Featured Articles

Communication: The Terror of the Hyperreal

One of the secret lies of liberal democracy is the dogma of free speech. The word ‘propaganda’ has obtained over the last six decades a nasty flavor; hence the need to use the word ‘communication.’  However, as much as everybody in modern society craves to communicate, traditional community ties, or in-group ties, are more than ever before subject to the process of disintegration. It is worth recalling that etymologically the terms “community” and “communication” are of the same origin. But how can one communicate if community no longer exists?

To provide a make-believe image of absolute freedom of speech, the media and the modern Prince resort to a hyperbolic language filled with hyperreal metaphors and qualifiers. This is especially true regarding the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’. These terms have assumed the emotional role in rallying political allegiance formerly reserved for terms evoking nationhood and patriotism.  Opinion makers in Europe and America are not so much concerned with the content of their language, but rather with the appropriate packaging of the language and its emotional impact on the masses.

For effective communication a modern politician (or the modern Prince?) is required to use images with a cheerful setting and a happy ending scenario. His looks are important too. An aspiring presidential candidate must be concerned more with his dentures than with his deontology. A well-fitting Armani suit and polished Gucci shoes are far more important than his IQ.  The image is essential since it does not encourage reflection, but obliterates all reflection. The hyperreal image on TV screens with all the trappings of wealth, power, and personal appeal is ideal for propagating new political lies and, by extension, for instituting horrendous political censorship.

For a European or American politician who aspires to high office, the ritual of repentance has become de rigueur.

Presidential Candidate John McCain visits Jerusalem’s Yad VaShem Holocaust Memorial

The exception, of course, is President Obama who capitalizes on his Black identity to induce guilt in his audience.

President Obama Speaks at a Slave Depot in Ghana

Not long ago Europeans were proud of their colonial exploits. Not long ago the exclusion of the Other (Blacks, Jews, Arabs) was perceived as a normal thing — typical of human societies from time immemorial. Today the exclusion of the Other is replaced by the hatred of oneself. Ceaseless national-masochistic sermons about Euro-American real or surreal crimes bear witness to a quasi-pathological desire to cleanse oneself of a past that evokes guilt rather than pride.

Public language must be “soft” and didactic — conveying a self-deprecating message and requiring the modern Prince to formulate his statements in the conditional tense — or by using evasive sentences starting with adverbs such as “admittedly,”  “considerably,” “presumably,” etc. No politician wishes to stick out his neck by using affirmative sentences that would clearly enunciate his value judgments or depict his potential foe.  After reading mainstream newspaper editorials, a student of  political semiotics is struck with convoluted locutions such as ‘one could say, ‘one might say,’ ‘one should consider bombing Iran,’ or ‘help democracy become transparent in East Timor.’  Such vague locutions provide a safe retreat for the liberal ruling class, as they signify nothing and everything at the same time.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Political language must be neutral or neutered; it must reflect the desire for a world of stasis — not of global liberal metastasis. The only exceptions are modern heretics who must endure the most violent epithets. Thus the $PLC, a principal architect and enforcer of modern discourse on race and immigration, likes to use expressions preceded by the noun ‘hate,’ or followed by the adjective ‘extremist’: ‘hate groups’, ‘hate speech’, ‘hate crimes’; ‘White extremists,’ ‘political extremism’, etc. Contemporary politicians and their media watchdogs love to compare absolute Evil to absolute Good, using words that are loaded with emotional significance, such as “fascism” vs. “antiracism”: the horrors of the Auschwitz on the one hand versus the Hollywood-like fantasy of multicultural conviviality.

Nothing new under the sun, as the old Latins used to say. This idea is well captured by the late Christopher Lasch, the best American visionary and the theorist of narcissistic democracy. He noted a long time ago in his book The True and Only Heaven that “Liberals’ obsession with fascism … leads them to see fascist tendencies or ‘proto-fascism’ in all opinions unsympathetic to liberalism.”

As much as Lasch was right he was also wrong. Today he would be accused of “fascist, revisionist tendencies”  by the masters of political discourse — thus giving further credit and credence to the paranoid liberal mind.  Historically, both the fascist and communist temptations did not drop from the moon. They were logical responses to the failures of liberalism — to the “democratic deficit” of the liberal experiment. Therefore one must not rule out the revival of the fascist temptation, albeit in a new garb, as a third option in our late postmodenity: If a good man in a village is constantly and publicly called a crook, he will eventually embody those accusations. White nationalism, which is on the rise in the US and the EU, is the logical response to the chaotic policies of the liberal class and its promotion of all ethnic prides world-wide — except for white Europeans.

In postmodernity, political messages are transmitted by visual images and the sound bite — not the written word. Rėgis Debray, the ex-leftist guerrilla who ascended to high office in the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs — and probably the best observer of the perverse nature of liberal democracy, notes that the traditional ‘graphosphere’ has been completely devoured by the “videosphere.” Books and prose are relics; the virtual video message has become omnipresent. It is no accident that a dissident or a violent radical no longer dreams of storming the Prince’s palace, but rather contemplates the seizure of the TV tower.

Postmodern political imagery does not reflect the lack of reality, but rather mirrors the excess of reality. Henceforth any political debate on a TV screen is not designed to hide the truth, but ironically, to hide the absence of all truth. Everywhere the media and the modern Prince simulate fictitious events such as terrorist attacks as if they wish to have them happen, while at the same time they try to prevent them from happening. The bogeymen of the left —”hate groups” and “extremists” — appear to be nowhere near the horizon. Yet, as was the case in the ex-Soviet Union, they must be reinvented over and over again in order to provide legitimacy and solid funding to groups like the $PLC who love to dress up in the  apparel of “tolerance” and “humanity.” Everything is stage-managed as if everything were true.

What we are witnessing today in the West, in all spheres of official political discourse, is a gigantic display of lies — far worse than in the notorious totalitarian despotisms of the 20th century which the postmodern liberal pretends to abhor.

Political Metastasis

In his recent editorial in the quarterly Elėments (summer 2009), under the title “Une époque de basses eaux” — literally translated as  “An epoch of low tide,” or loosely and metaphorically as “Stalemate Times” — Alain de Benoist gives us a bleak picture of the forthcoming darkness:

In the catalogue of the ephemeral and the superficial, images and noise are following one after the other. Their goal is to capture attention and distract, and to make us think about other things, or more precisely, to make us cease to think altogether. The insignificant becomes a general rule. What comes to mind is the world depicted by the Wachowski brothers in the movie, Matrix (1999). In the movie everybody takes for real what is actually inauthentic; everybody is manipulated from the very moment he imagines himself to be free.  Never have people thought to be able to do what they wish, yet never ever have they been subject to so many regulations.  In fact they do not really know what they desire because it is the system that formulates their desires.

The biggest victory of the system is to have persuaded everybody not of its qualities, but of its fatal character. The system does not claim to be perfect; it claims that there are no other alternatives. Hence, if one cannot dream of a better world, then there is nothing that can be done.

High politics follows the same hyperreal lead. There is no longer any need to await disasters or the proclamation of a state of emergency, since they are constantly evoked and artificially provoked —creating thereby the genuine feeling of a state of emergency and impending disasters and setting the stage perfectly for a judicial or police clamp down. The security checks that one must endure at all airports in the West inevitably give the feeling of a creeping state of emergency. Depictions of catastrophic images on fictional television drama shows inevitably influence people’s perceptions of real catastrophic events. The image no longer follows reality; it precedes reality. Modern politics is the show of hyper-reality — as witnessed for the first time during the recent ex-Yugoslav and Iraqi wars, which were getting bloodier and bloodier the more they were shown on TV.

The Books of the Dead

The same applies to modern historiography and to the sudden surge among Third World nations for the resurrection and beatification of their dead. The more dead they manage to hold up as icons of Western evil the better able they are to affirm their own ethnic identity. One of the best theoreticians of political hyper-reality, the late Jean Baudrillard, describes Auschwitz “not as a site of annihilation, but the site of dissuasion” (The Evil Demons of Images, 1988, p. 24).  It is no longer a site of suffering; it is a site of deterrence and didactics, designed to be the ultimate symbol of postmodern Western culture as psychotherapy for Europeans.

The Jewish narrative regarding the “singular” and “unique” historical event of the Holocaust has already given birth to similar “singular” and “unique” narratives among other peoples, notably Armenians and (ironically) the Palestinians, with dozens more nations waiting in the wings.

Diversity obliges. Soon our postmodernity will be forced to open up post-graduate studies on political necrology or (more precisely) political necrophilia, as more and more groups clamor for their forgotten real or hyperreal dead. However, political necrophilia carries its own dangers for groups that see themselves solely through the lens of victimhood. In attempting to avoid the repetition of disaster, the Jewish narrative of “never again” does exactly the opposite: By focusing solely on a decontextualized event of persecution, it runs the risk of failing to rationally comprehend Jewish history — with unforeseen consequences.

