Featured Articles

Jews and immigration policy — Again

A friend sent along Steve Sailer’s review of historian Otis L. Graham’s  Immigration Reform and America’s Unchosen Future. Misleading title. American immigration policy was chosen. It just wasn’t chosen by the vast majority of the American people, and this is Graham’s point. As I have tried to show, it was chosen by the organized Jewish community and put into action as a result of Jewish political pressure and financial wherewithal. Graham notes that the successful immigration restriction of 1924 was seen by historians as one of the reforms of the Progressive Era’s campaign against the excesses of capitalism, since immigration lowered wages.

It’s fair to say, however, that Jews never saw it that way and there’s at least a fair amount of truth in the idea that the 1924 law was enacted to achieve an ethnic status quo that Jews saw as unfair to them. (Jewish immigrants were correctly seen by restrictionists as disproportionately involved in political radicalism, and it was generally a period of ethnic defense of White America.)

As Sailer’s review shows, Jews have not ceased seeing the 1924 law as exclusion of Jews. Graham points out that Jews live in the past when it comes to thinking about immigration: “the “filiopietistic” urge (“of or relating to an often excessive veneration of ancestors …”) is particularly strong among Jewish media figures. Italian-Americans, in contrast, tend to approach the immigration policy question by thinking about the future rather than by obsessing over the past. This anti-rational emotional reflex about immigration contributes to the kitschy quality of MSM discourse on the topic.”

In other words, Jews see the 1924 immigration law as part of their lachrymose history among Europeans, It’s just another example of irrational anti-Semitism — an example that warrants the evil nature of  the people and culture who created it. Since, as Sailer notes, Jews constitute half of the most influential media figures, and since the other half are rigorously vetted to exclude anyone who opposes what amounts to the Jewish consensus on immigration, there really isn’t much real debate in the above-ground media.

Of course, there is a lot of self-censorship. Graham recounts the example of Theodore White, then the most influential journalist in America (and a Jew), refusing to publish his views on immigration. “‘My New York friends would never forgive me. No, you guys are right [on immigration], but I can’t go public on this.’ ” Sailer quotes Graham:

Hearing White’s agitated response, I had my first glimpse of the especially intense emotional Jewish version of that taboo [against immigration skepticism]. His whole heritage, and his standing with all his Jewish friends, was imperiled (he was certain) if he went public with his worries about the state of immigration. …

I did not suspect it then, but this would become an important subtheme of our experience as immigration reformers. American Jews were exceptionally irrational about immigration for well-known reasons. They were also formidable opponents, or allies, in any issue of public policy in America.

In a nutshell, that’s the problem with Jews: They get what they want and what they want is not necessarily what others want (leading to conflicts of interest) or what is good for the country as a whole. It really wouldn’t matter if the only group that wanted open borders was African Americans. But it matters greatly that Jews do.

Incidentally, Otis Graham’s brother Hugh Davis Graham, agrees with me on the forces behind the 1965 law. He wrote in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56-57):

Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], 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.

Bookmark and Share

Goyland: Where the Wild Things Are

“Living so long in exile and so often in danger, we have cultivated a defensive and apologetic account, a censored story, of Jewish religion and culture.”

Michael Walzer, quoted in Kevin MacDonald. Separation and Its Discontents, p. 217

The $100 million-dollar film Where the Wild Things Are was released last October. Older readers might remember the 1963 children’s book on which the film is based. The original book was penned by Jewish American writer Maurice Sendak, who grew up in Brooklyn. Today I will consider whether or not the writer’s Jewish background played a role in the book’s creation.

Many accounts of the book (and film) ignore the Jewish angle. For example, right around the time of the release of the film, The New York Times carried Bruce Handy’s review of the book. No mention at all was made of Jewishness.

Just to bring the reader up to speed, let me share Handy’s summary of the story:

Max, a young boy in a wolf costume, makes mischief of one kind and another, is called “wild thing” by his unseen mother, and is sent to bed without supper. As he stews, his room transforms into a jungle. He finds a boat and sets sail across the sea to discover a land full of real wild things — big monsters with “terrible teeth” and “terrible roars.” Max tames them, plays with them, sends them to bed without their suppers and then returns home, where he finds dinner waiting for him. “And it was still hot,” the book concludes — a lovely and reassuring grace note.

Handy relates how he only came to appreciate the book upon rereading it as an adult, perhaps because Sendak himself was revealing his adult anxieties in the book. As Sendak said in 1966, “It’s only after the act of writing the book that, as an adult, I can see what has happened, and talk about fantasy as catharsis, about Max acting out his anger as he fights to grow. . . . For me, the book was a personal exorcism. It went deeper into my own childhood than anything I’ve done before.”

I suspect Sendak is being honest when he says it goes deep into his childhood. But one angle I think he is describing is his urban Jewish view of the non-Jews around him. And his book — which he also illustrated — likely represents his view of the world outside the Polish shtetl of his parents and relatives. That unknown world, malevolent and dangerous, was, in Sendak’s mind, full of lurking creatures. Brandeis professor Stephen J. Whitfield, a specialist in American Studies, realizes the extent to which Jewishness animates Sendak’s work. Sendak, Whitfield notes, “wrote out of personal obsessions rather than formulas.”

To be sure, we all have various aspects to our personalities, so Sendak may indeed be mixing various memories and such. For instance, according to his Wikipedia bio, he admitted in an interview that he is homosexual, which may or may not influence his individual stories. (In the Night Kitchen is a 1970 story about a naked boy — roughly three years old — who is almost baked into a cake. Sendak’s drawings depict the boy’s penis and testicles, which caused many parents to object to libraries stocking the book.)

To further challenge my thesis that Jewishness played a role in Where the Wild Things Are, we must also consider this: “The monsters in the book were actually based on [Sendak’s] relatives who would come to weekly dinners. Because of their broken English and odd mannerisms, they were the perfect basis for the monsters in Sendak’s book.”

I believe his relatives may have provided a rough frame on which to hang the fleshed-out monsters, but I still think Sendak’s primary inspiration for the book was his conscious and unconscious views of the wider non-Jewish world. I think this because it jibes so well with other accounts by contemporary Jewish Americans, thus revealing a shared Jewish mindset.

Let me start with this account of what West Coast Jews think of their non-Jewish fellow countrymen, as related by social scientists Martin Lipset and Earl Raab:

In 1985 about a third of those affiliated with the Jewish community in the San Francisco area said, in response to a questionnaire, that Jewish candidates could not be elected to Congress from San Francisco. Yet three out of the four congressional representatives from that area — as well as the two state senators and the mayor of San Francisco — were, in fact, well-identified Jews at the time the poll was conducted. And they had been elected by a population that was about 95 percent non-Jewish.

In 1981 nine out of ten respondents in the same regional Jewish population said that they felt “comfortable” in America. But seven out of eight also believed that anti-Semitism is a serious problem in this country. Nationally, about eight out of ten affiliated Jews voiced serious concerns in 1990 about anti-Semitism, while the same overwhelming proportion replied that they felt “close” or “very close” to the American people.

Clearly, many American Jews are battling with cognitive dissonance when it comes to assessing their safety and welfare in America. Objectively, there is very, very little that has threatened American Jews financially, socially or physically. Yet deeper inside their psyches, there is something telling them that all non-Jews are potentially dangerous and unfriendly anti-Semites. (As the old saw goes, “Scratch a goy, find an anti-Semite.”)

This fear and defensiveness may stem from what Professor Salo Baron, a prominent Jewish historian, has called the “lachrymose view of Jewish history.” Or, as Barbara Fuerlicht writes, “The diaspora is often presented as 2,000 years of uninterrupted martyrdom.” Again, however, we find that paradox spawned by the incongruity between reality and perception. Consider, for example, that one scholar wrote, “Most medieval Jews in most places in most years were not the targets of pogroms. Most lived lives that, protected by geniz charters [i.e., charters specifying Jewish rights] and privileges, were far more secure and prosperous than the overwhelming percentage of non-Jews around them.”

For example, this charter for the Duchy of Austria from 1244 is summarized as follows:

This document is important because it was soon adopted, with some changes, by most East European countries to which the masses of Jews finally drifted: Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Silesia, and Lithuania. This charter — a very favorable one — was issued to encourage money-lending among the Austrian Jews and probably also to attract moneyed Jews to migrate to this outlying German state which was in need of ready credit. Every effort is therefore made in this Latin constitution to grant the Jews ample opportunity to sell their wares and, above all, to lend money. They were given adequate protection: they were subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Duke who guaranteed them safety of life and limb. The right of the Jews to govern themselves in communal and religious matters was not specified by the Duke, but this was taken for granted. We may assume, indeed, that the Jews of Austria enjoyed extensive political autonomy under this pact.

