-century America. But it didn’t. The Puritan culture of moralistic aggression that rationalized the Civil War and the utopian idealism of the 19th century lost out to Darwinism by the early 20th century. (Hence the opposition to Darwinism that is at the heart of all the Jewish intellectual movements discussed in The Culture of Critique.)

At that time it was common for intellectual elites to believe in the reality of racial differences and the reality of competition between races and ethnic groups. Bluebloods like Henry Cabot Lodge and Madison Grant who descended from the Puritans were extolling the virtues of Northern Europeans and funding the movement to end immigration — a battle that ended with the restrictive immigration law of 1924.  A. Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard and Vice President of the Immigration Restriction League, opposed the nomination ofLouis Brandeis as a Supreme Court Justice because of Brandeis’ ardent Zionism, supported quotas on Jewish students (15%), supported racial segregation, and opposed homosexuality.

As recounted by Jerome Karabel, Lowell lost the battle to explicitly restrict Jewish enrollment to a coalition of elite German Jews (notably Walter Lippmann) and elite Protestants led by former Harvard President Charles W. Eliot representing the older strand of Yankee universalism. Nevertheless, Jewish enrollment was reduced from a high of around 27% to around 15% by instituting a more covert process of student selection.

I think that my research shows that the destruction of this world was the result of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I describe in The Culture of Critique and Cultural Insurrections. Gottfried is skeptical of this:

Plainly MacDonald is not playing by the establishment rules when he observes that Jews have worked at weakening those non-Jewish societies in which they have lived. Although this thesis seems to me to be a bit too generalized, I have no objection to letting MacDonald go on trying to prove it.

I think that at this point the fair thing is for skeptics like Gottfried to show precisely where I am wrong. This requires far more than simple assertions of skepticism and claims that my claims are “too generalized.”

For example, over a decade after I originally showed that Jewish activism was by far the most important force behind the changes in US immigration law that has resulted in dramatically altering the politics and ethnic composition of the US, no one has even attempted to show that I am wrong. Yet this is by far the most important conclusion of The Culture of Critique because, quite simply, immigration is at the absolute center of the rise of multiculturalism and the displacement of Whites.

Critics like Gottfried need to mire themselves in the details of the  historical record, as I did. And if they show I am wrong, I will be the first to rescind my views.

Realize, however, that my views are entirely mainstream. Thus, my conclusion has been reinforced by Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham:

Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., anti-restrictionism], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration. (Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America (New York, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 56–57).

To be sure, the destruction of the Darwinian world of early 20th-century America would not have been possible with a group less prone to guilt and moralistic aggression against their own people. But without the establishment of a hostile elite dominated by strongly identified Jews, it simply would not have happened.

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

Decommunization: The Unrealizable Project in Croatia

Following the end of the Cold War and the end of communist repression, the need for decommunization of the public sphere became widespread among wide segments of the East European population. Citizens who were once victims of Communism in Eastern Europe use the word ‘lustracija’ — a Latin derivative often wrongly translated into English as ‘lustration’ but which does not have the connotation of a political purge that it has in English-speaking countries. In the Croatian, the Serbian, or the Czech languages, ‘lustracija’ refers to a much-desired need to remove or punish former communist officials, many of whom are still active as public servants, diplomats, or correspondents. They often continue to play a prominent role in the higher echelons of power in Eastern Europe.

The best word to use when describing the current judicial and political debate in Eastern Europe is ‘dekomunizacija’ (decommunization), because it specifically denotes the grievances of former victims of communism, while clearly targeting the still-present post-communist cadres and their fellow travelers.

Understanding the concept of lustracija or decommunization in Croatia is fairly easy. But its legal implementation is well nigh irresolvable. Why?

The desire among many Croat victims of communism for removing ex-communist officials from public life is partly based on horrific discoveries of countless mass graves of Croat and German anti-communist soldiers and civilians killed by the victorious Yugoslav communists in 1945 and after.

The proponents of decommunization in Croatia often quote the European Council resolution (#1481) of February 3, 2006, which sharply condemned past communist crimes. But this resolution is not legally binding, and its adoption was far from unanimous (99 European deputies in favor, 42 opposed). There was quite a bit of unofficial criticism regarding the phrasing of the resolution, especially in Russia, although the resolution drew equally sharp criticism from many left-leaning politicians and journalists in Western Europe.

Croatian identity: Political schizophrenia

Small nations that appeared on the geographic map after the end of communism have troubles in reasserting their identity. One of these is tiny Croatia. Before every possible entry into a supranational community, such as the much craved EU and NATO, official Croatia needs to recognize her identity. Should her identity be embedded in the principles of antifascism, or the principles of anticommunism?

In Croatia, the current public debate today points to a schizoid country. On the one hand, the Croatian constitution stipulates the antifascist heritage of the country — while prudently avoiding any mention of the anticommunist legacy. On the other hand, ever since the rebirth of the country in 1990, Croatia and its politicians  have been loudly boasting anticommunist insignia and decorations, and even using figures of speech which resemble the discourse of former anticommunist and pro-fascist and pro-Nazi Croatia (currency, medals, some archaic expressions, etc.) of World War II.

Should Croatia decide to introduce anticommunist clauses in its constitution, as many of its citizens now publicly advocate, the whole of Croatia’s political class, regardless of it party affiliation, would face international isolation. In today’s neo-liberal, global system it is highly desirable to declare oneself “antifascist,” but not “anticommunist.”

Obviously the most consistent supporters of anticommunism all over Europe were fascists and pro-fascist intellectuals and politicians during the first half of the 20th century. Despite their hastily acquired neo-liberal stance and their pro-Israeli and pro-American verbal escapades, Croat politicians are under close scrutiny of the EU and under the watchful eyes of diverse Jewish groups based in America and Israel. These groups never tire of warning the Croatian ruling class against sliding into “right-wing nationalism.”

This points up the remarkable fact that, as noted quite often in TOO, in the eyes of the hostile elites who dominate the politics of the West, ethnicnationalism is legitimate for Jews and many other human groups, but not for Europeans.

In any case, it is clear that for the EU and for Jewish organizations, dredging up the horrors of communism comes too close to vindicating Croatia’s fascist past. Therefore, it is not surprising that the new Croatian political class must be (metaphorically) more Catholic than the Pope and (literally) more pro-Jewish than the Knesset. But such attitudes hamper decommunization and only lead to further trivialization of crimes committed by Yugoslav communists.

A similar mindset also prevails in nearby Germany, albeit on a far more massive and more sophisticated scale. Because National Socialism has become the ultimate icon of evil in the post-World War II era, Germany must constantly show its democratic credentials by combating any signs of resurgence of fascism. In Germany, over the last decade, a strong campaign has been conducted by the federal government against “right wing militancy,” to the point that even the German word ‘Rechtsradikale’ (‘radical right winger’) has acquired a quasi-criminal significance in German legal vernacular .

In today’s international environment little is being said about crimes of communism. For such silence there are objective reasons. During World War II, the communist guerillas in Eastern Europe were the main Western allies in the fight against National Socialism and fascism. Today, however, in the postmodern victimological bargaining by different ethnicities and races, any mention of communist mass graves in Eastern Europe would likely eclipse the mandatory narrative of Jewish victimhood. It would also challenge the quasi-religious veneration of the word ‘antifascism.’ This is especially so in Croatia because of its ties with Germany during World War II.