Almost thirty years ago, Baudrillard wrote memorable words to illustrate the metastasis of liberal democracy:

The energy of the public sphere, the energy that creates social myths and dogmas is gradually disappearing. The social arena turns obese and monstrous. It grows like a mammal and glandular corpse. Once it was illustrated by its heroes but today it refers to its handicapped, its weirdos, its  degenerates, its asocial  persons — and all of this in a gigantic effort of therapeutic  maternity. (Les strategies fatales, 1983) (Fatal Strategies.)

The system puts forward the transparency of evil by parading images of evil in the form of maladaptive individuals. The ruling class and its mediacracy need to display the proof of their power by showing that those who transgress the most basic values of the multicultural zeitgeist are psychologically deranged — literally insane. Proverbial ‘revisionists, ‘bigoted anti-Semites,’ and ‘Nazi pseudo-scholars,’ are cherished demon images of liberal democracy. They need to be constantly put on exhibition in public places — like wayward Puritans of old — in order to lend further credibility to the eroding system.

17th-Century Puritan in the Stocks

Americans and Europeans are constantly put on false alerts by the media about pending terrorist threats. The invocation of terrorism is often fictitious, yet it engages the media machinery in a gigantic show of lies and mendacity. The purpose of the negative imagery is to scare the masses into submission. In a world that encourages narcissism and extreme individualism, one is not only the victim of the image. One becomes the image himself at the price of deforming his own tragic reality.

Tom Sunic www.tomsunic.infohttp://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/) is an author, former political science professor in the USA, translator and former Croat diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age ( 2007). Email him.

Rastas and the World Bank

Rastafarianism (here’s the Wikipedia version) is not about love and justice, but about rejecting Western culture in favor of international socialism. Rastafarian ideas are useful for elites who see traditional Western culture as an obstacle to their vision of a better world. The following is a history of the movement and how it became a tool of globalism.

Rastifarianism was created by Leonard Percival Howell. The movement is a product of Black supremacist and communist ideas that Howell, a Jamaican, acquired while in New York City.

Leonard Percival Howell

In 1920s New York, communism was fashionable. Major New York banking houses were openly sympathetic to the Bolsheviks in Russia and funded the Revolution and the early years of the USSR. But all was not well in the Party.

Howell was introduced to communism during a crisis in communist thought. The Great War was supposed to precipitate a proletarian revolution which never happened. Intellectuals at the Frankfurt School attributed the failure of their cause amongst the people to brainwashing. These intellectuals though that Western Culture had blinded people to the superiority of international socialism. Therefore, Western Culture had to go.

Communists needed a total rejection of Western values. Traditional ideas of monogamy, sexual restraint and gender became “repression.” The African American community became a target for communist intellectuals, who saw Blacks as likely supporters of property redistribution and ambassadors for sexual license. Black communist representatives like Claude McKay did little to disabuse the Bolsheviks of these notions. To achieve their ends, the Communist Party in New York attacked the Black middle class economically. This was the political climate that Howell entered in 1924.

In New York, Howell befriended George Padmore and later turned to him for financial assistance. Padmore was a Trinidadian involved in COMINTERN — the Bolshevik’s revolution-exporting bureau and head of the Negro Bureau of the Communist International of Labour Unions.

Howell was also influenced by Black nationalist leaders and spiritualists such asMarcus Garvey and Robert Athlyi Rogers. Howell’s Black supremacist influence (and much of the language of Howell’s  tract The Promise Key) comes from the The Royal Parchment of Black Supremacy by Rev. Fitz Balintine Pettersburgh.

When Howell returned to Jamaica he patched together the ideas he collected in New York in order to form the basis of his new religion, which he summarized inThe Promise Key. Every important premise in The Promise Key had been taken from somewhere else. None of Howell’s ideas were new, but they were put together in a way that suited Howell’s personal ambitions.

Howell created a religion that used the weakness of his target group — lower class Blacks — to his advantage. He used the cultural-assault tactics that he learned from his communist teachers in New York.

Howell built a politically cohesive group by encouraging tribalism among his followers. He preached Black supremacy to counter feelings of inferiority among the Black lower class.  Black supremacy is not equality or social justice — it is simple, unrestrained privilege for the Black race. Howell’s teaching was hypocritical but excellent demagoguery. He took religious justification for this by re-interpreting “Israelites” in the Old Testament to mean his followers. He claimed “chosen-ness” for the Blacks.

While part of The Promise Key sets out “cleanliness” laws, most of it is a rant against Western civilization. Howell, like his communist teachers, was attacking the culture that stood in the way of international socialism.

The Promise Key claims that Ethiopians (meaning all Black peoples) have been in a six thousand year struggle against Western civilization. Western culture is the “indomitable, incurable, accursed, deadly disease” that has infected “Abraham Adam Anglo Saxon the White.”

Just like his brethren in New York, Howell attacked the Black middle class in Jamaica. Howell condemns Black people who work alongside White people or don’t reject Western culture. They are “crooks”, “hypocrites” and “Black-White”. He calls people of mixed-race “third-class people” and forbids intermarriage between the races. Howell calls for complete “race enmity.” [All quotations are from The Promise Key.]

Both Howell’s teaching and communism attack traditional morality as taught by the Church.  In The Promise Key, Howell calls the Pope “Satan.” He says that that Christianity is a lie because it is a “smoke screen to keep people in ignorance.”

Howell’s Rastafarianism is materialistic. Like communism, power and wealth are desirable as long as they benefit the man in charge. The Promise Key states that the “Anglo-Saxon King” (of the British Empire) has bowed down to the MessiahHaile Selassie, to whom “all the Kings of the earth (are) surrendering their crowns.” Howell calls Emperor Selassie and his wife “paymasters of the world, Bible owner and money mint,” which he means as praise.

A Rastafarian Image of Haile Selassie

Howell departs from his communist teachers on the subject of racial equality. New York communists attracted followers by promising that everyone could be equally wealthy. Howell’s religion attracted followers by promising privilege. Howell realized that “scapegoat” politics — blaming all Whites for the problems of the Black Diaspora — would be a more effective message than equality. Howell’s hatred of anything Caucasian matches his communist teachers’ hatred for anything bourgeois. 

Howell preached that poverty stems from Europeans, as there will be “gross prosperity as soon as the Anglo Saxon White peoples all die out.” Howell even calls for genocide: “Adam Abraham Anglo-Saxon the leper has no place on this earth if you please.” [Again, all quotations are from The Promise Key.]

Howell chose Haile Selassie, the despotic emperor of the last Black-ruled territory in Africa, to be the Rastafarian messiah-figure. Ironically, Selassie considered himself Semitic, not Black.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Howell claimed that Selassie would give Black people supremacy in Africa and over all other peoples. The Promise Key says that under Emperor Selassie, White people will “sit in the dust on the ground”; White people will be denied political sovereignty; and that “Adam Abraham-Anglo-Saxon whit[e] people are not entitled to any eternal reward.”

The choice of Haile Selassie was remarkably convenient. The Ethiopian Emperor was very popular among Western intellectual elites and bankers who supported Woodrow Wilson’s plans for a world government under the League of Nations. Selassie’s cachet as a noble African ruler standing up against Mussolini (the fascist who threatened banking interests) was highly attractive. Selassie was paid homage with waves of complimentary press in the Anglophone West. Selassie was not popular in Ethiopia and he was eventually deposed during a military coup in 1974.

Howell taught dis-empowering behavior so that his followers would be more dependent on him, the self-styled “great teacher” or “Gong.” He was an expert at manipulation.  Howell showed his followers an African emperor dressed in all the trappings of a European king and told them Selassie was divine. He used racism to turn people against their neighbors. Howell used the desire for privilege to help build a new type of tyranny: communism. He promoted intoxication (marijuana) as a method to get closer to God. Education beyond Rastafarian teachings was “college filth.” The family was not sacred: He slept with his married and unmarried female followers alike (to the point of his upper-class Jewish wife Tyneth committing suicide).

Howell and His Heirs Enter the Establishment

Leonard Percival Howell went into the drug trade and helped finance the British elite’s puppet government in Jamaica. By 1944, Howell controlled a marijuana plantation where 4500 Rastafari (mostly women and often single mothers) worked for him for room and board. The Gong lived well, chauffeured around in his own limousine. Leonard Percival Howell was not in the business of empowering his people, but exploiting them more perfectly.

Howell became a major supplier of marijuana in Jamaica. The Jamaican drug trade was tolerated for some time, but in 1953 Norman Manleyleader of the opposition party in the colonial Jamaican government, was told by Winston Churchill that he needed to bring an end to the lucrative business. In order to carry out Churchill’s command, Manley called Howell’s collaborator Mortimo Planno.

Mortimo Planno

Mortimer “Mortimo” Planno is more than a gangster. He is the bridge between Howell’s teaching and the popular modern Rasta movement. He is a key figure in the connection between the Rastafarian sect and politically powerful circles in Jamaica and abroad.  Mortimo was reggae star Bob Marley‘s manager/spiritual advisor and is credited with the idea of using commercial music as a vehicle for spreading Howell’s teaching. Mortimo re-fashioned Rastafarianism as a tool of globalism.

