Featured Articles

Mossad’s One Million Helpers World-Wide

Mossad icon

Aftershocks following the assassination in Dubai in January of Palestinian Hamas leader Mahmoud Mabhouh by Israel’s secret service Mossad finally shook the Palace of Westminster in London on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd March.

The assassination was perpetrated by a large hit-squad comprising men and women who arrived and departed Dubai using “cloned” passports originally issued to citizens of Australia, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Israeli government has refused to comment on the matter beyond stating: “There is no evidence that Israel was responsible”.

Twelve of the forged passports were copies of UK originals. It is noteworthy that all of the holders of the authentic UK documents are British citizens who have settled in Israel and who, under the Law of the Return have also taken Israeli citizenship.

The Labour government’s Jewish (but not necessarily Zionist) Foreign Secretary David Milliband rose to his feet in a hushed House of Commons to make a ministerial statement which announced that following an investigation by Scotland Yard’s Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), a decision had been taken to require a senior member of the diplomatic staff of the Israeli Embassy in London to quit Britain forthwith.

The diplomat was not named in the statement, but it is presumed that the person, whatever his or her official title, is Mossad’s ‘head of station’ in London.

Milliband told the Commons that the SOCA investigation had been able to establish that the authentic UK documents had only ever left the hands of their owners when they were taken into the temporary possession of Israeli officials either in London or in transit at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. He declared:

We have concluded, that there are compelling reasons to believe that Israel was responsible for the misuse of the British passports. Such misuse is intolerable. It represents a profound disregard for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. The fact that this was done by a country which is a friend, with significant diplomatic, cultural, business and personal ties to the UK, only adds insult to injury. No country or government could stand by in such a situation. I have asked that a member of the Embassy of Israel be withdrawn, and this is taking place.

It will be interesting to see what the Jewish Chronicle makes of Milliband’s announcement. On 26th February the paper, under the heading “Million Jews aid Mossad says writer on Radion 4” tried to pooh-pooh information that Israel’s foreign intelligence service, Mossad, has recruited a million Jews world-wide to assist with its espionage activities.

This denial of Mossad’s million helpers among Diaspora Jewry studiously failed to mention the existence of a sub-unit of Mossad known as the Sayanim” [= “Helpers”].

Sayanim are Jews who live in and hold the citizenship of lands outside Israel who are recruited clandestinely by Mossad to help with its operations, i.e. providing ‘safe houses’, transportation, access to communications networks and other facilities, official documents, etc., etc.

Full (and undenied) details of the existence of the Mossad Sayanim network were given in the 1994 book The Other Side of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky, a renegade Mossad agent.

It is certain that not all Sayanim are recruited by Mossad talent-scouts in the Diaspora lands of their birth where they hold citizenship; some are recruited while on visits to Israel. Ever since Israel was proclaimed in 1948, it has been an objective of the Zionist movement’s premier international organisation, the World Jewish Congress (WJC), to achieve a bonding between Jews of the Diaspora and Israel.

This policy was articulated with astounding frankness by Zionism’s foremost strategist of the 20th century, Nahum Goldmann. Goldmann co-founded the World Jewish Congress with Rabbi Stephen S. Wise in 1934 and was president of the WJC from 1949 to 1977. In his book, The Jewish Paradox(1978), he argued that this bonding process be implemented among Jews in their late teens when all young people are at their most idealistic and impressionable.

Goldmann advocated that as many young Jews as possible be enabled to go to Israel for what are now known as ‘gap-years’, within or just before university education, for immersion in the Israeli way of life by way of working on kibbutzimor in one of the social services — or even as recruits to the Israeli Defence Force.

He even had the effrontery to argue that the governments of Diaspora nations sympathetic to the Jewish cause would facilitate this process and, indeed, might be persuaded to donate funds from their respective national exchequers to help pay for it!

Whether this http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-admin/post.php?post=5702&action=edit#is, or has been, done by the British government I do not know. But several Zionist charities which organise and (nominally) pay for such gap years in Israel for young Jews holding British nationality all publish registered charity numbers which means their funds are exempt from taxation, so the operation certainly has an indirect subsidy courtesy of the British taxpayer.

During their stay in Israel the most avid young Zionists who also possess the required intellects and personality traits are recruited and, no doubt, given training. The process is very little different in principle from that perpetrated by the Soviet NKVD spymaster who recruited and trained the ring of Soviet spies at Cambridge University just before World War II: Guy Burgess, Donald Duart MacLean, Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt & Co. were able to penetrate the highest reaches of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) during the war when Britain was allied to the USSR. They frustrated and subverted British anti-Soviet intelligence operations during the Cold War.

The only difference between the Soviet-British and the Zionist-Jewish operation is that the Zionists are doing it on a continuous, global, mass-production basis and are carrying out the work of spotting, recruiting and training each new wave of young talent within the borders of Israel where such activity is outside the scope of the laws of Diaspora countries.

Activities of the Sayanim

Sayanim in Britain and Italy assisted with the 1986 abduction and smuggling to Israel (drugged, in a packing case) of Mordechai Vanunu, the Christian-convert Israeli scientist who blew the whistle on Israel’s secret nuclear bomb-making facility at Dimona.

Sayanim also helped Mossad agents in New Zealand four years ago purloin official New Zealand passports belonging to a number of its elderly, infirm and otherwise vulnerable citizens. These passports were intended for Mossad use in espionage and murder operations elsewhere in the world.

Mossad hoped that the people whose identities they were stealing would be less likely to notice if anything was amiss and report it to the authorities. That is the kind of cynical wickedness which Israel-admirers tend to dismiss with an indulgent smile as mere “chutzpah”. (These are the same people who speak of the “high ethical standards” of the Israeli Defence Force.)

The plucky New Zealand government of the time did not take that view. Two Mossad agents were jailed, and Israel was required to express a public apology and provide assurances that it would never undertake to do such a thing again. The apology and assurances were given.

Such Israeli assurances are not worth a cup of cold spit. In the debate which followed Milliband’s ministerial statement, William Haigh, Conservative shadow foreign secretary, reminded the House of Commons that Israel had been caught in a similar UK passport forgery operation in 1987. He said the then Israeli foreign minister — now President of Israel — Shimon Peres, gave a solemn verbal and written assurance to the British government that “such a thing will never happen again”.

Haigh’s remark is noteworthy for its absence from most media reports of the debate the following day.

As we now know, forged British as well as Australian, French, German and Dutch passports were used in the Dubai assassination of Mahmoud Mabhouh.

It is of course outrageous — in diplomatic language “an unfriendly act” — for the secret service of a foreign power to recruit the nationals of another country to assist with any kind of espionage activity in ‹ let alone against the interests of ‹ that other country.

Mossad perpetrates just such activity in every Diaspora land where there is a Jewish community simply because the governments of most nations (especially Britain, the USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland) are normally reluctant to take effective action to stamp out such subversion for fear of:

Why Mossad¹s Bosses Know They Are Able To Get Away With Murder:

·         Shrill accusations of “anti-semitism”; or

·         Fear that local Friends of Israel organisations will cease making cash donations to their Establishment political parties; or

·         Pressure from the USA, which is always willing to assist Israel because its entire political system and mass media are dominated by Zionist-Jews or non-Jew careerists whom they have suborned.

The blind-eye which successive British governments give to Mossad-Sayanim subversion in the UK was institutionalised in the mid 1990s when the Home Office, which supervises Britain’s police service and the internal security service (MI5), gave permission for the London Metropolitan Police and the Greater Manchester Police to provide ongoing training for and intelligence-sharing with the Community Security Trust (CST).

The CST is the security and intelligence arm of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (JBD), whose prospectus declares that it exists to “Protect the interests, religious rights and security of Jews world-wide and to advance Israel’s security, welfare and standing”. Quite clearly concerns about loyalty issues are not uppermost in the minds of the organised Jewish community.

In an article in The Observer of Sunday 2nd February 1997, the then JBD “Defence Director” Michael Whine (now living and working in Israel) revealed that the CST is

a 2,000 strong defence force…. with a sophisticated intelligence system which provides security guards and trains bodyguards …. Personnel undertake vigorous physical training.

CST formations are often seen escorting Zionist political demonstrations and other Jewish communal public manifestations wearing uniform day-glow jackets similar to those sported by the police, but with “CST” stamped on them in large letters. CST personnel are paraded in public places even though all such activities are given a full Police escort, which is sufficient protection for for all manner of other folks and organisations in our land.

In the light of such public manifestations of the CST and Michael Whine’s admissions, it is important to note that under Section 1 the Public Order Act of 1936 (enacted to cramp the style of the Blackshirts of Sir Oswald Mosley’sBritish Union of Fascists) it is illegal to “organise and/or equip and/or train a paramilitary force for the purpose of achieving political objectives by means of physical force”….. or “….to behave in such a manner as to give reasonable apprehension….” of being so engaged. Nevertheless, the CST is somehow exempt from Section 1 of the Public Order Act.

The late Colin Jordan and three of his associates in the now long-defunct National Socialist Movement were jailed in 1963 after an Old Bailey trial for periods ranging from three to nine months even though they had been found not guilty of the substantive offence but guilty of “giving reasonable apprehension” that the unarmed  12-man formation of stewards (who wore uniform grey shirts) called The Spearhead was in breach of the Act.

