Featured Articles

Goodbye, America! (Part 1)

Kevin MacDonald’s review of Wilhelm Marr’s pamphlet, Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum, 1879, (“The Victory of Judaism over Germanism”), is a fascinating compendium of pessimistic quotations in which German political pundit Marr concludes gloomily that there was no hope left for Germany. It was finished — yes, as early as the 1870s. The Jews, he lamented, were simply too formidable a foe. Marr’s pamphlet ends with these chilling words:

Let us accept the inescapable, since we cannot change it. Its name is: FINIS GERMANIAE — the end of Germany!

I confess I had no idea the outlook was so bleak in Germany as early as 1879. (Marr’s pamphlet has recently been translated into English and is now available in pdf format).  I had been under the false impression that the notion of Jewish domination came much later — after the publication of the Protocols (1903) and the Russian Revolution (1917).

We have seen it all happen though. Germany was brought to its knees, exactly as Marr predicted. Its cadaver now lies rotting.

Exactly a year ago, the state of Israel demanded from Germany a further 1 billion Euros ($1.4 billion) in Holocaust reparations for its endlessly traumatized Jewish survivors. Sixty-five years after World War II, the grim extortion racket continues unabated.

The subject that interests me — and which should be of vital importance to Americans undergoing an almost identical trauma at the hands of organized Jewry today — is the question: to what extent was Germany in the days before Hitler’s rise to power a dress rehearsal for what we are witnessing in America right now? What are the parallels?  Is it time to write America’s obituary?

Is it time to say, FINIS AMERICAE — the end of America?

Here is a pertinent, relatively modern quotation which will serve as a useful coda to the doomladen citations from Marr. Read it carefully. It will not only hammer home the points made by Marr several decades earlier, it will also provide the reader with a sharp reminder of the parallel situation in which America finds itself today.

With one significant difference: America is in a far worse condition.

Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) and his controversial pamphlet of 1879, predicting the end of Germany — sixty-six years before Germany’s catastrophic defeat in World War II in 1945.

Historian Sir Arthur Bryant summarizes Jewish power in pre-1933 Germany:

It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities…They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich [my emphasis]. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation… But to those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions…

The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions [in spite of constituting] less than one percent of the population [my emphasis]… The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press — all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed… The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly…

Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation [my emphasis]. … At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. … It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed — and lavishly displayed — by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle. Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory (1940) (slightly edited for brevity)

Throughout history, Christianity, and especially the Catholic Church, has been a countervailing force against organized Jewry — against a “stiff-necked” people who, while claiming spotless innocence and invariably framing their detractors as irrational and pathological haters, have nevertheless been expelled from no fewer than 109 locations since the year AD250.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Why has contemporary Christianity failed so abysmally to stand up to the encroachments of organized Jewry and its influence?

This is a question I will attempt to answer now.

The Christian Zionists and organized Jewry: fools conned by knaves

Despite its history as the only Western institution that has been able at times to resist Jewish power, the Catholic Church, of which I am a hopelessly dysfunctional practising member, has proved to be an acute disappointment. It has been thoroughly subverted from within and without. It offers neither guidance nor leadership. So forget the Catholics—a spent force. 

One is also forced to conclude that there is little hope that American Protestants could come to the rescue. Their infatuated legions — particularly the 60 million Christian Zionists who constitute the most influential group among them — are in many ways as rabid as the fanatical Jews who seem to have infected them with their zealotry, egging them on to find solace in eschatological ecstasies and millenarian mumbojumbo.

Life is indeed so empty and sterile for these wretched lumpengoyim that the only thing that excites their sluggish sensitivities is the prospect of Armageddon and the thought of universal and catastrophic death — the quicker the better.

Whipped into a frenzy of religious fervor by the Grahams and the Robertsons, the Falwells and the Hagees, the Lindseys and the La Hayes, these Christian Zionists have become imitation Jews almost indistinguishable from Vladimir Jabotinski and Baruch Goldstein. They believe in a Greater Israel — entailing further conquests of Arab Land — and in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They have “adopted” illegal settlements and they directly finance the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the uprooting of olive trees, and the daily oppression of the rightful owners of the Holy Land. They pray every Sunday in their vast soulless churches for the destruction of Iran. And if push came to shove, they would gladly give their blessings to genocide — and call it “the will of God.”

John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel: “Fifty million evangelical Christians unite with five million American Jews, standing together on behalf of Israel….The man or nation that lifts a voice or hand against Israel invites the wrath of God.”

There are now 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy preaching their message of madness to these ill-educated Christian masses — in many ways as gullible and gormless as medieval peasants.  The pernicious views of their “pastors” are disseminated by 1000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations. See here.

Consider the unimaginable war crimes committed by the state of Israel just over a year ago in Gaza. The world saw it happen. Judge Goldstone saw it happen. His meticulously documented report makes it abundantly clear that Israel is a criminal nation and that its politicians and generals are steeped in criminality.

Yet here is Grace Halsell: “Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.”

When I first read this, I couldn’t believe my eyes. Was this woman crazy? Where had she been since 1948? Hadn’t she heard of the Goldstone Report? Did she have no inkling of Israeli war crimes: of Deir Yassin (1948), the Lavon affair (1954), the Sabra and Shatila war crimes (1982), Qana (17 villages wiped out 1996), the Jenin massacre (2002), the Lebanon and Egyptian terrorist attacks and the atrocities in Iraq from 1990 to the present time, the horrific Gaza invasion of 2009? Had she never heard of the King David Hotel bombing of the British? Had she never heard of the Hebron Mosque massacre by Baruch Goldstein? Had she never heard of the sneak attack on the USS Liberty? Had she never heard of American state secrets sold to the Soviets and Chinese?  Had she never heard of white phosphorus and cluster bombs and DIME weapons that slice babies’ bodies in half?

I need not have worried.

Halsell, I was relieved to learn, was being ironic. She opposed Zionism as much as I did — as any sane and reasonable person would.

Why Contemporary America is far worse off than pre-National Socialist Germany

I have been accused of needless defeatism by some of my anti-Zionist colleagues. America is far from dead, they assure me. It’s alive and kicking. It’s just a matter of time before good patriotic Americans rise from their slumber, reclaim lost ground, and take back their country.

I wish I could feel as sanguine about America’s prospects as these optimists do.

I should like to convince you that the problems facing Germany were far less formidable than the problems facing any potential American rescuer today.

One of the serious negative factors facing America today — a problem the Germans never had — is the existence of vast numbers of Christian Zionists in their midst.

Germany of course had to cope with organized Jewry, a group working from within to undermine the foundations of German society. But one scourge Germany did not have, and which America has, is this scourge of a non-Jewish enemy within: the 60 million Christian Zionists acting in cahoots with organized Jewry to oppose the interests of their own people.

America’s Christian Zionists, it would seem, are their own worst enemy — blithely planning their own demise without knowing it.

So here is Problem Number One for those of you who dream that America could once again become the self-conscious ethnic possession of people of European ancestry:  What are you going to do with these 60 million White American renegades who have joined forces with the Enemy? Who are as Jewish as Ariel Sharon or Abe Foxman. Who are hand in glove with AIPAC. Who think ADL means ‘Advanced Divine Leadership’.

How are you going to fit these thoroughly Judaized allies of organized Jewry into your White Homeland?

It cannot be done. So you have a big problem.

Israel and its Jewish-American Double Agents

Another big problem America needs to solve that Germany did not have to cope with is the state of Israel and its powerful lobby in America. Germany did not have Israel hanging round its neck like an albatross. The Germans were not induced to fight wars on behalf of a foreign country. They didn’t invade other countries in order to make the world safe for Israel.

“Since September 11, 2001, the Israeli state, Zionists inside the US government, and the entire leadership of the Major American Jewish Organizations, have been entirely devoted to pushing the US into Middle East wars on behalf of Israel.” — James Petras, see here.

“Today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” — Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, in a speech to the Tenth Islamic Summit Conference at Putrajaya, Malaysia, October 16, 2003.

Almost 5,000 U.S. military personnel have now been sacrificed for Israel in Iraq. These are the “officially acknowledged” figures. The real figures have been put at between 50,000 and 70,000 and are now probably higher. (See here and here.) The number of seriously injured soldiers are perhaps ten times the number of the dead. Meanwhile, the number of Iraqis slaughtered amount to 1.3 million, with four times as many driven into neighboring countries as homeless refugees. The cost to the American taxpayer is (to date) $980 billion, with a total cost of $3 trillion projected if and when the mindless carnage is ever complete. See here.

I think that even the enemies of Zionism before 1948 failed to appreciate the extent to which organized Jewry would maximize its power once it had acquired its own headquarters and homeland — complete with its own military arsenal and espionage facilities. Archimedes provides a hint in his famous quote on the lever, often loosely translated as: “Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.” The Jews now have “a place to stand” — and they certainly are “moving the world.”

The Germans, in addition, did not have a powerful Jewish Lobby holding the entire German government to ransom. German politicians, unlike American ones, were not on Israel’s payroll via campaign contributions from AIPAC and its fabulously rich Jewish supporters. These political donations or “reward money” are bribes in all but name.

Apart from the carrot, there is of course the stick, wielded to good effect by organized Jewry against all American critics of Israel. “Their willing use of force, money and media slander,” James Petras points out, “intimidates any and all critics, including dissident politicians, media, journalists and professors.”

In pre-WW2 Germany, the Mossad did not exist. No Mossad was around to monitor the Internet activities of German politicians to see what financial or sexual shenanigans they were up to. Today, in America, it is reasonable to assume that there is constant surveillance of American politicians by Mossad — if not by AIPAC, the ADL, and their various affiliates. Indeed, the ADL famously settled a spy case that yielded documents with 10,000 names and 600 organizations thought to be insufficiently slavish toward Israel. Legal filings from the case showed that an ADL agent had a floor plan and a key for the office of Alex Odeh, a murdered Arab American leader.

It follows that the potential for blackmailing American politicians (by Israel’s agents) must today be enormous. Sibel Edmonds asks rhetorically, “Are American politicians being blackmailed? Is grass green?” Her answer:  “Of course the blackmail scenario is possible; in fact, highly possible.”

Seven crucial points need to be hammered home.  They show that America is now in a critical situation from which nothing can save it. Nothing except a military coup or violent revolution.

1. Germany did not have to cope with 60 million Christians Zionists collaborating with the goals of organized Jewry; America does.