Bob Marley: Reggae Star and Promoter of Rastafarianism

Bob Marley (self-styled “Tuff Gong”) trumpeted social change and glorified the Rastafarian lifestyle. Marley’s promoter, Chris Blackwell, is from a wealthy Jamaican family who founded the first synagogue on the island.  Marley, like Howell, rejects traditional Western Culture, but the racist element is toned down. (Which makes the message more palatable to mainstream international socialists.) Marley was consciously marketed for world-wide appeal.

The World Bank loves Bob Marley. In February 2005 a celebration called “Africa Unite” was held to commemorate what would have been Bob Marley’s 60th birthday. The event had venues in Ethiopia and Jamaica, and was organized by the Bob and Rita Marley Foundations, the African Union, the government of Ethiopia, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), UNICEF and The World Bank.

The aim of the celebration was that the “entire world recognize Bob (Marley) as the world’s greatest music icon,” according to event manager Jacqueline Knight-Campbell, who also pushed for Marley to become a national hero in Jamaica and that his birthday be made a national holiday.

video documentary of the celebrations was produced by UNICEF, Tuff Gong Pictures and Louverture Films. It is supposed to showcase Marley’s message of “revolution by any means necessary” but especially “the process of re-education and re-orientation of values and belief systems which would lead to social transformation over time.” The documentary makes special note of Marley’s regime-change activities in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

South Africa and Zimbabwe are the two countries where Howell’s teaching has been most perfectly implemented. Mugabe’s racist government has destroyed the middle class in the name of “ousting White rule.” South Africa’s former president, Thabo Mbeki, refused to recognize Mugabe’s atrocities as a “crisis,” while South Africa is careening towards the same fate.

So why is the World Bank — the public relations organ of the debt system — so in love with Bob Marley?

Marley is an asset to the debt system because his songs defect criticism from its heart. Instead Marley lays the problems of the Diaspora at the feet of “oppressive” Western culture, while pushing communist ideas that have always been supported by financial elites. By hiding the cause of the debt problem, Marley and Planno have done more for oppressors than a boatload of gun shock troops could ever do.

The debt system is possible because corrupt local rulers cooperate with private banking interests to steal from their constituents. The deal is sweetened for both parties by Western governments (who are also heavily indebted) agreeing to make the payments or negotiate refinancing if the local rulers default. The losers are Western and local constituents.

International banks benefit most from the debt system. They make money selling bonds based on debts that the World Bank organizes. This is easy money with little risk of default, thanks to developed-world taxpayers.

You won’t get any of this information from the platitudes of Bob Marley’s songs.

The result of the globalist system is perpetual, crushing debt. The ex-British colonies in Africa and Jamaica are much more heavily in debt now than they were under the British. Jamaica is a typical example: Since the 1960s their economy has grown by a multiple of three, but their debt has increased by a multiple of 1400 (at least!) as of 2005. If corrected for population growth, Jamaican debt has grown seven hundred times faster than their ability to pay.1

The “debt forgiveness” movement is also a boon to international banks. Groups like “Jubilee 2000” have spearheaded debt forgiveness campaigns, resulting in a massive write-off in 2005. As soon as the forgiveness was implemented bank lending to the same debtor countries started to grow again2 By getting Western governments to pay to cancel these debts, “Jubilee 2000” gave the bankers an opportunity to create and sell even more debt-bonds. Thanks, Bono!

Turning racial grievance into a religion is a great way to manipulate people. So is lying. The Rastafarian message which is spread by the international media and the World Bank uses both tools to promote globalism while attacking their strongest enemy: traditional Western Culture.

Planno — now dead — is regarded as a Rasta philosopher by adoring acolytes. Bob Marley is canonized as a symbol of peace and love. It all works in the bankers’ favor: Imagine the entire world as a pot plantation…but never missing a payment.

Elizabeth Whitcombe (email her) is a graduate of MIT in Economics with a concentration in International Economics. She is a financial analyst and free-lance writer living in New York City.

Anger in White America

Sarah Palin emerged in the presidential campaign of 2008 as the candidate of the Republican base — the people the globalist elites in the party pander to every four years so that if everything breaks right, they may have a chance of winning. Palin is the very image of White fertility and small town Americana — all that the globalist Republican elite despises. ‘Despises’ is  much too mild a word for how the Democrats see her.

Palin resigned her position as governor of Alaska, so the media indulged itself with yet another hate-fest. Frank Rich’s op-ed in the New York Times was more interesting than most because he sees the big picture. And he is very happy with what he sees:

[Sarah Palin] is not just the party’s biggest star and most charismatic television performer; she is its only star and charismatic performer. Most important, she stands for a genuine movement: a dwindling white nonurban America that is aflame with grievances and awash in self-pity as the country hurtles into the 21st century and leaves it behind. …

[Nonurban Whites are] a constituency that feels disenfranchised — by the powerful and the well-educated who gamed the housing bubble, by a news media it keeps being told is hateful, by the immigrants who have taken some of their jobs, by the African-American who has ended a white monopoly on the White House. Palin is their born avatar. She puts a happy, sexy face on ugly emotions, and she can solidify her followers’ hold on a G.O.P. that has no leaders with the guts or alternative vision to stand up to them or to her.

My Translation: The elites in the financial sector with the blessings (or at least the naiveté of the political class) created this wonderful housing bubble that created a lot of illusory wealth. The collapse after the bubble burst has cost the US trillions of dollars, has cost millions of people their jobs, and has resulted in a deep recession. Nonurban Whites — the people who support Palin — were so stupid and uneducated that they actually trusted these elites, and now they are paying the price while the folks who got us into this mess are still collecting their bonuses — often with the help of government bailout money. These rubes should have been smart enough to game the system, but they weren’t.

These country bumpkins are also upset because they are losing political power and are being pushed aside by millions of non-White immigrants. They hate the media even though the mainstream media — as personified by Frank Rich — is a fount of wisdom and rationality — immune to the ugly emotions of the losers.

The end game in the long campaign against nonurban Whites is near. Rich writes that “The Palinist ‘real America’ is demographically doomed to keep shrinking.”

And of course that’s the bottom line. Never before in American history has it seemed so obvious that demography is destiny. Whites were 77% of the electorate in 2004, but slipped to 74% in 2008, and the percentage will continue to decline. If Whites are 71% of the electorate in 2012, then the Republicans would have to attract around 63% of Whites to get a majority (assuming Whites continue to represent 90% of the Republican vote). This is quite a bit higher than Bush in 2004 (58%) or McCain in 2008 (55%).

I recently heard Rush Limbaugh say confidently and soothingly to his listeners that politics is cyclical and the Republicans will be back in power soon. But the reality is that they won’t come back without some dramatic changes in voting patterns. And if the dramatic change is an increase in Black or Latino votes — as quite a few influential Republicans advocate, the result certainly won’t be good for nonurban  Whites.

This in turn means that a great many White voters will feel that they are in a permanent position of powerlessness if present trends continue, and that will lead to anger and a sense of political desperation.

Rich’s comments are partially fueled by an article in Politico describing the rage of a lot of ordinary White people — a rage that has led to a surge in conservative media:  “The emotions fueling this media boomlet sometimes border on a barely suppressed rage.” This hostility is driven by “a sense of frustration and anger among the Republican Party’s core conservative base — and a power vacuum at the top of the party that lacks a national leader to set its course.”

Examples:

“I CANT SLEEP SEEING this country being destroyed DAMM IT OVER my dead body i will let this happen/THESE BASTARDS HAVE GOT TO BE STOPPED IMMEDIATELY.”

“Bottomline, do you know of any way we can remove these idiots before this country goes down the crapper? I WILL HELP!!! Should I buy a gun? Should I store produce, etc?”

“Another American revolution will have to be fought — there will be blood.”

Some of the commentary on the Sonia Sotomayor hearings also brought up charges that the real subtext was angry White people — in this case Republican senators:

The GOP senators “were playing to the angry white male voter. Some of the remarks were clearly about saying that ‘you’ can say things that ‘we’ can’t,” said Julian  Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

“These kinds of comments attacking ethnic pride and the benefits of diversity in any institution — which is really what her remark was about — combined with the Ricci case looked like backlash politics, pure and simple.”

Such ugly emotions! Or at least that’s what Rich labels them. For intellectuals like Rich and Zelizer, the value of diversity trumps the legitimate interests of Whites every time. Any protest is “backlash politics” or mindless emoting by angry White males.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But of course such emotions are absolutely normal for people who are seeing their country taken away from them. The fact that only certain people are allowed to have ethnic pride or a sense of ethnic interests makes no logical sense and clearly tramples on legitimate interests of Whites. Bloody revolutions have been motivated by far less grievance — legitimate and well-founded grievance — than ordinary Whites have right now. Certainly the behavior of the British government prior to the Revolutionary War was far less dispossessive of the colonists than the behavior of the contemporary American elites is to ordinary White Americans.