Colin Jordan in 1962

When I was organising National Front demonstrations in the 1970s I was continually warned about the terms of that Act when I visited Scotland Yard’s A8 Public Order department to negotiate routes for marches and other details. I was told that it would be considered an offence against the Act if the members of the NF Drum Corps even so much as wore similar white shirts! (“That would be considered a uniform. They would be arrested.”)

National Front demonstrations were attended by many hundreds, sometimes thousands of supporters, when the party was ‘on the boil’ in the late 1970s. On this occasion in 1977 an anti-immigration march through the Borough of Hyde in Greater Manchester proposed by me when I was a NF National Activities Organiser was banned under the Public Order Act on the grounds that it was likely to be a focus of “serious disturbances”.

When the ban was promulgated, I announced that there  would be two NF marches in Manchester on the appointed Saturday. The NF membership would march in one of the other boroughs of city where no ban applied. Its assembly place and route would not be announced in advance so that the massed Red ‘Rentamob’ would not know where to turn up to be “provoked” into staging a riot.

The second ‘march’ would be conducted by me along the main street in Hyde where the ban applied. I carried a Union Jack flag and a placard reading “Defend British Free Speech from Red Terrorism”. The authorities would have to make up their minds if such a one-man demonstration contravened the ban.

This strategy had the effect of fragmenting the Red mob, some of whom went to Hyde believing that all the NF would go there to defy the ban; others scoured around Greater Manchester, a huge area, seeking the NF column. Both NF events were conducted without any disorders, but with considerable expressions of support from ordinary Mancunians out for their Saturday shopping. Such a large number of police officers escorted me that the effect was a march of constables. It made the ban ludicrous. Apart from massive media publicity for days before and after the event, its planning and conduct was also made the subject of a BBC TV ‘Inside Story’ film.

The Home Office plan to put the police into bed with a private Zionist paramilitary/security/spook organisation was engineered by a top civil servant,Neville Nagler, who headed the Home Office department responsible for race relations issues and who boasted to my old friend, the late Dowager Lady Birdwood, of having drafted every speech on race relations topics made by every Home Secretary, Labour and Conservative, for more than a decade.

Guess what? When he retired from the Home Office, Nagler was immediately appointed Executive Director of the JBD.

Now chief constables and other very senior police officers attend annual CST banquets at super-luxurious Mayfair hotels where they rub shoulders with leading Zionist fanatics, many of whom are multi-millionaires and some of whom are convicted fraudsters and ex-jail-birds. (For more details about this, see my TOOessayIs there a revolt brewing against the Israel Lobby in Britain.”)

In the light of all these facts, it seems to me reasonable to assert that many of the Zionist-Jews who are motivated to join the CST will be prime targets for recruitment into the ranks of Mossad Sayanim — that is, if they have not already been recruited during gap years spent in Israel bonding with the Zionist state.

The Jewish Chronicle’s studious avoidance of any mention of Mossad’s world-wide Sayanim network in its attempt to discount the notion of a million Jews around the world organised to assist Mossad operations can only evoke rueful smiles from those non-Jews who know what the score is — and belly-laughs from the Jews.

Martin Webster (email him) has been a racial-nationalist activist in Britain since he was an 18 year old in 1961. From 1969 until 1983 he was National Activities Organiser of the National Front and a member of its National Directorate. In 1973 he was the first nationalist in Britain (pre- or post-WW2) to “save a deposit” (then set at 12.5%, currently set at 5%) in a parliamentary election when he won 16.02% of the poll at West Bromwich in 1973. Since 1983 he has not associated with any political organisation. He issues occasional e-bulletins to a world-wide circle of friends (and some enemies) who subscribe to his Electronic Loose Cannon newsletter, which comments on nationalist issues and parties, and hisElectronic Watch on Zion whose title explains its purpose.

Louis Ferdinand Céline — An Anarcho-Nationalist

In his imaginary self-portrayal, the French novelist Louis-Ferdinand Céline (1894–1961) would be the first one to reject the assigned label of anarcho-nationalism. For that matter he would reject any outsider’s label whatsoever regarding his prose and his personality. He was an anticommunist, but also an anti-liberal. He was an anti-Semite but also an anti-Christian. He despised the Left and the Right. He rejected all dogmas and all beliefs, and worse, he submitted all academic standards and value systems to brutal derision.

Briefly, Céline defies any scholarly or civic categorization. As a classy trademark of the French literary life, he is still considered the finest French author of modernity — despite the fact that his literary opus rejects any academic classification. Even though his novels are part and parcel of the obligatory literature in the French high school syllabus and even though he has been the subject of dozens of doctoral dissertations, let alone thousands of polemics denouncing him as the most virulent Jew-baiting pamphleteer of the 20th century, he continues to be an oddity eluding any analysis, yet commanding respect across the political and academic spectrum.

Can one offer a suggestion that those who will best grasp L.F. Céline must also be his lookalikes — the replicas of his nihilist character, his Gallic temperament and his unsurpassable command of the language?

Cadaverous Schools for Communist and Liberal Massacres

The trouble with L.F. Céline is that although he is widely acclaimed by literary critics as the most unique French author of the 20th century and despite the fact that a good dozen of his novels are readily available in any book store in France, his two anti-Semitic pamphlets are officially off limits there.  

Firstly, the word pamphlet is false. His two books, Bagatelles pour un massacre (1937) and Ecole des cadavres (1938), although legally and academically rebuked as “fascist anti-Semitic pamphlets,” are more in line with the social satire of the 15th century French Rabelaisian tradition, full of fun and love making than modern political polemics about the Jewry. After so many years of hibernation, the satire Bagatelles finally appeared in an anonymous American translation under the title of Trifles for a massacre, and can be accessed online.

Louis-Ferdinand Céline

The anonymous translator must be commended for his awesome knowledge of French linguistic nuances and his skill in transposing French argot into American slang. Unlike the German or the English language, the French language is a highly contextual idiom, forbidding any compound nouns or neologisms. Only Céline had a license to craft new words in French. French is a language of high precision, but also of great ambiguities. Moreover, any rendering of the difficult Céline’s slangish satire into English requires from a translator not just the perfect knowledge of French, but also the perfect knowledge of Céline’s world.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Certainly, H.L. Mencken’s temperament and his sentence structure sometimes carry a whiff of Céline. Ezra Pound’s toying with English words in his radio broadcasts in fascist Italy also remind  a bit of Céline’s style. The rhythm ofHarold Covington’s narrative and the violence of his epithets may remind one a wee of Celine’s prose too.

But in no way can one draw a parallel between Céline and other authors — be it in style or in substance. Céline is both politically and artistically unique. His language and his meta-langue are unparalleled in modern literature.

To be sure Céline is very bad news for Puritan ears or for a do-good conservative who will be instantly repelled by Céline’s vocabulary teeming as it does with the overkill of metaphorical “Jewish dicks and pricks.”

Trifles is not just a satire. It is the most important social treatise for the understanding of the prewar Europe and the coming endtimes of postmodernity. It is not just a passion play of a man who gives free reign to his emotional outbursts against the myths of his time, but also a visionary premonition of coming social and cultural upheavals in the unfolding 21st century. It is an unavoidable literature for any White in search of his heritage.

These weren’t Hymie jewelers, these were vicious lowlifes, they ate rats together… They were as flat as flounders. They had just left their ghettos, from the depths of Estonia, Croatia, Wallachia, Rumelia, and the sties of Bessarabia… The Jews, they now frequent the guardhouse, they are no longer outside… When it comes to crookedness, it is they who take first place… All of this takes place under the hydrant! with hoses as thick as dicks! beside the yellow waters of the docks… enough to sink all the ships in the world…in a décor fit for phantoms…with a kiss that’ll cut your ass clean open…that’ll turn you inside out.

The satire opens up with imaginary dialogue with the fictional Jew Gutman regarding the role of artistry by the Jews in the French Third Republic, followed by brief chapters describing Céline’s voyage to the Soviet Union.

Between noon and midnight, I was accompanied everywhere by an interpreter (connected with the police). I paid for the whole deal… Her name was Natalie, and she was by the way very well mannered, and by my faith a very pretty blonde, a completely vibrant devotee of Communism, proselytizing you to death, should that be necessary… Completely serious moreover…try not to think of things! …and of being spied upon! nom de Dieu!…

…The misery that I saw in Russia is scarcely to be imagined, Asiatic, Dostoevskiian, a Gehenna of mildew, pickled herring, cucumbers, and informants… The Judaized Russian is a natural-born jailer, a Chinaman who has missed his calling, a torturer, the perfect master of lackeys. The rejects of Asia, the rejects of Africa… They were just made to marry one another… It’s the most excellent coupling to be sent out to us from the Hells.

When the satire was first published in 1937, rare were European intellectuals who had not already fallen under the spell of communist lullabies. Céline, as an endless heretic and a good observer refused to be taken for a ride by communist commissars. He is a master of discourse in depicting communist phenotypes, and in his capacity of a medical doctor he delves constantly into Jewish self-perception of their physique… and their genitalia.

The peculiar feature of Céline narrative is the flood of slang expressions and his extraordinary gift for cracking jokes full of obscene humors, which suddenly veer off in academic passages full of empirical data on Jews, liberals, communists, nationalists, Hitlerites and the whole panoply of famed European characters.