2. Germany did not have the state of Israel to finance, nor did it have to fight Israel’s wars; America does.

3. Germany’s population of Jews was relatively small compared to America’s: less than 1% of 80 million (roughly 522,000 Jews in 1933) compared to contemporary America’s 2% + of 309 million (over 6 million Jews).

4. Since Israel had yet to be founded, Germany did not have the problem of dual citizens whose primary allegiance is to a foreign country.

5. Although there were Jewish activist organizations in Weimar Germany, they had not achieved the power and influence of the Jewish ethnic infrastructure in the US. Organizations like AIPAC, the ADL, the SPLC, the American Jewish Committee, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (to name a few) are lavishly funded and influential in all areas of American life, including law enforcement, foreign policy, and all things multicultural.

6. Jews have also erected the Holocaust Industry as a powerful guilt machine for White Americans. Traditional American culture has been substantially replaced by the culture of the Holocaust and various other non-White victimhoods, endlessly played out in the movies, television shows, and in the schools, all the way from kindergarten through the university.

7.  Above all, Germany was never threatened with multiculturalism. Promoting multiculturalism has been the focus not only of various influential Jewish intellectual movements, it has also been the most important goal of the  organized Jewish community, especially since World War II. Multiculturalism is a deadly weapon against Western civilization — a WMD of truly devastating lethality that in the long run will destroy Christianity, traditional moral values, and traditional nationalist cultures in North America, Europe, and Australia. It will also result in the dispossession and disempowerment of the White race.

Conclusion: the situation facing America is a grim one. An epidemic of escalating severity threatens us all. In the course of time, this epidemic of evil is likely to infect Eurasia and spread to other parts of the world.

The future looks unimaginably bleak.

End of Part I. Go to Part II.

Bishop Richard Williamson: Holocaust Denial and Jewish Influence on the Catholic Church

Bishop Richard Williamson

On April 16th, 2010, Bishop Richard Williamson, is scheduled to go on trial in Regensburg, Germany for the hate crime of Holocaust denial. While Bishop Williamson had expressed doubts about the Holocaust since the late 1980’s it was not until November, 2008, during comments he made on a Swedish television interview that he was charged with the crime of Holocaust denial. Because he refused to pay the fine of $16,000 he has been ordered to stand trial. If he decides to go to Germany, he can be convicted for the crime of “Volksverhetzung,” (incitement of hatred for a people), as was Ernst Zündel.

Bishop Williamson is a member of the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist order founded in 1970 in protest to the liberalizing effects of Vatican II. The SSPX has sought to preserve the timeless beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church amidst the alterations to belief and ritual that were introduced in the middle of the last century by Vatican II.  The Society has 510 priests working in 31 countries, and 2 million members. Bishop Williamson, British born and Cambridge educated, is one of four bishops consecrated in 1988 by SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He is an academic, fluent in French, German, and Spanish. Until he was appointed rector of the South American seminary in La Reja, Argentina, in 2003, he was rector of the North American seminary in Winona, Minnesota for many years. Because of his statements on the Holocaust, he has been relieved of his position and silenced by the Church.

If you are non-Jewish and are of European descent, then you are affiliated with the Catholic Church. No matter what your current beliefs, your family, at least for a thousand years, until the Reformation, was Catholic. The Catholic Church unified, and civilized your ancestors and permitted the art, science, economy, and morality of Europe to flourish.  In addition to protecting their souls, the Catholic Church defended your ancestors from non-European aliens:  from invading Moslems, and from Jewish influence on culture. In the U.S., Catholicism is still the largest single religious denomination with 70 million believers. In Western Europe the number is 211,466 million, 55% of the population. However, instead of guarding its members, as it did in the past, the Church has now joined their historic adversary.

In his book, Separation and its DiscontentsToward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Kevin MacDonald devotes considerable space(short version) to an analysis of the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Jews, beginning in Roman times and continuing to the National Socialist era. He shows that early anti-Semitism by the Church Fathers was a defensive response to Jewish economic domination and enslavement of non-Jews in the 4th century.

Catholic institutional anti-Semitism, he implies, grew out of both theology and ethnic conflict. The Church asserted as doctrine that by rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, the Jews had rejected God and had forfeited their status as God’s Chosen People. The official Church doctrine was that Jews should be tolerated in a subservient, powerless role because of their usefulness as testimony to the truth of Christianity.

By adopting this theology, the Church had erected a powerful theological rationale for protecting and civilizing the European peoples. The traditionalist view is that these definitive beliefs about Jews cannot be altered. They are forever part of Church dogma. It would therefore not be surprising to find that traditionalist Catholics like Bishop Williamson may have negative attitudes about Jews or about Jewish influence on the Catholic Church since World War II.

Wearing a dog collar and flanked by police, Bishop Williamson was escorted out of Heathrow Airport following his flight from Argentina in February, 2009.

The reason that the fundamental, dogmatic teachings of the Church did not change over time is because the Catholic Church believed them to be Divine Revelation. However, directives and writings of the Council of Vatican II (1962–65) often contradict the eternal teachings of the Church. Especially problematic are those publications re-defining the Church’s position toward the Jews.

Before Vatican II, the Catholic doctrine was that the Scriptures were infallible because they were dictated by the Holy Ghost  Beginning in the 19th Century,however, the interpretive method of “historicism” began to apply new criteria to the study of the sacred texts. In interpreting Scripture, historicism took into account archeology, the natural sciences, and contemporary social and psychological theories that proposed to explain the behavior of society and individuals.  One of the theologians who defended the relativistic method of istoricism at Vatican II was Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC), an official part of the Congregation for the Faith in the Vatican, published the bookThe Hebrew People and its Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. The book succinctly describes the radical changes in the Church’s position toward the Jews during and after Vatican II.  Cardinal Ratzinger was the president of the PBC. Everything in the book, therefore, was written under his personal direction. His Prefacerepresents an extra seal of endorsement and support.

Pope Benedict II under shadow of menorah at the Cologne Synagogue, Aug 18, 2005

The introduction to The Hebrew People and its Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible defends the idea that because of the imprisonment and death of so many Jews in the Nazi concentration camps in WW II, it is essential to re-examine the spiritual relations between Christians and Jews.  The book’s aim is to “advance the dialogue between Christians and Jews” by interpreting the Bible in a relativistic manner pleasing to Jewish sensibilities.

The result is a new conception for relations of the Church with the Jews. Actually, with respect to the Jews, a new perspective had already been suggested by the Austrian Catholic theologian, Johann Baptist Metz. (Incidentally, Father Metz was considered a “Catholic spokesman” for the Frankfurt School.) Not only did he assume the relativism and the deconstructive methods of the Frankfurt School, he also placed the Holocaust, using the synonym “Auschwitz,” into the center of history. According to Metz, Scripture required reinterpretation and revitalization after the Holocaust. This coincides with the thinking of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Benedict XVI receives a framed scroll for Israel chief rabbis on May, 12, 2009 at the center for the Jewish Heritage in Jerusalem

The Pontifical Biblical Commission denies both the Old and New Testament as sources of Revelation. “The change caused by the extermination of the Jews has stimulated all the Churches to completely re-think their relations with Judaism and, as a consequence, to reconsider their interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. Some have asked themselves whether Christians should repent for their appropriation of the Hebrew Bible and a (Christian) interpretation that no Jew could accept. Should Christians, then, read the Bible with the Hebrews in order to respect its Jewish origin?” (pp 54-5) Should the events of World War II change the bi-millennial interpretation of the Church about Revelation? One would think that what was true before the catastrophe would remain true afterward.  But the answer of the PBC is implicitly in the affirmative: Jews are to be the final authority in Biblical interpretation.

Not only do the authors of, The Hebrew People and its Holy Scriptures In The Christian Church, give Jews the final authority on Biblical interpretation, they make a number of assertions totally at odds with traditional Catholic teaching. They allege that the present-day Jewish religion is the true heir of the divine promise of the Old Testament. For example, the Pontifical Biblical Commission states, “Far from replacing Israel, the [Catholic] Church remains in solidarity with it.” (p. 152).

The Catholic Church has always taught that according to Revelation, the Old Covenant was revoked with the coming of Christ, and that the true heir of the Old Covenant is the Catholic Church.

Elio Toaff, chief Rabbi of Rome, welcoming Pope John Paul II to a service at the Roman Synagogue, 1986

In advancing this thesis, the PBC does not distinguish between what is religion and what is race in Judaism. Instead it tries to make the Hebrew people, in the racial sense, coincide with the elect people, in the religious sense. If the Old Covenant is still valid, then it is a small step to the conclusion that the Holocaust was a heinous crime against God’s Chosen.

In addition to corrupting the Catholic teaching about the Old and New Covenant, the PBC has perverted Catholic teaching regarding the crime of Deicide.  It is perennial Catholic teaching that the guilt and the penalty of certain crimes against God are, by their very nature, transferred to future generations — for example, Original Sin and the sin of the Tower if Babel. Such also was the sin of Deicide. The traditional teaching of the Church was that the guilt and the punishment demanded by justice for the murder of Jesus were assumed voluntarily by the Jews and were laid upon their future generations. This was the constant interpretation of the Catholic Church until Vatican Council II.

The PBC, however, offers an opinion which is the very opposite of this Catholic teaching. That is, it alleges that the Gospels were not written objectively and cannot be considered a part of Divine Revelation. Accordingly there was no crime of Deicide, no such crime was committed by the Jews as a people, and the guilt and punishment of that crime did not fall upon the future generations of the Jews. So keen are they to seek the pardon and approval of Jews that relativist Catholic theologians seem ready to accept the notion of Deicide not by, but of the Jews.  The religion of the Holocaust is spreading from the Synagogue to the Cathedral.  And Holocaust denial is its gravest sin.

John Paul II at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, March, 2000

The reflections and actions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI concerning the Jews are condemned by the binding words of the Third Ecumenical Lateran Council, (1179), which pronounced an anathema on those who, preferring the Jews to the Christians, would receive the testimony of Jews against Christians and not that of Christians against Jews.

Speaking about Bishop Richard Williamson, His Holiness, Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Pope Benedict XVI stated in U.S. News and World Report, February 12, 2009:

“The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity,” Benedict told the visiting leaders, using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust. “This should be clear to everyone, especially to those standing in the tradition of the Holy Scriptures.”

“It is beyond question that any denial or minimization of this terrible crime is intolerable and altogether unacceptable,” he said during the meeting in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace.