In any serious study of Jewish history, one is surprised to see how true this is for accounts of many different times and places. As we’ve seen, however, this sense of defensiveness continues to haunt Jews in America, as social historian David Gerber details in his insightful 1997 essay “Ill at Ease: The Insecurities of American Jewry”:

The almost universal feeling of anxiety American Jews have about intergroup relations raises many complex questions. Do Jews feel threatened because they really are threatened? Does objective evidence indicate a resurgence of the anti-Semitism that is widely acknowledged to have declined in the decades immediately following World War II? Or, is it the case that little objective evidence is needed to make a people whose conditions of life have historically been so insecure feel threatened, even in the apparently benign American diaspora? [p.95]

Philip Weiss, writing in New York magazine (January 29, 1996), suggests psychological reasons for this defensiveness:

Jews cherish feelings of exclusion not just because there is wisdom in foreboding but because these feelings are useful. They preserve our position as outsiders, a status that has certain moral and practical advantages. As an outsider, you have motivation: to get in. And you get to be demanding without any particular sense of reciprocity . . . Perhaps most important, these feelings solidify Jewish identity.

A personal account that got my attention was one by New Yorker Karen Brodkin, who spent summers in Vermont with her friends and family in a bungalow colony of Jewish families:

Late one summer night, a group of us tied up all the rowboats that belonged to our group of families out in the middle of the lake. We looked forward to parental surprise when they woke up, but we weren’t prepared for their genuine alarm: This could only be an anti-Semitic act by angry Yankees. What did it portend for our group? We were surprised on two counts: that the adults didn’t assume we had done it, since we were always playing practical jokes, and that they thought our Jewishness mattered to Vermont Yankees.

There is no shortage of similar accounts. For instance, American Israeli journalist Ze’ev Chafets relates how his maternal grandmother, born in Sterling, Illinois, maintained a mental map of Jewish and non-Jewish America:

Pontiac [Michigan] never had enough Jews for a Jewish neighborhood, but from the time I was a small boy I was aware that it had a special Jewish geography, and my grandmother was its da Gama. She would point out an unremarkable brick home on a leafy street and confide, “That’s a Jewish house.” Downtown she would pause near a certain store and say, “This is a Jewish business.” Occasionally, when we passed a parking lot, she would point out a Chevrolet or Plymouth and say, “There’s a Jewish car.” None of these cars, shops, or houses impressed me as being especially Jewish, but I was prepared to take her word for it.

At first I thought that mastering Pontiac’s Jewish geography was some sort of Sunday school lesson, like memorizing the Hebrew alphabet or the kings of Judea. But as I grew older, I realized that my grandmother mapped out the town reflexively, more for her benefit than mine. Jewish houses, stores, and offices were safe havens, places she could count on if, for example, she needed to use a bathroom, or was being chased through the streets by a sex-crazed Cossack rapist.

Jewish historian Peter Novick describes the “the fortress-like mentality” of many American Jews, where the institutional imperative was to promote “a wary suspicion of gentiles.” Consider three examples he provides from three “otherwise apparently sensible American Jews” to show how they had internalized these Jewish “collective memories — memories that suffuse group consciousness.” First, a university teacher writes, “When I move to a new town, I give great thought to whom, among my gentile friends, I might entrust my children, should that ever become necessary.” Next, a prominent Jewish feminist shares this thought: “Every conscious Jew longs to ask her or his non-Jewish friends, ‘Would you hide me?’ — and suppresses the question for fear of hearing sounds of silence.” Finally, a professor of psychology reports:

Many Jews report that the unspoken question they ask themselves when interacting with a non-Jew is, “Would she or he have saved me from the Nazis?” I have asked myself this question innumerable times: sometimes I surprise myself by answering, “I don’t know,” when asking this question of a non-Jewish friend I had otherwise assumed was close to me. The answer is the ultimate standard by which to measure trust in a non-Jewish person.

Honestly, do you want to live with such irrationally suspicious people? Worse, do you want to live under such “fellow” Americans now that so many of them dominate the controlling heights of this country?

Take Harvard, for instance. A leading law professorship there is a powerful position. And that’s precisely what Orthodox Jew Alan Dershowitz has held for years. Never mind that this fourth-generation American can write: “It was at Yale that I met and befriended my first Wasps, blacks, and even non-Orthodox Jews.” Are we really living in the same universe?

Dershowitz admits he is so highly invested in the “Holocaust mentality” that the world in which he sometimes lives borders on the horrifically imaginary. Witness his feelings as he sat watching the accused concentration camp guard Ivan Demjanjuk on trial in Israel:

I kept looking at Demjanjuk for another reason. I imagined him as my killer. At the time he was murdering babies, I was five years old. . . . I could have been one of the thousands of nameless and faceless babies he grabbed out of the hands of screaming mothers and shoved into gas chambers. I imagine him laughing with sadistic joy as he killed entire families, ending their seed forever, after taunting and torturing them gratuitously.

This vicarious sense of suffering is intense for Dershowitz and haunts not only his future but the future of Jewish children: “Every time I attend a gathering of Jewish children — at a family event, at a Bar Mitzvah, at Simchath Torah — I imagine SS guards lining up these children for the gas chambers.” Isn’t this evidence enough that Dershowitz needs, at a minimum, counseling?

How might such a mentality be constructed in a place where daily life never offers the chance to experience real persecution? Try this: Jewish American journalist Marjorie Miller relates a childhood story regarding her religious school. In addition to learning the Hebrew alphabet, she also learned about the Holocaust. One Sunday her teacher, “in a scared voice,” called the students to attention and told them to listen carefully: “Had we heard the radio? The government was telling the Jews that we had to convert or leave the country.” This, the teacher explained, “was the first step . . . maybe the beginning of another Holocaust.” Not surprisingly, “Many children in the class began to cry.”

This mentality is reminiscent of interviews done in the 1970s with noted Jewish men, where the question “Do you think it could happen here?” never needed “it” defined.  Nearly unanimously, the reply was the same: “If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,” or “It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when” [quoted in MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.245].

Reader, think about it: If you’re an average American, you quietly pay your federal taxes, likely knowing that some goes to aid Israel. (On top of that, many of you Christian Zionists support Israel further through donations and political support.) Further, it’s highly improbable that you’ve ever committed a crime against a Jew, let alone actually harmed one. The thought has probably never even crossed your mind.

Yet a good percentage of American-born Jews still consider you a lethal threat simply because you are not a Jew. At this stage in history, is there any excuse for that? Worse, such Jews are often able to translate their fantasy-based fears about goyim into cultural products such as films and TV shows—and books like Where the Wild Things Are. Through the activism of groups like the ADL, they are also able to affect legislation such as the new Hate Crimes Law that may well target people like you for potentially thinking the wrong thing. This is not good.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how the film has been adapted from Sendak’s book. My guess is that the live action animation will not have a theme about dangerous non-Jews, but I should wait until I see it before saying more. Still, it’s got the typical Jewish background of a Hollywood production. For instance, Spike Jonze, born Adam Spiegel in 1969, is the film’s director, replacing earlier director Eric Goldberg. Let’s just hope Jonze is not one of those paranoid Jewish Americans always wondering if “it” could happen here.

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

Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man, Part I

There is a widespread idea among White nationalists worldwide that Whites need to resurrect their Christian heritage in order to be better able to retrieve their racial, religious and cultural identity. Another proposal common among White nationalists is that the liberal system needs to put an end to non-White, non-Christian immigration, which would then pave the way for polishing up the vanishing White gene pool. Another far-flung idea is that the influence of Jews must be curtailed if not stopped altogether, so that all social ills can be cured. Last but not least, the liberal system needs to be replaced by a nationalist, nativist, populist, “right wing”, White government.

However credible these proposals sound, they are naive in their formulations, superficial in scope, and dangerous in their possible implementation. They deal with the political consequences of the problem rather than probing into its philosophical and historical causes. Even if miraculously all non-White, non-Christian residents were to disappear from America and the European Union and even if all liberal policies were to be abandoned, it is unlikely that the White man would solve deep-rooted problems of his own racial and religious identity.

Science and Quackery

Before even attempting to offer some salutary suggestions, one must be aware of the oppressive weight of the dominant ideas and their “scientific” — aka “politically correct” — ambience in the modern liberal system. Our postmodern epoch is profoundly saturated by egalitarian and economistic dogmas. Regardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political theologies start crumbling down — which may soon be the case — alternative views about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.

The historical irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself — both with his Christian atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt.Therefore, any arguments offered in defence of racial separation will inevitably be perceived by the Other, i.e. by a non-White (and his guilt-ridden White masters) as racist. Not wanting to contravene the moral imperatives that they invented, Western man must once again posture as an example of global justice that needs to be copied by all races — albeit this time around as a negative role model.

Alain de Benoist writes that liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21th century it preaches inclusive racism.  By herding non European races from all over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds its undisputed role of a truth maker — of course, this time around under the auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.

It must be stated that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system lexicallyconceptuallyscientifically, ideologically, theologically, and last, but not least, judicially, forbids the slightest idea of race segregation — except when it evokes skin-deep exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?

Most American White nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers stated: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet the abstract words “all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Who can, therefore deny to masses of non-European non-Christian immigrants from all parts of the world to freely extrapolate, for their own racial benefit, Jefferson’s words that “all men are created equal”? The self-perception of Jefferson and his Enlightenment-influenced compatriots of 18th-century Europe and America were light miles away from the perception of his words by today’s non-Whites in search of “the American dream.” Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that” — is a waste of time. Similar to many historical documents claiming  “scientific “ or “self-evident” nature, be they of the religious, historical or judicial provenance, the American Declaration bears witness to the classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which has become the subject of its own semantic sliding — with ominous consequences for Whites worldwide.