[adrotate group=”1″]

In addition, critical examination of communism would also bring to the fore the names of the disproportionate number of Jewish intellectuals who played a prominent role in the intellectual legitimization of the communism (see Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein, “Jüdischer Bolschewismus.” Mythos und Realität, 2003).

Politics: The Art of the Accident

Postwar antifascist purges or “lustrations” did not start with the victorious Soviets, but were initiated by the Western allies prior to the official end of World War II. Beginning in the late summer of 1944, the American provisional military authorities in France, aided by the communist-based French Resistance,started implementing draconian laws against writers, journalists, professors, and public intellectuals who were suspected of collaboration with the defeated pro-fascist regime of Petain-Laval.

A year later in Germany, the first target of the American military government, prior to the trial of National Socialist dignitaries at the Nuremberg tribunal, were teachers, journalists, and professors who were obliged to fill out special questionnaires (Fragebogen). Millions of people, especially highly educated Germans, lost their jobs — only to be quickly reinstated at the beginning of the Cold War in 1948 (see Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing, Charakter-Wäsche, 1963).

During the Cold War the Americans were smart enough to tap into theWannseeinstitut SD, a top-level intelligence office affiliated with the SS. The Institute was under the guidance of a very young lawyer, Major General Walter Schellenberg (1910–1952). During World War II, Schellenberg used the skills of many highly trained European academics and intellectuals whose task was the study of the communist mindset. Later, after the war, the US-based think thanks dealing with Sovietology and Kremlinology were mostly patterned along the success of the National Socialist German Wannseeinstitut SD.

Similar methods of administering “questionnaires” and “surveys” to former pro-fascist suspects were introduced by victorious communist authorities in Yugoslavia in late 1945, albeit on a far more repressive level. This resulted in mass executions of top Croat academics and intellectuals suspected of collaboration with the National Socialists (See Zoran Kantolic, Review of Croatian History, 2005, # 1).

In view of this history, the US and the European Union favor dealing with recycled communist apparatchiks turned liberal officials who now hold office from the Baltic states to the Balkans, including Croatia. Politicians in Washington and Brussels are more at ease dealing with former Yugoslav communists than with unpredictable Serbian and Croatian nationalists who are proverbially at odds with each other.

Hypothetically speaking, had the Cold War ended in a hot war between the US and the USSR in 1989, America would have used all available anticommunist and nationalist forces to overthrow Communism. If this had happened, all former Croatian communists and their acolytes in the media, academia, and higher education would have experienced a fate similar to the intellectuals of the BaathParty of former President Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2002: They would either lose their heads or their jobs.

But for an accident of history, the right-leaning intellectuals and academics might have been in power.

The phenomenology of the accident in history was described by the first Croat president, the late Franjo Tudjman in his book The Wasteland of Historical Reality. However, Tudjman’s revisionist writings made him a persona non grata in Western chancelleries and earned Croatia to this day the suspicion of being a paleo-fascist and anti-Semitic country. A hero in history often becomes a scoundrel.

The Psychology of Homo iugoslavensis.

There is hardly any Croat nationalist today who does not have at least one cousin who fought with the communist partisans during World War II. How then to initiate the process of decommunization if this inevitably means affecting the lives of the same people who would initiate the process of decommunization? The number of ex- communists who now sit in the so-called conservative ruling and nationalist party, the Christian Democratic Party (HDZ)), or who make up the largest opposition party, the socialist Social Democratic Party in Croatia, is huge.

The highest-ranking diplomats in Croatia are former Yugoslav communist journalists and diplomats. There is a joke in the corridors of the Croat Ministry of Foreign affairs that the modern Croat diplomacy has become an “ideal refuge for the recycled former Yugoslav communist journalists, snitches, or rats” — or, to put it more lyrically, for former “foreign correspondents.”

Ironically, these individuals have high stakes in endorsing the independence of nationalist Croatia. This sounds contradictory, but it makes sense because under communism they could have never dreamed of the perks they now enjoy as part of the Croatian elite. Under communism, all Croatian communist party members knew deadly well that even the smallest favor needed to be blessed at the federal level in Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia — even a minor travel order to a Western capital or being allowed to write an inoffensive political editorial in the former communist journals or on the state-run TV. Today, despite harsh anticommunist rhetoric, unequaled anywhere else in the West, a large number of the Faculty of Philosophy and the Faculty of Political Sciences in Zagreb (the main centers of public opinion) are men and women whose parents were communist stalwarts. How can they be purged? It is fairly easy to point them out, but it is impossible to “lustrate” them.

A case in point: In 1984 my father, Mirko Sunic, a former Catholic lawyer and my sister, Mirna Sunic, a professor, were sentenced to 4 years and 10 months of prison respectively, pursuant to Article 133 of the Criminal Code of communist Yugoslavia — a law that criminalized “hostile propaganda.” The charges had been filed by the state communist attorney Ante Nobilo. Subsequently, Mirko Sunic was adopted by Amnesty International and 15 US Congressmen as a prisoner of conscience. At the same time, I was granted political asylum while living in the United States.

Today Nobilo is a high-ranking advisor to the new left-leaning President of Croatia Stipe Mesic, as is Budimir Loncar who was Federal Secretary of the Ministry Foreign Affairs in communist Yugoslavia at the time my father and sister were imprisoned. Nobilo and Loncar frequently host foreign NGO’s and are responsible for assessing Croatia’s human rights record and its tolerance toward non- European immigrants.

Similar cases can be counted in the thousands if not in hundreds of thousands if the time span of communist terror from 1945 to 1990 is taken into account (seeMirko Sunic, Moji inkriminirani zapisi [My Incriminated Writings], 1996).

If one were to follow the same logic, one should not forget that the anticommunist and revisionist president, the former Franjo Tudjman himself held the high position of a communist general in Belgrade in the late 1950s — at the time of the worst communist repression. If he did not know of the mass murders carried out by the communists, then who was supposed to know about them? And how then to judge Tudjman or evaluate his revisionist work?

Putting the blame on “the Other” is a typical trait of the totalitarian spirit. It is alive and well in the public and business life of Croatia today, as well as in the Croatian judiciary. But that same pattern occurs throughout post-communist Eastern Europe. There is an expression that has characterized communism throughout its history: “No, not me! He is guilty! He is guilty! Not me! He!”

It is often forgotten that communism was not a departure from democracy, but democracy brought to its pinnacle — the “terror of all against all in all instances”(terreur totale de tous contre tous à tous les instants (Claude Polin, L’Esprit totalitaire, 1977).The Yugoslav communists did not have their worst enemy in the Catholic Church or in the always proverbial Croat nationalists, but within their own rank and file. Witness the eternal mutual slaughters and purges among the leftists from the Spanish Civil War all the way down to the incessant Stalinist purges in the Soviet Union.