Jewish leaders applauded his comments, saying the crisis with the church that had been sparked by Bishop Richard Williamson’s comments was over.

Abraham Foxman, a Holocaust survivor and the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the Vatican should excommunicate Williamson again because of his remarks.

Further reading:

By Atila Sinke Guimaraes:

In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, 1997

Animus Delendi I, 2000

Animus Delendi, II, 2002

Will He Find the Faith, 2007?

The Biblical Commission on the Jews: Changes in Doctrine and the New Anathema, 2003

By Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimond:

The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, undated)

Trudie Pert is a pen name.  Email her.

The Dissolution of the Family among Non-Elite Whites: Review of “Red Families v. Blue Families” by Naomi Cahn and June Carbone

I heard Naomi Cahn and June Carbone talk about their book, Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture (Oxford, 2010), on Commie Radio Pacifica, so you can be sure there is a “progressive” message. As summarized in their op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor, the idea is that families in Blue State America are thriving, while families in Red State America are failing because they are too hung up on old fashioned ideas like sexual abstinence.

There is an obvious dishonesty in this approach because it completely ignores race in the analysis in an effort to pin the blame on traditional sexual beliefs and customs. Blacks and Latinos who live in urban areas and in very Blue States exhibit high rates of teenage pregnancy, non-marriage, and dropping out of the education process — much higher than Whites in Red State America.

So what they are really trying to explain is variation in family patterns among White people. And there they have a point. Red State White America is in a crisis. (Indeed, it’s no accident that Red State America is where most of the much-commented-on White anger is coming from.) The data they are summarizing really relate to some of the correlates of education which are in turn linked to IQ. But we have known at least since The Bell Curve that higher IQ people not only are more likely to go further in the  educational system, they are more likely to have stable marriages, they don’t have babies outside of marriage, and they begin child bearing later. These people are more likely to live in large urban and suburban areas where there are jobs for educated people.

The Whites in non-urban Red State America have a lot to be angry about. The present economic crisis is just the most recent disaster in the long pattern of dispossession of Whites who are less educated. Good jobs in the private sector have pretty much evaporated — the unions are gone and the jobs have been shipped overseas. These people see their communities invaded by racial and cultural aliens, many of them illegal, making a middle class life impossible. They see themselves losing political power to the coalition of minorities and elite Whites that has become the Democratic Party.

As The Bell Curve emphasized, since World War II the cognitive elite are pulling away from the rest of America. Hard economic times only make it worse.

And hard times are always difficult on families. As Cahn and Carbone note, “the latest studies show that as the economy has gone south, teen and nonmarital births and abortions have all increased. … Employment figures also demonstrate that male employment has fallen even further than female employment, making youthful weddings that much riskier.”

In evolutionary terms, the high-investment style of reproduction becomes non-viable as men are unable to provide for their families. Women start having babies sooner and don’t expect to receive support from males over a long period of time, especially where welfare programs are available.

Being on the left, however, C & C use this opportunity to propose that the real culprit is traditional family values. If we could just get rid of those Bible Belt ideas, all would be well:

Missing from this debate is recognition of the bankruptcy of traditionalist family values as policy for the postindustrial era. …

In the United States, states that emphasize abstinence-only education, limit public subsidies of contraception, restrict access to abortion – and, yes, oppose gay marriage – have higher teen birth and divorce rates.

Yet the failure of the family values movement simply produces another round of moral panic and calls for more draconian restrictions.

Their solution combines typical leftist utopianism with a very real program of lowering the birth rate of people with traditional values.

The solution? As we outline in great detail in our book “Red Families v. Blue Families,” there are three critical steps we can take: (1) promote access to contraception – within marriage as well as outside it; (2) develop a greater ability to combine not only work and family, but family and education; and (3) make sure the next generation stays in school, learns the skills to be employed, and cultivates values that can adapt to the future.

This is a nice distillation of the bizarre idea that all Americans have the potential to be college graduates with lots of skills suitable for a post-industrial economy. IQ never enters the equation. But this utopian future is just not going to happen. A far better program would be to provide better economic opportunities for White people, especially White males, whose prospects have been blunted by the present regime.

The fact is that traditional sexual attitudes worked perfectly well in the West to produce a very adaptive culture of high-investment parenting combined with individualist social institutions. C & C attempt to tar traditional values with the stigma of Muslim and African societies where female virtue is prized: “We are entirely sympathetic with those inclined to lock up their daughters from puberty until marriage, but we do recognize that the societies abroad most insistent on policing women’s virtue are locked into cycles of poverty.”

But there is no reason to suppose that the problem with Muslim and African societies is policing the sexual behavior of women. Other traits of these cultures are far more likely culprits,  including low average IQ and social institutions like cousin marriage and clan-based social and political systems.

The reality is that social support for high-investment parenting has always been a critical feature of Western social structure until the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Since then, all of the markers of family stability have headed south  — including divorce rates and births out of wedlock for all races and ethnic groups. (Nevertheless, there are very large differences between races and ethnic groups in conformity with Rushton’s lifespan theory of race differences.)

But this relative lack of social support for marriage has had very different effects depending on traits like IQ. For example, a well-known study in behavior genetics shows that the heritability of age of first sexual intercourse increased dramatically after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. In other words, after the social supports for traditional sexuality disappeared, genetic influences became more important. Before the sexual revolution, traditional sexual mores applied to everyone. After the revolution, genes mattered more. People with higher IQ were able to produce stable families and marriages, but lower IQ people were less prone to doing so, and these trends have been exacerbated by the current economic climate. Hence the Red State/Blue State dichotomy among White people observed by C & C.

And this brings me to thinking about Jews and particularly Jewish influence on sexual culture. In their book, C & C note that Jews tend to exhibit  the Blue State pattern— an unsurprising result given Jewish IQ patterns. A theme of Chapter 4 of The Culture of Critique is that the psychoanalytic assault on traditional Western sexual culture had a disparate impact on different IQ groups and benefited Jews:

Jews suffer to a lesser extent than [non-Jews] from the erosion of cultural supports for high-investment parenting, and Jews benefit by the decline in religious belief among [non-Jews]. As [Norman] Podhoretz (1995, 30) notes, it is in fact the case that Jewish intellectuals, Jewish organizations like the AJCongress, and Jewish-dominated organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union … have ridiculed Christian religious beliefs, attempted to undermine the public strength of Christianity, and have led the fight for unrestricted pornography. The evidence of this chapter indicates that psychoanalysis as a Jewish-dominated intellectual movement is a central component of this war on [non-Jewish] cultural supports for high-investment parenting. …

Although other factors are undoubtedly involved, it is remarkable that the increasing trend toward low-investment parenting in the United States largely coincides with the triumph of the psychoanalytic and radical critiques of American culture represented by the political and cultural success of the counter-cultural movement of the 1960s.

I then go into the academic version of the ideas presented here, especially the greater importance of social controls and traditional religious beliefs for people on the left side of the Bell Curve. (See here, in the  Conclusion).

There is nothing wrong with traditional Western sexual codes. C & C are trying to rationalize the destruction of the last vestiges of that culture by noting that people with traditional religious ideas on sexuality increasingly behave in ways that are contrary to those beliefs. But the problem is not the traditional culture. Rather it is the economic dispossession of non-elite Whites combined with a media culture that glorifies expressive individualism and uninhibited sexuality (i.e., drugs, sex, and Rock ‘n’ Roll) — a media culture that, in my view, was critically shaped by the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed in The  Culture of Critique.

Bookmark and Share

Take the Money and Run: Jewish White Collar Criminals Welcomed by the Jewish Community

We Westerners really do live in a Jewish world. Jewish control of the media is undeniable, as I’ve written about for years. One area that remains under-treated is the one most people still associate with Jews—and not always kindly: financial matters. Whether a Jewish group evolutionary strategy is responsible for their outsized success with money, whether it is because Jews are “the synagogue of Satan,” as St. John’s gospel famously quoted Jesus as saying, or whether it is some other factor, at the end of the day Jewish temporal power comes down to money. And Jews have a lot of it.

I wrote about this in February in my blog Jews & Money. That has a lot of good background information, so I recommend that readers have a look.

Today I’ll expand on that theme, adding a few updates.

Let’s start with Rolling Stones reporter Matt Taibbi’s excellent introduction to his essay The Great American Bubble Machine:

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.

Taibbi knows how to turn a phrase, as he shows elsewhere in his writing on the economic crisis we’re facing:

It’s over — we’re officially, royally fucked. No empire can survive being rendered a permanent laughingstock, which is what happened as of a few weeks ago, when the buffoons who have been running things in this country finally went one step too far.

Folks, I have to insist: An awful lot of this massive theft and fraud has been done by Jews. And now that Jewish control is so pervasive, Jews can openly joke about their perfidy—and get away with it. Consider this skit from the heavily Jewish program Saturday Night Live. The skit makes fun of the prominent role Jews played in the financial meltdown, spoofing Herbert and Marion Sandler, Congressman Barney Frank, and even George Soros. Here’s the unadulterated original version. It’s a keeper.

Consider now the recent European crisis centered on Greece. The venerableNew York Times, in the article “Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis, as much as confirms this Jewish role in the destabilization of Greece, including how Greece’s future airport revenue and lottery proceeds were squandered in order to keep current spending off the books.

As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street’s help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created byGoldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels. . . .

The bankers, led by Goldman’s president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece’s health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

Financial crime is deeply embedded in Jewish culture. M. Raphael Johnson wrote an expose of the Judeo-Russian Mafia based on Robert I. Friedman’s book Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America. Friedman stated that the entire “Russian” mafia is Jewish, without exception. Johnson also reported that

Friedman is also not afraid to admit that Jewish organizations throughout the world, led by the Anti-Defamation League, are the beneficiaries of largesse coming from organized crime, and that the organizations in question are aware of it. In other words, Jewish organized crime is considered an acceptable part of Jewish life, and that Jewish organizations have actually lobbied law enforcement to stop investigations into this phenomenon, almost always with success.”

Sadly, Friedman died young from a rare “tropical disease.”

I’m also happy to see that renegade scholar E. Michael Jones, author of the 1,200-page The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History, is now at work on a new book about Jews and Capitalism. He has excerpted parts of the book in the February and March issues of his journalCulture Wars.