A witty Southern antebellum lawyer, a racialist writer, with a good sense of the language, John Fitzhugh, calls Jefferson’s words “abstractions”.

The verbal tricks such as “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created  equal”, are bottomless pits out of which torrents of modern new demands keep arising:  It is, we believe, conceded on all hands, that men are not born physically, morally or intellectually equal — some are males, some females, some from birth large, strong, and healthy, others weak, small and sickly — some are naturally amiable, others prone to all kinds of wickedness — some brave others timid. (George FitzhughSociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society 1854, pp.177-178).

Contemporary geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.

This is particularly true regarding the endless debate about “nature vs. nurture” (heredity vs. environment). If one accepts the dominant idea that the factor of environment (“nurture”) is crucial in shaping the destiny of different races — then it is useless to talk about differences among races. If all individuals, all races, are equal, they are expandable and replaceable at will!   

The dogma of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a matter of life or death for Marxism.  This was recognized with precision by the Soviet rulers…. As [Fritz] Lenz, one of the most important eugenicists [“racial hygienists”] pointed out, the Soviet rulers must for one obvious reason cling on to the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. They need this doctrine for calming their conscience. If everything really depends on the environment, this means that the slaughtering carried out by Bolshevism of so many carriers of valuable hereditary endowment, is not an irreparable loss, but rather a state-regulated change of the environment. (Gustav Franke, Vererbung und Rasse [Heredity and Race], 1938, 1943, pp. 113-114; my trans.)

Needless to say, Franke, Lenz and thousands of German and other European anthropologists, geneticians and biologists disappeared from the reading list, after being denounced either as “bad Nazis” or “atheists”. Although the field of the former Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist residue of omnipotent inheritance of acquired characteristics isreligiously pursued by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It is the law!

Racial Promiscuity in the Age of High IQ Morons 

“Dorks”, “idiots”, “morons”, “halfwits”, “dimwits”, are words used daily in the portrayal of our pesky interlocutors. But what if some of our intelligent interlocutors are indeed stupid? It is a historical truism that most world explorers, famous statesmen, most scientists, most Nobel prize winners, have been White people with predominantly Nordic stature and dolichocephalic skull.  It is a truism that most prisoners in America and Europe are crossbreeds of non-European out-groups, with the remnants of Whites, whose criminal record can be traced to inborn genetic disorders in their family tree. A long time ago William Sadler, a forgotten eugenicist from the Chicago Medical School, wrote a book about “the aristocracy of the unfit” that cannot be improved by any amount of do-good sermonizing: Mental defectiveness (moronism) is hereditary and constitutional, and consequently not amenable to our preachings, asylums, hospitals, reformatories, penitentiaries, etc. We must ever bear in mind that each year a new quota of defectives is born with statistical regularity.” (Race Decadence, 1922, p. 254).

The modern media-induced dumbing down process, combined with inborn mental deficiencies of an ever growing number of White people is being accelerated by massive inflow of low IQ immigrants, already conditioned to capitalize on post-Christian and liberal guilt feelings of the White man. As in the ex-Soviet Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the culture of death.

People get arrested for financial fraud or homicide. Yet professors in humanities in America and Europe, when propagating Lamarckian science fiction and egalitarian pipe dreams get promoted. A physiologist and a Nobel Prize winner, the late French racialist Charles Richet, in his book “The Stupid Man” (L’homme stupide, 1919), understood that high IQ is not a trademark of intellectual disinterestedness or a sign of value free judgments. Stupid, abnormal decisions are often made by high IQ people, who are driven by utopian belief systems.

High IQ among Whites, if not accompanied but good character, psychological introspection, nobility of spirit and a sense of honor — is worthless. The architects of the largest serial genocides in the history of mankind, writes Rudolf Kommos (Juden hinter Stalin, 1938, 1944), were intelligent Bolsheviks, mostly of Jewish origin, whose inborn millenarian, eschatological and chiliastic mindset, had led them to believe that dozens of millions of Russian civilians needed be wiped out.

Stupidity does not mean that a person has not understood something; rather it means that he behaves as if he did not understand anything.  When a person moves headlong toward disaster in order to satisfy his prejudices, his errors, his defective and false reasoning — this is inexcusable. It is far better to be deprived of intelligence than to make poor use of it…. Judging by our acts we become more stupid as we become less ignorant.(Charles Richet, L’homme stupide, 1919), p 15.( my trans.)

European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is in particularly true for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who, although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game. The father of European racialism and a man whose work left an important impact on the study of race in the early 20th century, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, summarized how cultivated men, when driven by theological or ideological passions, commit deadly mistakes:

It is virtually impossible to change by means of education the intellectual type of an individual, however intelligent he may be. Any education will be impotent to provide him with audacity and initiative. It is heredity that decides on his gifts. I was often surprised by the intensity of gregarious spirit amidst the most instructed men. … Each minor manifestation of an independent idea hurts them; they reject a priori everything as pernicious errors that has not been taught to them by their masters(Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Les sélections sociales, 1896, p.104; my trans.)

Is this not a proof that the worst enemy of the White man can often be his fellow White man?

To be continued.

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a former Croatian diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007). His new book of essays, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, will soon be released. Email him.

Wilhelm Marr’s The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View

Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) has gone down in history as the first racial anti-Semite. His signature work, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism: Viewed from a Nonreligious Point of View, expresses Marr’s views on the conflict between Germans and Jews in a strikingly modern manner.

The pamphlet is difficult to obtain, and there have been no English translations. Now the text has been translated by Gerhard Rohringer and is available online in pdf format. The following summarizes Marr’s ideas as presented in this translation of the 8th edition, first published in 1879.

Marr was a journalist, and his pamphlet is expressed in a journalistic style with all the pluses and minuses that that entails. Marr’s pamphlet contains a number of ideas that agree with modern theories and social science research on Jews, as well as some ideas that are less supported but interesting nonetheless. His ideas on future events are fascinating with the 20/20 hindsight of 130 years of history.

Wilhelm Marr

Marr describes his writing as “a ‘scream of pain’ coming from the oppressed” (p. 6). Marr sees Germans as having already lost the battle with Jewry: “Judaism has triumphed on a worldwide historical, basis. I shall bring the news of a lost battle and of the victory of the enemy and all of that I shall do without offering excuses for the defeated army.”

In other words, Marr is not blaming the Jews for their predominance in German society, but rather blaming the Germans for allowing this to happen. He sees historical hatred against Jews as due to their occupational profile (“the loathing Jews demonstrate for real work” — a gratuitously negative and overly generalized reference to the Jewish occupational profile) and to “their codified hatred against all non-Jews” (p. 8). Historical anti-Semitism often had a religious veneer, but it was actually motivated by “the struggle of nations and their response to the very real Judaization of society, that is, to a battle for survival…. I therefore unconditionally defend Jewry against any and all religious persecution” (p. 10).

Marr claims that Jews have a justified hatred toward Europeans:

Nothing is more natural than the hatred the Jews must have felt for those who enslaved them and abducted them from their homeland[i.e., the Romans; Marr seems unaware that the Jewish Diaspora predated the failed Jewish rebellions of the 1st and 2nd centuries]. Nothing is more natural than that this hatred had to grow during the course of oppression and persecution in the Occident over the span of almost two thousand years. … Nothing is more natural than that they responded using their inborn gifts of craftiness and cleverness by forming as ‘captives’ a state within a state, a society within a society. (p. 11)

Jews used their abilities to obtain power in Germany and other Western societies: “By the 19th century the amazing toughness and endurance of the Semites had made them the leading power within occidental society. As a result, and that particularly in Germany, Jewry has not been assimilated into Germanism, but Germanism has been absorbed into Judaism” (p. 11).

Marr claims that Judaism retreated in the face of “Christian fanaticism,” and achieved its greatest successes first among the Slavs and then among the Germans — both groups that were late in developing national cultures. He attributes the success of Jews in Germany to the fact that Germans did not have a sense of German nationality or German national pride (p. 12).

This is a point that I have also stressed: Collectivist cultures such as medieval Christianity tend to be bad for Jews because Jews are seen as an outgroup by a strongly defined ingroup. (See, e.g., here.) Moreover, a general trend in European society after the Enlightenment was to develop cultures with a strong sense of national identity where Christianity and/or ethnic origins formed a part. These cultures tended to exclude Jews, at least implicitly. An important aspect of Jewish intellectual and political activity in post-Enlightenment societies has been opposition to national cultures throughout Europe and other Western societies (see, e.g., here).

Marr credits Jews with bringing economic benefits to Germany: “There is no way to deny that the abstract, money-oriented, haggling mind of the Jews has contributed much to the flourishing of commerce and industry in Germany.” Although “racial anti-Semites” are often portrayed as viewing Jews as genetically inferior or even subhuman, a very strong tendency among racial anti-Semites is to see Jews as a very talented group. Marr clearly sees Jews as an elite.