But here we accept this, the boogie-woogie of the doctors, of the worst hallucinogenic negrito Jews, as being worth good money!… Incredible! The very least diploma, the very least new magic charm, makes the negroid delirious, and makes all of the negroid Jews flush with pride! This is something that everybody knows… It has been the same way with our own Kikes ever since their Buddha Freud delivered unto them the keys to the soul!

Mortal Voyage to Endtimes

In the modern academic establishment Céline is still widely discussed and his first novels Journey to the End of the Night and Death on the Installment Plan are still used as Bildungsroman for the modern culture of youth rebellion. When these two novels were first published in the early 30’s of the twentieth century, the European leftist cultural establishment made a quick move to recuperate Céline as of one of its own. Céline balked. More than any other author his abhorrence of the European high bourgeoisie could not eclipse his profound hatred of leftist mimicry.

Neither does he spare leftists scribes, nor does he show mercy for the spirit of “Parisianism.” Unsurpassable in style and graphics are Céline’s savaging caricatures of aged Parisian bourgeois bimbos posturing with false teeth and fake tits in quest of a rich man’s ride. Had Céline pandered to the leftists, he would have become very rich; he would have been awarded a Nobel Prize long ago.

In the late 50’s the bourgeoning hippie movement on the American West Coast also tried to lump him together with its godfather Jack Kerouac, who was himself enthralled with Céline’s work. However, any modest reference to hisBagatelles or Ecole des Cadavres has always carefully been skipped over or never mentioned. Equally hushed up is Céline’s last year of WWII when, unlike hundreds of European nationalist scholars, artists and novelists, he miraculously escaped French communist firing squads or the Allied gallows.

His endless journey to the end of the night envisioned no beams of sunshine on the European horizon. In fact, his endless trip took a nasty turn in the late 1944 and early 1945, when Céline, along with thousands of European nationalist intellectuals, including the remnants of the French pro-German collaborationist government fled to southern Germany, a country still holding firm in face of the oncoming disaster. The whole of Europe had been already set ablaze by death-spitting American B17’s from above and raping Soviet soldiers emerging in the East. These judgment day scenes are depicted in his postwar novels D’un château l’autre (Castle to Castle)  and Rigodoon.

Céline’s sentences are now more elliptic and the action in his novels becomes more dynamic and more revealing of the unfolding European drama. His novels offer us a surreal gallery of characters running and hiding in the ruins of Germany. One encounters former French high politicians and countless artists facing death — people who, just a year ago, dreamt that they would last forever. No single piece of European literature is as vivid in the portrayal of human fickleness on the edge of life and death as are these last of Céline’s novels.

But Céline’s inveterate pessimism is always couched in self-derision and always stung with black humor. Even when sentenced in absentia during his exile inDenmark, he never lapses into self pity or cheap sentimentalism. His code of honor and his political views have not changed a bit from his first novel.

Upon his return to France in 1951, the remaining years of Céline’s life were marred by legal harassment, literary ostracism, and poverty. Along with hundreds of thousands Frenchmen he was subjected to public rebuke that still continues to shape the intellectual scene in France. Today, however, this literary ostracism against free spirits is wrapped up in stringent “anti-hate” laws enforced by the thought police —  70 years after WWII! Stripped of all his belongings, Céline, until his death, continued to use his training as a physician to provide medical help to his equally disfranchised suburban countrymen.  Always free of charge and always remaining a frugal and modest man.

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a former diplomat. His new book, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, has just been released.Email him.

Selective Moral Panics in Higher Education

Christopher Kernich: Kent State student Murdered by Blacks

James Edwards and his crew from The Political Cesspool have done a great job of bringing to our attention the alarming disparity in how minor non-violent acts against Blacks in university-related settings are treated by the American press versus how murder of Whites by Blacks in the same setting is treated. For instance, he told the story of John White, who survived Iraq, but not Diversity:

John White was a young white man who had served in Iraq, and was working on a second master’s degree at Kent State University, in small town Kent, Ohio. Unfortunately, Kent isn’t far from Akron, or as many folks call it, Crackron, and Akron blacks like to drive over to Kent and beat white college students for fun. In January, John White’s number came up. He was savagely beaten on January 23rd, and finally died from his injuries a few days ago. John White is the second white KSU student beaten to death by Akron blacks in the past few months. Two Crackron thugs beat Christopher Kernich to death back in November.

John White and Christopher Kernich, RIP.

And if you want an eye-opening revelation, do a search on Google to see how KSU is responding to this crisis of black on white violence. In the last three months, four KSU students have been attacked by blacks, and two of them have died from their beatings. But you’d never have a clue that there’s any problem by the lack of the university’s response. Good luck finding anything. Compare that with the university in San Diego that went into full fledged crisis mode last week after a few white students held a ghetto-themed party, which was all over the national news. The administration issued several press releases denouncing the kids, held emergency meetings with black students, and caved in to one demand after another from the blacks on campus wailing about how they don’t feel safe on campus. They even promised the blacks that private parties that they don’t approve of will no longer be tolerated. But four white students attacked in three months by blacks, and two of them dying, and the university and media are completely silent.

Two things are happening here. First, the disproportionate attention given to alleged anti-Black racist behavior (many turn out to be hoaxes, as we’ll see below) is a deliberate propaganda technique known as creating a “moral panic.”Kevin MacDonald has already described this at our site: “Right now, the media ignores brutal Black on White crimes while fomenting moral panics when some college students at UC-San Diego failed to express officially sanctioned attitudes on Black History Month. (The LA Times has had 13 articles on this crisis, with no end in sight.) This demonization of Whites is the first step in large scale murderous revenge.”

The chilling last sentence describes the second part of the process: plans for White Americans.

While Blacks are indiscriminately killing White college students across the country, the media bombards us with stories such as this:

2 Wisconsin Colleges Investigate Racist Flyers

Two Wisconsin colleges are trying to determine who distributed racist flyers on their campuses.

“White pride” flyers turned up at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh on Monday and last Thursday at St. Norbert College in De Pere.

St. Norbert says as many as 150 flyers were distributed on vehicles in two parking lots. The college captured video of the incident. The video and flyers were turned over to police. Jim Skorczewski, director of campus safety, says the suspect is not believed to be a student or school employee.

Both UW-Oshkosh and St. Norbert sent campus-wide e-mails Tuesday.

The UW-Oshkosh chancellor made a public appeal for anyone with information to contact university police.

Around the same time, California educators were obsessing over statewide allegations of White “racism.”

Pledge to students: strategies to combat intolerance

SACRAMENTO — President Mark Yudof and UC Regents Chairman Russell Gould met face to face Monday (March 1) with students concerned about recent incidents of intolerance at University of California campuses and pledged to focus attention system wide on strategies to prevent such acts in the future.

“These are the worst incidents of racism I have seen on campuses in 20 years,” Yudof told about 100 students who were staging a sit-in on the sidewalk in front of the UC Center Sacramento building on K Street. “I understand that students don’t feel safe, they don’t feel comfortable on their campuses.” . . .

In a wide-ranging discussion, Yudof and the students also talked about UC Davis, where a swastika was carved on a Jewish student’s door, and where anti-gay graffiti was sprayed in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center.

“The university is in danger of losing the trust of its students” given the spate of incidents, said Jesse Cheng, student regent-designate.

Students asked UC leaders to endorse a request they delivered to 120 legislative offices Monday for legislation that would declare across California’s three systems of public higher education “there is ZERO tolerance policy for acts of hate with intent to terrorize.” The students’ proposal would require students who commit such acts to be expelled and have their actions included in their permanent academic records.

There is now a university-sponsored site here which beseeches students to “Join the Battle Against Hate.” A moral panic in full swing.

Meanwhile, we leave it to James Edwards to unravel the story:

Who hung the noose at UC-San Diego?

UC-San Diego has been in an uproar the past couple weeks because some white students held an off campus party whose theme was ridiculing ghetto behavior. Never mind that it was off campus. Never mind about free speech. Never mind that one of the organizers was “Jiggaboo Jones”, who calls himself The #1 Nigger In America. Never mind that ghetto behavior is ridiculous, and should be ridiculed. None of that matters if colored people are offended, so university authorities denounced the private party, repeatedly, and are looking for excuses to punish the students involved. Blacks have been up in arms, holding protests, and making demands, and the school has been giving into almost all of them. They even promised blacks that parties they don’t approve of will no longer be tolerated.

Then things got even more out of hand, after someone hung a noose in the campus library Thursday night. In response, hundreds of blacks stormed and occupied the office of university Chancellor Mary Anne Foxe, who’s been doing nothing but groveling and pandering to them all week. This caused a new frenzy of media coverage, and almost every article mentioned that in California, hanging or displaying a noose “with intent to terrorize” is a hate crime punishable by a year in prison. Then, suddenly, the university announced that a female student had admitted to hanging the noose. She has been suspended, but apparently she hasn’t been arrested. Both the university and the cops are refusing to release her name or any other details.

Which means one thing, of course. The female student who hung the noose isn’t white. If a white person had confessed, the cops would’ve arrested him, and his bail would be ridiculously high, and his name and face would be all over the internet, newspapers, and cable TV. Everyone knows it’s true, and yet the media will never, ever report this fact.