The basis of his March essay is a new book by Josh Kosman called The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Will Cause the Next Great Credit Crisis. There Kosman tells us that “the rapacious leveraged-buyout kings of the 1980s were still around. They had just adopted a new name, now calling themselves private-equity investors.” And their tactics remain the same. Just like Taibbi’s metaphor of the great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money,” leveraged buyout “artists” and private-equity (PE) investors suck the money and lifeblood out of otherwise healthy companies.

Jones and Kosman describe the process: PE investors buy a company, starve them of cash and human capital to generate short-term profits, then use the profits as a basis to borrow more money. The new loans are then piled on top of the original debt taken on to finance the LBO. All this new money is then used to issue a big fat dividend for the PE folks so that the money from the loans goes straight into their pockets.

Now they have moved into acquiring hospitals and nursing homes. Companies and health-care organizations so acquired by PE end up with “crippling debt, loss of reputation, the lay-off of skilled workers, and in many cases bankruptcy.” PE is “another word for looting. The companies which got taken over were plundered for their resources.”

Employing his skills as a historian, Jones notes the obvious fact that “the history of Jewish predatory lending practices, [is] something which antedates the leveraged buy-outs of the ‘80s by centuries.” He then argues that “The concentration of the nation’s wealth in the hands of a few avaricious Jews has led to corruption of both discourse and culture, which is subsidized to serve the Mammonites that feed it.”

The ancient Jewish practice of usury will be the death of the American economy as well. Usury, Jones claims, “knows no limits. It has no telos. It grows like cancer and only stops growing when it brings about the death of its host.” America (and parts of Europe) are approaching that end, for economic activity bereft of morality “becomes usurious, which is to say, cancerous, which is to say bound to bring about the death of the national economy which is its host organism.”

Again, Jones, Kosman and I are not talking about anything new. It’s long been a stereotype of Western folklore that Jews are deceitful, particularly when it comes to money. Now they seem not to bother with strenuous efforts to disguise it — although explicit assertions that these patterns have anything to do with Jewishness will be met with an outpouring of outrage and charges of anti-Semitism by the ADL. Over the previous few decades, they’ve pushed the envelope, and — I hope to even their own surprise — we goyim have barely reacted. Is their well-known contempt for us deserved, then?

There may well be contempt, but prudently there is also wariness of the riled goy. Observers have long noted that Jews are exquisitely sensitive to the mood of the far larger non-Jewish masses that surround them. There is no doubt that Jews have developed a fine-tuned radar for when things might turn sour.

Kevin MacDonald just wrote about this with respect to Jewish NYTimescolumnist Frank Rich. No doubt mindful of the prominent role his fellow tribe members have been playing in the financial crisis, in the placement of the first non-White in the White House, and in the more general multicultural program of White dispossession, Rich fears the “mass hysteria” that might reasonably accompany such a dispossession.  Rich wrote the following about soon-to-be minority Whites:

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory [of White rage]. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play.

Rich’s sharing of Jewish thinking is useful, but the fact is Rich is a grouch. Far more fun to read is blogger James Howard Kunstler, who more and more in his weekly Monday blogs has been showing his own hysteria about what might happen should the fleeced goyim ever wake up.

In his recent blog Our Turn?, he begins with a familiar Jewish obsession:

Nations go crazy. It’s terrifying when it happens, especially to a major nation with the ability to project its craziness outward. We look back on the psychotic break of Germany in 1933 and still wonder how the then-best-educated population in Europe could fall under the sway of a sociopathic political program. We behold the carnage and devastation left in the wake of that episode, and decades later you still can do little more than shake your head in bewilderment.

Kunstler is talking about “a genuine descent into madness, with the very high probability of persecution, violence, murder, and mayhem — all more or less sponsored by various authorities and institutions.”

Working himself up into a lather, he continues, “One day soon, somebody with a gun or an explosive device, someone with a very sketchy sense-of-self, and perhaps a recent record of personal failure and humiliation, is going to sacrifice himself to become the Tea Party’s first martyr by shooting up a shopping mall in some blue district.”

Readers of Kunstler’s blogs will know of his fear and contempt for Americans who do not live in big cities and who are not reflexively liberal in their politics. These are the infamous “cornporn Nazis” of Kunstler’s nightmares. “The guerilla forces of the radical right will not know whether they are fighting for WalMart, or the Financial Services arm of General Electric, or against abortions, or for bigger and better freeways, or the rights of thoracic surgeons to drive families into bankruptcy, or against the idea of climate change, or evolution, or Jews-in-the-media, or their neighbors having something they feel envious about.”

In other words, in Kunstler’s views, these people are idiots, but they are dangerous idiots. As I say, there is some perverse fun to be had in reading Kunstler’s description of us Whites in flyover America, people who strive “so desperately to turn the United States into a high-definition Jesus tele-theocracy of Perpetual NASCAR.” The contempt is palpable.

What is to be done? Kunstler, like many other Jews, would like to see the heavy hand of state employed. “I hope Mr. Obama can discipline these maniacs. I would like to see him start by instructing his attorney general to look into the connection between Republican officials (including staff members) and the threats of violence and murder that were made last week around the country.”

Oh, I see it’s already started — sort of. CNN has been reporting on a “Christian warriors” militia that was supposedly on the verge of starting a massacre of Michigan law enforcement officials. Judging by the faces CNN is showing, Kunstler and other haters of “cornporn Nazis” are going to have a public relations field day.

You might want to take a look at the equipment employed by the state of Michigan—NOT the military—to respond to this threat. More and more, our civilian police forces resemble the military—and they’re not shy about aggressively attacking citizens either — Sam Francis’s anarcho-tyranny in action.

In any case, we need more scholarly treatments of Jews and money, something along the lines of Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique applied to the financial world. It could show how Jewish economic behavior is a deeply ingrained aspect of Judaism as group strategy. It could further explore how economic behavior is related to activism in the media, politics, the legal system, academia, etc. As it stands now, that mountain of money in Jewish hands is at the disposal of a hostile elite (see here, and here . . . and here) that fears and mostly dislikes us— people like Frank Rich, William Howard Kunstler, and thousands of other antsy Jews like them. What will happen to us if such Jews feel so at risk that they preemptively seek to neutralize the “threatening” ones among us?

In Homo Americanus, as I’ve noted numerous times, Croatian savant Tomislav Sunic envisions such a scenario for any group in America that might be targeted: “Thus, in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” In his VDARE review Stalin’s Willing Executioners?, MacDonald made a similar observation, identifying what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union — the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.” They are the European-derived Whites populating vast areas of the American nation, particularly in the so-called “red states.”

The noose is tightening around our necks. We’ve all seen it — hundreds of examples of the “anarcho-tyranny” that Sam Francis described. A prank at a Wal-Mart asking black shoppers to leave sends the mass media into moral panic mode and the police are fast to react. Yet Blacks murdering Whites is not news. Thugs close down a perfectly legal conference by the White Nationalist group American Renaissance by making death threats against hotel workers, and the police, the FBI and the mainstream media are uninterested.

Some readers might smirk when viewing mug shots of the Christian militia group “Hutaree” above or photos of the trailer homes in which they live, but these things have a way of escalating.  It is we Whites, worried about our rapid dispossession, who should be anxious, not the well-remunerated Jews who are the dynamic force of our hostile elite.  Truly we live in an inverted world.

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


Post-Genome Princeton

Shirley Tilghman, President of Princeton, lectures on race

Shirley Tilghman, president of Princeton University and an accomplished molecular biologist, recently spoke about the “vexing issue of race” during a public lecture at Princeton University. The address, “The Meaning of Race in the Post-Genome Era,” was sponsored by Princeton’s Center for African American Studies.

Established in September 2006, the Center for African American Studies had existed as an academic certificate program at Princeton for 37 years. The center moved to its home at Stanhope Hall in 2007 under the leadership of its first director, Woodrow Wilson Professor of Literature Valerie Smith (left), who opened the doors at the dedication ceremony with President Shirley M. Tighman.

Because of her strong and sustained support for Princeton’s Black Studies, Tilghman was introduced as, “Sister President.”

“Sister President” began her lecture by dismissing as biased the works of her dead White male predecessors.  According to Tilghman, the Swedish scientist, Carl Linnaeus, equated race with innate character and based his conclusions on prejudice rather than observation. The German physician, Franz Joseph Gall, was the first person to postulate that the brain was the organ of the mind; he claimed that Europeans possessed superior skulls. Francis Galton, an English polymath and cousin of Charles Darwin, proposed “assortative mating”  for traits like intelligence and confused social class with race. Tilghman did not mention Darwin, probably because his conclusions would be jolting (See here and here.)

Finally, she criticized the American eugenicist and biologist, Charles Davenport, for claiming that complex traits such as high intelligence and personality characteristics were tied to race and for influencing the passage of the eugenically inspired and restrictive Immigration Act of 1924.

Tilghman stated that current evidence shows that the genetic differences between human beings are very small, and that individual differences are significantly greater than differences between groups. Predictably, she rejected the possibility of finding distinctive racial characteristics determined by genome sequencing. In spite of the enormous variation in physical attributes regarding size, color, hair texture, etc., she stated that at the level of the genome these differences are infinitesimal in number when compared with the enormous number of identical shared genomes. Though one can predict the geographic origin of today’s Europeans, Africans, and Asians with great accuracy, genetic distinctions are declining rapidly as widespread immigration and intermarriage are occurring.

[adrotate group=”1″]

These ideas ignore the work of Frank Salter and Henry Harpending showing that, although there is indeed more variation within than between races and despite a great deal of genetic commonality among all humans, the amount of genetic variation between human races is significant, and therefore racial and ethnic groups constitute large storehouses of genetic interests for everyone.

It also ignores research showing important racial differences in traits like intelligence that have very large effects on achievement that are so important in contemporary societies. An exclusive emphasis on human commonality and downgrading the importance of genetic variation grossly distorts the reality that genetically-based differences have huge impacts on individual and group performance.

Further, no one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. Throughout the world, ethnically diverse societies are marked by ethnic conflict. Intellectuals like Tilghman have utopian dreams about a racial future free from conflict and filled with peace and harmony, but we already know that ethnic diversity increases social isolation and lowers trust both within and between races.

According to Tilghman, it is the small race-specific component that constitutes “the challenge ahead” because information on race-specific genetic influences on traits like IQ could potentially be employed to “sustain prejudice and discrimination.” The lurking fear of finding incontrovertible evidence of race-specific differences  in important traits is the “vexing issue” of genetics.  But we already have good evidence that genetic differences are important. When even more evidence is available, Tilghman and her ilk will doubtless ignore it. In the end, it’s all about politics for these people.