There is a serious thesis one can propose. Was the war in 1991 in the former Yugoslavia masterminded by former communist officials in Croatia and Serbia? Was it prompted by the feud among regional communist intelligence officers? How does one explain the fact that both the nationalist Croat Franjo Tudjman and his Serb counterpart, Slobodan Milosevic, had a staggering number of former communist intelligence officers surrounding them — let alone that they had both been staunch members of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia? What would have been the development in communist ex-Yugoslavia if both Serbia and Croatia had highly educated expatriate non-communist politicians at the helm of the Yugoslav state? This is a good question for historians, sociologists and futurologists.

The biggest mistake was committed by strongly nationalist and anticommunist Croatian expatriates. In fact, they made a fatal mistake. Their enormous financial and military assistance to Croatia — worth billions of dollars — should have been discretely linked to the removal of old communist Croat cadres and the return en masse of these expatriates to the old homeland. This would have created a favorable sociological balance and would have significantly diminished today’s tensions between communist-bred Croats and nationalist Croats.

But since these anticommunist Croatian nationalists did not return, any possible decommunization — or as Croats call it ‘lustracija’ — seems morally and logistically unfeasible because it would necessitate huge shifts of population and would result inevitably in a civil war. Nevertheless, this very violent scenario cannot be ruled out.

The whole phenomenon of the so-called purges or “lustration” is nothing new in history. After the fall of Napoleon, during the period of the Restoration, the FrenchKing Louis XVIII had co-opted his former adversaries by providing them with some form of “half subsistence” (demi soldes), because he knew that otherwise he would be facing chaos and terrorism in France. Similarly, the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco shrewdly handed out meager pensions to his former foes, the defeated Spanish Republicans.

Yet the phenomenon of the haphazard and the vagaries of the historical accident have their own cosmic laws that remain impenetrable to human reason. The Romanian-French essayist and philosopher Emile Cioran wrote that there is more truth and justice in medieval alchemy or in the entrails of wild Roman geese, than in the palaver about democracy, justice, happiness and prosperity.

Tom Sunic (see www.tomsunic.infohttp://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/) is a writer, a translator, and a former professor of political science in the United States and a former Croat diplomat. Recently his book The European New Right (2009) was translated into Croat with a foreword by Alain de Benoist. His new book, La Croatie: un pays par défaut?, will be published this year.

Defaming America’s past: Henry Ford and the Eugenics Movement

One result of the triumph of the culture of critique is that Americans must endure constant defamations against the pre-1965 culture of America. A good example is the defamation of Henry Ford — an icon when I was growing up but now known mainly as an anti-Semite from America’s dark past.

A recent rather egregious example of Henry Ford defamation is an article by Edwin Black promoting his book Nazi Nexus: America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust. Black claims that

To purvey this new brand of Jew hatred [i.e., “political anti-Semitism”] to the world, Ford purchased a failed newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, which serialized the Protocols for 91 weeks. His company then published the series as a book, The International Jew. Using the techniques of mass production, Ford was able to escalate the Protocols from a negligible, randomly circulated irritant to a national sensation of 500,000 copies. Devoting the national sales force and the assets of the Ford Motor Company to the task made Henry Ford the first to organize political anti-Semitism in America. Indeed, he was the hero of anti-Semites the world over.

The problem with this is that The International Jew is far more than a serialization of the Protocols. Indeed, it is not a serialization of the Protocols at all. Rather, it is a series of journalistic articles (of uneven quality) on Jewish issues written by two of Ford’s employees, Ernest Liebold and Billy Cameron.  Liebold was a college-educated bank president before he became Ford’s personal secretary and alter-ego.  Cameron was a journalist who subscribed to an early version of the Christian identity movement that believed the Anglo-Saxons were descended from one of the lost tribes of Israel.

Black’s zeal to discredit Ford even leads him to claim that TIJ was then distributed in Germany where Hitler read it at least two years before writing Mein Kampf.The proof of this is that Hitler refers to the Protocols in Mein Kampf.

The logic seems to be that Hitler never would have heard of the Protocols except for the nefarious work of Henry Ford who was responsible for distributing it in Germany. No Henry Ford, no Holocaust.

This is ridiculous. The Protocols had been circulating in Germany since around 1918 — beforeTIJ was written. Hitler certainly didn’t need Henry Ford to be aware of the Protocols — nor were the Protocols the source of Hitler’s anti-Jewish attitudes. And, as I noted, TIJ is much more than the Protocols.

If this is the sort of scholarship that typifies Black’s book, one can only be amazed that it found a publisher at all. Yet the book’s website has blurbs praising the research behind the book. According to Michael Hirsch of Newsweek, Black performed “exhaustive research.” Adrienne Miller of Esquire writes: “Edwin Black is a dangerous man. He tells us things we don’t want to hear, like: ‘The scientific rationales that drove killer doctors at Auschwitz were first concocted on Long Island.’”

But of course people like Hirsch and Miller do want to hear what Black has to say because it conforms entirely to their world view. In that world view, anti-Jewish attitudes of people like Henry Ford are nothing more than outlandish conspiracy theories based on forged documents. (The US Holocaust Memorial Museum describes TIJ as “an Americanized version of the Protocols,” suggesting that Black’s views are entirely mainstream among Jewish intellectual activists.)

How should we characterize TIJ and its relation to the Protocols? The following is based on my review of TIJ; interested readers should consult the entire review.

TIJ at times exaggerates Jewish influence and Jewish unity, and it often expresses its ideas crudely. (Nevertheless, I rather doubt that its standards of journalism could be any worse than Black’s.) The following summarizes points made in TIJ that are supported by mainstream research on the history Jews of that period.