The fact is that elites in politics, the media, and the financial sector have completely abandoned ordinary White folks in America, and particularly the “nonurban Whites” who are the focus of Rich’s article. The only thing that’s surprising and perhaps depressing is that the main outlet for this anger is to purchase mainstream conservative media, the vast majority of which does little more than redirect this anger into harmless and ineffective sideshows like libertarianism or small government. If it doesn’t talk about stopping and reversing the effects of immigration and developing an explicit sense of White identity and interests, it’s not worth talking about.

The Republicans seem bent on committing suicide rather than abandoning their principled hostility to ethnic identity politics for Whites. But, as Peter Brimelow notes, if that is the policy of the Republican Party, another party must and will be formed that do exactly that.

So how did normal anger about being dispossessed come to be an “ugly” emotion to the point that a third-rate mind like Frank Rich can confidently describe it that way in a prestigious publication like the New York Times? The paper trail can be traced to the Frankfurt School and their allies and publicists among the New York Intellectuals.  These intellectuals developed theories based ultimately on psychoanalysis in which hostility about being displaced by other groups was attributed to all sorts of repressions and anxieties. People who opposed their own displacement were described as irrational and as suffering from psychopathology. (Tell that to the Palestinians.)

And if professors connected to Harvard and the University of Chicago can call such emotions “ugly,” certainly Frank Rich can. It’s all about controlling the moral high ground via control of the most prestigious academic and media institutions. Intellectually insecure Whites, including a great many who are well-educated, will silently nod their heads in agreement and think that they are very moral indeed for having the same attitudes as Frank Rich.

The only difference is that Frank Rich’s attitudes are entirely congruent with his ethnic interests, while the silently nodding, morally uplifted White folks are agreeing with attitudes that are entirely opposed to their ethnic interests.

An interesting feature of the literature produced by the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals is hostility toward lower middle class Whites. Historically, this was motivated by the realization among many Jewish intellectuals that the lower middle class in Germany in the end opted for National Socialism instead of communism at a time when sympathetic views of communism dominated the mainstream among Jewish intellectuals. The behavior of the German lower middle class violates Marxist dogma because Marxists believe that class interest should be stronger than racial allegiances. The response of these intellectuals was to develop theories in which the lower middle class was the root of all evil.

Translated to America, these intellectuals were quite wary of American populism because of its tendency to be responsive to the demands of ordinary Americans rather than elites on issues such as immigration policy. Throughout the 20th century non-urban Whites —”the common people of the South and West,” as John Higham called them — were steadfastly against liberal immigration policies and they remain opposed to such policies today.

This intellectual elite represented by Frank Rich despises these people. As Chrisopher Lasch noted some time ago, from the perspective of these intellectuals, this class

clung to outworn folkways—conventional religiosity, hearth and home, the sentimental cult of motherhood—and obsolete modes of production. It looked back to a mythical golden age in the past. …  Lacking liberal culture, it fell easy prey to all sorts of nostrums and political fads.

Frank Rich is happy because he thinks these people are in irreversible demographic decline brought on by massive non-White immigration. He may be right. But by the looks of things, they are pretty upset about the way things are going, and that is bound to have political repercussions.

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

Evangelicals: Evaluating the Work of Kevin MacDonald


These Jews were more open–minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so. Acts 17:11, NET

Scripture praises the Berean Jews for not only accepting the message of Paul, but also lauds them for their diligent evaluation of his arguments.  The Bereans did not simply dismiss Paul’s contentions out of hand; they tested them against their own preconceived notions and against their scriptures.  After a good deal of study they found the evidence convincing (e.g., fulfilled prophecies).

Likewise, Evangelical Christians should not blithely dismiss Kevin MacDonald’s ideas.  They should give him a fair hearing and rigorously examine his arguments.  Why?  Because MacDonald might be on to something that is terribly important to their survival and success.

Evangelicals have, as almost every White Christian in our society has, the very real difficulty of distancing themselves from the cultural milieu that surrounds them and is interminably reminding them of their guilt as Whites, Americans, and Christians.

Add to this milieu of cultural suicide the Evangelicals’ zealous desire to reach the unsaved by being “all things to all men,” a pinch of too little concern about this earth and their place in it, and a dash of strongly held beliefs about end times and supporting Israel no matter what Israel does, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I recently talked to an Evangelical pastor about the effect that the flood of immigrants is having on ‘our’ country (he is White).  He became immediately defensive and agitated.  He took umbrage at me for using the language of groups (i.e., ‘us,’ and ‘them’).  How could he be an effective witness for Christ if he saw himself in the White group, and the Mexican in the Mexican group?

Interestingly, he had no problem with holding to in-group/out-group language concerning religiousgroups.  When I made the same comment about the many Muslims coming to this country and the potential future problem that presents, he agreed.  It was as if the Media were guiding his thoughts.  Muslims have not quite gained victim status yet, so it is okay to consider them an out-group.  I imagine he would have gone apoplectic if I had mentioned the Jews.

And yet, many Evangelicals do accept the negative portrayal of Jews in the Old and New Testaments, at least in the abstract.  And this, eventually, will put them in jail.  The State will declare their scriptures to be anti-Semitic, and therefore unlawful to posses or to read.  But by then, it will be too late.

[adrotate group=”1″]

This is where Kevin MacDonald steps in.  He explains what is going on.  He gives cogent reasons about what has happened, why it happened, and what is happening now.  His work could be of great use to Evangelicals who wonder why they are so maligned and why they cannot get traction within the media.

Indeed, as Pat Buchanan recently pointed out (Why No Evangelical Justice?),  Evangelical Christians are “the most underrepresented group of Americans — nay, the most unrepresented minority, the largest group of our fellow citizens never to have had one of its own sit on the U.S. Supreme Court in the modern era.”

It is interesting to hear Evangelicals talk.  They witness the destruction of their country.  They realize the culture is evil.  They realize that they have been unfairly demonized.  They do not want, at least implicitly, to be dominated by another ethnic group, and yet they see no connections.  It is as if all this negative, anti-Christian, anti-American stuff just sort of happened, without any rhyme or reason.  A few might blame it on Satan (and I am not denying it), but this kind of destruction of civilization does not happen by accident.  MacDonald hits this point home. Another salutary effect of MacDonald is that it is much easier to fight something when you know what is going on, than if you do not.

Evolution, Evangelicals, and Kevin MacDonald

Another hurdle for some Evangelicals is that evolution is the bedrock for MacDonald’s analysis. Since the Bible is an Evangelical’s ultimate authority, and since Evangelicals believe that the Bible does not support evolution (e.g., Genesis), they must reject evolution as contra scripture.

Does this mean that Evangelicals cannot support Kevin MacDonald’s work?  I think not.  In fact, I believe that they can embrace the thrust of his contentions.  Evangelicals need not abandon their belief that God is the creator of all things in order to embrace the idea that mankind has broken up into many different, often hostile and competing groups.

Indeed, Evangelicals often make a distinction that is helpful here.  It is between microevolution and macroevolution.  Macroevolution, according to them, is the belief that one ‘kind’ (think along the line of ‘species.’) can gradually turn into another ‘kind’ through genetic mutations.  This, they reject.  For example, fish do not become men. Microevolution, on the other hand, allows Evangelicals to explain how the same ‘kind’ can change over time, but not fundamentally.

Evangelicals use microevolution in order to explain how the immense diversity of peoples that are in the world sprang from only one, founding couple, Adam and Eve.

Consequently, Evangelicals should have no problem in seeing Adam and Eve’s offspring as being affected by natural selection, group competition, and the conscious selection of traits in mates.  Indeed, much of the evolution that Kevin MacDonald talks about naturally falls under the rubric of ‘microevolution,’ and does not seem to be against scripture.

In conclusion, Evangelical Christians would do well to follow the Berean example and treat Kevin MacDonald’s work evenhandedly.  Examine it carefully and see if there is not a message for you.

Jack Spence (email him) is a family man, Westerner (with Southern sympathies!), and Protestant.

Spies Like Us

Just after St. Patrick’s Day of this year, my review of Jeff Gates’ new book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War appeared. The reference to deception and self-deceit in the subtitle are apt, for Gates explains that these techniques are responsible for America’s war in Iraq, among other things. “The war in Iraq is the product of a trans-generational syndicate skilled at displacing facts with (false) beliefs.” In such a short book, Gates makes great claims. For instance, he writes that “those masterful at manipulating thoughts and beliefs are also responsible for enabling organized crime to expand to a global scale.”

As we now watch the unprecedented spectacle on Wall Street — venerable firms collapsing, the government giving bailouts to survivors, and now fat bonuses spread around financial firms such as Goldman Sachs — it’s instructive to contemplate how trillions of dollars can come and go.

Yes, trillions. Not long ago we rarely heard that word. Instead, billion was the term for large sums of money, as the old economists’ joke shows: “A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Now, however, a billion serves in the way that million used to.

If it’s any consolation to American taxpayers who are footing the bailout bill, Russians not long ago were bilked for a similar amount. In his book, Gates claims that the pillage of Russian wealth in the 1990s is of a piece with the ongoing economic meltdown in the West now.