White feminists seem to believe that they share a common enemy with African Americans, namely, dead and living White men, and have therefore become great friends of Blacks. They have found that by advancing the Black agenda they can better further their own minority position (see: Feminist Coalitions, ed. Stephanie Gilmore, 2008; Radical Sisters, Anne Valk, 2008).  Since becoming Princeton’s president in 2001, Tilghman has greatly expanded Black studies, has recruited a number of controversial Black faculty, and has encouraged the extension of the university’s affirmative action admission and hiring policies.

Professor Cornel West was the first to be welcomed to Princeton by Tilghman after he left a position at Harvard where management did not appreciate his merits. In 2000, Larry Summers, then president of Harvard, rebuked West for missing too many classes, contributing to grade inflation, neglecting serious scholarship, and spending too much time with his economically profitable projects such as issuing two rap CD’s, and appearing in several Matrix movies. West, in turn, accused Summers of elitism, a serious sin to the multi-culturally minded. He was welcomed into the Princeton fold in 2002, apparently because Princeton does not limit itself to rarified interests.

Cornel West

The second Tilghman Black studies appointee is Professor Van Jones, who was recently appointed as a Distinguished Visiting Fellow. An attorney and environmentalist, Jones was selected by Pres. Obama in March, 2009, for the newly created post of Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation, at the White House Council for Environmental Quality. Jones, called by Time Magazine one of the “Heroes of the Environment,” was founder of the Black advocacy group, “Color of Change,” in 2005.

Alas, due to his outspoken manner, his time at the White House was all too brief. Due to allegations of associations with Marxist groups in the 1990’s, his published, disparaging remarks about Congressional Republicans, (calling them “a$$holes”), and several nasty publicized vendettas, he was too publicly uncouth even for Obama. Jones resigned from his White House position just six months after he had been appointed to it. Not to worry – Princeton immediately offered him a sinecure. The government’s loss is Princeton’s gain.

Tilghman’s sympathy for Black causes is of long duration. In 2003, Princeton joined an amicus brief filed with the US Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy. The brief ensured that racial and ethnic diversity constitutes a “compelling” interest in the admissions process of “selective” universities like Princeton. In Dec., 2009, she received the W.E.B. DuBois Medal, the highest honor bestowed by Harvard University’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African and American Research, for her leadership in strengthening Princeton’s commitment to African American studies. Princeton’s Center for African American Studies was established under Tilghman’s direction in 2006 after existing as an academic certificate program for 37 years. Tilghman recommended a greatly expanded curriculum because she found race study for all liberal arts students to be an “indispensable element of preparation for life in this country.” Since 2006 core faculty members have grown from 2 to 18. Associated and affiliated members contribute another 18 additional faculty. Courses have increased by 40%.

Below are two of the ten courses offered in Princeton University’s Center for African American Studies, Spring, 2010.

AAS 314/COM 39 Model Memoirs: The Life Stories of International Fashion Models

This course explores the life-writing of American, African, and Asian women in the fashion industry as a launching point for thinking about race, gender, and class.How do ethnicity and femininity intersect? How are authenticity and difference commodified? How do women construct identities through narrative and negotiate their relationships to their bodies, families, and nations. Course will include guest lectures by fashion editors and models; discussions of contemporary television programs, global fashion, and cultural studies, and student self narratives about their relationships with cultural standards of beauty, whether vexed or not.

AAS 339/ENG 339 Josephine Baker and the Modern

What does a black burlesque star have to do with the making of Euro-American modernity? This course situates the performance art of Josephine Baker as a dynamic fulcrum through which to trace the unexpected connections between the invention of what might be called the “modernist” style and the staging of black skin at the turn of the 20th century.We will study her work in film, photography, and cinema as an active and profound engagement with a range of modernist innovations and theories in the fields of film, photography, architecture, art and literature.

Josephine Baker

What next?  Courses to extoll the virtues of O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson? To a president who has supported Princeton’s first post doctoral fellowship in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered studies, who endorsed the creation of a new LGBT campus center, and who has acted in a student production of the Vagina Monologues, these Black studies courses are, no doubt, most suitably diverse.

The Princeton University admissions policy is very welcoming of Black students. If race is merely a social construct, as Shirley Tilghman implies in her Post-Genome speech, then Princeton’s admission policy is most puzzling. Why give admission preferences based on race if racial differences are only superficial? In their article, “The Opportunity Cost of Admission Preferences at Elite Universities”, Thomas Espenshade and Chang Chung, two Princeton sociology researchers, describe who gains and who loses as a result of admission preferences.  They concede, that “a decision to admit one student involves a choice not to admit someone else.”

According to Espenshade and Chung, currently, African-American candidates for admission at the elite universities receive on average 230 extra SAT points, Hispanics 185 additional SAT points, recruited athletes, 200 points, and legacy applicants, 160 points. If bonus points were eliminated, the following would result. African-American acceptance rates would fall from 33.7% to 12.2%, a decline of almost two-thirds. In other words, the proportion of Black students would decline from 9% to 3.3%. Hispanic acceptance rates would fall in half, from 26.8% to 12.9%, a decline of 7.9% to 3.8% of all admitted students.  The category of recruited athletes and legacy students is mostly White and negligible.

Asian applicants would be the biggest winners if racial preferences were eliminated from the admission process. Their acceptance rates would increase from 17.6% to 23.4%. They would comprise 31.5% of all accepted students compared with the actual proportion of 23.7% However, were Princeton to place a ceiling on foreign Asian students, this number would be much lower.  In the absence of admission preferences and ceilings for Asians, the number of White students would rise only 2.4%, an acceptance increase from 23.8% to 24.3%. Jewish enrollment at Princeton is 13%, well below the Ivy League average of 25%. These figures match up well with the many studies which have found corresponding average normal racial IQ: Asians 104, White 100, and Blacks 85 (see, for example, “Is Race a Valid Taxonomic Construct, by J. Philippe Rushton).

In order to attract minorities to Princeton and the other elite universities, there is a great deal of money available to fund financial aid to students from families with low incomes. In their book, “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission on Campus Life,” (Princeton University Press, 2009), Prof. Espenshade and Alexandria Radford concluded that social class matters in the admission process, but it is usually given less weight than race or ethnicity. Having a lower-class family background was equivalent to having 130 additional points on the SAT.  However, the admission preference accorded to low-income students appears to be reserved largely for nonwhite students.

Tilghman’s enthusiasm for increasing the number of Black faculty and Black students at Princeton is exceeded only by her eagerness in placing feminists into key positions.  For some time now criticism of her many appointments of women, to the exclusion of qualified men, has been growing. Because she herself had no administrative experience when she was appointed president, her very selection to that office caused alarm, as it most certainly was based on gender. And gender parity is always on her mind.

Once chosen, she moved aggressively to appoint an assistant dean “to oversee gender equity.”  Within her first two years as Princeton’s president, Tilghman appointed Princeton’s first woman provost, first woman dean of admissions, first woman dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and first woman dean (a non-engineer) of the school of engineering. Recently she appointed a second woman to become dean of the Woodrow Wilson School. She favors preferential treatment of women, and envisions policies whereby women faculty will be granted a longer tenure review period and subsidized nannies.

“A decision to admit one student involves a choice not to admit someone else,” applies not only to student selection but also to university hiring. When the goal is to achieve race and gender parity, White men are side-lined.  Not only are White males losers in the racial affirmative action student selection process, they are doubly cheated when women receive preferential treatment in the hiring process.

A recent alumni magazine quotes Tilghman bragging, “This is not your great-grandfather’s Princeton.” What a pity. Princeton was established in 1747 through the efforts and with the financial resources of mostly Scottish immigrants as the institution of higher learning for young Anglo men. Princeton’s association with the Presbyterian Church was close, and its first thirteen presidents, until Woodrow Wilson, were clergymen. The beautiful English neo-gothic campus chapel is the third largest college chapel in the world. Princeton’s sixth president, the Scottish born Presbyterian minister, John Witherspoon, was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence.

John Witherspoon

White men established Princeton University and Whites have continued to finance the institution which now has the 4th largest institutional endowment fund in the Ivy League, and the largest endowment per student of $2,000,000. One wonders why racial descendants of Princeton founders, i.e., parents and students of European heritage, do not demand a White preferential admission policy and a faculty and an administration reflecting their own ethnic heritage.

Trudie Pert is a pen name.  Email her.

Ethnic Conflict in German Physics

Johannes Stark (1874-1947): Leader of the German Physics Movement

After the Napoleonic Wars the Jews began for the first time to enjoy the benefits of full citizenship in the countries of Europe. By virtue of their innate talents, pent-up energy, drive, and ambition, they quickly climbed the social ladder, becoming especially prominent in the first instance in commercial pursuits and later in financial, professional, cultural, and scientific circles. Generally, the leaders in the countries in which they lived, recognizing the talents of the new comers, quickly embraced and employed them as tax collectors, bankers, and investment advisors in order to protect and increase their own wealth and position.

With the Jewish rise to prominence, even dominance in some areas, Jewish thought and teachings have transformed Western society — even the sciences. The ascendancy of the Jews in society in general may be seen in microcosm in the competition for the laurels awarded to the most distinguished researchers in the physical sciences by the Nobel Prize selection board.

Although an imperfect measure, the number of Nobel Prize winners is a handy gauge of outstanding achievement in the sciences. Some consider the measure unreliable because they question the impartiality of the selection board. Others would prefer emphasizing the ethnicity of the laureate rather than the country he happens to reside in, believing that ethnicity is a more significant criterion than citizen ship in a particular nation state. Without a homeland of their own, ethnic Jewish scientists have always carried out their research in diverse countries and have won their Nobel Prizes as citizens of those “host” countries. Some Jewish groups, motivated by pride, have taken to identifying and publicizing the Nobel Prize laureates who are Jewish. Ethnic identification is made according to strict Halachic definition based on the interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures, stipulating that to be a Jew requires being born to a Jewish mother (adherence to the Jewish Volk is inherited down the female line in the same manner as mitochondrial DNA) or undergoing formal conversion to Judaism. In other words, a Jew by that definition can be either one who adheres to the religion of Judaism or a non-believer whose mother happened to be Jewish even if she was not practicing her religion.