  • Jews had achieved a great deal of economic success in the US, even to the point of dominating certain important industries. TIJ particularly emphasizes Jewish domination of the movie industry because it viewed the movie industry as undermining the traditional sexual mores of America. For example, TIJ discusses the Jews behind the major motion picture companies of the era, going over much the same information as Neal Gabler’s (1988) An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood.
  • TIJ is careful to note that its concerns with the moral messages in movies are not idiosyncratic but part of a larger cultural conflict between the movie industry and large segments of the American public: “In almost every state there are movie censorship bills pending, with the old ‘wet’ and gambling elements against them, and the awakened part of the decent population in favor of them; always, the Jewish producing firms constituting the silent pressure behind the opposition” (2/12/1921). Indeed, the The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, headed by Will H. Hays, was created in 1922 in response to movements in over thirty state legislatures to enact strict censorship laws. Later the Production Code Administration, headed by Joseph I. Breen, was launched in response to a campaign by the Catholic National Legion of Decency. TIJ’s reservations about the moral content of movies were indeed widely shared among the American public.
  • Jewish organizations had launched highly successful campaigns to remove references to Christianity from U.S. public culture and to legitimize Judaism as a religion on a par with Protestantism and Catholicism. Writing in 1978, John Murray Cuddihy made a similar point about the remarkable fact that Judaism had become recognized as an official religion of the US despite the fact that Jews only constituted around 2–3% of the population.
  • Jewish organizations had been able to impose their ethnic interests on certain key areas of domestic policy. As TIJ noted, Jews were the main force behind unrestricted immigration. By 1920, unrestricted immigration policy had continued nearly 20 years after U.S. public opinion had turned against it.
  • Jews had also been able to impose their ethnic interests in the area of foreign policy despite widespread feelings that the policies advocated by the Jewish community were often not in the best interests of the United States. The main examples highlighted by TIJwere the abrogation of the Russian trade agreement in 1911 and post-World War I policy toward Eastern Europe. In these cases, American Jewish attitudes were more in line with what they saw as the interests of foreign Jews rather than the economic or political interests of the U.S. Jews achieved their goals on these issues despite opposition from some powerful forces. The Taft Administration opposed abrogating the Russian Trade Agreement, and a wide range of US military and diplomatic figures thought that the U.S. should support Poland as a bulwark against Bolshevism and that Jewish complaints against Poland were exaggerated.
  • TIJ argued that Jews had been a major force behind the success of Bolshevism and its incredibly bloody reign of terror in the Soviet Union, as well as the abortive communist revolutions in Hungary (led by Bela Kun) and in Germany (led by Kurt Eisner). TIJ noted that many American Jews remained sympathetic to communism, and  it argued that in Poland Jewish sympathy for communism was a major factor in Polish anti-Semitism.
  • Jews were the main component and by far the most energetic component of the radical left in the United States, a movement that advocated a massive political, economic, and cultural transformation of the U.S. TIJ documents close links between radical Jewish organizations, such as the 200,000-person Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, and the wider Jewish community. Such linkages continued at least into the 1950s when McCarthy-era pressure forced mainstream Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Congress to divest itself of connections to organizations deemed subversive by the US Attorney General.
  • In general, TIJ sees Jews as suffering from moral particularlsm (Is it good for the Jews?) and as ruthlessly oppressing others when they have power to do so. Besides Bolshevism, TIJ mentions the the violence of the Jabotinskiists in Palestine — an insightful comment given the power of the Jabotinskiists in Israel today. TIJ points out that in pre-modern societies, Jews made alliances with elites, while anti-Jewish actions have had populist overtones.
  • Jews had attained a substantial influence over the U.S. media via a virtual monopoly on the movie production business, domination of the theater and music businesses, their influence in journalism, and their ownership of some newspapers. Jews were also able to apply economic pressure on newspapers owned by non-Jews because of the importance of advertizing by Jewish-owned department stores in major cities. Jews used this media influence to advance their domestic and foreign policy agendas. TIJ also argued that Jewish-owned media portrayed Jews and Judaism positively while portraying Christianity negatively — a theme that continues in the present.
  • Although tending to exaggerate Jewish unity, there are a great many areas where TIJ was correct in claiming a great deal of consensus within the Jewish community on certain issues: Campaigns to remove public displays of Christianity and language suggesting the United States is a Christian nation; withdrawing literature and other cultural artifacts deemed anti-Jewish (e.g., the campaign to remove The Merchant of Venice from the high school curriculum); open immigration; US foreign policy toward countries perceived as anti-Jewish (e.g., toward Russia prior to the fall of the Czar and toward Poland and Romania after World War I).

TIJ would have been quite sympathetic to the idea that Jewish behavior is what I call a group evolutionary strategy. TIJ sees Jews as an ethnic group, not a religion. For example, as part of its argument TIJ quotes Supreme Court Justice and Zionist Louis Brandeis that “the percentage of foreign blood in the Jews of today is very low. Probably no important European race is as pure.”  In other words, Jews saw themselves as an racially pure group. Despite this,TIJ comments on the Jewish campaign to have themselves viewed as a religion, not an ethnic group in the US.

The group evolutionary strategy idea also proposes that eugenic selection for intelligence and group loyalty was an important component of historical Judaism (see below). Jewish intelligence and ethnocentrism were well recognized by TIJ: “The international Jew . . . rules not because he is rich, but because in a most marked degree he possesses the commercial and masterful genius of his race, and avails himself of a racial loyalty and solidarity the like of which exists in no other human group” (TIJ, 6/12/1920).

*     *     *

While far from perfect even as journalism, many of the points made in TIJ have substantial support given current scholarship. Obviously, despite the claims of Edwin Black and the USHMM, TIJ is not at all like the rather strange and unspecific Protocols.

The relation between TIJ and the Protocols requires some comment. TheProtocols presents a “theory” in which absolutely every aspect of modernism is explained as the result of a single, centuries-old overarching Jewish conspiracy to subjugate non-Jews.

I certainly do not want to endorse the Protocols. (See my comments on the Protocols.) But it’s worth pointing out that even though TIJ supports the truth of theProtocols, the Protocols is not used to bolster facts about Jewish influence, such as Jewish ownership of the movie industry or Jewish influence on abrogating the Russian Trade Agreement. Rather, the facts about Jewish influence are used as support for the truth of the Protocols. TIJ argues repeatedly that the best evidence for the authenticity of the Protocols is that events since the Protocolsconform to its predictions.

In other words, TIJ acknowledged the need to back up claims about Jews and Jewish influence with actual evidence. This is a long way from how Edwin Black,Neil Baldwin, and the USHMM present it.

Ford eventually responded to Jewish pressure, abandoned TIJ, and signed an apology for his actions. The reasons for this remain mysterious. But he never changed his mind about Jews: In 1938, Ford received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle despite a wave of protest from the Jewish press.

HenryFord

Henry Ford receives the Grand Cross of the German Eagle

Another part of Black’s world view is that eugenic theories based on scientific racism had the inevitable consequence of rationalizing gruesome experiments at Auschwitz and even the Holocaust itself. The “logic” is that eugenics leads to race science which leads to the Holocaust. This calls for a fuller treatment, but in closing I note only the following:

1. The logic behind eugenics is impeccable. In its classical form, itproposes that qualities such as health, intelligence, and moral character are socially valuable. Eugenicists were correct that these qualities are strongly influenced by genetics, and they argued that society can promote these qualities by policies such as discouraging reproduction of people with negative traits and encouraging reproduction of people with positive traits. Many of those who advocated eugenics were social radicals with utopian visions.

2. Eugenic theories played no role in the Holocaust. Hitler, like the writers ofTIJ, certainly did not believe that Jews were genetically inferior. Rather, he viewed them as powerful competitors with other groups, including Germans. And he correctly understood the importance of racial purity to Jews, stating in Mein Kampf “While he seems to overflow with “enlightenment,” “progress,” “freedom,” “humanity,” etc., he himself practices the severest segregation of his race.”

3. Jews have a long history of utilizing and explicitly advocating eugenics beginning in the ancient world. Eugenic practices are enshrined in the Talmud, including the injunction for wealthy men to marry their daughters to scholars and the need to scrutinize the family history of prospective spouses for signs of genetic diseases. With the rise of Darwinism, the eugenic practices of traditional Judaism were much discussed as an important ingredient in Jewish success.  Many Jewish race scientists in the pre-World War II era both in Europe and in Palestine believed that Jews were a master race and that they had become a master race by following eugenic marriage practices.

4. Eugenic practices have a respected place within contemporary Israel.Yael Hashioni-Dolev shows that Israeli geneticists and the Israeli public strongly favor eugenic practices. Israeli women are “heavily pressured to engage in selection of their embryos, or, in the ultra-Orthodox community, to marry according to ‘genetic compatibility.'” (Prof. John Glad’s website is an excellent source of information on this topic.) This can be seen as an aspect of racial Zionism that dominates contemporary Israeli political culture.