Gates fingers former Treasury Secretary and Harvard President Larry Summers, arguing that Summers used his status to legitimate the massive loan-for-shares fraud that created the Russian oligarchs.

Gates is not alone in making such a charge.  Left-wing scholar James Petras, for instance, also claims that Ashkenazi economic advisers associated with Harvard, such as Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs, backed the Russian regimes that allowed the plunder of that nation’s wealth. Because of these advisers’ positions at Harvard, that institution paid $26.5 million to settle a suit stemming from various improprieties associated with them. As VDARE writer Steve Sailer illustrates, however, it is the Jewish aspect of the entire scandal that stands out. The principals of this scandal were Jews, and they were allegedly protected by fellow Jew Summers.

The upshot of the scam was that the “reform” of the Russian economy “turned out to be one of the great larceny sprees in all history, and the Harvard boys weren’t all merely naive theoreticians.” The 45-year-old Shleifer, though Russian, nonetheless vacationed each year with Summers, which may explain why Shleifer has remained on the Harvard faculty.

As Wiki explains: “In an 18,000-word article in Institutional Investor (January, 2006), the magazine detailed Shleifer’s alleged efforts to use his inside knowledge of and sway over the Russian economy in order to make lucrative personal investments, all while leading a Harvard group, advising the Russian government, that was under contract with the U.S. The article suggests that Summers shielded his fellow economist from disciplinary action by the University.”

In the end, as Petras claims, “the unprecedented pillage” in Russia brought on by Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs’s and others’ “shock therapy” removed at least a trillion dollars from that long-suffering nation. Yet this was largely absent from any American discussions. Like Gates, Petras understands the importance of the fact that the ethnic connections going to the top of American society are important because of the combined power of Zionism, media and financial control. If it’s not good for the Jews, don’t mention it.

In any case, what we are dealing with here is a claim of massive fraud and deception in pursuit of resources. Sounds familiar to us Americans now, doesn’t it? While most of us have likely long since lost interest in the Russian story, our minds have become wonderfully focused by the stunning economic gyrations in America taking place before our very eyes. And as in Russia, so many of the central players—accused mega swindlers such as Madoff, Friedman and Karatz, for instance–are Jews.

Gates, of course, sees this: “Is a multi-trillion dollar fraud being perpetrated on America by Lawrence Summers and the same transnational network that defrauded Russia of $1 trillion?”

For those not paying attention, Summers is back in a high government position, currently as head of the National Economic Council (The August 2009 issue of The American Conservative notes that Summers is “strongly tipped” to be the next Fed chairman, which would continue the remarkable run of Ashkenazi men in that position). The Fed, Goldman Sachs, Madoff, there sure are a lot of Jewish players there — as well as intimations (and sometimes proof) of financial fraud and deception.

As Kevin MacDonald pointed out last year in a TOO column, “crime does pay. Jews like the Sandlers and the Arnalls whose actions contributed to the current crisis made huge fortunes. Their money is now being used to further specifically Jewish political agendas.” A major goal, of course, is to buttress their already formidable power in the media (and then combining that power with other Jewish movements such as Zionism, pro-immigration activism, etc.)

One could go on at length about Jewish power in the media. (A good place to start is the preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique.) Jewish blogger Henry Makow gives a concise argument for why control of the media is so important (though he uses the nebulous term “Illuminati” rather than the more precise term “Jewish”):“The Illuminati grabbed control of the mass media because they understood its overwhelming power to set social norms. Human apes are cowardly conformists and mimes by nature. The mass media has enormous power to deceive, control and pervert.”

There’s that word “deceive” again.

Now, I intend all of the above as but an introduction to my main topic: spying. Spying, needless to say, implies deception. And to no one’s surprise, I’m going to focus on acts and allegations of Jewish spying against American interests, starting with the aborted trial of AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman who acknowledged passing information to Israel. They were acquitted when the defense pointed out that government employees Kenneth Pollack and David Satterfield, were not prosecuted for giving the information to Rosen and Weissman. Pollack is strongly associated with the Israel Lobby and Satterfield is a Jewish-American with a position in the State Department related to Middle East affairs. This is what one might call the chutzpah defense: If government employees aren’t prosecuted for giving information to Israel, then it’s clearly unfair to prosecute AIPAC employees for receiving it. Just business as usual for the Lobby.

Writing in The American Conservative, Philip Giraldi last year chronicled the long history of Jews in America spying on behalf of Israel. He began by rehashing how “Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison in 1986,” then moved on to a more pathetic case: “Pollard’s name was in the news again on April 22, when former U.S. Army weapons engineer Ben-Ami Kadish was arrested for passing secrets to Israel. Kadish had been an agent run by Yosef Yagur, who directed Pollard. Yagur, under cover as a science attaché at the Israeli Consulate General in New York, fled the U.S. in 1985 after Pollard was arrested, but remained in touch with Kadish.”

Earlier this year Giraldi returned to the Kadish case, asking “Where is Ben-Ami Kadish?” It seems the old man failed to appear for his court date, yet “no one in the media seems interested in the case. The Federal Court for the Southern District of New York website is supposed to include all past and pending court cases, but if you search for Kadish, you come up with nothing.”

As a former CIA officer, Giraldi is interested in spies, noting that both neocon heavyweights Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith have been investigated “for passing classified information to Israel.” (He could also have mentioned that neocons Richard Perle, Stephen Bryen, and Michael Ledeen were similarly investigated; in all cases, including Wolfowitz and Feith, the charges were dropped.) Giraldi further mentions that the General Accounting Office “concluded that Israel ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally.’”

If you are beginning to sense a pattern, you’ll be keeping right up with Giraldi. Israeli spy networks, he claims, go deep:

Now, there may have been an Israeli student subculture in the U.S. selling cheap reproductions. But it is also clear that the art-student mechanism was used by intelligence officers to provide cover for espionage. The students were organized in cells of eight to ten members that traveled in vans, which provide concealment for electronic equipment. Several of the students were able to afford expensive airline tickets to hop from plane to plane, two of them flying in one day from Hamburg to Miami, then to Chicago, and finally winding up in Toronto on tickets that cost $15,000 each. In Miami and Chicago, they visited two government officials to try to sell their art. Another student had in his possession deposit slips for $180,000. Six students used cellphones provided by a former Israeli vice consul. Many claimed to be registered at either the University of Jerusalem or the Bezalel Academy of Arts in Jerusalem, but not a single name could be connected to the student body list of Bezalel, and there is no University of Jerusalem.

Naturally, this account brings to mind Carl Cameron’s Fox News reports about Israeli spying in America. Reportedly, sixty Israelis were detained for engaging in a long-running intelligence operation in the US. “Many of those arrested were active Israeli military or intelligence operatives.” More seriously, experts believed that these Israelis had advance knowledge of 9/11 plans yet did not share it with Washington.

This week intrepid blogger Justin Raimondo takes some serious swipes at Israel for its spying efforts against the U.S., mocking the “special relationship” we allegedly have with Israel. “What’s so ‘special’ about this relationship is that it permits the Israelis to spy on us to their hearts’ content — without fear of prosecution, even if they’re caught.”

Referring to the Kadish spy case, the judge observed, “Why it took the government 23 years to charge Mr. Kadish is shrouded in mystery.” Raimondo provides the answer:

Allow me to clear up the mystery, Your Honor: as the case of the mysterious “Israeli art students” and the shenanigans that took place with the Urban Movers in New Jersey on 9/11 make all too clear, Israel has carte blanche to spy in the United States and carry out whatever covert actions it deems necessary. Using the Israel lobby and its multifaceted organizations and front groups, Israeli intelligence has thoroughly penetrated American political life, including the U.S. government at every level. And political influence is routinely used to steal U.S. “secrets” — which, as far as the Israelis are concerned, are very far from secret.

Kadish’s transgressions were no mere trifle. As Wiki notes, “Kadish took classified documents to his handler’s home in Riverdale, Bronx several times (including information about nuclear weapons, a modified F-15 fighter, and the Patriot missiles) and let an unnamed Israeli government worker take photographs of them.” Admitting his guilt, Kadish still got off with a laughable sentence: no jail and a measly fine of $50,000. The judge was quoted as saying he gave a lenient sentence due to Kadish’s age and infirmity. (Contrast this with accused Nazi camp guard John Demjanjuk, an 89-year-old American recently shipped to Germany for yet another trial — Israel found him not guilty in 1993. German doctors have determined that he has about 16 months to live, due to his incurable leukemic bone marrow disease, yet that will not affect his trial.)

Raimondo certainly has Jewish spying on his mind this month, for he also wrote a long review of two books on KGB spies in the U.S. before, during, and after World War II. Well, I suppose I shouldn’t say Jewish spying because this time—writing in the August American Conservative — he gets nowhere near identifying the many Jews discussed as anything but deracinated individuals. (In contrast, we read about “the waspish” Sen. Karl Mundt and “young, educated scions of WASPy Brahmin families.” )

Raimondo draws the conclusion from the two books that “The U.S. government, during the war years particularly, was inundated with Communists who were turning over our secrets to the Soviets as fast as they could glean them.”