To avoid ethnic chauvinism, the Nobel Prize committee itself does not take the ethnicity or the heredity of a laureate into account. The Nobel Committee does not choose the winning Laureate as exemplars of a specific racial group but as citizens of the county in which they reside.

On the basis of the Nobel committee’s official criteria, in the overall compilation of winners (in all fields: physics, chemistry, bio medicine, economics, literature, peace) Ger many, without reference to race or religion of its citizens, has had a total of about a hundred laureates. On the other hand, the Jewish world community, using its own Halachic identification criteria, proudly claims today that the number of Jewish laureates to date in all fields has already far surpassed that number, which is to say that approximately 25% of all Nobel laureates to date have been Jews. Using the Halachic method of counting, many American Nobel laureates are of course scored as Jewish.

Based on the citizenship of the country in which they reside, the United States is the grand master with over 160 winners in all fields, repre senting one-third of all Nobel laureates. Before World War II the Ger mans held the overall lead, but have fallen behind owing to the human and territorial losses in World War II as well as the postwar emigration (voluntarily or forcible) of scientists to the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Russia, and elsewhere. In addition, the reorganization and democratization of the German school system by the Allies after the war also lowered standards.

Both peoples, German and Jews, have unquestionably contributed more than their share to the advances made in the various fields of scientific endeavor and especi ally in the natural sciences, as exemplified by physics since about 1900. In the specific field of physics, Germany has produced 26 winners 5 of which were Jews, or roughly 20%. By Halachic definition, Jews worldwide have earned some 44 laureates in physics alone. An educated guess, if not by actual count, suggests that an even greater per centage of U.S. laureates, perhaps 25–30 %, were also Jewish. Four of 6 Russian winners in physics, i.e., two-thirds, were Jewish. Roughly the same numbers and percentages would pertain to chemistry and medicine as well.

The high number of winners for the United States and ethnic Jews since about 1950 can partially be attributed to the fact that increasingly multiple (2–3 or more) scientists may be awarded the laureate for the same accomplishment, i.e., a team of researchers may share the award. Another factor at work affecting the high number of U.S. and Jewish laureates is the high costs involved in modern research that favor the rich countries and put the smaller countries at a disadvantage. Also, the personal wealth of a significant number of U.S. Jewish laureates permitted them to study at the best universities in the world, which, in turn, helps to explain their remarkable success. Moreover, the gifted and affluent ethnic Jewish laureates were able to use and build upon the scientific infrastructure (labs, universities, scholarship, traditions, preexisting and accumulated achievements of earlier, indigenous scholars, etc.) of the advanced Western countries in which they resided.

Intelligence tests have consistently shown that Ashkenazi Jews score higher on average than Whites and Asians.  And among the Jews themselves, the Ashkenazi group rates somewhat higher than the Sephardim. However, IQ is apoor explanation of Jewish success in being Nobel laureates because non-Jews greatly outnumber Jews. For example, if we take an IQ of 145 as a cutoff for genius and assume that Jews were around 3.4% of the White US population in 1950, there were nearly 4 times more non-Jewish White geniuses in the US than Jewish geniuses. And there would have been a much greater disparity in pre-World War II Germany where Jews were around 1% of the population.

Ethnic Competition in Physics

Nationalism in the first half of the 20th century, especially in Europe, was so strong that many thought the sciences themselves were pervaded with the spirit of the people who developed them. It was in this age and atmosphere that Zionism too (secular Jewish nationalism) was aborning. To a considerable extent it is true that each nation has its own specific approach or style of research, but can the results of research be colored by the ethnicity of the researcher? The following is based mainly on Johannes Stark‘s Jüdische und deutsche Physik(Jewish and German Physics, originally published in 1941). Stark was a leader of the German Physics movement during the National Socialist period.

No one has ever accused the Jews or the Germans of being underachievers in matters intellectual. If anything, it is precisely because both peoples are notorious overachievers that they have incurred the suspicion and dislike of the less ambitious who often claim to find the manners of Jews and Germans offensive. Compounding the situation, Jews and Germans often find each other’s behavior objectionable, most probably because they are in competition with each other. Like two magnets of the same strength, they can attract each other in one configuration or they can repel each other in another. We have seen both configurations, though admittedly more of the latter.

Both Germans and Jews are proud peoples and have earned the right to be so.

Unfortunately, competition, driven by national pride, has in the past provoked discord and even scandalous contention among Nobel laureates. In Germany, decades before the rise of the National Socialists, a bitter dispute arose between German and Jewish physicists, clearly reflecting group cultural differences. At the center of the storm was Albert Einstein.

A small but important group of German physicists (Wilhelm Wien, Philipp Lenard, Johannes Stark), all early Nobel laureates and suffused with the spirit of German nationalism, resented the fact that natural phenomena discovered by German scientists were quickly appropriated by the British and assigned English names (e.g., Röntgen rays were called X-rays). Even more irritating to the German nationalists was the fact that a number of Jews, domestic and foreign, who studied in Germany, were soon getting an exorbitant amount of publicity and credit for research that had been pioneered earlier by Germans and others.

Philipp Lenard (1862-1947)

This animosity toward the British, like so much of the anger that propelled the rise of the National Socialists, stemmed from World War I propaganda that painted the Germans in the worst possible light, culminating in declaring Germany solely guilty for the war. To counter this propaganda, the Germans, with Wien and other physicists in the lead, joined in the so-called Krieg der Geister (War of Minds) in which leading figures in German society fought a paper war with the French and British to set the record right.

Wilhelm Wien (1864-1928)

The prominence and celebrity accorded to Einstein and “his” Theory of Relativity was, in German eyes of that day, the main provocation and the straw that broke the back of the German nationalists. Several important German physicists believed, for example, that Friedrich Hasenöhrl, a German almost unknown today because his work was not publicized, deserved much of the credit and certainly at least some credit for developing the theory. Hasenöhrl, for example, was the first to postulate the fundamental idea of the equivalence of energy and mass. Underlying the surface dispute of assigning proper credit for the development of the relativity theory was an even more sinister concern. Einstein’s relativity was, in the minds of many, equated with moral relativity, a trait that Germans and others associated with Jews. Even the famous E = mc2 formula had been introduced earlier (1903), albeit for a different purpose, by the Italian Olinto De Pretto and published by the Veneto Royal Science Institute in the scientific journal Atte.

Friedrich Hasenöhrl (1874-1915)

In actual fact, Einstein did not win his Nobel Prize for the Theory of Relativity, but for his work in theoretical physics in general and his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. Nonetheless, Einstein was faulted by German and other physicists for failing to give proper credit to the many scientists upon whose studies he based his own. Stark, among others, asserted that Einstein gave no credit, not even in footnotes, to researchers like Hendrik Lorentz, Jules Henri Poincaré, Ernst Mach, and Stark himself, all of whom had contributed much in the field. Not even the German astronomer and geodesist J. G. Soldner, who lived decades before Einstein and who was the first to describe the bending of light in the gravita tional field of the Sun, was mentioned by Einstein.

Methodically, these disgruntled German physicists proceeded to define how German physics differed from Jewish physics. The essential difference, accord­ing to the Germans, resides in each group’s fundamental approach to the study of physics. The traditional approach to the study of physics in Germany has been classical, pragmatic, empirical, and experimental. Jewish physics, on the other hand, was considered dogmatic, intuitive, overly abstract and theoretical. Generally speaking, Jewish scientists tended to rely on mathematical rather than observed physical laws, on inductive leaps rather than on the laborious accumulation of empirical evidence. The two divergent schools of research, many thought, reflected the innate ethnic attributes of the physicists.

In 1941 Stark, who was by then a member of the National Socialist Party, condemned the dogmatic approach as practiced by Einstein and other Jewish physicists:

The dogmatic approach seeks to extract scientific knowledge from the human mind. It builds thought systems based on human concepts of the outside world and sees in these only manifestations of their own thoughts and formulas. Our pragmatic approach draws its knowledge from careful observations and planned targeted experiments. Our own imagination is used only as a means of planning the experiment. If the plan does not confirm the experiment, then it is replaced by another concept that better corresponds to reality. The dogmatic approach believes that new knowledge can be obtained by means of desktop mathematical operations. The dogmatists then spin out their formulas into great theories and propagate them in books and on the lecture circuit. A prime example of this is the worldwide aggressive propagandizing of Einstein’s theories of relativity. The pragmatic approach seeks to understand reality in patient, often yearlong laboratory work and limits itself to the publication of the results so obtained.

Because the pragmatic German physicists rely chiefly on careful, instrument-based, direct observations of experimental data, their approach is occasionally referred to as “brass machine physics” because of the many tools and instruments employed in their investigations. The dogmatists, on the other hand, chose to derive their knowledge of the laws of physics through mathematical operations and formulas that then formed the basis of the grand theories spun by Einstein and other members of that school of physics. Further irritating the Germans was the disproportionately approbative publicity accorded such dogmatic theories by the print and electronic media, which the Germans believed was managed and promoted by fellow Jews.

By the 1930s extreme elements of the National Socialist Party were even labeling ethnic German researchers like Werner Heisenberg, Max Planck, and Arnold Sommerfeld “White Jews” for sometimes adhering to the Einsteinian theoretical mathematical approach. Even when Heisenberg postulated his Uncertainty Principle, which challenged Einstein’s belief in a causal, predictable universe, many German physicists opposed him. These scientists rejected quantum physics on the grounds that all unified field theories, including Heisenberg’s, viewed space-time in Einstein’s terms.

Some racially minded individuals further opined that perhaps Jewish dogmatism even harkened back genetically to their Semitic ancestors in the age when Jewish prophets and lawgivers abounded. In a more critical vein some critics accused Jews of using their inherent analytical talent for the destruction of their host society’s existing absolutes and replacing them with a value system of their own creation (i. e., the thesis of The Culture of Critique).  The talent of the Germans on the other hand, was attributed by some to their adeptness in synthesizing proven components into a viable whole (analysis vs. synthesis).

With regard to the employment of Jewish scientists in Nazi Germany, a certain flexibility prevailed. It is said, for example, that that Herman Göring, when once asked to dismiss a valued colleague (Field Marshal Erhard Milch) who was Jewish, told the investigators that “I [Göring] will decide who is a Jew.”  When it suited them, or expediency demanded it, the Nazi Party was even prepared to declare certain Jews “honorary Aryans.” In the field of nuclear physics, for example, Fritz Houtermans was a Communist and the son of a Jewish mother. He was therefore considered Jewish both by according to Jewish law and National Socialist law. Houtermans worked with his German colleagues throughout the war. The higher political echelons of the Party were obviously taking a very prudent approach, preferring not to foolishly alienate modern physicists who might be needed or who might even be correct.