The strong Jewish opposition to eugenics in the West began with the Boasian school of anthropology — a prime topic of The Culture of Critique. Edwin Black carries on that tradition. But, as with other issues (such as ethnic nationalism), it’s pretty clearly a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”

And as is so often the case with scholarship motivated by a Jewish ethnic agenda, Black’s conclusions have little to do with the truth but everything to do with reinforcing Jewish world views — views in which Jews are moral paragons who are victimized by people like Henry Ford and the eugenicists.

On VDARE.com’s Peter Brimelow and “Electing a New People”

John Derbyshire has rather pointedly described the fate of those who would criticize Jews in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: … I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

I thought about this when reading Peter Brimelow’s speech at Michael Hart’s Preserving Western Civilization conference in early February. Brimelow runs the excellent racial realism site VDARE.com, an immigration reform site that champions the interests of the American majority — European-Americans.

For this, Brimelow and his writers have drawn the wrath of the mainstream and liberal left, particularly the SPLC — routinely referred to as the $PLC at VDARE. [Editorial note: TOO announces that from now on it will shamelessly copy this wonderfully accurate designation.)

He has also been shunned by mainstream conservative publications such as National Review where he was once Senior Editor. Jonah Goldberg, who personifies the changing of the guard at NR after Brimelow left, referred to Brimelow as “a once-respected conservative voice.” As Brimelow notes, NR is “a once-conservative, now respected, magazine.” I’m sure that the $PLC couldn’t be happier that Jonah Goldberg and his ilk are ensconced at NR.

Brimelow introduces the problem he sees the West facing, delivered in the form of an observation followed by a question:

This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . .

What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power. As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people?”

We at TOO have little doubt about the main force behind these transformations: The organized Jewish community.  These transformations have nothing to do with economics but everything to do with ethnic activism and identity politics.

There are hints of this in Brimelow’s talk, although it was probably impolitic for him to mention it given the strong participation of Jews at the conference. As noted by The Searchlight (an $PLC-like outfit in the UK that is now running a “Hope not hate” campaign against the BNP), the conference was “an attempt to create a new ideological pole friendlier to Jewish participation, but within the broader white nationalist movement. They would bind Islamophobia and nativism with scientific racism.” Not quite the way I’d say it, but you get the idea.

Brimelow points to the growing Jewish support for Democratic politics in America — despite their relative prosperity.  Jews are an economic elite but their voting patterns much more resemble non-white minorities — they “earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans,” as Milton Himmelfarb phrased it.

Indeed, Brimelow notes that higher percentages of Jews voted for Obama than the average for other minorities (83% to 79%). Why this is so “is a good question and in some ways the most important question in the immigration debate. And I recommend it to you for further discussion.”

Never one to pass up an invitation like that, I would point out that from the time they came to the US in large numbers, Jews have had a very negative view of traditional Americans and their culture. As Elliott Abrams put it, the mainstream 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.” As portrayed by the Jewish media, “Western civilization is … a failing, dying culture, but at worst it is … sick and evil compared to other cultures.”  It’s all about identity politics.

Brimelow gets right down to brass tacks about one side of the equation—he discusses and defends the interests of whites.

Obama doesn’t have 43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government: a coalition of united minorities that succeeded in uniting the minorities and dividing the majority.

As fate would have it, this observation resonated with something I had just read about the way Bolsheviks had assumed power in 1917 at the beginning of the Soviet era. A shadowy Executive Committee ruled, and among those with power “more than half were Jewish socialists.” Native Russians did not even make up a quarter. One participant noted that “the most striking thing about the composition of the EC was the number of foreign elements.” The deaths of tens of millions of underrepresented white non-Jews followed. (The details of this genocide come from Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s two-volume study of Russian-Jewish relations, Two Hundred Years Together. Still lacking an English translation after seven years, Occidental Quarterly contributor F. Roger Devlin has worked from the French translation to provide a superb overview of Solzhenitsyn’s work. See The Occidental Quarterly Fall 2008 and Winter 2008-2009. Order here.)

Brimelow offered further room for discussion when last month he published Kevin MacDonald’s VDARE.com piece Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left. There MacDonald reiterated his argument that radical Jews of the 1960s “had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in ‘humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors.’“

In particular, the dispossession component is being accomplished by support for massive non-traditional immigration. MacDonald argued that “Jewish activism on behalf of non-white immigration can be directly traced back to Jewish activists on the left.” Indeed, “Massive non-white immigration into Western societies has been a project of the Jewish left for pretty much the entire last century. The Jewish left has been the most influential component of the organized Jewish community. And even when a significant number of Jews defected from the left, giving rise to the neoconservative movement, they retained the traditional Jewish attitudes on immigration.” (Read MacDonald’s chapter on this phenomenon here).

As with Solzhenitsyn above, MacDonald connected such displacement of a native population with the genocide that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s in the Soviet Union. After the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, “Jewish radicals were able to actually carry out in the USSR the fantasies of the New Left Jewish radicals in the US—i.e., the ‘humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors.’”

MacDonald is proposing that a substantial component of the Jewish activism in the area of immigration is motivated by aggressive hostility toward the European American majority. Another, more defensive explanation of why Jews have led immigration reform movements that favor non-whites is the belief that a less homogeneously white America will be less likely to give rise to a powerful anti-Semitic movement. In an oft-cited passage, Jewish activist Earl Raab wrote:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible— and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

It seems likely that Raab’s wish to protect Jews is assured. After all, Jews are now famously dominant in media, government, academia and finance (for better or for worse).

Meanwhile, the rest of us Americans are left with many of the less pleasant aspects of diversity and non-white immigration, as last weekend’s news yet again drove home. As reported by CNN, a man wearing body armor used his car to block the rear door of an immigration services center, then entered the building and proceeded to murder thirteen people. “A federal law enforcement source identified the suspected gunman as Jiverly Wong. [The spokesman] said Wong, who was from Vietnam, was 41 and had changed his last name to Voong.”

I’m sure I’m not the only one who breathed a sigh of relief when it turned out that the shooter was not a white male. As VDARE’s Steve Sailer explained, “You can imagine how the Mainstream Media was itching to start typing denunciations of hate-filled white male anti-immigration rednecks when the news came in today that 13 people had been shot dead at an immigration center.” Brimelow is even more pointed on this issue: “If the killer in the Binghamton immigration center massacre had been a white American, I have no doubt that much of the VDARE.COM Editorial Collective would be in police custody right now.”

What has thus far been left unexplained is why there is any immigration to a region that has been devastated economically since at least the 1970s. Even the New York Times recognized this in a story about an area where “the number of 25-to-34-year-old residents in the 52 counties north of Rockland and Putnam declined by more than 25 percent. In 13 counties that include cities like Buffalo, Syracuse and Binghamton, the population of young adults fell by more than 30 percent.” In a perverse side note, The Times adds that “population growth upstate might have lagged even more but for the influx of 21,000 prison inmates, who accounted for 30 percent of new residents.” Is this the kind of place that needs legions of new immigrants?