Another thing the media refuse to discuss is that these noose incidents (and many other “hate crimes”) almost always turn out to be “self-inflicted”, and the perpetrator rarely gets anything but a slap on the wrist, while a white person would’ve faced years in prison for doing the exact same thing in many jurisdictions. But when a black or other non-white confesses, they’re portrayed as someone who meant well, but just went a bit too far in an attempt to “raise awareness” of racism. They’re misguided and confused, good people at heart, who “made a mistake” and shouldn’t be punished. They may pay a fine, do a little community service, and have to get counseling. While a white man who would do such a thing is seen as the very incarnation of evil, and would have to be locked up for years in prison.

There’s two sets of laws in this country — one for white people, and one for non-whites.

Naturally, some uppity white folks have noticed the curious situation, and are wondering why the school and the cops won’t release her name. Actually, they have a pretty good idea why, and they’re saying so. (See the comments.) And what do liberals do when white people point out this utter hypocrisy, and are curious about who confessed to a crime that’s been all over the news for the past few days, and why it’s now being hushed up? What else? They denounce the white people, and accuse them of being on a witch hunt.

You can’t win if you’re white. If you commit a “hate crime”, you face years in prison, while a black or other non-white faces, at worst, a slap on the wrist. Then if you point out this double standard, you’re accused of “injecting race” into the discussion, and being on some kind of “witch hunt”, etc.

(See also C-San Diego noose culprit is non-white.)

To make his point about the vast disparity between how minorities and Whites are treated in this sensitive area of “hate crimes,” consider this:

Are Q-tips a hate crime?

Q-tips a hate crime? Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But in a few years, I’m sure some black or insane white liberal will be insisting that Q-tips are racist. Look at what’s going on in Missouri, where police are “investigating” a bunch of cotton balls left on the ground:

University of Missouri police are investigating what appears to have been a racially motivated incident Friday morning at the campus’ Gaines/Oldham Black Cultural Center.

Cotton balls were strewn across the center’s lawn, walkway and bushes between 1:30 and 2:30 a.m. Police said two people were seen running from the center grounds.

Whoever is responsible could be charged with littering or tampering, said MU Police Capt. Brian Weimer. State statutes contain no hate crime law, but if racial motivation were found, “it would enhance the punishment for the crime,” he said.

Well, such a crime cannot go unsolved let alone unpunished, and fortunately our men in blue were up to the task, as reported on VDARE: Two White Students Prosecuted In Missouri For Felony Littering: “Because authorities suspect the placement of the cotton balls on the center’s lawn, walkway and bushes was racially motivated, the charges against the students were raised to Class D felony status.”

Think about that: a FELONY. The horrifying part of this is that today’s America seemingly finds this appropriate. The reason for such acceptance of official actions was explained in an insightful article posted by George Hocking on TOQ online recently:

Racism now irrevocably taints all whites as much as original sin once tainted their ancestors. Just as those ancestors were once reminded of their sinfulness each Sunday morning, their descendents are reminded of their racism each day by a media cacophony. And its logic is impeccable. Since racial equality is as unquestioned as God once was and evidence of inequality is everywhere in non-white poverty, crime, low achievement, and general misbehavior, the only possible explanation is white racism.

That is why it really doesn’t matter if such incidents are actual hate crimes perpetrated by Whites. Hoaxes committed by minorities, Jews and feminists are rampant and they succeed because the initial message spattered across the headlines is what counts. White males have been accused again—which is almost the same in the media as being convicted.

With such an explosive payoff for perpetrating hoaxes that seek to frame Whites for racism, it is no wonder that such instances are widespread. A classic account in this field is Laird Wilcox’s spiral-bound study Crying Wolf: Hate Crimes Hoaxes in America. A detailed report of a more recent incident can be found inUntil Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

Let’s close with some (dark) humor dealing with these cases. We turn again to James Edwards, who reports on how at least a few university leaders are immune to these moral panics (or are they?):

UC-Santa Cruz noose graffiti horror!

Another day, another phony “hate crime” on a college campus. Another noose, but this time it’s only a picture of one, scribbled on the inside of a restroom door. For once, though, a college administration reacted rationally. Chancellor George Blumenthal responded to a reporter’s inquiry about the incident:

“You have got to be kidding me! You’re actually writing a story on restroom graffiti?! What the hell is wrong with you? And you wonder why newspapers are going out of business?! Whatever… Yes, I was informed of this noose scribbling earlier this morning, by one of the university vice presidents. After listening to his breathless tale, I asked him if he knew the difference between a university chancellor and a janitor. He said he did. So I told him to call the freakin’ janitorial department and have it cleaned up, and that if he ever wasted any more of my time on nonsense like this he would be fired on the spot. And that’s the end of the “story.” Racism and hate on campus? You’re a reporter, and you fall for this crap?! Almost every incident of this kind turns out to have been perpetrated by a member of the alleged “target” group. Everybody knows that. Except you, apparently. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a lot more important things to do than waste my time on this kind of garbage. So if you want to write it up in your paper, go ahead. Then I suggest you get a freakin’ life.”

Nah, I’m just pullin’ your leg, man! He didn’t really say that. Instead, he went through the usual motions. Chancellor Blumenthal knows the drill:

Chancellor George Blumenthal posted this statement on the UCSC website on Monday. “This incident is deeply disturbing. I want to be clear: There is no place on this campus for racial intolerance or hate of any kind. To students and others who were subjected to this threatening message before it was removed, I want to apologize and offer my deepest assurance that I am committed to a zero-tolerance policy regarding racism at UCSC.”

No place on campus for racial intolerance or hate? Zero tolerance policy for this kind of stuff? What a bunch of bull. What Blumenthal means is that there’s zero tolerance for white people who draw nooses on doors, or hang real ones in libraries. But if a non-white does it, there’s plenty of tolerance for that, as we just saw with UC-San Diego.

Somehow I feel I am not properly emphasizing the vast difference that exists between emphasis on White racial missteps on campus vs. that of non-Whites, particularly Blacks. Here, let me explain it this way.

Just prior to Christmas Break 2006, healthy Eastern Michigan University coedLaura Dickinson passed away unexpectedly in her dorm room. There was no foul play, the school said. Well, they lied. In fact, officials had reason to be suspicious of a black student, Orange Amir Taylor III, 20. Eventually he was arrested for raping and killing Miss Dickinson.

Laura’s father was devastated that the school had lied to them. “They let us bury her thinking that a healthy 22-year-old girl died by some freak accident.”

Again, contrast such active lying about a Black-on-White RAPE/MURDER with discoveries of graffiti or cotton balls. There is no sane way to explain it. Academia may be further left than the nation as a whole, but the nation always manages to catch up.

That’s why I discouraged one of my nephews from going into the humanities to earn a Ph.D. Based on my own experiences, I knew that the odds were stacked heavily against him at every turn—scholarships, grades, the right to enjoy a non-hostile environment in the classroom, etc.

Now that he has a fresh Ph.D. and is in the job market, race reality in academia is getting too real, beginning with the application process.

Though many schools only send an e-mail letter of rejection (or no response at all), he has immediately gotten mail to his house from EVERY academic job he has applied for. What is that correspondence? It’s a form asking for demographic, i.e., racial, information. Again, based on my own experience in academia (fudging grades for affirmative action candidates, etc.) I have no doubt whatsoever that such forms are used to weed out White males and promote the privileged groups of multiculturalism.

Let’s finish by returning to the topic of disparate emphasis put on (alleged) White hate crimes vs. all-too-real murders of White students. George Hocking’s account explains why it is so crucial to constantly repeat these stories of condemnation of White racism: It is the prelude to our elimination. “Just as the only route to the eternal bliss of heaven in the old story [Christianity] was death, the only path to a blissful utopian future of racial equality in the new story is death of the white race.”

The creation and propagation of this race-killing story can only be called wickedly brilliant. Unfortunately, it is working all too well as a critical mass of Whites has internalized it and therefore accepts these race crime reports uncritically. Worse, they demand punishment through race suicide.

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

Activus Interruptus: All Pro-White and Nowhere to Go

It’s well-known that a major frustration for white advocates is the lack of opportunities for activism.  A person first makes the slow and sometimes painful transition from “conservative” or “libertarian” to racially conscious white person (as in “No, I’m not a hater of random black or Jewish people, but would you look at the raw deal whites in America are getting, for God’s sake?”).  The more they delve into the writings, and match them up with current events, the more clearly they understand the issues facing whites.  But aside from posting on the Internet, there’s not much they can do.

Many would put themselves at grave risk of being fired from their employment, as the examples of Sam Francis, Kevin Lamb, Michael Regan and countless others show.

Some organizations, as the erudite Wilmot Robertson observed, consist of nothing more than a weird collection of undercover government agents, informers and oddballs.  I recall attending some National Alliance meetings several years ago and thinking that some of the attendees mirrored his observation.

I think this is a very harmful state of affairs.  Some deal with “activus interruptus” by simply drifting away.  Others may deal with it through foolhardy outbursts that accomplish nothing.

One acute problem is this:  there are countless implicitly white efforts that never go anywhere (conservatism in general being the chief example) because they don’t state the issues clearly.  And then there are the kamikazee pro-white efforts that never go anywhere precisely because they do state the issues clearly (the National Alliance might be an example).  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.  We’re too hot to handle, but we can’t stay silent.