Indeed, Marr sees the Germans as inferior to the Jews and as having a mélange of traits that caused them to lose the battle to Jews:

Into this confused, clumsy Germanic element penetrated a smooth crafty, pliable Jewry; with all of its gifts of realism [as opposed to German idealism], intellectually well qualified as far as the gift of astuteness is concerned, to look down upon the Germans and subduing the monarchical, knightly, lumbering German by enabling him in his vices. (p. 13)

What we [Germans] don’t have is the drive of the Semitic people. On account of our tribal organization we shall never be able to acquire such a drive and because cultural development knows no pause, our outlook is none other than a time when we Germans will live as slaves under the legal and political feudalism of Judaism. (p. 14)

Germanic indolence, Germanic stinginess, convenient Teutonic disdainfulness of expression are responsible [for the fact] that the agile and clever Israel now decides what one shall say and what not…. You have turned the press over to them because you find brilliant frivolity more to your liking than moral fortitude …. The Jewish people thrive because of their talents and you have been vanquished, as you should have been and as you have deserved a thousandfold.  (p. 30)

Are we willing to sacrifice? Did we succeed in creating even a single anti-Jewish leaning paper, which manages to be politically neutral? … To de-Judaize ourselves, for that we clearly lack physical and spiritual strength.

I marvel in admiration at this Semitic people which put its heel onto the nape of our necks. … We harbor a resilient, tough, intelligent foreign tribe among us, who knows how to take advantage of every form of abstract reality. (p. 24)

We are no longer a match for this foreign tribe. (p. 27)

As a result of his high estimation of Jews and low estimation of Germans, Marr claims that he does not hate Jews. It’s simply a war where one side loses. The conflict between Jews and Germans is “like a war. How can I hate the soldier whose bullet happens to hit me? — Does one not offer one’s hand as victor as well as a prisoner of war? … In my eyes, it is a war which has been going on for 1800 years” (p. 28).

Despite their long history of living together, Jews, unlike other peoples who have come to Germany, remain foreigners among the Germans  — the separatism that is fundamental to Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy (and hence my titles, A People that Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and Its Discontents):

[The Jew] was a typical foreigner to them and remained one until today; and yes, his exclusive Judaism, as we shall demonstrate in what follows, shows itself even more today after his emancipation, than it did in earlier times. (p. 13)

All other immigration into Germany … disappeared without a trace within Germanism; Wends and Slavs disappeared in the German element. The Semitic race, stronger and tougher, has survived them all. Truly! Were I a Jew, I would look upon this fact with my greatest pride. (p. 17)

One of Marr’s most interesting observations is his proposal that Germans formed idealistic images of Jews during the Enlightenment when others had more realistic and negative views. Jews are realists, accepting the world as it is and advancing their interests based on their understanding of this reality. Judaism is characterized by particularlst morality (Is it good for the Jews?). Germans, on the other hand, tend to have idealized images of themselves and others — to believe that the human mind can construct reality based on ideals that can then shape behavior. They are predisposed to moral universalism — moral rules apply to everyone and are not dependent on whether it benefits the ingroup.

[adrotate group=”1″]

This is a reference to the powerful idealist strand of German philosophy that has been so influential in the culture of the West. An illustrative example is American transcendentalism, a movement that created an indigenous culture of critique in 19th-century America. This perspective resulted in overly optimistic views of human nature and tended toward radical egalitarianism; it also provided the theoretical underpinnings the abolitionist movement among elite intellectuals like Ralph Waldo Emerson.

In particular, Marr notes that, whereas prominent and influential Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire were critics of Judaism (seeing it as reactionary tribalism), in Germany the most influential writer was Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729–1781). Lessing presented a very positive image of Judaism in his play Nathan the Wise. The Jewish Nathan (Marr calls him “Rothschild” to give it contemporary relevance) makes an eloquent plea for religious tolerance — while at the same time he finances the Muslim war against the Christian Crusaders. Marr suggests that Lessing engaged in a bit of self-deception: Despite his positive portrayal of Nathan as the essence of tolerance, “Lessing could not in his subconscious self overcome the identity of Jew and servant of Mammon” (p. 15).

The influence of Lessing was profound: “German idealism was captivated bythe legend of the ring [i.e., Lessing’s metaphor for religious tolerance], but missed that Lessing’s Nathan could only be — a character from a fable” (p. 16).

Marr suggests that instead of a fictional character like Nathan the Wise, Lessing should have seen 17th-century Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza as an illustration of what Judaism is really like. Whereas Nathan the Wise suggests that religious tolerance is a characteristic of Judaism, Marr interprets Spinoza’s fate as illustrating Jewish intolerance and fanaticism in the real world — features of Judaism also noted by several contemporary writers, most notably Israel Shahak, but also including Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire. Spinoza was hounded out of the Jewish community of Amsterdam because of his views on religion: “This truly great Jewish non-Jew had been cursed by his own tribal associates — all the way to attempted murderous assault” (p. 16). But in the 19th century, “woe to the German who dares to show the Jewish masses who the great Spinoza was and what he stood for!!” (p. 16).

Another trait of Germans that Marr sees as deleterious is “abstract individualism.” Marr states that Jewish economic success within capitalism is “in agreement with the dogma of ‘abstract individualism’ which you have accepted with enthusiasm from the hands of Judaism” (p. 30). In other words, Marr believed that individualism was something Jews imposed on Germany, not a tendency within the Germans themselves. (Contrary to Marr’s position, I have argued that the fundamental uniqueness of European peoples is a greater tendency toward individualism  than other human groups. Individualism then leads to moral universalism, a form of idealism, rather than the tribally-based morality of groups like the Jews.) As noted above, Marr (correctly) believed that individualistic societies are relatively defenseless against Jews, whereas societies centered around a strong collectivist religious core (e.g., medieval Christianity) or a strong sense of ethnic nationalism are more able to defend themselves.

Because of their grievances against Europeans, it is not surprising that Jews support revolution:

Who can hold it against the Jews that they happily welcomed the revolutions of 1789 and the one of 1848 and actively participated in them? “Jews, Poles and writers” was the battle cry of the conservatives in 1848. Well, of course, three suppressed factions!(p. 16)

Following his first decisive victory of 1848 he had to — whether he wanted to or not — pursue his success further and must now attempt to ruin the Germanic, Occidental world. (p. 28).

By 1848 Judaism had entirely ceased being a religion at all. It was “nothing else but the constitution of a people, forming a state within a state and this secondary or counter-state demanded certain material advantages for its members” (p. 17). Marr states that Jewish emancipation only meant political equality because Jews had already achieved “a leading and dominating role” (p. 17), and dominated all political factions except the Catholics. “The daily press is predominantly in Jewish hands, which have transformed journalism … into a business with public opinion; critique of the theater, of art in general — is to three quarters in the hands of Jews. Writing about politics and even religion is — in Jewish hands” (p. 19). While Jews are deeply involved in creating the culture of Germany, “Judaism has been declared a subject off-limits for us Germans. … To comment on [Jewish] rituals is ‘hatred’, but if the Jew takes it upon himself to pronounce the last word in our religious and state affairs, then it is quite a different matter” (p. 20).

Jews are particularly involved in the “culture struggle” against ultramontanism— the view that papal authority should extend over secular affairs. Ultramontanism was attacked by Jews because the Church “opposed Judaism for world domination.” Although opposition to ultramontanism was also an interest for many Germans, Jews did all the talking, and any criticism of Roman Catholicism was banned “if Israel was touched on ever so slightly!!” (p. 20).

Jews are powerful and they will continue to obtain more power. In the end, Germans will be at the mercy of the Jews:

Within less than four generations there will not be a single office in the land, including the highest, which will not have been usurped by the Jews. Yes, through Jewry Germany will become a world power, an Occidental Palestine… Jewry has fought the Occident for 1800 years. It has conquered and subjected it. We are the vanquished and it is quite in order that the victor chants ‘Vae Victis’ [woe to the vanquished]. (p. 22)

The Jew has no real religion, he has a business contract with Jehovah and pays his god with statutes and formulations and in return is charged with the pleasant task of exterminating all that is not Jewish. (p. 14)

Marr saw Russia as the only European nation that had resisted the Jewish onslaught. However, he believed that Russia would eventually fall by bloody revolution and this revolution would lead to the downfall of the West:

[Among European nations, only Russia] is left to still resist the foreign invasion. … [T]he final surrender of Russia is only a question of time. … Jewish resilient, fly-by-night attitude will plunge Russia into a revolution like the world might never have seen before. … With Russia, Jewry will have captured the last strategic position from which it has to fear a possible attack on its rear …. After it has invaded Russia’s offices and agencies the same way it did ours, then the collapse of our Western society will begin in earnest openly and in Jewish fashion. The ‘last hour’ of doomed Europa will strike at the latest in 100 to 150 years” (p. 24–25).

Indeed, Jews are already taking the lead in fomenting anti-Russian policy, as in the Russian-Turkish war. For example, ideas that “the insolence of the great sea power England might be curbed” by allying with Russia were banned from the Jewish newspapers (p. 26).