VDARE.com’s Brenda Walker today made the broader point clear:

The problem of rampaging immigrants is not guns or unfriendly Americans or conservative radio programs or VDARE.com. The problem is the strangely persistent myth among elites and the media that millions from Somalia and Iraq and Red China can be plunked into our unique society and be expected to get along like they were putting on a different coat. . . . Immigration as a marker of the imaginary one-worlder multicultural paradise has been a screaming failure. The symptoms are everywhere, from ethnic gangs to mass murder.

Someday someone might look into this phenomenon, for it seems to fit the pattern of dispossession of traditional Americans. According to one blog, the US State Department has adopted a policy to spread refugees out to small and middle-sized American cities and away from the traditional “gateway cities.” Research found that “eleven top cities that had the largest refugee populations as a percentage of the foreign born in the city” were:

Utica-Rome, NY

Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN

Erie, PA

Binghamton, NY

Spokane, WA

Portland, ME

Lincoln, NE

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA

Burlington, VT

Manchester, NH

Des Moines, IA

Odd that all eleven of these cities are overwhelmingly white gentile locales.

When considering this crazy jumble of immigration situations I’ve described, casual observers may mutter that the system sure seems to be broken. But as I’ve stressed before, the problem is not that the system is broken; rather, the problem is that it is working as intended. Whereas Ms. Walker notes that “a homogenous nation evokes loyalty, stability and harmony,” the sad fact is that Jews in general detest these qualities in others. For Jews, homogeneous masses of white people reminds them of marching storm troopers with swastikas on their uniforms. As I wrote last year, “Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies.”

To me the lesson seems clear: Majority white Americans need to develop a sense of solidarity and then act on their interests. This too was the lesson Solzhenitsyn drew from his experience in the Soviet gulag: “More compact or tribally-minded peoples managed to look out for one another in the harsh conditions of camp life, and so stood a better chance of survival.” Time is not on the side of traditional Americans, so let this be a minor wake up call. Are you willing to allow the Powers That Be to elect a new people and replace you? I know I’m not.

Comments on “Memories of Madison”: White ethno-nationalism and Zionism

I received many positive responses to my VDARE.com article “Memories of Madison: My life in the New Left” — quite a few from people who went through similar experiences. I hope that some of these people would write up their experiences. They are very valuable as a firsthand account of history. Another column based on others’ experiences would certainly have quite a bit of interest.

A lot of us are still “getting over” those days, and there can be little doubt that the sensibilities of the 1960s are a major ingredient in our current cultural malaise. The big story of the 20th century in the US is a struggle for influence by the Jewish-dominated left. The Jewish Old Left was contained during the 1950s by the influence of McCarthyism. But the breakthrough of the New Left into the mainstream culture in the 1960s has had a very large influence on current cultural norms, especially on elite attitudes toward immigration and multiculturalism. As I mentioned in the article, the implicit agenda of the Jewish left has been thegeneral displacement of non-Jewish whites.

Two comments bear an extended discussion. A correspondent, Mark A. Mendlovitz, asks why I “oppose Zionism. Is not what Israeli Jews are doing analogous to what you and I are seeking to do here in the U.S.?”

It seems to me that Mendlovitz and others like him should first and foremost ask this question of their fellow Jews. That is, the vast majority of American Jews are Zionists but the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of American Jews are opposed to the idea that European-Americans have any legitimate interest in retaining political and cultural dominance. My view is that Jews who are interested in supporting European Americans in these goals should attempt to change the views of other Jews.

I certainly do not oppose the principle that it is legitimate for people to carve out a piece of real estate so that they can develop their own form of ethnic nationalism. Indeed, in a previous VDARE.com article, I emphasized the legitimacy and benefits of universal ethnic nationalism, based on the work of Jerry Z. Muller and Frank Salter.

Mendlovitz writes “Yes, supporting Israel is trouble for the U.S., but as is often the case, doing what is right is troublesome.” As he suggests, the problem is that Jewish ethnic nationalism has resulted in a very large cost to the United States for all the reasons that writers like Mearsheimer and Walt — and I — describe.

Frankly, I do not believe that it is in my ethnic interests nor is in the interests of the United States to antagonize the Arab and Muslim world in the interests of an expansionist, ethno-nationalist Israel. It’s simply not our fight. And now there is a real danger that the Israel Lobby will persuade the US to go to war against Iran. This would be yet another enormously costly effort. There can be no question at all that the hostilities between Iran and the US are centered around US support for Israel.

I completely agree that Arabs and other Muslims should be excluded from Western countries, but I don’t single them out in this regard. As an ethnic nationalist, I would like to see Western countries committed to preserving European peoples and their cultures. Let the Arabs continue to fester in their failed, undemocratic societies, with veiled women, clans, polygamy, and cousin marriage. I certainly do not blame Israel for their failures, any more than I blame the West for Africa’s problems. The neocon dream of converting the Arab nations into democratic, republican states was always nothing more than a bit of utopian propaganda that was aided and abetted by staunchly Zionist academics like Bernard Lewis and his neocon publicists. (Yet the ADL and the SPLC claimthat I am the dishonest one who attempts to use his academic position to spread falsities.)

I would be willing to make a quid pro quo with the organized Jewish community: If you support white ethno-nationalism in the US and provide intensive, effective support for ending and reversing the immigration policy of recent decades (i.e., something approaching the support you presently provide Israel), I would be willing to go to the wall to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, even at substantial cost for the US. The fact that a miniscule number of Jews — none of them part of the main Jewish activist  organizations that have been so destructive to white ethno-nationalism — are immigration patriots and see value in America as a European civilization is certainly not a reason for someone like me to support Jewish ethno-nationalism.

As a humorous aside (we can’t always be serious!), Philip Weiss reports that Abe Foxman made the following argument for why just about everyone should support Zionism. It is a reductio ad absurdum of the argument that white ethno-nationalists should support Jewish nationalism:

Can you be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite? Almost never. Unless you can prove to me you’re against nationalism. If you’re one of those unique individuals in this world that’s opposed to American nationalism, French nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, then you can be opposed to Jewish nationalism. Is it racist? You bet it is. Every nationalism is racist. It sets its laws of citizenship, it sets its own capital… It sets its songs, it sets its values. It is, if you will, exclusive, and you can even call it racist. But if the only nationalism in the world that is racist is Jewish nationalism, then you’re an anti-Semite.. I don’t want to make any apologies for it.

Hmmm, racism means excluding anyone from anything? In practice, Jewish nationalism means, among other things, erecting an apartheid society and enacting racialist marriage laws in Israel (see below). On the other hand, mainstream forms of American “proposition-nation” nationalism — led by the ADL — seem resolutely committed to a post-European America. If sing the Star Spangled Banner at a baseball game, I must logically support Jewish nationalism as it exists in Israel?  I think not.

As I argued previously, white people must be less principled and more self- interested. This implies that they should support others’ nationalism only when it is in their self-interest.

I must agree with Weiss that Foxman is “a loud man with reality issues.”

I agree with Mendlovitz that “while many Jews still vote largely Democrat and have a soft spot for liberal causes, the number of Jewish ‘radicals’ is vastly less than it once was, partly because of the general affluence of the Jewish population, and partly because of a number of other factors.” The problem is that the Jewish defection from the far left has not really altered the fundamental conflicts of interest between the organized Jewish community and white Americans.