As James Wyllie has shown in his book The Warlord and the Renegade this political flexibility on the part of the Göring family and the Nazi Party was also evident in the field of psychotherapy, in the German Institute for Psychogenic Research and Psychotherapy in Berlin, directed by Matthias Heinrich Göring, a cousin of Herman. Although Matthias Göring himself and the Party favored Adlerian psychoanalysis, his staff included practitioners in the three major fields of psychotherapy as developed by Freud, Adler, and Jung. The Nazi Party, which saw religion and culture as the main determinants of mental processes and behavior, referred to psychotherapy as Seelenheilkunde, literally “soul therapy.” So successful was Herman Göring in reconciling the Institute’s practices with Hitler and the Party that after the war many of his staff were permitted by the Occupation to continue their work.

The renowned psychologist Carl J. Jung remarked of Hitler:

He belongs in the category of authentic wizards. … He has in his eyes the expression of a prophet. His power is not absolutely political; it is magical. Hitler listens and obeys. The true leader is well led. The idea is confirmed in the word Mahdi, the Islamic Messiah, which translates to ‘He who is well led.’

Adler and Freud described him quite differently.

Thus, German and Jewish scientists can and have worked successfully together, even under the worst possible conditions. Even if the extreme nationalists on both sides have to bite their lips, their scientists were able to cooperate in both the best and worst of times. Indeed, their different approaches to research may actually complement each other.

Postscript: After the war in 1947 Nobel laureate Johannes Stark, who had been actively concerned with ridding the German university system of all Jewish influence, was declared a “major offender” and sentenced to four years imprisonment by a denazification court. Philipp Lenard died in 1947 before the courts could convict him.

Daniel W. Michaels, a native New Yorker, received his BS in geography from Columbia University in 1954. Following five years in the Army (three of which stationed in Germany) and a Fulbright grant for studies in Tuebingen University, Mr. Michaels worked in the Defense Department until his retirement in 1993. He continues to contribute articles to various journals on World War II and Cold War matters. (Email him.)

My Smackdown with Anti-White Crusader Tim Wise

A TOO contributor recently brought to my attention to one of those hard Left, Jewish fanatics who wrap themselves in activist virtue as they roam the countryside in search of monsters to destroy.

The crusader’s name is Tim Wise. Tim Wise hates racists; but from what I discovered, only one kind of racist. The White kind.

To investigate, I decided to contact Timothy Jacob Wise and explore his sympathies and uncover his inconsistencies, which turned out to be extensive. First, here’s a bit about “Anti-White Privilege” activist Timothy Jacob Wise fromhis website:

Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S., and has been called, “One of the most brilliant, articulate and courageous critics of white privilege in the nation,” by best-selling author and professor Michael Eric Dyson, of Georgetown University. Wise has spoken in 48 states, and on over 400 college campuses, including Harvard, Stanford, and the Law Schools at Yale and Columbia, and has spoken to community groups around the nation.

Tim Wise has written at least four books on racism and “white privilege” and has perhaps appeared on as many talk shows as Joan Rivers. And he’s every bit as charming.

Wise claims to be an “anti-Zionist Jew” but he avoids the subject of Jewishness, of Israel and Palestine. And he definitely avoids the ethical shortcomings inherent in Zionism. One of Wise’s books is titled, White Like Me. Yes, Wise detests “white privilege” as well as “haters” like David Duke, and even televangelists like Pat Robertson. Wise’s list of hate objects constitutes a rather familiar pattern. Indeed, from what I could uncover, among Wise’s scores of articles on race, there was virtually nothing on America’s unconditional commitment to the Jewish people of Israel and their infamous assortment of racial extremists. I wanted to explore this.

I decided to contact Mr. Wise and initiate a conversation about his deep concerns over “white privilege”. Below is our unexpurgated correspondence. Mr. Wise finally stopped talking to me. To find out why, read on. The email messages remain as in the original, with minor editing and added links.

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 22, 2010]:

Dear Tim,

I’m bothered by racism in all its expressions. But history creates challenges for those of us who wish to counter injustice as well as advance equal treatment for everyone under the rule of law. Allow me to ask you then: are you Jewish? (Please forgive me for being so bold). 

This is an important question however. There is no Caucasian group in the US that operates with such privilege (and enjoys such political double-standard) as American Jews and, especially, the state of Israel. Indeed, if white racism is deplorable, isn’t Jewish racism? For all of us devoted to combating racism, the Zionist movement poses pressing moral dilemmas. This cannot be ignored. 

By any objective measure, Jews in America are very successful, influential and free to travel anywhere. This is good. But it can be argued that there is an underlying racial element to ‘global Jewry’. Many organized Jews groups denounce racism but work tirelessly to prevent Jews from marrying individuals without a Jewish mother. This is not only hard to justify, but it suggests an overriding Jewish concern with DNA (race). This raises difficult issues. 

Many Jews operate in countless (and exclusive) groups that are designed to enhance Jewish cohesion, solidarity and influence. But there’s clearly a downside to this. Not everyone’s in the club.  

American Jews, I’ve noticed, tend to support multi-culturalism (and high levels of immigration) here in the US as they champion Jewish purity in Israel/Palestine. Isn’t this double-standard a challenge to our anti-racist agenda? This level of Jewish privilege demands scrutiny. Public scrutiny. We cannot ignore it. 

Many Jews are proudly atheistic. (I’m something of an atheist myself.) But interestingly, these atheistic Jews are as Jewish as any rabbi. Why? It is their ethnic identity that makes them Jews. Religious ideology, it seems, is a sidelight to modern Jewishness. Indeed, racial identity is what motivates Israeli Jews (and their supporters here) to try to ethnically-cleanse Palestine. As an anti-racist, isn’t this hard to support? Should people in Palestine be penalized to the point of exile for not having a Jewish pedigree? This is a difficult issue. 

As you doubtless realize, Jews also have extraordinary influence in Hollywood and Washington. If political/cultural underrepresentation is problematic, why not political/cultural overrepresentation? After all, power is a zero-sum game. 

Today, many Jews in America have attained privileged status. At the highest levels, many organized Jewish groups seem willing to inflict damage upon numerous Mideast peoples in order to enhance security for their ethno-state in Israel. This campaign is hugely expensive to the US taxpayer and, at times, undermines our reputation abroad. Favoring one ‘religion’ over others is also incompatible with settled American law. What (if anything) should we do about this?  

There are exclusive Jewish fraternities, Jewish neighborhoods, Jewish country clubs, Jewish political action committees (by the score) and even a Congressional Jewish caucus in Washington DC. These organizations actively discriminate against non-Jews and, since Jewishness is a birthright among Jews, the question of racism inevitably arises. It cannot be ignored. 

Most Jewish Americans seem comfortable with Israel’s harsh treatment of native non-Jews in Palestine. What’s the proper course of action for America now? Today, we Americans of all races are taxed to subsidize the Zionist battle against non-Jews in Palestine. Is this compatible with fighting racism? On a related subject, should America invade Iran to make Israel safer? These are challenging questions. But I think that it’s time that you spoke out against the most virulent forms of Jewish racism, particularly since it’s so intimately connected to the imperial doings of Washington DC.  

If possible, please take the time to explore these concerns, Tim. I as well as many of your supporters will surely appreciate it. Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely, Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 22]

I am an anti-Zionist jew and always have been. I have written about it and spoken out about it for years. If you did your homework you would know that. Although I do not think American Jews have nearly the power you think, I am certainly opposed to our special relationship with Israel. I think we should spend all military aid to Israel (and everywhere else for that matter), and that the proper solution in Palestine is a one-state, bi-national state, where all have equal rights, entirely.  tim wise

[Mark Green to Tim Wise on Feburary 24, 2010]:

Hi Tim. Thank you for your comments. I’ve done some reading by you and about you. Your anti-racist positions are indeed selective. I discovered little in your writings that critically explore Israeli racism. Nothing about ‘Jewish supremacism’. As far as I can tell, you’ve even managed to ignore the sorry condition of black Jews in Israel. Are you an Israeli mole? 

Perhaps you’ve described yourself as “anti-Zionist Jew” once or twice (though I missed it) but the sweep of your articles ignores Israeli violence and systemic Israeli racism altogether. Wikipedia has nothing to say about your being an “anti-Zionist Jew”. In fact, even your list of recommended books hasn’t one title devoted to the destruction of Palestine or the inordinate influence enjoyed by the Israel Lobby in Washington. Did you forget? 

Your obsession with “white privilege” is conveniently narrow. Is it the white privilege we find throughout our country at integrated, white-created institutions that hire and recruit African-Americans over more qualified white applicants because of their race? — or is this the kind of ‘white privilege’ that allows a nation of European Jews to colonize an already-populated area in the Middle East and then exile or subjugate the native people there because they lack a Jewish pedigree? Oddly, your writings obsess over the former and ignore the latter. Your sympathies lack moral balance.  

You say you want to suspend “military aid” to Israel. Big deal. The Israelis already have a nuclear arsenal and they’re threatening to use it. Doesn’t the threat of genocide concern you? Then say so. Or should thousands of Iranians die because their President doubts the Holocaust or intends to enrich uranium? 

Do you support the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement(BDS) against Israel? You did so aggressively in the case of Apartheid South Africa. If you do support these broad sanctions against the Zionist Israel, then why not say so loudly and endorse BDS?  

Your mining the same territory that Jewish liberals have been prospecting for the past 60 years: integration for blacks and whites, separate but equal for Israelis. This is a moral charade.  

The greatest racial violence and extremist danger today comes from Jewish zealots and their fundamentalist Christian allies. These people are threatening nuclear war against Iran and pushing our government towards continued aggression in Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Yeman, Lebanon, and Iraq. Meanwhile, the slow motion annihilation of Palestine grinds on. As one who claims to be committed to the struggle against racism, doesn’t this bother you? Then say something about it that’s loud and clear. And keep saying it. 

Desmond Tutu famously said conditions in Palestine are “far worse” than anything he witnessed in Apartheid South Africa. Do you not believe him? Why then are you so accommodating towards the ‘special relationship’ (besides private claims to the contrary)? Your writings evidence more contempt for pro-lifers in America’s Bible Belt than an Israeli garrison dropping white phosphorous on Palestinian civilians. Why? 