Here we get into the thorny issue of Jewish identity and the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet Union. In recent years it has been shown convincingly that Jews played a massive role in this—and the subsequent murder of tens of millions of hapless Christians in those lands. Two excellent sources on “Stalin’s Willing Executioners?” can be found here and here.

Since the bulk of Jewish immigrants to America were from the lands controlled by the Soviet Union, it can be asked if they too shared many of the negative perceptions of non-Jews that their brethren back in the Soviet Union did. One can further ask if such perceptions facilitated Jewish spying in the United States during this era. The conclusion seems to be “yes.” Despite a long history of apologetics in which leftist Jews in the US have been depicted as having no Jewish identity, they in fact had a strong Jewish identity.

Just as it has been shown that many Jews in Hollywood accused of loyalties to the Soviet Union were in fact guilty of such, similar evidence exists for Jews elsewhere in America. The names of Harry Dexter White, journalists Walter Lippmann, George Seldes, and John Spivak dance across the pages of Raimondo’s review, but one searches in vain for even a code word to show Jewish identity.

Raimondo then drops what was a bombshell to this reader: He relates how serving Congressman Sam Dickstein was an active spy for the KGB:

The Soviets further succeeded in placing a number of agents as congressional staff members, and in Rep. Sam Dickstein (D-N.Y.), who according to Allen Weinstein’s The Haunted Wood was paid $1,250 a month by the Soviets, they had an actual member of Congress. . . . Dickstein wasn’t just a traitor and a Communist: he was also a crook. Indeed, “Crook” was the KGB’s cover name for him. In the winter of 1936, the New York congressman approached Soviet Ambassador Alexandr Troyanovsky with the bright idea of paying him as much as $6,000 for the Un-American Committee’s files on White Russian exiles in the United States. At a series of meetings detailed in the KGB archives, Dickstein dickered until he got the Soviets to agree to a fee that, in 2008 dollars, amounted to more than $200,000 annually. . . . He resigned from Congress in 1945 to become a judge of the New York Supreme Court. He died in 1956, with no one the wiser as to his KGB affiliation.

Raimondo’s review cries out for a discussion of the ethnic antagonisms permeating those years. For instance, Rep. Dickstein, whom Kevin MacDonald has already characterized in Culture of Critique as a Jew highly committed to his fellow Jews and a stalwart in the anti-immigration restriction forces of the 1920s, was openly hostile toward White Christian Americans who were conscious of their own interests. He “embarked on a witch-hunt against any organization or individual who dared speak out against U.S. intervention abroad, labeling them Nazis, fascists, and saboteurs.” Like today’s ADL or the heavily Jewish $PLC, Dickstein saw anti-Semites everywhere; he “exaggerated the extremist threat far beyond its small size, claiming that the German American Bund had two hundred thousand armed men who were ready to don their brown uniforms and overthrow the government.”

Like Dickstein, Susan Jacoby, author of one of the books under review by Raimondo, displays an animus toward Christian Americans. Raimondo does a good job of teasing this out. Jacoby, as he notes, “fails to understand the real history and nature of McCarthyism, which pointed to an internal enemy, rather than the alleged external military threat from the Soviet Union, as the main danger to America. This is why liberal anti-Communists, and the intellectual predecessors of today’s neoconservatives, recoiled at the sight of the populist McCarthy rallying millions of Americans against their own government and the elites who controlled it.” Is this not the description seen time and again that the numerically smaller Jews have given of the masses of non-Jews around them?

Imagine what would happen if a contemporary McCarthy held hearings on Israeli spying or went on TV brandishing a list of Israeli agents like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bryen and Ledeen in the State Department and Defense Department. The cries of “smear” and “witch hunt” — not to mention “anti-Semitism” — would be deafening.

Prior to WWII, Dickstein would surely have been jailed had his spying been discovered. Today, Raimondo explains, “the line between lobbying and espionage is now so blurred that it no longer seems to exist. And so, even as we absorb the lessons of this chronicle of treason, a new chapter in the history of ideologically motivated espionage is being written.” I’d substitute the phrase “ethnically motivated” for “ideologically motivated” in that sentence. But in any case, I’m not sure I want to read that chapter when it’s finished.

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

Culture: The Missing Link in Euro-American Nationalism

The term ‘nationalism’ has become obsolete. And it should remain so: both in America and Europe. It was promising, modern, revolutionary, and it went hand in hand with the liberal and socialist revolutions in 1848. Later on, due to semantic shifts in the aftermath of WWII, it became a monster word in Europe, squarely equated with the term ‘Nazism’. And since Nazism stands in modern discourse as a synonym for absolute evil, no wonder that its milder etymological derivative, such as the adjective ‘national’ is avoided.

Of course, there are respectable nationalist parties in Europe such as the BNP in the United Kingdom, Le Front National in France, L’Alleanza Nazionale in Italy, or the NPD in Germany, with all of them sporting the adjective “national” in their party logos or in their letterheads. But this is a far cry from the noun ‘nationalist’ — which they all prudently avoid. Neither Nick Griffin, nor Jean Marie le Pen, nor Udo Voigt, will ever publicly exclaim: “I am proud of being a French, or British, or German nationalist!” However, even with their toned down rhetoric aimed at hiding the pesky qualifier “national,” there is no way they can dodge the smear campaign by the European media, which depicts them all as closet crypto- Nazis.

Such a lexical malaise only causes further semantic confusions in view of the fact that the word ‘Nazi’ was never in official use in the Third Reich. It has always been a derogatory word in the arsenal of former or current opponents of National Socialism. How for instance would neocon luminaries such as Irving Kristol or Norman Podhoretz like being tagged as “former commie” sympathizers? No serious scholar would ever resort the pejorative word ‘commie’ when describing past communist terror. The only exception is the pejorative word ‘Nazi’.

As a German legal scholar Josef Schüsselburner in his much acclaimed recent book points out, it is no wonder that contemporary leftist and liberal scholars avoid the German compound noun “National Socialism” (Nationalsozialismus), given that the noun “Sozialismus” (and not the preceding adjective “National” ) is conspicuously reminiscent of humane, socialist do-good theories which liberals and communists like to brag about. It’s hard for modern liberal and leftist opinion makers to swallow the fact that in the mid-1930s, National Socialist Germany tapped into the socialist heritage, which resulted in the first modern welfare state in Europe —  a state that achieved an awesome economic miracle. Germany had lifted its currency off the gold standard and began using a mixture of command and free market economy.

Politically and ideologically, Hitler made a visible effort to co-opt the SPD (Social Democratic Party) electorate and integrate it in his regime, an effort that was largely successful with his “social-state-socialist” economic policies. Even the exiled SPD observed in 1934 that the Hitler regime was labor-oriented and therefore could lean much on former SPD voters. … What appears obvious is the deliberate classification in the socialist tradition, because otherwise National Socialism would have not named itself “national-socialist,” but possibly “social-nationalist.” …

The main acknowledgment of the chief NS propagandist, Joseph Goebbels was: “When I think in terms of socialism, I must be an anti-Semite, because the Jew is the incarnation of capitalism.” (Josef Schüsselburner, Roter, brauner und grüner Sozialismus (Red, Brown, and Green Socialism), 2008).

America: The White Revival?

The term “White nationalist” that is so common in America is a misnomer. Often it is used as a code word for White racialists, although the term “patriot” would be more digestible because it is less value-loaded. Nor can American nationalism be historically or sociologically the equivalent of European nationalism. Despite its evident verbal shortcoming, the expression “White nationalism” in America has conceptually, but also in terms of its political feasibility, a distinct advantage over a multitude of European nationalisms which are often at odds which each other. The North American continent represents a unique land mass in the world in which over 200 million citizens of European ancestry live side by side without being embroiled in linguistic disputes or other quarrels among White subgroups. as is common in Europe. America, or at least some part of it, is, therefore, geopolitically and racially better positioned in the near future to be in the forefront of the European cultural revival than any other aspiring nation state in Europe.

Moreover, unlike in Europe, American White nationalists do not have to justify their nationalism by resorting to “negative identity” — that is, by seeking political legitimacy through the exclusion or demonization of other neighboring White nationalisms.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The major flaw of contemporary American nationalists, racialists, or (crudely put) “right-wingers” is that they often define their national awareness by harping on one single issue while neglecting the broader picture of cultural hegemony. Pat Buchanan is one of the rare American patriots who understands the vital point of culture warfare as a tool in obtaining political power. Many American nationalists and self-proclaimed racialists, including even some cultivated racialists, cannot help but framing their nationalism in terms of race discourse only. Some, on the other hand seem to be solely obsessed with Jews. Some will rave and rant eternally against illegal Mexicans.

These types of one-issue conservatism are repellant to the broad American masses and they definitely cripple the credibility of American White nationalists. As laudable as any of these single-issue approaches may be, when taken separately they are non-starters for obtaining cultural hegemony. A single-issue approach makes American nationalists appear in the eyes of European nationalists as too reductionistic, to put it academically — or as a laughing stock, to put it non-academically. 