Marr is entirely pessimistic about the future, foreseeing a cataclysm:

The destructive mission of Judaism (which also existed in antiquity) will only come to a halt once it has reached its culmination, that is after Jewish Caesarism has been installed” (p. 28).

Jewry will have to face a final, desperate assault particularly by Germanism, before it will achieve authoritarian dominance. (p. 29)

Marr thinks that anti-Jewish attitudes will become powerful but ultimately they will fail to fend off disaster for the Germans and the West. Marr lays part of the blame on the fact that the only people who publicly oppose the Jews conceptualize them incorrectly as a religion. As a result, responsible, informed criticism of Jews that would appeal to non-religious people and intellectual elites never appears in the press: “A catastrophe lies ahead, because the indignation against the Judaization of society is intensified by the fact that it can’t be ventilated in the press without showing itself as a most abstruse religious hatred, such as it surfaces in the ultramontane and generally in the reactionary press” (p. 30). Nevertheless, even a “violent anti-Jewish explosion will only delay, but not avert the disintegration of Judaized society” (p. 30).

Regarding his own mission, Marr sees himself as a soldier fighting a lost cause:“I am aware that my journalist friends and I stand defenseless before Jewry. We have no patronage among the nobility or the middle class. Our German people are too Judaized to have the will for self-preservation (p. 32).

Marr concludes with the following:

The battle had to be fought without hatred against the individual combatant, who was forced into the role of attacker or defender. Tougher and more persistent than we, you became victorious in this battle between people, which you fought without the sword, while we massacred and burned you, but did not muster the moral strength to tell you to live and deal among your own. … 

Finis Germaniae

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

Get Smart! and Birth of a Nation: Lessons for White Cultural Emancipation

The deracination of Americans and Westerners in general has been a long process, achieved partly through ethnically blind processes such as assimilation and secularization but also by pressure applied by ethnically aware leftist and minority activists over many decades. The 1960s saw a surge of leftist and minority activist messages in popular culture.

One example among many is the popular comedy series Get Smart! about a blundering spy, Maxwell Smart. The program was created by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry (Henry Zuckerman) at the request of Daniel Melnick, whose partnership with David Susskind produced the show. Get Smart! was originally broadcast from 1965 until 1970 for a total of 138 episodes. The show starred Don Adams as Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, and Barbara Feldon (maiden name Hall) as the beautiful Agent 99. Feldon appears to have been one of the few non-Jews among Get Smart! principals.

The evil operative Ludwig von Siegfried appeared in 14 episodes of Get Smart! or 10% of the total. Siegfried speaks with a heavy German accent and dresses as a Nazi. His German and Nazi identities are presented as interchangeable, with heel-clicking made equivalent to Nazi-style uniforms. No ambiguity is allowed. Viewers never get to see normal Germans who reject killing or terror. Exemplifying the conflation of Germanness and Nazism is Smart’s retort to Siegfried after the latter showed technical know-how: “If you’re so smart how come you lost two world wars?” (“A Spy for a Spy” at about 4:13 mins.). Since the Nazis took power well after the First World War ended, this statement can only be true and effective as a slap at Siegfried if his external and subjective identities are German instead of Nazi.

The shaming of German identity impacts people of German descent everywhere, given the global reach of American culture. It helps maintain the demoralization of the German nation established in the post-WWII era. It also tends to alienate Americans from a major part of their European ancestry. This has direct relevance to America because German Americans are the country’s largest ethnic group and have become “old stock” — part of the core national population. Attacks on Germanness amount to attacks on White America. In his 2004 book Becoming old stock: The paradox of German-American identity (Princeton University Press) Russell Kazal observes that German identity is extremely weak in the United States, while others such as Irish are celebrated. He traces the cause to two events, the rapid assimilation of German immigrants during the 19th century and the suppression of German identity and communal organizations after the U.S. entered the First World War.

Major wars produce antagonisms that can last for many years, but the hatred of Germans in popular culture has continued unabated for many decades after the end of the Second World War. That war alone cannot explain what we receive on a daily basis from television, radio and press. Shows such as Get Smart! point to an antagonistic role for the mass media in general and Jewish bias in particular. “Nazifying the Germans” was well analysed by Ralph Raico in Chronicles (January 1997), who noted the connection with Jewish interests. The Nazi murder of millions of Jews is well known through saturation media treatment. But the murder of millions by communists is rarely mentioned. Raico links this to the hollowing out of Jewish identity by which Judaism is being replaced by tribulations and ethnic enemies. “[T]he growing secularization of Judaism and moral disarray of our culture [could] continue to make victims of the Germans and all the peoples of the West” (p. 17). The reduction of fifteen centuries of German history to an aberrant twelve year period has implications far beyond the working out of Jewish identity. It is also a weapon used to intimidate and discredit White ethnic activists.

When Molly Ivins . . . remarked of Pat Buchanan’s speech at the 1992 Republican convention, it sounded better in the original German,” everyone instantly knew what she meant. The casual slander was picked up by William Safire and others, and made the rounds. A constant din from Hollywood and the major media has helped instruct us on what “German” really stands for.

Get Smart! also adopted broad liberal ideology, sometimes in a revealing way. Here is an exchange that seems intended to poke fun at White ethnocentrism. Propaganda is constrained by the sensibilities of its audience and can only persuade at the margins. Thus even the most subversive programs are repositories of contemporary beliefs. Here is an extract from the episode “The Diplomat’s Daughter” broadcast in 1965 which acknowledges the general belief in that fateful year that the United States was a European-derived country. Smart is speaking with Kaos’s Chinese operative The Craw, played by Leonard Strong.

Smart: Perhaps you’d tell me Mr. Craw what you’ve done with all those blondes you’ve kidnapped?

Craw: They are all perfectly safe Mr. Smart. Actually the only girl we want is Princess Ingrid.

Smart: Then why did you abduct the others?

Craw: Unfortunately, Mr. Smart, all Americans look alike to us.

[Canned laughter.]

While on the subject of Get Smart! and ethnicity, here is an excerpt from an extended blooper in which Don Adams leaks the ethnic awareness that lies just below the surface in much of the entertainment industry. The leak takes the form of a rather blunt anti-Semitic phrase while in mock-conflict with Don Rickles, delivered in an accent that is much less evident in Agent 86. The reference to dollars might have been due to Adams having a financial stake in the later Get Smart! episodes.

Adams: Go to some other show. I’m fed up to here with ya.

Rickles: Do that again [laughing].

Adams: You’re a little Jew dwarf.

[General laughter on both sides of the camera.]

Adams: I’ve had it with you. Four days. This isn’t going with the wind [Gone with the Wind?]. We’re standing here, you’re doing 40 minutes, it’s costing me $8 million!”

Like all successful artists and entrepreneurs in the entertainment business, Adams was acutely aware of ethnicity. He categorized individuals by ethnicity as a matter of course, as did the writers, directors, and producers of Get Smart! and innumerable other programs. His humour frequently worked on ethnic themes, and the laughter was directed at predictable targets. In the Jewish milieu of which he formed a part, White Americans were always the other, even though his character was meant to be one of them.

White Americans will continue to lose the culture war — and their freedom and identity — until they retake the commanding heights of mass entertainment and guard that position with the same determination with which their forebears defended the nation’s physical borders.

How realistic is such a strategy? Achieving a monopoly on ethnic signalling in the mass media is surely impossible. And it is surely undesirable given European values of free expression. However it is reasonable — strategically and ethically — to seek a place in the Hollywood sun for producers, directors, writers and actors who are open White ethnic partisans. Producers like Merlin Miller should be supported as part of a project of establishing ethnic balance in mass entertainment.

Actually I doubt that Whites need balance in Hollywood; they only need a toehold. A mere trickle — a steady trickle — of honest films will be sufficient to arouse men and women of talent and compassion to take the lead in freeing their people from cultural enslavement.

That is not merely my opinion but it seems that of the leftist and Jewish media elite, based on their totalitarian quest to banish all expressions of White consciousness and loyalty. That is evident not only in recent years, for example the assault on Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ and the wave of elite hostility that met the first Dirty Harry film, both highly profitable. It has been evident since the American film industry was captured  by a Jewish group strategy between 1910 and 1920, as described by Neal Gabler in An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood.

The drive to take popular culture out of the hands of ethnically loyal Whites was boosted by one film in particular, D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, released in 1915 to public acclaim and Jewish horror. The film’s “racist” content is widely condemned. Nevertheless:

Film scholars agree, however, that it is the single most important and key film of all time in American movie history — it contains many new cinematic innovations and refinements, technical effects and artistic advancements, including a color sequence at the end. It had a formative influence on future films and has had a recognized impact on film history and the development of film as art.

What’s more, Birth of a Nation was profitable, the most profitable film for over two decades. President Wilson was reported to have described it as “like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”  Those with political awareness realized that a super weapon had been invented that would give its owners unprecedented power to influence public perceptions — to in effect construct culture.