I don’t have a handy solution to this problem, but I wanted to name it.  I thought “activus interruptus” was a fitting phrase.  And I wanted to throw some thoughts out.

1. I don’t think it’s true that implicitly white activism, like being active in the GOP, is totally useless.  I recommend erring on the side of doing something instead of nothing.  If all you can safely do is participate in the GOP or donate to the NRA (because your husband is a federal judge, for instance), that’s all you can safely do.  Don’t quit doing that just because it’s not explicitly white.  Of course, you shouldn’t lull yourself into thinking that’s it:  look for any and all opportunities to push and persuade.

2. Inside all areas of life, there are opportunities to advance the white cause.  If you’re elected to the local school board, you can vote for the less-PC history textbook, for instance.  Small beer, sure — but it’s something.

3. Don’t assume that joining a group is the same thing as advancing the cause.  Or starting a group.  Whites feel compelled to create groups with names and then run a flag up the pole.  Are the groups having an influence?  Sometimes, individual action — like running for office — might do more good.  Let me emphasize:  groups are always going to disappoint you.  The Democrats, as an organization, are very disappointing to many individual Democrats.  This doesn’t stop them, however.

4. On the other hand, you might ask yourself whether certain types of activity really are that risky.  We sometimes buy too much of the notion that we’re so marginal that we really do need to “crawl under a rock”, as our opponents like to tell us.  Run through the possible consequences and ask what’s likely to happen, or not.  If you’re called to step out there more, step out.  If you need to rearrange your life in certain ways to make yourself more protected as an activist, do it.  Think long-range.  Self-employment is an obvious answer to the risk of being fired.

5. Use the system.  Yes, the system is against us.  Our goal is to change it.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t use it to our benefit in the meantime.  I think the legal process is a good example of this.  Don’t equate use of the system with validation of the system.

6. Don’t worry that you’re being watched.  Of course you are being watched — by “civil rights” ninnies, radical leftists, the media, the government.  But don’t get too excited about this.  The government doesn’t like anyone who rattles the status quo, and they infiltrate all kinds of radical groups.  The government probably had the “civil rights” movement totally infiltrated, but it was ultimately successful.

7. Keep moving.  Don’t become static.  Things like cancellation of AmRen are a blow, but that should be your cue to get flexible and think, write, speak, meet, connive, conspire, strategize and maybe do a little (legal) sabotage of your own.

8. De-emotionalize the white cause.  In the end, it’s about inevitable group conflict and how we as whites will deal with it.  If you’re convinced that whites as a group have a right to self-determination, you’re there.

We need changed minds and changed policies.  No bigger changes are going to happen without that groundwork.

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

Racial Studies of Jews in National Socialist Germany

Review of Alan E. Steinweis. Studying the Jew: Scholarly Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany (Harvard University Press, 2006) and Christopher M. Hutton, Race and the Third Reich (Polity, 2005).

A new book, with the provocative title Studying the Jew, describes the approach that analyses of the Jewish question took in Germany under the National Socialist government’s racial studies program. The author Alan E. Steinweis focuses attention on scholarly German journals of the period, dealing with biological, anthropological, ethnological, theological, economic, and criminological studies as related to Rassenkunde (Race Science). Steinweis excludes vulgar, lowbrow anti-Semitic screeds from his study, concentrating instead on the academic literature on the Jewish question written by and for the better-educated segment of German society during the National Socialist period.

For centuries, indeed millennia, animosity toward Jews has periodically erupted into emotionally charged pogroms, expulsions, and persecutions. This animosity had variously been attributed to religious or political differences as well as to perceived unattractive personal characteristics attributed to Jews (e.g., their critical nature, their mocking attitude, business and financial acumen, exclusiveness, aggressiveness).

According to Steinweis, it was Adolf Hitler, who completely revised how anti-Semitism was understood. In the modern world Anglo-American countries especially have tried to ascertain why and how some people come to dis like Jews, assuming that the reason resides in the individual or in his life experiences. Hitler, on the other hand, approached the question assuming that something in the very nature of Jews evoked adverse feelings in many non-Jews. Hitler wanted his researchers to find “an anti-Semitism of reason” based on empirical scientific evidence, not just anti-Semitism as a “simple manifestation of emotion.”

Because German universities for centuries had remained bound to traditional academic pursuits independent of politics, the incoming National Socialist government had to establish separate institutes for racial studies that were deliberately designed to produce negative scholarship on the Jews. The two earliest and most prominent institutes were the Institute for History of the New Ger many under the direction of Walter Frank, and the Institute for Study of the Jewish Question under Alfred Rosenberg. These institutes published most of their studies in their own journals outside the regular academic system. Frank committed suicide in 1945 and the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced Rosenberg to death by hanging a year later.

The political aim of these studies was to make the expulsion of Jews from Germany more acceptable to everyone and to ease the way for a return to neopaganism. To achieve this, even the works of Jewish scholars and Christian theologians were recruited. In the end, Jews in National Socialist Germany were defined as racially alien, morally corrupt, inassimilable, and dangerous.

When the National Socialists came to power in 1933, the number of non-Jewish historians to whom the government could turn for scholarship on the Jewish question was very limited. Indeed, even after the new government came to power, Jewish scholars and publishers continued to produce most of the historical studies of Jews. Made aware of this situation and determined to rectify it, Walter Frank wrote:

Only one side of the Jewish problem has been addressed, the Jewish side; almost all books on the Jewish question have been written by Jews; at German universities, dissertations on the Jewish question have been submitted almost entirely by Jews; the historical journals have selected only Jews as editors for matters Jewish. (p. 94)

To remedy the lack of historical works on the Jews in Europe available in German libraries, the government during the war undertook to confiscate all the major collections of such works held in libraries throughout German-occupied Europe.

With respect to racial studies of the Jews, Steinweis first singles out Hans F. K Günther as the German racial scientist whose early work Racial Characteristics of the Jewish People (1930) represented the kind of research the government wanted. Günther had earlier (1922) published The Racial Characteristics of the German People. Such studies had become quite common in German and European academia since the early 19th Century. A good number of the researchers and authors of these works were themselves Jews. For a long time and into the National Socialist period German and Jewish researchers even collaborated.

To paraphrase Günther’s findings as presented by Steinweis: Günther believed that in the distant past a dozen Urrassen (prehistoric races) prob ably existed, but like the Ursprachen  (prehistoric languages), they eventually broke down and inter mixed with neighboring races. Therefore neither the Jews nor the Germans could be considered a distinct race. Günther preferred to refer to the Jews as well as the Germans as a Volk or people, each of whose national genetic pool was a mixture of several racial elements. The Ger mans, Günther argued, were primarily a mix of Nordics, Eastern and Western peoples of European origin. In the makeup of the German Volk the Nordic element was considered the most valuable. But unfortunately, according to Günther, the Germans had been increasingly denorticized ever since the 30-Years War in the 17th Century.

The Jews, on the other hand, were made up of primarily Near Eastern ancestry, but also Oriental, Nordic, and other elements introduced in the Diaspora. Günther maintained that because of their dispersion, modern Jews differ markedly from the original Hebrews. Because of Talmudic prohibitions against exogamy and centuries long inbreeding in Europe’s Ghettos (endogamy), modern Jews are not only quite different from their Biblical ancestors, but actually a distinct people. Günther therefore refers to contemporary Jews as a “race of the second instance.” Günther also held that the conversion of the Khazars and their absorption into the Ashkenazim added a further Near Eastern element in the northern European Jewish communities, but this did not occur among the Sephardic Jews. Thus, a racial divergence developed within European Jewry itself.

While physical differences between the various peoples (skull shape, speech patterns, facial expressions, specific odors, and a hundred other factors) were routinely measured by ethnologists the world over, the Ger mans were increasingly interested in inherited psychological, cultural and behavioral traits. With respect to the Jews, Günther agreed with his Jewish colleague, Samuel Weissenberg, that the salient cultural trait of the Near Eastern peoples (Armenians, Greeks, Jews) was its “commercial spirit,” which in turn was attributed to supple minds and characteristic verbal facility. For Günther, many Europeans had an instinctive, racially based aversion to peoples of Near Eastern racial origin precisely because of their different physi cal and behavioral traits. However, neither Günther nor his colleagues ever refer red to racial inferiority or superiority with regard to Jews or other peoples. No mention was ever made of a “super-race.” Instead, they emphasized the racial “otherness” (Anders artigkeit) of Jews — their racial-psychological estrangement from Europeans.

Somewhat later in the mid-1930s, another German researcher, Walter Dornfeldt, exchanged information and opinions with Franz Boas, an American anthropologist of German Jewish origin on the degree to which environment alters heredity. Generally, American scientists felt that environment played a more important role in racial physiology and psychology than did German investigators. Since at that time Germany was an ethnostate, with 95% of the populace German, while America was a melting pot of various European peoples, it is not surprising that the former should adopt a theory that extols the virtues of a common heritage while the latter should see advantage in diversity. That both environment and heredity are at play in all instances is undisputed. Unfortunately, the exact proportion played by each varies.