A major factor easing the defection of Jews from the radical left (in addition to concerns about anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and Soviet support for the Arabs against Israel in the Cold War) was the leftist critique of Zionism. Mark Rudd’s comments, quoted in my article are typical of the leftist critique: Israel is “militarized, racist, religio-nationalist, corporate, riven with so many internal splits and hatreds that only the existence of a perpetual enemy keeps the nation from exploding.” Whereas Rudd remained a leftist, Jews deserted the left in droves when it became impossible to reconcile their leftism with their commitment to Jewish ethno-nationalism and the state of Israel.

Neocons — really the only significant group of “conservative” Jews — are no helpon issues like immigration. Their main concerns are to organize US support for Israel and to keep the conservative wing of American politics safe for Jews. Neocons only adopt conservative social policies as positions of conveniencein order to appeal to the Republican base. As Peter Brimelow noted, “[William] Kristol will return to immigration  enthusiasm once he has helped persuade Bush to attack Iran.” (Kristol failed to persuade Bush, but he is now hard at work trying to persuade Obama.)

Even though the organized Jewish community is  now best described as liberal rather than radical, it is still deeply committed to a post-European America, and that is really the only important issue.  A recent spectacle illustrating this is the “Progress by Pesach” campaign to promote open borders immigration reform. Even Lawrence Auster, whose role as a Jewish activist seems to be to advance the cause of Israel within what he calls the “traditionalist, politically incorrect Right” (see below), sees this as a Jewish problem:

What they are explicitly saying, as a national Jewish coalition, is thatas Jews, they are required by their Jewish tradition to seek to undermine American law and sovereignty and allow America to be invaded by a mass immigration of illegal aliens.

I have said before that when Jews declare that as Jews they are required to strive for open borders, when as Jews they demand U.S. national suicide, that allows critics to criticize Jews as Jews, and not just as generic “liberals.” This is the strongest case of that nature I’ve ever seen. [italics in text]

Well, I thought I made a pretty good case for that over a decade ago. Anyway, even the prospect of millions of Muslim immigrants is not enough to diminish the enthusiasm for massive non-white immigration by the organized Jewish community — a sure sign that the decades-old emotional commitment of the organized Jewish community to a post-European America trumps rational considerations altogether.

Mendlovitz’s comments are interesting and reflect fairly widespread Jewish concerns. On the other hand, Lawrence Auster’s comments, posted on his website, are first and foremost an attempt to place me beyond the realm of legitimate discourse. By titling the article “The idiocy of Kevin MacDonald,” Auster is saying, “Don’t go near MacDonald—he is off limits.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

This is the same sort of thing that Jewish activists like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Chait have tried to do with Mearsheimer and Walt. Dershowitz calledThe Israel Lobby a “hate-filled screed against Jewish participation in American politics.” Chait chimed in with “Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book that, even by the account of fair-minded and even ideologically sympathetic critics, is a shoddy, paranoid screed.”

Certainly no respectable person would want to publicly sympathize with screed writers — or idiots.

Auster is clearly living in an alternate universe — a universe in which Israel is a “post-Zionist” state dominated by “soft-hearted liberals.” Whereas everyone else is pondering the horrific brutality of the Israeli invasion of Gaza under a Kadima government and the specter of a Likud government organized by Benjamin Netanyahu with Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister apparently with a secret agreement for expansion of a critical settlement near Jerusalem, in Auster’s world Israel has already ceased to exist as a Zionist state.

The connections between the racialist Jabotinskiist wing of Zionism and the current politics of Israel are straightforward. The Likud party and its leaders — people like Ariel Sharon (who later formed the Kadima Party), Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir — have been open in their allegiance to Jabotinskyism. (Here’s a photo of Sharon speaking to a Likud Party convention in 2004 under alooming photo of Jabotinsky.) Jabotinsky believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.” As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”

One knows that racial Zionism has completely won the day in Israel when Kadima — the party of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and the Gaza invasion — was described by Benjamin Netanyahu during the recent election campaign as the party of the left. (The LA Times dutifully calls it “centrist” but, as Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery writes, Livni “cries to high heaven against any dialogue with Hamas. She objects to a mutually agreed ceasefire. She tries to compete with Netanyahu and Liberman (sic) with unbridled nationalist messages.”) Indeed,Netanyahu’s only worry during the election was that the openly racist Lieberman — a disciple of the notorious Meir Kehane — would take away too many votes from Likud. Avnery analogizes the election to a joke where a sergeant tells his men: “I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you are going to change your dirty socks. The bad news is that you are going to exchange them among yourselves.”

Now, if Israeli politics was dominated by people like Avnery, Auster would be quite correct. But Avnery’s Gush Shalom movement has no power in Israel. Even labeling the Labor Party as “soft-hearted liberals” is a huge stretch given that Labor has supported all of Israel’s wars, including the expansionist 1967 war when it held power and the recent Gaza invasion which was implemented by Defense Minister Ehud Barack — leader of the Labor Party.

Labor is dwindling away to nothingness, its only role to provide cover for the far right. Labor won only 13 out of 120 seats in the Knesset in the February election. Parties to its left (including Arab parties) won another 15 seats. Labor has opted to join Netanyahu’s government, or, as Avnery describes it, “Ehud Barak decided that the Labor Party must join the ultra-right government, which includes outright fascists.” This move is seen by many as providing the government with a fig leaf of respectability (see also here) that will appeal to European governments and others who have been critical of Israel’s behavior while nevertheless allowing the government to pursue its ethno-nationalist agenda.

Even excluding Kadima, the right wing nationalist and religious nationalist parties form a majority of the Israeli electorate — a percentage that is sure to increase because of the high fertility of religious and ethno-nationalist Jews and because intensified troubles with the Palestinians tend to make other Israelis more sympathetic to their cause. And if one makes the reasonable conclusion that Kadima is part of the ethno-religious-nationalist right, this faction holds 92 of the 120 seats in the Knesset.

Another phenomenon illustrating the ethno-religious-nationalist bent of current Israeli politics is that some of the rabbis accompanying the Israeli Defense Force during the Gaza invasion lectured soldiers that the purpose of the invasion was to banish non-Jews from the biblical land of Israel. Nationalist rabbis turned the invasion into a religious, messianic — “war against an entire people, not against specific terrorists.” Particularly noteworthy is that religious nationalists have taken over senior positions in elite combat brigades.

In other words, the army has become much more like what Auster wants it to be.

Although (as usual) there are conflicting accounts of the role of the role of religious fundamentalists in the atrocities committed in Gaza, J. J. Goldberg’s account does not dispute the general finding that religiously Orthodox soldiers form a substantial percentage of soldiers in infantry combat brigades and officers training programs. Moreover, ‘some of them appear to be a sub-rosa part of the unfolding story of the ethical standards upheld by the military, which Israelis praise routinely as ‘the most moral army in the world.’” Avnery’s accountdetailing the atrocity allegations is a must-read.