Many American sociobiologists and race theoreticians of staggering erudition have made path-breaking inroads in the study of human behavior and particularly in the role of IQ in politics. But there is a common tendency of overspecialization and the neglect of a sense of the sacred, the role of myths, the role of art, or the social and political factor of European sagas. Such a purely mechanistic attitude can never elicit a positive response among White American masses at large, who in their vast majority have a poor sense of racial consciousness and are badly in need of a true role model. Whoever visited MENSA gatherings knows that these meetings can be incredibly boring.

In fact many American ‘classy’ racialists fall in the same trap as Marxist intellectuals when they replace economic determinism with genetic determinism. The reality is that man, or for that matter White man, is more than his IQ or his genetic  endowment. The spirit of the Parthenon in Greece or the spiritual modesty of General Lee amply demonstrates that there are also other venues that need to be explored.

The Parthenon

A blue collar worker nationalist in the United Kingdom knows very well the meaning of the name Geoffrey Chaucer or William Shakespeare — although he may have never read them. A German farmer knows perfectly well the transcendental meaning of the names Richard Wagner or Goethe. Not so in America, where White nationalists look for role models in fleeting creatures of often dubious morality and often semi-criminal record — and who usually last only a short time. In hindsight it appears that on the political front, ever since Huey Long or George Wallace American nationalists, whether on the political front or on the intellectual front, have had zero success.

By neglecting the broader picture that would include other related fields, stretching from philosophy to literature and linguistics, American nationalists and racialists provide a perfect target for leftist and Jewish watchdog groups who know deadly well the crucial role of cultural hegemony in wielding political power.

American self- proclaimed “Nazis” are a case in point, presenting the grotesque picture of what historically National Socialism had never been in Germany. With their caricatured imagery and posted insignia harkening back to National Socialist Germany, American Nazis fit perfectly into the preconceived monster picture of their zealous detractors, such as the $PLC or the ADL.

The Main Foe of Nationalism: Capitalism

Many American right wingers are deeply concerned about out-of-ocontrol non-European immigration while at the same time having a quasi-religious veneration of the free market. As I wrote a long time ago in a well annotated piece, the free market, or capitalism, is by definition “raceless.” Unless it is controlled by a racially conscious political class, it is bound to destroy America’s White racial stock faster than all illegals from all parts of the world combined. Capitalism rejects the race factor and despises any form or ethnocentrism. A merchant does not like borders and could not care less whether his customer is black, brown, or yellow. All European nationalists, despite being virulent anti-Marxists, and in contrast to American nationalists, are without exception highly critical of the free market and capitalism.

On a more intimate level, it would be interesting to carry out a study as to the percentage of “proud White” Americans who resort furtively to illegal cheap labor from across the Rio Grande. By extension, this equation could also apply to boisterous “proud White males” from Australia, who in search of cheap flesh and dope travel to Thailand for a quick out-group sexual escapade.

While it is more than commendable to mate within the same in-group, there is always a cultural element that needs to be factored in. Over the last twenty years many American nationalist men seem to have found a treasure trove among East European and Russian women — whose sense of tradition and womanhood is unquestionably better preserved than among American women. American nationalist men also look to these areas for wives because American women are likely to view their nationalist beliefs as toxic. By contrast, the legacy of communist barbarism has turned many of Eastern European nationalist males into a crass and uncouth flock — hardly appealing to women.

What is to be done?

Among post-communist East European and Russian nationalists, despite animosity towards American individualism, there is a dose of hidden awe and servility toward all things American. This inferiority complex works on both sides of the Atlantic, and if not bridged by aggressive cultural and linguistic exchange, it won’t solidify White peoples around the globe.

It remains a puzzle why American nationalists do not use an interdisciplinary culture-bound approach in their activism or in their self-promotion. But first and foremost they need to make a sharp distinction between political activism and intellectual proselytizing. The latter must always precede the former — something that Western European nationalists grasped a long time ago. The left — from the early Bolsheviks to the 1960s countercultural protestors — have been well aware of this over the last century.

American nationalists have enough cultural firepower for reasonable intellectual debates. Although important, the race factor cannot be the only carrier of national identity. Numerous gatherings of American nationalists could for a change address topics of literature and politics and discuss authors like Jack LondonAmbrose BierceHL Mencken and the meaning of American prometheanism. The great telluric and symbolist poems by a great postmodern American poet, Joseph D. Pryce, could attract many potential fellow Euro-American patriots and greatly dissipate the ambiance of fear, suspicion and “guilt by association.”

The South has its intellectual heavyweights too. One only needs to bring up the name of the great antebellum thinker George Fitzhugh in order to grasp the mendacity of liberals. In many ways his prose is far more revealing than that of the Brit George Orwell writing a hundred years later. John Calhoun’s views on race are as refreshing today as they were two centuries ago.

In many ways the intellectual heritage of the American nationalists is on par with the European nationalist tradition and sometimes even surpasses it, as demonstrated by the Southern agrarians, who early on demolished the liberal myth of economic progress and whose intellectual diversity spreads out from literature to poetry and linguistics.

Modern American nationalists are still privileged by the First Amendment and have the means of communicating from Alabama to Alaska in one vernacular. If better organized and with folks of impeccable modesty and sincerity at the helm, they could resuscitate the impressive Euro-American cultural heritage and use it as a tool against liberal and leftist smear campaigners.

Tom Sunic (www.tomsunic.infohttp://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/) is an author, former political science professor in the USA, translator and former Croat diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age ( 2007).

Controlling Anti-Jewish Stereotypes: The Case of the “Hook-Nosed Jew”

One of my interests in life is the bizarre phenomenon of anti-Jewish propaganda manufactured by elite and well-organized cadres of Jews.

Israel Shamir, in his controversial book Cabbala of Power, makes an interesting point about “hook-nosed Jews.” It seems that many Jews, far from shrinking from mention of their noses, never lose an opportunity to reinforce this particular stereotype by referring to their own noses negatively if there is no one else around to do so. When Jewish cemeteries are vandalized or swastikas are found defacing walls, the culprits on numerous occasions have turned out to be Jews. (See, e.g., here and here.) So it is with the legendary “Jewish nose”: a protected species of stereotype deliberately nurtured and kept alive by organized Jewry for propaganda purposes.

Shamir recounts several of these instances. David Mamet, Jewish American playwright, once noticed a bumper sticker on a car: “Israel, Out of the Settlements!” Mamet took umbrage. “This could well be translated,” he huffed, “as Hook-nosed Jews, Die!” Writing an article for The Age, a Jewish publication, Graham Barrett slyly invoked the same carefully cultivated stereotype. “The retired Malaysian Prime Minister,” he told his readers, “took a parting snipe at the ‘hook-nosed Jews’ who rule the world by proxy.”

But this is ridiculous. The Malaysian Prime Minister, as everyone knows, made no reference to “hooked-nosed Jews.” And Mamet is simply fantasizing about the attitudes of someone who was taking an entirely reasonable point of view on the Middle East. In his twisted world, any criticism of Israel, no matter how reasonable, is just another crazed statement of a Jew-hater whose images of Jews come right out of a Der Sturmer cartoon.

David Mamet  Imagines  How Critics of Israel See Jews

With the reader’s permission, I shall continue my disquisition on Jewish noses for a bit. The legendary ‘Jewish nose’, though fairly common among non-Jews, appears to cause our Jewish cousins extra special anguish. Rhinoplasty, invented by German-Jewish surgeon Jacques Joseph in the 1890s, largely caught on because its earliest and most enthusiastic customers were Jews. When Jewish comedienne Fanny Brice had her nose job, Dorothy Parker (herself half Jewish) quipped: “Fanny has cut off her nose to spite her race!”  Since then, many famous Jews have gone under the knife, including Natalie Portman (Herschlag), Winona Ryder (Horowitz), Gwyneth Paltrow (Paltrowitz), and Sarah Jessica Parker (Bar-Kahn).

Though this would appear to be a relatively frivolous subject, the intelligent reader will understand that it is not the Jewish nose per se that is of interest to me. I am really interested in Jewish power — in this case, the power to suppress any public discussion of a Jewish stereotype based to a considerable extent on the reality of Jewish noses. It’s really the same as Jewish ability to suppress statements that Jews have inordinate influence on the media. Truth is irrelevant.

In fact, it is the whole cluster of alleged anti-Semitic stereotypes and fabricated “canards“ that hover over any discussion of organized Jewry, or of Israel, and which make it almost impossible for anyone to discuss Jewish issues without being branded “anti-Semitic.”

“Eagle County is on the lookout for a Big-nosed Jew!” screams the inflammatory headline in a recent edition of the Denver Post.  Apparently a man who broke into someone’s house was spotted by a member of the public who then went on to give the police a description of the burglar: a man of medium height, medium weight, nondescript looking face, baseball cap pulled low. Helpful? The cops didn’t seem to think so — until the witness suddenly blurts, “Oh yeah, he had this big Jewish nose!”  Light suddenly dawns. The cops grin. The pieces of the jigsaw are beginning to slip into place. Hey, with a description like that you can’t go wrong! You’ve more or less got your man.