During the Third Reich studies of the genetics of racial differences took on increasing importance. The most widely read German genetics text was The Study of Human Heredity by Eugen Fischer, Erwin Baur, and Fritz Lenz. As cited in Kevin MacDonald’s A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Lenz Lenz (1931, 657) proposed that the “Nordic” peoples evolved in harsh environments that favored small groups and a tendency toward social isolation. On the other hand, Lenz proposed that Jews evolved in larger groups and as a result have highly developed social skills related to social influence, enabling them to anticipate others’ actions and desires. Steinweis emphasizes the point that Lenz was aware of the heterogeneity in the out ward appearance of Jews and therefore suggested that Jews might better be referred to as a psycho logical rather than an anthropological race.

In general, genetics researchers advised against racial mixing, but not specifically with regard to Jews. Otmar von Verschuer eventually became prominent for his research on genetic predispositions to disease. His research proved so important that he was quickly cleared by denazification boards and continued his career at Münster University until his retirement in 1964. Wikipedia notes that ”Verschuer was never tried for war crimes despite many indications that he was not only fully cognisant of [Josef] Mengele’s work at Auschwitz, but even encouraged and collaborated with Mengele in some of his … research.”

Steinweis surveys German studies that implicated Jews in economic crimes and crimes against morality (Sittlichkeitsver brechern). Ironically, as Steinweis notes (p. 138), it was a Jew, the Italian criminologist Caesare Lombroso, who invented the concept of the “born criminal.” J. Keller and Hanns Andersen used Lombroso’s idea in their book The Jew as Criminal, in which Jews were described as “born to crime” and possessing a special pre disposition to and ability for fraud, dirty dealing, dishonest gambling, usury, sexual transgressions of all kinds, pick pocketing, and treason. As Steinweis points out, neither of the authors had academic credentials of any sort, nor were they associated with any university. However, Johann von Leers, a trained jurist holding a professor ship in history at Jena University, did publish a booklet, The Criminality of the Jews, in which he presented statistics showing a disproportionately high Jewish participation in white-collar crime. Jews were 12 times more likely than non-Jews to be involved in usury; 11 times more likely to engage in the theft of intellectual property; 8–9 times as likely to declare fraudulent bankruptcy. Between 1903 and 1936, Leers noted, the frequency of Jewish participation in usury was 29 times that of non-Jews.

Steinweis points out that Leers’ statistics did not include violent crimes of which non-Jews had the higher numbers and Jews the lowest. Moreover, the crime rates obviously reflected the occupations of the perpetrators, Jews being highly represented in white-collar occupations. Replying to this, Leers declared:

The Jew does not become a criminal because he is a merchant, but rather the criminal Jew embraces the mercantile profession because he is predisposed to the crimes that are possible in this realm. (p. 140)

In the matter of crimes against morality, von Leers cited Polish statistics to the effect that Jews had dominated the prostitution trade before the war. The Polish publication estimated that 100,000 Polish Jews made their living through exploi­ting of immorality. Steinweis admits that while Jews were indeed heavily involved in the management of prostitution in Europe, he argues that certain adverse sociological factors prevailing at the time turned many Jews to this trade. Leers countered this argument by stating that both the immoral aspects of prostitution as well as the profits to be derived appealed to the Jewish nature. Adding to the public perception of Jews as criminals, the infamous Zwi Migdal, international crime syndicate specializing in the white slave trade, was controlled and run by Jews.

Steinweis labels Peter-Heinz Seraphim, a political economist, who specialized in assessing Jewish economic power in East Europe, as the most professionally and intellectually accomplished “Jew expert” in Nazi Germany. Although Seraphim considered Jews in general to be economic parasites, his major work,The Jews of Eastern Europe, was deemed indispensable to his contemporaries, without which studies of Jews during the National Socialist era would be unthinkable. Published in 1938, the 732-page tome contained 197 statistical graphs, a bibliography with 563 entries, and over a thousand footnotes. (p. 145) concerning Jewish economic enterprises.

Seraphim objected to the so-called Lublin Plan, which proposed settling most of East European Jews in an area around Lublin. When Governor General Hans Frank, the Nazi governor of Poland, objected to “dumping” Jews in Poland, Seraphim threw his support to the Madagascar Plan, which was later discarded because of the war. Seraphim opposed any and all extreme measures against the Jews, preferring to integrate them in the German wartime industrial complex.

Seraphim’s economic knowledge of East Europe was considered so valuable that he became an adviser to the American Occupation forces and later pursued a successful career in West Germany.

When the Nuremberg Laws, including the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law to Protect German Blood and Honor, were passed in 1935 the professional, usually apolitical studies of the ethnologists were used to lend scientific backing to the legislation. Referring to the Talmudic Laws by which most Jews lived for centuries, apologists for the German Laws claimed that the German Volk simply wanted what the Jews have desired for themselves since the days of the Prophet Ezra, namely, to protect the völkisch integrity of their own people.

Because they shared a common goal, namely, to encourage Jews to leave Ger­many, Günther and many other Party members–with the approval of the Nazi govern ment–welcomed and worked with Zionist representatives. As Günther put it:

The racial-biological future of Jewry could take one of two paths, either that of Zionism of that of decline (Untergang).

Steinweis quotes from a review of one of the few books written about Zionism in Germany that “it is better to talk with national-Jewish Zionism than with the hidden racial interests of assimilation.” Some Germans were dubious that the Jews would be able to establish an inde pen dent homeland. In 1940, for example, German historian, Josef Sommerfeldt, publicly expressed his doubts:

The Jews will be given the opportunity, in a territory designated for them, to demonstrate whether their racial characteristics suffice for the creation from their own energies of a sensible and healthy social and economic order. So far, the Jewish people have not provided this evidence. (p. 111)

When the presence of a disproportionate number of Jews in the USSR Communist Party and in the communist parties of most other European countries could no longer be ignored, a Zionist writer, Abraham Heller, argued that Jews who had repudiated their Judaism should not even be regarded as Jews — an argument made more recently by historian Yuri Slezkine. To which Wilhelm Grau, a Nazi historian, retorted that since Jews are no longer being identified by religion, but by race, Heller’s argument was ridiculous. When Heller pointed out that Jews were also being killed in the Stalinist purges, Grau responded:

A historian who wants to deal with the truth cannot represent Jewish suffering one-sidedly. The Jews were responsible for a much more violent and deeper stream of blood, that of the Russian people. (p. 106)

Studies of the ancient Hebrews and analyses of the Talmud by theologians (e.g., Karl Georg Kuhn and Gerhard Kittel) at Tübingen University were not anti-Semitic. Kittel in fact even wrote kindly of the Talmud, referring to it as:

A giant sack into which was stuffed everything, which Judaism had stored up in terms of memories and traditions, so that its contents are the most colorful and joyful confusion and juxtaposition that one can imagine. (p. 76)

Theologian Kittel saw four possible approaches for dealing with the Jews: elimination, Zionism, assimilation, or a guest status in Germany. For practical reasons he chose guest status. Elimination, as demonstrated by the Inquisition and the Russian pogroms, did not work; assimilation was out of the question because the National  Socialists considered assimilation part of the problem. The Party preferred dissimilation. Kittel and Sommerfeldt believed Zionism was doomed to failure because the Jews would be unable to establish and maintain a self-sufficient state. This left only guest status as the German option. As such, they should be referred to as “Jews living in Germany” (p. 69).

Tübingen University remains to this day a world center for Hebraic, Judaic, and Christian studies. Pope Benedict XVI once taught and studied there. Because some of the theologians whose works were misused by the Party had studied or taught there, the University established the so-called Tübingen Board after the war under the eyes of the Occupation Powers to determine the guilt or innocence of its staff members. Both Kittel and Kuhn were exonerated. With regard to Kuhn, the Board determined that “he had never propagated Nation al Socialist teaching” and that Kuhn’s “purely objective and scientific introduction to the world of Rabbinic Judaism significantly contributed to immunizing this students against rampant anti-Semitic slogans.”

Steinweis explains at length why he disagrees with the Board’s decision exonerating Kittel. However, to this day, both Kittel’s and Kuhn’s pre- and post-war, Old and New Testament Biblical studies remain highly prized in the Christian ministry throughout the world.

The recently published book Race and the Third Reich by the Britisher Christo­pher M. Hutton is an excellent companion to Steinweis’ work. Hutton broadly agrees with Steinweis on the harmful content of Nazi racial studies, but he differs from Steinweis’ in several ways. First, Hutton makes a sharper dichotomy between National Socialist ideology and the scientific, non political, research done in racial studies in German and other European universities of the time. Hutton distinguishes between early ideologically-driven (1930–35) racial tracts when the NSDAP was seeking power and not yet firmly entrenched, and the later (1936-44) racial studies in Germany after the Party had secured its power. Aside from the Germans’ politically mandated application of their theories to the Jews, the techniques used in their racial studies were quite similar to those employed outside Germany.

Hutton notes that official publications on race in the later years of Nazi rule actually emphasized that the term “Aryan” belonged to linguistics and was not a racial category at all. Influenced by Mendelian genetics, German racial anthropologists recognized that there was no necessary link between ideal physical appearance and ideal character. Eventually, Hutton states, when World War II threatened and Germany needed allies, terms such as “Nordi cism,” “Germanism,” and “Aryanism” that suggested exclusivity and elitism were discarded as a political liability. Indeed, near the end of the war many SS units were made up of Slavs, French, Belgians, Scandinavians, and even Arabs.