You are you frothy over a problem that is rapidly improving (race relations in the US) but indifferent to a crisis that is growing worse (Zionist extremism). This smacks of intellectual dishonesty, Tim.  

Since you’re keen on human rights, how is the Arab minority doing in Israel? Any hiring quotas that you know of? What about ‘the problem’ of discrimination in housing? Terrible, right? Are these not expressions of institutionalized racism?  

Here’s my theory: you’re obsession with (past) white (Christian) sins is a deliberate cover for ongoing, government-subsidized, worldwide Zionist criminality. The shoe fits, Tim. 

To cover up for your work as an Israeli asset, you occasionally make noises about “hard line” or “right wing” Israelis, but never about the whole stinking racist society there. 

Also, please explain how Israel can become “one state” but also be “bi-national”. Are you serious? A bi-national state is what many Apartheid-era white South Africans sought so they could avoid racial integration and black rule. Are you blowing smoke again for Jewish segregationists? Indeed, recent polling indicates that the vast majority of Israeli Jews want the Jewish State ethnically cleansed of all gentiles in the event of a ‘peace deal’. That whole country is chock full of racist, supremacist Jews, Tim. But it doesn’t seem to bother you. 

You are surely aware that Jews may not marry non-Jews in Israel. Why have you not explored this as an expression of systemic Israeli racism? Is DNA mixing a bad thing for the Jews? Many Israelis think so.

Finally, which past or present Israeli leaders should be held criminally responsible for the multitude of crimes committed by the Zionist state? Please name names.  

Those horrid white American racists that you make a living ranting about couldn’t get elected to deputy sheriff in Amarillo, but those privileged whites from Israel get a private meeting with our President. Which problem is more urgent, Tim? Moral and political corruption on a massive scale is subverting justice and damaging our civilization. And you’re looking the other way. -Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 23, 2010]:

Mark, You don’t get it. I am opposed to Zionism, entirely. I do not believe in a Jewish state, or any ethno-religious states.  

I spend my time focusing mostly on U.S. white racism because I am an American. I believe I can have the greatest influence where I live, and believe in cleaning up my backyard first. I receive white privilege in the U.S. as someone who is seen as white (whether you and your type believe Jews are white or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether we receive white advantage). I do not accept that as a Jew I have some special obligation to focus on Israel, per se, because I do not believe in Israel and have said so repeatedly. I would never live there, have no desire to go there, and even quit my own religious instruction as a youth because of my views re: Israel among other things.  

i agree with Tutu and have said so. 

I support the boycott and divestment from israel. 

When I say bi-national state, I merely mean that Jews should be able to live in palestine with Arabs (Christian and Muslim), with equal rights, but no special rights or privileges. 

I’m not sure what would satisfy you. Perhaps you think we should simply nuke Israel, or round up Jews and kill them, and only those who are willing to go along with such bigoted bullshit are legit in your view. Whatever. people like you who believe in worldwide Jewish conspiracies tend to be beyond reason, so I doubt there is much reason in discussing it with you further.  

I am critical of Jewish racism. You are not critical of traditional white racism. And therein lies the difference. You are the hypocrite my friend. Not me. 

Fuck you very much. Tim

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 24, 2010]:

Tim- No need for profanity or hatred. Your attack upon my character is a familiar canard. Stop changing the subject.  

Your written record is clear. Your public “criticisms” of Jewish racism are a basically non-existent. This is no accident. You have a forum but you’d rather denounce redneck hillbillies instead of billionaire Zionists. As for being an American, this didn’t prevent you from tirelessly pursuing sanctions against Apartheid South Africa, did it? It’s ‘white’ (Christian) racism that you detest. Nothing more. This is a familiar pattern among Jews. 

Israel is allowed to kill because US-based Jews such as yourself would prefer to blow smoke about less urgent issues. In case you haven’t noticed, racist Israel relies on American aid, American arms and American cover provide by Jewish activists like yourself to commit their everyday atrocities. Because of the highly effective efforts of Zionists, America and Israel are virtually one political entity. This arrangement damages America and undermines international law. Your deceptive behavior make you complicit, that’s all. -Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 24, 2010]:

… and I support cutting off that assistance, just like I did with South Africa. But actually, one thing I learned while doing the S. Africa work was that it was inappropriate to focus only on injustice elsewhere when there is substantial racism and injustice here (this is documented in my books, by the way, whether you believe it or not). I did not make the connections to the local context that I needed to when I was a student in the antiapartheid movement, and I resolved not to ever again focus mostly on what was going on elsewhere, over what was going on here.

To the extent the US is complicit, I call that out and am on record as supporting a) an end of all support for Israel (military and economic), b) an end to Israel as a “Jewish state,” and a one-state, democratic solution for all, c) an end to the special relationship with Israel in the U.S. I’m not sure what more I’m supposed to do. fact is, I receive white privilege in the U.S. and feel that it is ethically necessary to take responsibility for that, first, because that is the system of injustice from which I most directly benefit. I do not receive Jewish privilege in this country (I would in Israel, but don’t have any desire to even visit, let alone live there). In this country, I have never been favored in anything because of my Jewishness, while, on the other hand, I was often marginalized as a Jew growing up, told by Christian assholes that I was going to hell etc.

So, because I believe our first responsibility is to address injustice from which we benefit, I think dealing with white racism/privilege in the U.S. has to be my priority. But that has not kept me from writing about Israel, openly proclaiming my anti-Zionist views at hundreds of speeches, and ending up on the shit list of every Zionist and pro-Israel group in the country as a result. You may not be familiar with my public stance, but Zionists are. I have had them attempt to get me fired from jobs, they have forced places to cancel my speeches, I get death threats from them on occasion, etc. So frankly, your own ignorance about my views says little about the reality: I have attacked Zionism. Not just the hard right in Israel, but Zionism. The fact that this upsets your simplistic worldview, which says that all Jews are Zionists and support Israel, is your problem, not mine… tim 

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 25, 2010]:

Hello Tim. I’ve got to give you credit, you’re a lot better on the Zionist problem than most of your co-ethnics. I am also sorry to hear that you were “marginalized as a Jew growing up…by Christian assholes”. This is unfortunate, and revealing. Unfortunately, you’ve still got a chip on your shoulder the size of Brooklyn.  

You are wrong to allege that I believe that “all Jews are Zionists and therefore support Israel” (though polling data proves that the vast majority of the world’s Jews are committed Zionists and do support Israel with little reservation). But I never floated this facile, straw man generalization about “all Jews” so kindly stop claiming so. 

I don’t know whether or not you actually believe that you have “never been favored in anything because of [your] Jewishness”, but allow me to inform you that, as an American Jew, you are supremely privileged in our society. Supremely.  

Just consider your occupation. You go around scolding white (overwhelmingly non-Jewish) Americans for their ethnocentrism in what’s become the most integrated, tolerant and multi-racial nation in human history. Racism (and expressions of racial preference) have become truly taboo for ordinary, white Americans. If white Americans were half as racist as you believe, they’d be following Israel’s example and enacting laws to manage their ethnic future. Only it’s not happening. US borders remain open as Israel builds a “security fence” bigger than the Berlin Wall. What’s worse, the very discussion of these perplexing double-standards is severely limited. 

For instance, do you think that a gentile with my views (highly critical of organized Jewry) would be allowed to promulgate these concerns on any major campus (without violent interruption) or on any major media outlet? It just doesn’t happen. It’s not allowed to.  

Do you think this level of censorship or these political double standards has taken root by accident? Authoritarianism and conformity of this kind protects activists like you, Tim. Your opponents are delegitimized and marginalized. These double-standards are in place by design. This is privilege. It is Jewish privilege. 

Each and every day, white Christians pay tribute to the nuclear-ready Zionist State via taxation and unwavering diplomatic and military assistance. These subsidies have been going on without interruption for generations. And no level of Israeli cruelty causes their cessation. Yet you make a living out of scolding these witless, hapless gentiles for their racist tendencies! You’re so Jewish you can’t even see straight. 

And while American pay tribute to Israel, fully 98% of American taxpayers would be denied citizenship in Israel because of their non-Jewish genealogy. This grotesque problem isn’t about “another country”, Tim. This is happening in Washington, in Palestine, and on your TV right here and now.  

Israel’s extraordinary exemption from everyday rules (and law) is an expression of Jewish privilege. This is doing genuine and irreversible damage to our nation and the world.  

Being Jewish in America today means never having to say you’re sorry (except to other Jews). It must be nice. And when criticizing Jews, we gentiles must be very, very careful, since the charge of ‘anti-Semitism can be ruinous. Jews suffer no similar opprobrium for any display of ‘anti-gentilism’. (Does such a thing even exist?) These double-standards are a cancer. In today’s multi-cultural America, there’s a galaxy of federations, alliances and organizations devoted strictly to ‘minority’ special interests. The vanishing white majority has been totally disarmed. This extraordinary double-standard represents the triumph of ‘political correctness, Tim, and it’s got Jewish fingerprints all over it. 

American Jews are blessed with top tier victim status today, in no small part due to the omnipresent Holocaust narrative. … In this universe, no other genocides matter. Perhaps no other genocide ever even happened. Today, the Holocaust parable symbolizes the eternal white (Christian) propensity for evil-doing (anti-Semitism) against a backdrop of Jewish exceptionalism and Jewish innocence. Those who doubt the veracity of any essential element (or meaning) of this Truth are to be shunned. In many democratic countries, repeated violators may suffer job loss or imprisonment.  

On the other hand, expressions of Jewish xenophobia — no matter how racist or extreme — suffer from no comparable sanction. Even Israel’s push for the annihilation of Iran achieves considerable US approval.

Jewish privilege is real and it is doing genuine harm. 

Thus ended our correspondence. I conclude with a quote from Wise’s website:

After all, acknowledging unfairness then calls decent people forth to correct those injustices. And since most persons are at their core, decent folks, the need to ignore evidence of injustice is powerful: To do otherwise would force whites to either push for change (which they would perceive as against their interests) or live consciously as hypocrites who speak of freedom and opportunity but perpetuate a system of inequality.

Who’s the hypocrite?

Mark Green is the editor of Persecution, Privilege and Power. He can be reached at: PersecutionPrivilegeAndPower.com