Birth of a Nation is described as promoting “White supremacy” (e.g. here), but in fact it promoted White ethnic defence against the federal government’s reconstruction policy that had given Blacks power over White affairs in a White nation. In the film the KKK leaders adopted the Celtic cross, which they took to be a symbol of Scottish freedom. This fits the Scottish and Scots-Irish descent of many Southern Whites and is fundamentally a defensive orientation. The film also noted the Klan’s racial solidarity — a point intended to unite Whites from both sides of the Civil War. A caption toward the end of the film reads: “The former enemies of North and South are united in common defence of their Aryan birthright.”

The report of President Wilson’s favourable remark is probably accurate because in his own history of the Civil War era he criticized Reconstruction as lawless and the first KKK as a valid defence against it. Wilson’s book History of the American People was even quoted in the film at about the half-way point in three frames:

Adventurers swarmed out of the North, as much the enemies of the one race as of the other, to cozen, beguile, and use the negroes . . . In the villages the negroes were the office holders, men who knew none of the uses of authority, except its insolences.

The policy of the congressional leaders wrought . . . a veritable overthrow of civilization in the South . . . in their determination to ‘put the White South under the heel of the Black South.’

The White men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation . . . until at last there had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South, to protect the Southern country.

What is significant for White advocates is that the film took the perspective of White interests, even if, like all fictional creations, it used hyperbole and selective use of historical events. In one caption frame just before Wilson’s quotation, Griffith sought to blunt the negative image of Blacks that the film presented by claiming the film to be “an historical presentation of the Civil War and Reconstruction Period, and is not meant to reflect on any race or people of today.”

Birth of a Nation appeared just as the Second Ku Klux Klan was established in Atlanta and the success of the new organization’s recruitment drive has been attributed to the impact of the film (e.g. here) as well as to the role of wealthy Jews and Jewish-owned media (particularly the New York Times) in organizing anti-Georgia sentiment in the Leo Frank affair (see here). (In 1913 Leo Frank, a Jewish businessman, was convicted of murdering a 13-year-old girl in Atlanta. IIn 1915, he was lynched after his death sentence was commuted by the governor of Georgia. No one involved in the lynching was ever tried for a crime.  Then as now, Jewish activist organizations have advocated Frank’s innocence and have framed the affair as a flagrant example of anti-Semitism.)

Anti-immigration and anti-elite sentiment was in the air in 1915. The immigration restriction movement had been active for over two decades trying to slow an unprecedented influx of migrants from non-traditional source countries — Catholic southern Europe and Catholic and Jewish eastern Europe. The Klan was also one among many fraternal societies that were popular at the time among all ethnic groups for providing social security. The elite movers and shakers of the restrictionist movement, such as the Harvard intellectuals who ran the Immigration Restriction League, League member Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and sociologist Edward A. Ross, were decidedly not part of the KKK or other populist organizations. On the other side, as described in Kevin MacDonald’s chapter in The Culture of Critique, the major promoters of open-door immigration were Jewish elites, already influential in the press.

Thus the film was really a catalyst that accelerated a reaction already in motion among the White masses.  It was to be joined by war hysteria and revulsion and fear at the communism being introduced by immigrants, the “red scare” of the Bolshevik Revolution years.  This explains and Second KKK’s anti-Communism and anti-Catholicism and also the remarkable success enjoyed for a time by an organization fatally flawed by its separation from the Anglo elite.

It was in this context that the film acted as a recruitment vehicle for the Second KKK by legitimating and romanticising it before a mass audience. The Second KKK’s membership soared to over 4 million in the 1920s, about 15% of the eligible citizenry of the United States, though it rapidly subsided following the cathartic success of the 1924 immigration act and under the burden of corruption and ineptitude on the part of the its leadership, as well as some lawless acts that included lynchings, and a massive media assault led by the Jewish-owned New York World and joined by many elite Anglos.

Since the release of Birth of a Nation, the entertainment elite has behaved as if just one quality film that articulates White interests is a threat. And I think they have been right. It made sense for ethnically-minded Hollywood moguls to welcome outside Jewish oversight of film content, which they did from the 1920s, because patriotic films that are profitable — providing positive feedback to cultural products that empower White America — are a credible threat to Jewish and thus leftist and minority power over American culture.

Whites desperately need films and television-quality shows that portray the devastation wrought by Third World immigration, minority dysfunction and Jewish ethnic enmity, and which do so entertainingly through stories that take White perspectives. Whites need dramas and comedies — programs as engaging as Get Smart! but which also keep White interests before the public  and repeatedly identify the threats to White interests both contemporary and historical. We need films that portray the potential benefits of a White republic, which can be truthfully told in historical dramas of pre-1965 America. In that sense the past is a promise that can be made real and reclaimable — the return of community, of the vibrant inner city life that would return once the minority presence was reduced, of fewer people bowling alone, of the return of dignity to labour as the immigrant flood is halted and reversed, and of the leadership that America could once again give to the rest of the Western world once its governing elites are of, by and for the people.

Creating those images and those stories is an achievable and noble goal and a necessary condition for taking back America.

Charles Dodgson (email him) is the pen name of an English social analyst.

Permanent link:  http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/2010/01/get-smart-and-birth-of-a-nation-lessons-for-white-cultural-emancipation/

The Archaeology of Postmodernity, Part III: Transvestism in Music

The Austrian statesman Clemens von Metternich once declared that the Orient started southeast of the city walls of Vienna. Western Europe’s centuries-long confrontation with Oriental empires helped define Central Europe as a cultural and historical frontier region.  The experience of imperial subjugation and multi-ethnicity — an Eastern European patchwork of ethnic groups with different languages, cultures, and traditions living closely together — became essential parts of the Central European historical experience.

Schloss Schönbrunn, Vienna

As Anthony Alofsin points out, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was “a collage of so many nationalities that it could never be transformed into a unified nation-state.” Within this collage, Jews achieved cultural preeminence. As Robert S. Wistrich points out,

In 1900, Gustav Mahler was the leading conductor and composer in the city, Karl Kraus its high priest of satire, Arthur Schnitzler its outstanding playwright, Adolf von Sonnenthal its greatest actor.  The founder of the Austrian Social Democratic Party, Victor Adler, was a ‘Protestant’ Jew and many of his leading associates were middle-class Jewish intellectuals. Sigmund Freud had just published his epoch-making Interpretation of Dreams and psychoanalysis was about to be born. Waiting in the wings were such central figures of twentieth-century culture as Arnold Schoenberg, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Buber and Franz Kafka, not to mention writers like Joseph Roth, Richard Beer-Hofmann, Felix Salten, Stefan Zweig and Peter Altenberg – all of them of Jewish origin.

Alexander Ringer points out, perhaps defensively, that “as long as familiarity with New England transcendentalism or American individualism is considered indispensable for a meaningful appraisal of Charles Ives and his particular mission, Arnold Schoenberg, his exact contemporary and eventual fellow American, deserves equally serious attention in equivalent Jewish terms.”

In this context, the significance of Schoenberg’s “antirational” view of art and his personal experiences with anti-Semitism in the early 1920s has been emphasized:

His acknowledgement that he could not escape his Jewish heritage initiated a protracted period of reflection upon Jewish issues from both theological and political points of view culminating in the early 1930s with yet another attempt to give a comprehensive statement of his position by means of words and music — this time in his opera Moses and Aron, which presents his personal vision of Judaism.

The moment of truth is usually believed to have come in 1921, when he was asked for his certificate of baptism (to prove that he was not a Jew) while on holiday in Mattsee, near Salzburg (Austria).  Schoenberg explicitly articulated his identification with a classically Jewish perspective and declared himself “no longer a European” but a Jew, in a letter to the painter Wassily Kandinsky written in 1923:

For I have at last learnt the lesson that has been forced upon me during this year, and I shall not ever forget it. It is that I am not a German, not a European, indeed perhaps scarcely even a human being (at least, the Europeans prefer the worst of their race to me), but I am a Jew. I am content that it should be so! Today I no longer wish to be an exception; I have no objection at all to being lumped together with all the rest. … We are two kinds of people. Definitively!

Schoenberg’s statements of an explicitly Zionist position begin in 1924, when he, according to Nicholas Cook, “argued that only military victory could secure a Jewish state in Palestine against its enemies.” In The Biblical Way (1926) he presented his belief in the necessity of an exodus of European Jewry in the form of a psychodrama.

In a letter of 13 June 1933, after Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, Schoenberg declared: “It is necessary to give up all Western acquisitions; we are Asians and nothing essential binds us to the West. … We must return to our origins.” A few weeks later, Schoenberg stated that he planned “a long tour of America, which could perhaps turn into a world tour, to persuade people to help the Jews in Germany.” He explains that he considers this more important than his art, and that he is determined “to do nothing in the future but work for the Jewish national cause.” On another occasion during the same year he states it explicitly: “I offer the sacrifice of my art for the sake of Jewry.”

Arnold Schoenberg: His sometimes banal use of language is expressed in Die Sanftergebenen: “O wie schön lebt sich’s doch im Dreck” (Oh, how beautiful it is to live in the muck).

Although Schoenberg — whose ancestry included both rabbis and cantors — for a period of time discarded the Jewish faith for Lutheran Protestantism, the proximity of his ideas to Jewish theological thought remained obvious. Adorno had a point when he asserted that Schoenberg translated the Old Testament ban on images into music: Dissonance can be seen as an expression of the need to change forms of expression in art, absolutely necessary in order to fulfill the old Jewish prohibition on images.