In the mature period of National Socialism the government terminated all rogue Aryan science and effectively suppressed all occultism, spiritualism, clairvoyance, and other such practices. Ultimately, the government completely separated science from ideology. National Socialism had accepted modernity.

Under National Socialism, the universities enjoyed a considerable amount of autonomy and often published articles at variance with the Party’s preferred line. More over, the Nazi researchers even argued among themselves about the importance of this or that factor in racial anthropology. In fact, Hutton argues, in the course of the Third Reich, racial anthropological studies increasingly gave way to studies in hereditary psychology and the science of human genetics.

Some German racial anthropologists even objected to negative descriptions of Jews. For example, Karl Saller (1902–1969) wrote:

The importance of the Jews for the development of Western culture is a matter of controversy. There is no question but that Jews are essentially different in type from the Western peoples (Völker). To this one should add that the frequent occurrences of hostility nowadays between the Jews and their host peoples must be attributed as much to the similarity in their aptitudes as to difference in type, as this leads to an intensely competitive relationship.  The Jewish spirit (Geist) is, next to the autochthonous culture, the main driving force in Western culture and to this culture Jews have contributed with many brilliant gifts. Anti-semitism is therefore unjustified in so far as it is directed against Jews as a matter of principle. It is only justified when it involves a rejection of far-reaching particularist demands and those activities, which seek to undermine or fragment the State, activities which are associated with substantial parts of the Jewish people. (Hutton, p. 152)

Hutton also cites the case of another prominent racial anthropologist, Ludwig Clauss, who won the support of his SS associates to defend and protect his Jewish research assistant. For this, the State of Israel later honored Clauss.

The Denazification Courts in fact exonerated most of the academic racial anthro­pologists after the war. This reviewer believes that Rassenkunde was and remains a legitimate field of research, but that ideologically driven governments (National Socialist, Communist, Zionist) attempted to hijack the science for their own propagandistic purposes. Despite all that has transpired, research into the physical and psycho logical differences between ethnic groups as well as between the sexes continues through out the world today to the benefit of the medical profession and for the betterment of mankind.

Legitimate, not ideologically hijacked, racial and eugenics studies, conducted before, during, and after the National Socialist period, remain important research tools, not least of all in the development of pharmaceuticals in cases where race-specific and even gender-specific medicines have proven to be effective. Ironically, National Socialism’s racial policies even received high praise from Zionist organizations of the day whose policies happened to coincide with those of the Nazis. Both desired the exodus of Jews from Germany and their transfer to Palestine. Even Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, approved of the racial laws that changed the status of Jews in Germany from “Germans of the Jewish faith” to that of a separate national minority. Herzl confessed that the anti-Semitic reaction of non-Jews in Germany to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes was perfectly understandable in that Germans and Jews represented different nationalities. This mutually agreed-upon understanding was later formalized in the Transfer Agreement (Haavara) under which financial arrangements to aid the Jewish emigrants in their new homeland in Palestine were established and regular passenger liner service was established between Hamburg and Haifa.

Moreover, Zionist leaders in other countries approved of the German racial laws, including the Nuremberg Laws. For example, in June 1938 in a rally in New York Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress, declared:

I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew. Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race.

Genetic studies of Jews is an active field of research today. (See, e.g., here.) This research indicates a common Middle Eastern ancestry for all Jews, but with some genetic admixture in the Diaspora. Mention must also be made of the work of Professor Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist, who has written extensively on Judaism and explains Jewish behavior as being a group evolutionary strategy developed over the centuries for survival, protection, and advancement. MacDonald received his doctorate under the mentorship of Professor Benson E. Ginsburg, a renowned researcher in behavior genetics.

Obviously, political correctness is a time-dependent variable. Ideally, Rassenkunde, like all other sciences, should always be objective and make no value judgments, especially not with respect to perceived superior or inferior ethnic traits. The true purpose of Rassenkunde is to investigate the physical and psychological characteristics of the many and varied peoples on Earth in order to better understand and hopefully to improve the human condition. The abuses of Rassenkunde or racial studies must certainly be condemned, but the benefits of such research must be preserved.

Christian Zionism

Max Blumenthal has a post that he  claims shows that “Biden should have known that Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu intended to upset his plans by Netanyahu’s appearance with John Hagee.” This refers to one of the oddest phenomena in American politics: The rabid pro-Israel activities of the Christian Zionists as exemplified by Pastor Hagee. Hagee is the ultimate Christian Zionist, using his speech before a who’s who of the Israeli government and other elements of the Israeli far right to state that Jerusalem is “the undivided, eternal capitol of the Jewish people.” He called Iranian President Ahmadinejad “the Hitler of the Middle East” and denounced the Goldstone Report as “character assassination by an unbiased and uninformed committee.”

In the audience was “Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the chief rabbi of the illegal West Bank settlement of Efrat who gained notoriety for lobbying President Bill Clinton to pardon his friend, fugitive billionaire Marc Rich. Ayalon had stirred controversy days before when he refused to meet with a US congressional delegation brought to Israel by the progressive Jewish group J Street.”

What’s amazing to me is that the point of Hagee’s speech was to tout the $58,000,000 (!) that his group of Christians have donated to far-right causes in Israel since 2001, including settler groups and a group that aims to ensure” that students in Israel are on the right path, the path of Zionism, the love of Israel, the path of solidarity.”

As it was explained to me, Hagee, believes that God actually decreed not one, but two, plans of salvation:  one for the church, which requires faith in Christ’s atonement, and another for the Jews, which does not require them to have faith in Christ at all, but is a parallel covenant that bypasses the Church and Christ completely.  They regard the creation of the modern state of Israel as nothing less than the precursor of that heavenly kingdom, the fulfillment of prophecy, and the sign of Christ’s imminent return.

Christian Zionism is a very powerful force for philosemitism in the US.  There is a fascinating history (see, e.g., here) that suggests but falls short of proof that early Zionists like Samuel Untermeyer were important in promoting and publicizing the work of C. I. Scofield whose annotated Bible, published by Oxford University Press in 1909, is the basis of Christian Zionism. In any case, the above source discusses footnotes to the Scofield Bible added in 1967 that emphasize Zionist aims. For example,  “For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgment.” ” God made an unconditional promise of blessing through Abram’s seed to the nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever.” “It has invariably fared ill with the  people who have persecuted the Jew, well with those who have protected him. The future will still more remarkably prove this principle.” (Footnotes to Genesis 12:3)

Jews have not stood by idly on this but have actively supported the Christian Zionism movement. Beginning in 1978, the Likud Party in Israel has taken the lead in organizing this force for Israel, and they have been joined by the neocons. For example, in 2002 the Israeli embassy organized a prayer breakfast with the major Christian Zionists. The main organizations are the Unity Coalition for Israel which is run by Esther Levens and Christians United for Israel, run by David Brog. The Unity Coalition for Israel consists of ~200 Christian and Jewish organizations has strong connections to neocon think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy, headed by Frank Gaffney, pro-Israel activist organizations the Zionist Organization of America, the Likud Party and the Israeli government. This organization claims to provide material for 1,700 religious radio stations, 245 Christian TV stations, and 120 Christian newspapers.

Bookmark and Share

God Helps Those Who Help Themselves: The Beginnings of White Victimization in Multicultural America, Part 2

This Jewish-led media assault deserves more attention as a cause of Whites’ failure to stand up for themselves. An explanation I respect appeared in Race and the American Prospect, edited by the late Sam Francis. Titled “Race and Religion: A Catholic View,” the essay was written by New Yorker Richard Faussette. Though Faussette situates his arguments in the Old Testament, his analysis is a sociological one in the mold of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s theory on group evolutionary strategies.

Faussette’s analysis goes back to biblical times when Jews of that era implemented a system of niche recovery to compensate for their partial displacement by the Assyrians. Faussette sees this system as being anachronistically employed to this day:

Our enemies are not Assyrians. They are the agents of the global economy; ethnic elites (their borders are where their people are) colluding with our own managerial elites. Mesmerized by the prospect of fantastic incomes, they are centralizing the world’s economy and abandoning local loyalties for a “citizenship” of the world. Unable to conquer us militarily, they have succeeded in engaging our armed forces around the world as they repopulate our urban centers and our law enforcement agencies with an alien elite and an alien underclass rigorously conditioned by the media.

Should we surrender to this program, we will suffer what Moses prophesized: “You will become a horror, a byword, an object lesson to all the peoples amongst whom the Lord disperses you.”

Though some see the system of importing foreign populations as a lapse in judgment, Faussette claims that “the system is not broken. It has been re-engineered by private interests and liberal ideologues, lobbying our elected representatives to increase the flow of cheap labor and anything else they can profitably get over the border.”

If this system is not broken, who built it and for what purposes? In essence, the goal is to displace White Americans with non-Whites, and, in particular, to replace White elites with Jews. In this struggle with non-Jewish leaders, Jews have at least two choices: they can either massacre or expel their rivals, as they did in Russia during the Revolution. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn summed up the process during the Bolshevik Revolution, when the

executed army officers were Russians, the noblemen, priests, monks, deputies were  Russians. . . . In 1920s, the pre-revolutionary engineers and scientists were exiled or killed. They were Russians, while their place was taken by Jews. The best Russian Psychiatric institute in Moscow, its Russian members were arrested or exiled, while their place was taken by the Jews. Important Jewish doctors blocked the advancement of Russian medical scientists. The best intellectual and artistic elites of Russian people were killed, while the Jews grew and flourished in these (deadly for Russians) years.