Over a decade ago Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky noted that Gush Emunim — a religious group that believes that a greater Israel was allotted to Jews in the Book of Deuteronomy — already constituted a significant percentage of the elite units of the Israeli army. (By “Greater Israel” they mean all the land promised to Abraham in Genesis: From the Nile to the Euphrates. Americans who support Israel should prepare themselves for a very long series of wars indeed.) The Gush Emunim are quite willing to treat the Palestinians in a savage and brutal manner. Their ideology is what one might call “theological racism”: A founder of Gush Emunim, Rabbi Abraham Kook taught that “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”

Just another soft-hearted liberal fuzzball.

Finally, Avnery also discusses the recently enacted law barring Arab citizens of Israel from marrying someone who lives on the West Bank. The law contains the following remarkable sentence: “The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.” That means that the State of Israel has declared itself to be at war with all Palestinians, including the ones living in Israel. The purpose is to create a homogeneous Jewish state: “The inherent aim of the Zionist enterprise was and is to turn the country — at least up to the Jordan River — into a homogeneous Jewish state. Throughout the course of Zionist-Israeli history, this aim has not been forsaken for a moment. Every cell of the Israeli organism contains this genetic code and therefore acts accordingly, without the need for a specific directive.”

Whatever else one might say, Israel has definitely not entered into a post-Zionist era.

Rather than condemning me for telling the truth, Auster should be happy that things are going his way in Israel. I wish that a similarly powerful (but not similarly brutal) ethno-nationalist European movement was on the horizon in the US and other countries of the European Diaspora.

The Oakland police murders, President Obama’s teleprompter, and implicit processing

The headline of Sunday’s LA Times screamed “Oakland mourns 3 slain officers” (online version). Immediately I constructed a mental model that the murderer was a low-life black man between the ages of 18 and 30.

And of course, I was right. His name was Lovelle Mixon, age 27. Mixon, who was killed in the gun battle, was wanted on a no-bail warrant for violating his parole on a conviction for assault with deadly weapon. A fourth officer is near death.

My mental model was based partly on the reputation of Oakland as famous for black crime. This is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Oakland:

Despite comprising only 30–35% of the population, African-Americans are over-represented in crime statistics, with the majority of crimes occurring in heavily African-American neighborhoods. Earl Ofari Hutchinsonmentions crime in Oakland as an example of a rising problem of “black-on-black” crime, which Oakland shares with other major cities in the US. Bill Cosby mentions Oakland as one of the many American cities where crime is “endemic” and young African-American men are being murdered and incarcerated in disproportionate numbers. Cosby alleges that the parents of such youths and young men, and the Black community in general, have failed to inculcate proper standards of moral behavior.

In a November, 2008 Congressional Quarterly Press publication, the city of Oakland has the dubious distinction of ranking fifth worst in a nationwide ranking of violent crime. The ranking takes into account six crime categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft.

In other words, Oakland has a reputation— a reputation that I was well aware of and that fed into the way I processed a headline like “Oakland mourns 3 slain officers.” In my brain there was an automatic connection between this headline and the thought that the perpetrator was black. Of course, the hardcopy LA Times article did not mention that he was black, and there were no photos. But with the link to Oakland, there was little doubt in my mind, and finding out that his first name was Lovelle clinched it. Online newspaper articles did not mention his race, but did include photos. Here is Mr. Mixon:

Lovelle Mixon

The photos also showed that the victims were white:

Sgt. Mark Dunakin       John Hege               Sgt. Daniel Sakai     Sgt. Ervin Romans

The race of the victims was not an automatic thought. There certainly are large numbers of non-white policemen. But I was quite curious to find out the race of the victims, and I rather doubt that I was alone in that. Whereas the vast majority of black-on-white crime is kept out of the newspapers, crimes against police are an exception. And because I am concerned about the ongoing disaster of white displacement, I was particularly saddened when I saw the faces of these victims who had been murdered by a black man.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The publicity given to this crime will doubtless sharpen the attitudes of whites that they are often the victims of black criminality — at least in California where the story has been given a great deal of play.  Even though black on white crime is not typically publicized, exceptions such as this feed into negative stereotypes that whites have of blacks. And there is no question that in fact blacks are far more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse.

Because they are typically part of the academic culture of the left, many psychologists have agonized about the fact that whites have unconscious negative stereotypes of blacks lurking down deep in their brains. These stereotypes are “implicit” in the sense that they are automatic, “knee-jerk” responses to images associated with blacks. For example, in most studies, about 80% of whites are quick to associate blacks with negative traits like criminality and low intelligence — traits that indeed are more common among blacks.

These implicit associations are difficult to change, but they may be influenced by media images. A recent study showed a dramatic drop in implicit negative attitudes of whites toward blacks since the presidential campaign of Barack Obama — from the usual 80% down to 51%. The 49% of whites without implicit negative associations with blacks is higher than the percentage of whites who voted for Obama, presumably because the subjects were college students — the only white group of whites to vote for Obama.

The researchers claim that the long-term effects will depend on whether Obama is viewed as a success: “If his presidency is highly successful, he would activate positive traits, thoughts and feelings for most people. However, the result may be less positive should his presidency prove to be less successful.”

This may be so, but images like the Oakland police murders will also feed into the implicit attitudes of whites. It would be interesting to do a study of implicit attitudes of whites toward blacks in the San Francisco Bay Area  in the aftermath of the murders of the policemen. I suspect that whites’ unconscious associations with blacks may have returned to the baseline rate of 80% negative or even higher.

Despite the slobbering love affair between Obama and the media, reality has a way of intruding on the constant propaganda emanating from the liberal media. Already there are images of a less-than-competent Obama in conservative-oriented media. Lou DobbsRush Limbaugh, and The Washington Times among others have hammered away on the theme that Obama seems lost without a teleprompter. Instead of saying “Obama announced that …,” Limbaugh routinely says “Obama’s teleprompter announced that ….” (Here’s a particularly stumbling performance sans teleprompter.)

It’s one thing to routinely make fun of former President Bush. (Jay Leno has led the way on this for the last eight years. Recently, his monologues feature a segment titled “What’s George Bush doing today?” in which an actor playing Bush does something completely mindless. For example, in one episode Bush lies face down on a swivel chair and propels himself in circles with a leaf blower.) Imagine the hysteria if Leno did the same with an Obama look-alike. Such images may be considered anti-white, and Leno often does his best to portray whites negatively. But the liberal media have a very long way to go to make people think that whites in general are unintelligent.

But in the case of blacks, the association of blacks with low intelligence continues to be part of whites’ implicit associations with blacks. And this association is solidly grounded in reality: Dozens of research studies show that whether in Africa or America or Brazil, on average blacks are indeed substantially less intelligent than whites; there is good evidence that these racial differences are genetically influenced.

What this means is that the image of a stumbling Obama as an automaton who can only speak coherently when he is reading others’ words very easily feeds into the negative images that most whites already have of blacks: Blacks are less intelligent and blacks in America are achieving far more than justified by their talents. Barack Obama as the affirmative action president.

And it means that the long-term effects of the Obama presidency on how whites think of blacks may depend not only on how successful Obama is. It will also depend on whether whites believe that Obama is anything more than an image created by the mainstream media desperately in search of a black man who could act the part of president.

In recent years, it became fashionable to talk about how Karl Rove was George W. Bush’s brain. Suggestions that David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are Obama’s brain have a whole different connotation. And a very significant effect on how whites view blacks.