Denver Post reporter Susan Greene, who describes herself as Jewish, tackles the story with considerable aplomb, making all the right politically correct noises. First of all, the witness who described the burglar as having a “big Jewish nose” was clearly an anti-Semite. He should have watched his language, the bigoted lout. The cops were equally insensitive for taking down the witness’s toxic words without so much as a murmur. As for the local newspapers, how could their editors have been so stupid as to legitimize anti-Semitism by giving traction to the stereotype that Jews had funny cartoon noses? 

One Adam Sutner, quoted in the Denver Post, is beside himself with rage. The whole sordid affair reminds him of “one of Joseph Goebbels’ finer works of propaganda.” Reporter Greene notes caustically: If the “scary Semitic sneakthief” (burglar) had horns, the bigoted witness “failed to mention it.”

Needless to say, the ADL has been quick to complain. The editors of local rags, beating their breasts in anguish at their own insensitivity, offer unparalleled apologies. “This has shaken my confidence in my own ability,” one of them confides dolefully. Being Jewish, however, he hopes to be forgiven. The remainder, the goyim contingent, need to grovel a bit longer before absolution is granted.

“As a Jew with a nose, I’m sitting out this debate,” reporter Greene concludes on a wistful note.

What is the point of this storm-in-a-teacup brouhaha? Is it the need to create distractions? Are the goyim being lured into thinking about Jewish noses in order to deflect their attention from Jewish crimes? Forget Madoff, mister, think about our goddamn noses! No, I don’t think so.

The point I am making is this: if you can brainwash the lumpengoyim to such an extent that they dare not even refer to a “Jewish nose” for fear of offending Jews, then you have nothing to worry about in regard to the Jews’ real sins: hijacking US foreign policy in the interests of serving the racialist, apartheid state of Israel while at the same time being the main force responsible for erecting the culture of Western suicide, including especially the attack on traditional values and the sacral core of life. These, after all, are the things that matter. Not the Jewish nose.

But let’s get back to Jewish noses.

In Cabbala of Power Shamir describes an email from a stranger called ‘Sam Jones’. It said: “Your valiant efforts and writings are appreciated throughout this nation. I deeply share your contempt for the hook-nosed Zionist vermin. Every dirty Jew should be put back into the ovens. Thanks once again for your help in conveying this vital message.”

Shamir reveals that his unknown correspondent’s email address was finally traced to a certain Zionist provocateur. The same mischief maker had been bombarding Jeff Blankfort with similar emails, but Jeff saw through his game. The phrase “hook-nosed Jew” is always a giveaway, Shamir notes — “a clear sign of the Jewish effort to turn antizionist or anti-Judaic polemics into racist ones.”

If the “Jewish nose” ceased to exist, organized Jewry would be all the poorer for the loss of a valuable propaganda tool. In fact, if anti-Semitism didn’t exist, it might have to be invented.

Many of these bogus “insults” to Jews follow a predictable pattern. An initial gaffe that purportedly wounds the feelings of millions of traumatized Jews all over the world is invariably followed by howls of protest from Jew and gentile alike. Apologize, or be damned! A groveling apology follows.

Here are two cases which help to illustrate the point that Jew and gentile, these ancient ideological enemies, are now locked in a sadomasochistic bondage game in which the Jew wields the whip and the non-Jew cowers and cringes.

In October 2007, celeb actress Halle Berry appeared on “The Tonight Show” where she made an innocuous joke about the Jewish nose. Berry had been showing photographs of herself taken the previous day, using the Mac program Photo Booth, which distorts images like in a fun-house mirror. Commenting on the first picture, in which her nose looked like an enormous gherkin, Berry foolishly blurted: “Here’s where I look like my Jewish cousin!”

A stunned silence. Host Leno blinks and veils his troubled eyes. “I’m glad you said that and not me,” he sighs. Berry tenses, her eyes literally popping out on stalks. “Ohmigod,” she whispers, “have I just like ruined my career?”

Let’s assume it was a genuine gaffe and not a publicity stunt for Jewish noses.

Wasn’t it a subtle kind of cat-and-mouse cruelty to put this lovely actress through her subsequent humiliation? To force her to grovel? For a start, why, pray tell, does her career have to depend on the Jews? How come the Jews have managed to achieve a position of such total transcendence in America that they can now ruin someone’s career just for referring to their noses?

After a long and unnecessary apology for offending precisely no one, Berry concluded pathetically on this note of abject contrition: “It just came out of my mouth. I didn’t mean to offend anybody. I didn’t. I didn’t mean any harm. I am so sorry, and I apologize.

Oh Mr. Foxman, why weren’t you there to receive the lady’s kiss on the sole of your sainted foot?

The second incident of goy humiliation has nothing to do with the Jewish nose—a subject which, I confess, is now beginning to fatigue me. It is the famous incident involving one of America’s most hated men, the monster who made that unforgettable movie in Latin and Aramaic celebrating the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Because he’d had the chutzpah to make this “anti-Semitic” movie which in every way was the antithesis of the type of filth and feculence that now oozes from the sewers of Hollywood, Mel Gibson was a marked man. They were waiting for him to slip up. And slip up he did — big time.

I hardly need to repeat the story. I will summarize. Gibson got drunk. He was then arrested, and in the course of his close encounter with the cops, he made a few unhelpful and inappropriate remarks. He didn’t tell the cops that it might be a good idea to boil Jesus Christ in excrement.  No, he left that to the Talmud. He didn’t call the Virgin Mary a whore, either, though it’s true he referred to a female cop as “sugar tits.” He didn’t tell anyone to cut off other people’s testicles, as Ariel Sharon, “man of peace,” told Israeli soldiers to cut off the testicles of Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank. (See here, Chapter 4, note 111.)

No, Mel went one step further. He insulted the police officer arresting him by asking him the politically incorrect question, “Are you a Jew?” And then he spewed forth these sacrilegious words: “F***ing Jews! The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world! You mother****er, I’m gonna  f*** you!”

Such a torrent of vile abuse was clearly unprecedented, only made bearable in subsequent newspaper reports by the judicious use of asterisks.

Poor Mel! His doom was sealed. He might as well have thrown himself into a tank full of piranhas. His abject apology to the Jews, like Halle Berry’s, could hardly have provided a clearer testament to the almost totalitarian power of the kings of contemporary America.

Here, in slightly abbreviated form, is Gibson’s groveling apology:

After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong and for which I am ashamed. I acted like a person completely out of control and said things which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed  of everything I said and I apologize to anyone who I have offended. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state.

Six apologies one after the other! Mel Gibson: Model of contrition. Paradigm of penitence. And here now is Abe Foxman, one of the New Masters, a cold and implacable Caiaphas:

Mel Gibson’s apology is unremorseful and insufficient. It’s not a proper apology. His tirade reveals his true self. We hope that Hollywood now realize the bigot in their midst and distance themselves from this anti-Semite.

Jesus wept.

Meanwhile, the courageous and insightful James Petras expresses his concern that in the land where Jesus walked, Jews were recently seen to picnic round the blood-spattered gates of Gaza. Here they were free to participate in the gory bloodfest of the 2008-09 Palestinian mini-genocide enjoying their favorite sport of shooting fish in a barrel. Israeli T-shirts, some showing a pregnant Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach, bore the heartless slogan, “One Shot Two kills!”  And IDF soldiers were instructed by their superior officers, “Do anything you want!”

This has now been further documented in the booklet “Breaking the Silence” which compiles testimonies of soldiers in “the most moral army in the world“:

Among the 54 testimonies are stories revealing the use of “accepted practices,” the destruction of hundreds of houses and mosques for no military purpose, the firing of phosphorous gas in the direction of populated areas, the killing of innocent victims with small arms, the destruction of private property, and most of all, a permissive atmosphere in the command structure that enabled soldiers to act without moral restrictions.

Don’t expect this report to be discussed in the New York Times any time soon.

I am too distressed to make any further observations on the Jewish nose, so let me conclude with these prophetic words by Palestinian Christian and ex-Jew Israel Shamir, as presented by TOO‘s Edmund Connelly:

“The Jews” — Shamir makes a distinction between organized Jewry and individual Jews — “intend to turn Jerusalem into the supreme capital of the world, and its rebuilt temple into the focal point of the Spirit on Earth.” Should they succeed, unspeakable despair will follow. “Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state. . . . De-spiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday’s Masters of the World [non-Jews] will become slaves in all but name.”

Even as I write, Americans are being dispossessed of their country. It is being stolen from under their noses and most of them do not know it.  Europeans, too, are losing control of their  homelands.

We are all Palestinians now.

Dr. Lasha Darkmoon (email her) is an academic, age 31, with higher degrees in classics.  A published poet and translator, she is also a political  activist with a special interest in Middle Eastern affairs. ‘Lasha Darkmoon’ is a pen name.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/2009/07/controlling-anti-jewish-stereotypes-the-case-of-the-hook-nosed-jew/