More confirmation can be found in Yuri Slezkine’s exposé, The Jewish Century. Kevin MacDonald later isolated the anti-Christian eliminationist focus of the Bolshevik attack, which can be found in his review of Slezkine called “Stalin’s Willing Executioners?” (See here and here.) Chillingly, Slezkine quotes Leonard Schapiro’s comment that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.”

Circumstances in America today are of course different than in Russia then, so a new approach is necessary. Often cloaked as “anti-racism,” this program of dispossession begins with ideological attacks. Given the vast power of modern media, Jews have naturally turned to it as a means of control, and the fracturing of native populations through use of the media is central to this. Faussette makes this point with respect to the indigenous White population’s loss of the media:

If the majority of European American Christians held the most lucrative niches in American society, the media would be unable to depict us as a cruel and “intolerant” majority whose niches rightfully belong to the victims of “White hatred and oppression.” The very fact that the media vilification of the European American Christian majority goes on apace is proof positive that people who identify with us and have a concern for our welfare are no longer in the ascendancy. There may be many more of us, it is true, but we no longer occupy the elite niches in which power is centralized. Even our ability to depict a positive image of ourselves to our own populations and to the peoples of the world has been wrested from us by the hands of powerful and persistent detractors.

Faussette then drives home the point:

It is not enough to say that the broadcast media are powerful. They create a separate and caustic virtual reality, then broadcast that ideologically driven reality into the homes of millions of people and dare to suggest that their horrific depiction of us is an accurate reflection of who we really are, what we really do and what our history has really been. We are so saturated with the propaganda many of us can no longer tell the difference between ideology and reality, nor are we the only ones upon whom this burden of a separate “reality” has been imposed. By the time an alien crosses our porous borders he has been conditioned by the international media to believe that the indigenous “White people” are recent interlopers on their own land; noxious bigots who stole the land from the noble people who were here before them. Millions of people are fed these overt and subliminal messages every day via continuous media broadcasts.

The parallels with the propaganda techniques of the Communist Soviet Union, particularly in the early days, are manifest, as Faussette explains: “Demonizing an indigenous majority population to turn competing minority populations against them is a genocidal tactic with recent historical precedent.” Like the “former classes” slated for elimination in Russia, the American majority is now the targeted class.  

The use of terror was prescribed then and is again being used, though “many of us seem oblivious to what is going on here and now.” The terror comes through the educational and media propagation of the notion that indigenous White Christians are the villain class. Or, if one prefers Jewish intellectual Susan Sontag’s version, “The White race is the cancer of human history.” Operating under the pretext that they are fighting for universal civil rights, Jewish activists in a sense become the current equivalent of the Jews in Russia who were “Stalin’s willing executioners,” though removed by one degree through their use of non-Whites as the trigger men.

An integral part of this terror involves ritual public humiliation, another key aspect of the media’s strategy to demoralize the American majority. First and foremost is the public dissemination of the message that Whites are “powerless to deflect the media barrage of humiliation and vilification of our race, our various ethnicities, our Christian religion and the nation’s history.” Whites must now live quietly with the knowledge that infamies committed against them warrant no notice in the public eye, while any assault by an individual White on a designated minority group will result in ritual condemnation of not only the assailant but the broader majority culture as well.

It was never just “in the air” that the media, schools and legal system would take the turn they did in the 1960s against the American majority.  Rather, it is the result of Jewish movements, as Kevin MacDonald made clear in a column on this site last year:

For nearly 100 years Whites have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most prestigious academic and media institutions. . . . But that implies that the submerged White identity of the White working class and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of White America are imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of Whites that facilitate this process, this suppression of White identity and interests is certainly not the natural outcome of modernization or any other force internal to Whites as a people. In my opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements. . . .

Faussette (see also his companion piece here) draws the same dark conclusion:

Consider for a moment the campaign of demonization of the European American Christian majority and its culture that we see in the media, academia and legislated from the bench. What if this campaign mirroring the public vilification employed by ardent and merciless communist regimes is completely successful here in North America, not now perhaps, but in a generation or two, something for our grandchildren to inherit?

Imagine an economic downturn of Blackouts, food shortages and riots in which all law enforcement niches are filled by media-molded unassimilated immigrants and indigenous psychologically prepared minorities; law enforcement personnel conditioned to believe that the people they’re sworn to protect are noxious bigots who deserve the violence they suffer.

Make no mistake, we White Christians in America are being effectively removed from our lands.

The conclusion here is not a rosy one: America today is in a position analogous to the one in early Soviet Russia. Two key similarities are “the rise of the Jews” and the hatred of and hostility directed toward the majority Gentile populations of both states.

Tomislav Sunic has written about this analogy in terms of “Twin Brothers: Homo sovieticus and Homo americanus.” To be sure, “Americanism” has been far more successful in attaining voluntary compliance to the will of the state, infused as it is with a “fun ideology.” Given the choice, humans worldwide would choose the same, though both the Soviet and (postmodern) American version lead to the grave: “Certainly, communism kills the body, in contrast to Americanism which kills the soul, but even the worst type of intellectual ‘soft-killing’ in the postmodern American system seems to be dearer to the masses than physical maltreatment or a violent communist death.”

In point of fact, of course, the (current) American version of soft totalitarianism is not so “fun,” though we are misled because it is a regime “maintained less by brute force than by an unrelenting, enormously sophisticated, and massively effective campaign to constrain political and cultural activity within very narrow boundaries.” A violent communist death is not yet necessary because dissenters “are not yet trundled off to jail or beaten with truncheons, but are quietly ignored and marginalized. Or they are held up to public disgrace, and, wherever possible, removed from their livelihood,” as MacDonald noted in the Foreword to Sunic’s book.

Fair enough; the avoidance of physical terror and the bestowal of the therapeutic state have made rule easier.But in the end this “fun-infested ideology” still leads to “warm death.” In any case, it may soon turn “hot.”

Sunic, for one, sees dark clouds on the horizon 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.” MacDonald identifies 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.”

Let’s get back to James Edwards’ account of the brutal murders of White students at Kent State. Why have things come to this? Why don’t students, professors, parents and administrators care if they are at immediate risk of DYING? Not just being robbed or roughed up, but being barbarically beaten to death, often for no other reason than fun?

Why don’t far more people see how horribly corrupt and degenerate America is today? As just one example among thousands, consider a recent cover of Vogue magazine featuring NBA star LeBron James with supermodel Gisele Bundchen, photographed by Jewish celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz. The mainstream media worried that it evoked illiberal racial stereotypes — Beauty and the Beast, King Kong and Fay Wray, etc. But it can also be seen as the triumph and legitimization of an unrefined, tattooed Black male seething with raw physical power  who possesses a paragon of White womanhood, the latter quite obviously enjoying the experience.

In other words, an image of Black ascendancy and White emasculation as imagined by a famous Jewish artist (and lover of Susan Sontag, a well-known Jewish intellectual whose anti-White sentiments are legendary; see below).

Edgar J. Steele took it upon himself to catalog examples of anti-White attitudes among mainstream Black and Jewish figures in an insightful essay some years back:

If You See Black… Don’t Go Back!

“Keep bashing the dead White males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the White race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed.”  — Noel Ignatiev, Jewish Harvard professor and editor of Race Traitor magazine (Washington Times, September 4, 2002)

“The White race is the cancer of human history.” — Susan Sontag (much-celebrated Jewish  “intellectual,” whose recent passing was lamented loudly in Jewish circles)

“I don’t care about your idiot children.” — Willie Brown (Mayor of San Francisco, to a white parent complaining that affirmative action would penalize his children), quoted in The Social Contract (Summer 1998, p. 290)

“It’s always illegitimate for White men to organize as White men.”  — William Raspberry (Black columnist), Dubiously Exclusive, (Washington Post, Nov. 24, 1995)

“Q:  What kind of world do you want to leave to your children?

A:  A world in which there aren’t any white people. . . .”  — Leonard Jeffries (chairman of the African-American studies department of the City College of New York), interviewed by T.L. Stanclu and Nisha Mohammed, Rutherford Magazine (May 1995, p. 13)

“You guys have been practicing discrimination for years.  Now it is our turn.”   — Black Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (in a conversation with Justice William Douglas about racial preferences, quoted by William O. Douglas, The Court Years, 1939–1975 (New York, Random House, 1980)

Steele nicely pairs Jews and Blacks in their decades-long offensive against Whites. It may have started modestly, but on each and every day, we can find examples in America (and throughout much of the rest of the world) where Whites are being humiliated, abused, raped and murdered. And yet, by and large, we take it lying down.

This is insane. It goes against every natural impulse. It is a sign of more than just a loss of backbone. At worst, it signals the coming end of the White race.

Those of us who write in venues such as this know the score. But we still must do more to impress upon others the clear and present danger we face. I know our society is vastly sick and by extension, so are most people.

But we’ve got to break the spell Whites are under. We’ve got to restore their normal sense of group identification and self preservation. Ben Franklin, after all, got it right when he wrote, “God helps those who help themselves.” Whites of the world, by all means, start helping yourselves!

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