As William E. Benjamin points out, “Schoenberg realized that Judaism provided a historical model for what he was attempting as an artist.” Robert Wistrich emphasizes the “connection between Schoenberg’s musical agenda, his Jewish identity and the commitment to a Jewish national renewal (by returning to the essence of ancient Judaism)”: “The Mosaic aversion to idolatry, to visible symbols and mystery, as well as the Judaic call for the triumph of rational consciousness, are harnessed by Schoenberg to the cause of twentieth-century modernist expressionism.”

In Judaism, as in Islam, it was sacrilegious to make a figurative representation of God. With very few exceptions, there were no Jewish painters before the Russian artist Marc Chagall, who had to come to Paris to paint.”

Gleichgewichtsstörung: The Schoenberg-KandinskyTango

Schoenberg’s friendship and cooperation with the Russian painter Wassily Kandinsky — a philosemite who was erroneously listed as a Jew in the Grosse Jüdische National-Biographie (1929) — underscores the impact of the blurring of boundaries between art forms, as well as the underlying, religiously motivated, “aniconic” (i.e., without icons) or “iconoclastic” thematic structure. Music meant a great deal to Kandinsky; he referred to his own paintings as “compositions,” and became deeply interested in Schoenberg’s attempts to establish correspondences between musical tones and colors, and in his rejection of the traditional tonal order.

A new kind of transvestism among the arts was thus born:

We see, for example, a painter who wrote an opera libretto (Kokoschka), a poet who composed music (Pound), and a composer who painted pictures (Schoenberg). It is as if artistic talent were a kind of libido, an electricity that could discharge itself with equal success in a poem, a sonata, or a sculpture. Throughout the modernist movement, the major writers and composers both enforced and transgressed the boundaries among the various arts with unusual energy – almost savage at times.

As Christian Meyer, director of the Arnold Schoenberg Center in Vienna, points out:

The first decade of the twentieth century saw an almost simultaneous musical and visual revolution. Because of Schoenberg’s innovations, musicians were freed from the system of tempered tonality.  At the same time, painters, especially Kandinsky, broke away from the system of central perspective and figural representation. These traditions had been legitimated for centuries by an overwhelming number of masterpieces and were so universally sanctioned that they had come to be regarded as the unquestioned essence of both arts. This explains the anarchist energy that had to be unleashed to liberate music and painting from the bonds of tradition, and at the same time it illuminates the “atonal character” of pre-World War I painting in Europe, which reflects this revolution.  While Schoenberg’s music was an inspiration to Kandinsky as he explored abstraction, today Kandinsky’s paintings function as ambassadors for Schoenberg’s musical works.  The strong colorful essence of Kandinsky’s prewar works has the same richness of sound colors in Schoenberg’s compositions.

Schoenberg approved of Kandinsky’s Der gelbe Klang with its “ungraspable” dimension, comparing it to his own Die glückliche Hand – a work that, according to Christopher Butler, explicitly challenged “the ‘laws’ of art as imposed by the Academy, along with the order of society as a whole.” According to James Leggio, Kandinsky’s “floating sensations” and celestial aspirations were reflections of Schoenberg’s release from “the gravitational grip of tonality”, a feeling of “weightlessness.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Kandinsky explained to Schoenberg that Der gelbe Klang was based on the anti-geometrical type of construction attained “by the ‘principle’ of dissonance.” Referring to the Ten Commandments in a letter to Schoenberg, he emphasized the power of negation and the difference between the law as a sign (word) and its signified (the meaning of the law). Kandinsky broke the link between the sign and a transcendental linguistic signified and hence equated art with reality.  As with Schoenberg, the artistic form is conceived as pure perception — independent of external references. This flight from meaning (in the traditional sense) eventually reached its final destination with the Dadaists: “The Dada Manifesto of 1918 proclaimed proudly and in capital letters: DADA DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING.”  As their contemporary Ferdinand de Saussure stated: “The bond between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.”

Kandinsky and Schoenberg viewed their urge to change forms of expression as motivated by the desire to comply with the ancient Jewish prohibition against images. The old Jewish prohibition on images is characterized by its ability to uphold a separation between the pictorial and its referent, that is, the difference between the sign and what it signifies.

Vassily Kandinsky’s Impression III (Concert), painted immediately after attending a concert featuring Schoenberg’s music in Munich on 2 January 1911

Steven Beller cites Schoenberg’s maxim “music should not decorate, it should be true,” and suggests that his explicit invocation of musical logic (most obviously in his serialism) represents an “invasion of the world of aesthetics by the ethical impulse of truth.” Beller comments that “it does not seem improbable that this stemmed from attitudes whose origins lay in his Jewish background.” Nicholas Cook agrees: “The whole debate about ornamentation … might be seen as resulting from the application to art of traditional Jewish thinking.” Both Schoenberg and Heinrich Schenker have been described as “Grenzjuden” (frontier Jews) — both cultural insiders and alienated outsiders.  Schenker held that Jews are “the compulsory instructors of humanity.”

The Jewish position, inclined to abstraction as in the work of Schoenberg, stood in tension with the aesthetic hedonism of the official Catholic culture of Austrian society.” No wonder, then, that shouting and scuffling accompanied the 1908 premiere of Schoenberg’s Second Quartet in Vienna — a work that certainly did not result in aesthetic pleasure in the audience. A near-riot erupted on March 31, 1913, at an orchestral concert in Vienna in which works by Mahler, Berg, Webern, Zemlinsky, and Schoenberg were played.

As Carl Schorske points out,

The system Schoenberg thus devised was no return to the hierarchical, privileged order of the diatonic system.  Yet its democracy of twelve tones would cohere again in a systematic way: in a hidden order, created by the composer — one in which above and below, forward and back, were related visibly to the analytic mind, even though not generally accessible to the listening ear. … Schoenberg as psychological Expressionist confronted his listener with an art whose surface was broken, charged with the full life of feeling of man adrift and vulnerable in the ungovernable universe; yet beneath it he posited out of his own powers a subliminal, inaudible world of rational order that would integrate the chaos. Here liberated dissonance became a new harmony; psychological chaos, a meta-sensuous order. … Thus Schoenberg the artist, even as he turned back to the faith of his fathers and submission to God, became man the creator, what Goethe would have called ‘der kleine Gott der Welt.’

At a personal level, Schoenberg was hardly a moral icon. Richard Taruskin points out that Schoenberg’s personality “was as absolutist and despotic as any dictator’s,” and that “his personal relationships could be repellently exploitative.” Schoenberg’s only name for skeptics, adversaries, or opponents was “enemies.”

The big step that others called the leap into “atonality,” a term that he deplored for its negativity, Schoenberg called pantonality or the “emancipation of dissonance.” Schoenberg characterized the Tristan chords as “spies reconnoitering weaknesses” to be exploited “in order to create confusion”.  But, as Taruskin points out, it was not dissonance itself that had been emancipated: It was the composer who was liberated “from the constraints of ‘voice leading rules’ whereby dissonance was subordinated to consonance in traditional harmony and counterpoint.”

The assertion that Schoenberg’s atonality represents a consequence of the chromaticism of Wagner’s Tristan und Isolde has been commonplace for quite some time.  Heinrich Schenker held that Wagner was directly to blame for the excesses of Schoenberg and his school.  But, as Richard Taruskin points out, the Wagnerian “crisis of tonality” was not Wagnerian at all: “It was read back into Wagner by Schoenberg’s apologists”:

Wagner used the chromaticism of Tristan und Isolde to delay to the point of torture the harmonic resolution that would symbolize the slaking of sexual desire. That harmonic tension … was the mainspring that controlled the syntax of what we now call “tonal” music.  Did the delays caused by Wagner’s chromaticism attenuate that harmonic tension? Don’t be silly.  They only magnified it, vastly so.  Wagner’s chromaticism gave tonality a new source of strength and expressivity. The consequences Schoenberg drew from Wagner’s musical style were entirely idiosyncratic and ahistorical, inevitable only in eyes blinded by “dialectic.”  To say the very least, they had nothing to do with Wagner’s creative aims, least of all in Tristan.

Schoenberg’s style recognized “no distinction between consonance and dissonance, so that harmonically speaking, literally anything goes.” Schoenberg once cracked to a pupil, “Now that I’ve emancipated dissonance, anybody can be a composer.” Removing the qualitative distinction between consonance and dissonance “eliminates the concept of the one being beautiful and the other ugly.”

While Wagner in his heyday took center stage, Schoenberg remained marginal or sectarian, as noted by Leon Botstein:

In contrast to Wagner, Schoenberg’s music and the rhetorical strategy employed in its defense (designed largely by Schoenberg himself) never achieved wide acceptance. … [F]rom the beginning, in the face of controversy, [Schoenberg’s] assertion of artistic integrity assumed a nearly puritanical façade of ethical superiority. Schoenberg’s envy of Stravinsky, Ravel, Respighi, and Bartók took the form of high-minded moralizing about aesthetic concessions and superficialities.

Nevertheless, it is a matter of fact that without Schoenberg, our era would have made a different sound.” As Jacques Le Rider points out, the utopias of mysticism, genius and narcissism – as responses to “feelings of solitude, ego-fragility, and instability” – had in common the striving to transcend limitations imposed by tradition: “they negate the male/female dichotomy and tend towards an androgynous ideal; they aim at the auto-destruction of a self that suffers because it cannot accept its contingent qualities (sex, race, etc.) and at the creation of a more perfect self.”

As Taruskin notes,

Surmounting the majory/minor dichotomy, voiding all distinctions between particular keys, was for him an achievement comparable to embodying androgyny or double gender. … To his pupil Anton Webern he confided that pantonality, like androgyny, “has given rise to a higher race!”

As Jacques Le Rider points out, “Viennese modernism recognised that [the] old certainties had crumbled. The androgynism of the modern psyche and the inextricable commingling of Jew and non-Jew had given rise to the most bewildering confusion.”

Egon Friedell presented his essay on Peter Altenberg (“the Zarathustra of the Café Central”) as a “natural history” of the human race in process of mutation. Indeed, the phenomenon of Schoenberg “stemmed from an intellectual Gesamtkunstwerk, closely related to new ideas then overflowing from science, literature, and painting that quickly intermingled with those emanating from music per se.”

It has been suggested that the formation and evaluative assessment of systems in relativistic or quantum physics and atonalistic or dodecaphonic music are inspired by the same operative principles and insights, and that there is “a historical-cultural link between these two system mutations as such and the new world-view they produced” (e.g. probability taking over from determinism, the pivotal role of the observer, theoretical pluralism, etc.). In many respects the determinism inherent in tonality theory reflected the determinism in classical physics. In a similar fashion, quantum physics and atonality share an indeterministic rationale, affirmed in the principle of probability and in the disappearance of external determinism (tonality).  As Mark Delaere points out: “In quantum physics external determinism and causality were toppled. The description of reality in terms of probability represented the triumph of ontological determinism over the mechanical determinism of classical physics.”

The ‘twelve-tone idea’ can be defined as a systematic circulation of all the twelve pitch classes based on “transposition, inversion, retrograde, and retrograde-inversion”; a shift from harmony as its principal structural determinant and toward counterpoint, reversing the stylistic change that occurred from Bach to Mozart by returning again to polyphonic thinking,” as noted by John Covach (pp. 604–610).

Delighting in parody and outrage, the avant-garde, according to Richard Drain, “fought a guerilla war against bourgeois culture”, the first onslaught of which came with futurism (launched in 1909), followed by Dadaism in 1916. Dada preferred non-Western cultures to ‘modern’ culture, opposed all –isms, including modernism, favoured spontaneity and a cabaret environment, cubist paintings and cacophonous music. Relativity – a key modernist notion, invoked also by the Dadaists and the futurists – was used “to deflate the status of ‘objective’ truth, license multiple viewpoints, and release them from the judgement of a final authority.”

Indeed, transmutations parallel to the convergence between Kandinsky’s painting and Schoenberg’s twelve-tone music – a turning point sometimes described as a ‘Metaphysik des Schwebens’, i.e. a ‘floating’ condition between the subject and the world – can also be seen in a general shift away from apparently absolute certainties in the direction of relativity: Boasian anthropology, denying the concept of race; Saussurean linguistics, insisting that there are no positive quantities but only differences; Gödel’s incompleteness theorem; the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle and the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’, marking the advent of a “postmodern” science characterized by “paradox, uncertainty, and the limits of precise measurement”; Einstein’s theory of relativity; Nietzsche’s scorn for the unfounded pretences of religion, logic, or history; Freudian “decentring” of homo sapiens, not to mention expressionism, surrealism, absurdism, Cubism (Picasso’s “extravagant deformations”), Dadaism, and atonalism in the arts.  Charles Lemert has pointed out that the rise of the relativistic paradigm – or relativistic deconstructionism – was based on the conviction that reality itself is not self-evident and orderly. Relativism is critical of traditional rationality, uncritical realisms, strict tonalisms, objectivisms, and systematic explanations.

This development set off a chain reaction that paved the way for the critical dismantling of Western tradition and traditional modes of thought, the cultural logic of deconstructionism or The Culture of Critique, according to which “the Western ideal of hierarchic harmony and assimilation” was gradually destabilized and perceived as “an irrational, romantic, and mystical ideal.”  The outcome was a gigantic meltdown of a whole civilization’s “cultural DNA structure,” a transition to “liquid” (post-)modernity through a memetic “epidemiology of ideas,” inventing a kind of “assembly line nihilism.”  The age of the gardeners has been succeeded by the age of the hunters and the order of chaos and wilderness.

Jacques Attali was right: music is prophecy. Music makes mutations audible.

Part I: Viennese Mutations

Part II: The Emancipation of Dissonance

E. R. E. Knutsson (email him) is a freelance write

Gabriel Schoenfeld exists in an alternate universe

Gabriel Schoenfeld’s The Weekly Standard  article “Back to the Future: British Anti-Semitism Returns with a Vengeance” is the sort of thing that makes you want to bang your head against a wall. The idea is that those virulent anti-Semites John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt managed to “peddle” their vicious article on the Israel lobby to the London Review of Books when it was sensibly rejected by American publishers. It then metastasized into a book that was much admired in the US by the likes of David Duke and pretty much no one else. The “respectable middle” were on page with Leslie Gelb’s authoritative review in the august New York Times which accused them of “shoddy scholarship” that promoted anti-Semitism. As I noted in an earlier blog, “Some of Gelb’s charges might even seem reasonable—if you haven’t read the book.”

The fact that Mearsheimer and Walt managed to first publish their monstrosity in England is no accident. After all, the Brits are a bad lot and always have been. Anti-Semitism has deep roots in England. In the 12th century, many of the country’s Jews were put to the sword in a wave of massacres. The 13th century began with the introduction of the yellow badge, the mandatory marking that Jews were compelled to wear, and ended with the mass expulsion of the Jews.”

There you have it. Nothing much has changed in England since the 12th century when it comes to the Jews. Anti-Semitism remained rampant in England throughout the 20thcentury, going underground when the Brits were fighting the Nazis (who were even more anti-Jewish), but re-emerging now into the open. In its latest incarnation, it manifests itself as hatred toward Israel.

According to Schoenfeld, this irrational anti-Jewish hate is more obvious than ever.  You can tell that because Britain is now “a congenial home” where radical Muslims “preach their genocidal doctrines.” (Never mind the role of Jewish organizations in facilitating immigration into England and opposing nationalist parties like the BNP that want to keep England English. See Ch. 7 of Culture of Critique.)

In fact, right now Parliament is considering a law to force Jews to report to concentration camps.

No wait. Actually, it’s an inquest into how Tony Blair made the decision to join in the Iraq invasion. Not only that, but a newspaper columnist had the temerity to complain that two of the panelists were Jews. Another chimed in that this complaint was “helpful” because the war was “initiated .  .  . by a group of influential American neocons .  .  . nearly all of whom were ardent Zionists.” And the London Times didn’t even label all of this “anti-Semitic.”

And then there was Peter Oborne’s program (see Martin Webster’s TOO article) on the influence  of the Israel Lobby: “With shades of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and shades of Mearsheimer-Walt, the program conveyed a picture of a nefarious conspiracy to plunge Britain into war in Iraq.”

The last straw is the court decision that an Orthodox school is guilty of discrimination for insisting on matrilineal descent as a criterion of admission. Schoenfeld puts ‘discrimination’ in quotes because, you see, it’s not discrimination if Jews do it. Surely it’s obvious that Jews (and no one else) ought to be able to discriminate on the basis of biological descent.

Obviously, Jews like Schoenfeld (and they’re the ones we keep hearing from in the media) are out of touch with reality. This is Abe Foxman on steroids. In Scheonfeld’s eyes, the inquest into the Blair government’s actions and the Oborne program are nothing more than updated examples of centuries-old anti-Jewish hatred. No need to look at what actually happened.

Indeed, the very thought that Jews might be biased against finding that Jews whose main allegiance is to Israel were the major force behind the decision of the British government to join the Iraq invasion is so obviously wrongheaded that even asking the question betrays vicious hatred of Jews. By their very nature Jews are impartial and completely uninfluenced by their ethnic identification. Schoenfeld doubtless sees himself as an exemplar of evenhandedness — completely above the fray and able to judge Israel’s actions and all things Jewish with brutal, impartial honesty.

Schoenfeld and the rest of these Jewish spokespeople are living in an alternate universe — a universe where mundane things like facts and truth are irrelevant. It’s an absolute article of faith that Jewish behavior is always — always —completely irrelevant to anti-Semitism. No matter how much money Jewish activists and organizations shower on politicians and no matter now much media they own and influence, Jews never actually influence anything. And if they do happen to have a slight influence, they only want the best for everyone. There could not possibly be legitimate conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews.

There is simply no way to communicate with people like Schoenfeld. And that’s a big part of the problem.

Bookmark and Share