Featured Articles

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.

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

Today’s column addresses the ongoing slaughter of Whites and yet again tries to fathom why so few Whites are moved to defend themselves, individually or as a group.

My own perspective may not be especially useful here, for I came to The Jewish Question prior to becoming a race realist. What opened my eyes was reading Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements. In particular, Chapter Two revealed how anthropologist Franz Boas and his acolytes had set the stage for the eventual triumph of the nonsensical belief that “race is nothing but a social construct.” Further, having been subjected to Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man I was especially happy with the way MacDonald tore Gould apart for the scholarly fraud Gould perpetrated—with massive backing from Jews in media and academia—in his war on non-Jews.

Thus primed, I was ready to face the fact that the entire mainstream American media is complicit in a campaign not only to exaggerate the sins of White men (when the culprit is a White woman, confusion over how to treat the story reigns) but to utterly bury stories of the most shocking brutality against Whites.

It was just after Christmas 2000 and I had finally gotten the Internet hooked up at home. Somewhere I ran across a story alleging that two Black men had raped, beaten and murdered four or five young Whites. If this were a real story, I thought, CNN and other sources would certainly report it. I checked and there was nothing, so I concluded the original reports were false.

Soon enough, however, I discovered two awful truths: One, the reports about the murders were true, and two, the mainstream media had (and continue to) absolutely cover it up. I’m sure that like many of you, such a combination of discoveries induces a mixture of rage, confusion, disbelief and even despair. But for me it was a necessary epiphany.

Let me briefly recount the story of the Wichita Massacre or 2000 as told by Pat Buchanan. In his book The Death of the West, he described the crimes that took place on the night of December 14, 2000:

Five young people were at a party when their home was invaded by brothers, ages twenty-three and twenty. The five were put into a car, driven to an ATM machine, forced to withdraw their money, and taken onto a soccer field. The two women were forced to strip and were raped. Then the victims were forced to have sex with each other at gunpoint. All were made to kneel down. Each was shot in the ear. The three young men and one woman died. The other woman, left for dead, ran bleeding and naked for a mile in the cold to find help, as the brothers drove back to ransack the house.

One of the victims had decided to become a priest. Another had bought an engagement ring and was about to propose, but “in the minutes before he died, Jason Befort was forced to watch as the woman he hoped to marry was raped.”

American Renaissance has an excellent account of the story, including photos:

Jonathan (left) and Reginald Carr.

The Four Murder Victims of the Wichita Massacre

Though it’s been almost ten years since the atrocity, it still bothers me immensely, including the fact that our entire Establishment—led by the media and academia—continues to ignore these depressingly common Black-on-White horrors.

So again today I was moved to write by a new account of Blacks murdering Whites. As is my custom, I visited James Edwards’ site for The Political Cesspool to link to his wonderful radio interviews. Here is what I found:

John White 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.

Edwards also posted a story about Hispanics attacking Whites in the small Pennsylvania town of Shenandoah. Along with three Hispanic men, Miriam Leticia Malave attacked several patrons at a bar. For her part, Malave went after a female bartender. Hate crime? The authorities haven’t decided, even though Malave was heard yelling “All whites will die tonight!” while leading an attack armed with baseball bats. If hate crime charges are not filed, it will be no surprise since, as Edwards noted, “Eric Holder explained to Congress during hearings on the most recent hate crimes bill, white people aren’t a protected class under hate crimes law.”

This story struck home because my own family ran a business that spanned four generations. Though ownership has since passed out of the family, we continue to identify with it to some degree. Last year, a young woman was working there late when she was attacked and raped by an illegal Hispanic immigrant. The whole extended family knew about it, yet no one has talked about it, let alone made any progress toward understanding the context as it relates to race and the danger we Whites face.

In particular, I can’t understand why relatives with young daughters refuse to buck the Establishment-imposed command that Whites not protect themselves or see themselves at risk because of their race.

Soon after that attack, one of my sisters, who lives in a town outside Raleigh, North Carolina, had this race message driven home further when a 14-year-old neighborhood boy was attacked by a gang of Black “youths” near my sister’s house. He was dragged from his bicycle and stomped to death in the middle of the nearly all-White neighborhood. Again, not the slightest hint that any racial lessons were learned. Instead, I saw in the local newspaper the standard idiotic candlelight vigil clueless Whites held, much like this image:

It reminds me of Amy Biehl, a White woman who was murdered by a mob of Africans in 1993. Rather than reacting with righteous anger and an understandable desire for revenge, her parents established the Amy Biehl Foundation Trust, established “to develop and empower youth in the townships, in order to discourage further violence.”

I strongly suspect my experiences with family and friends in trying to lift the veil of ignorance surrounding the facts of hundreds of anti-White crimes parallels that of readers. Constantly I wonder “What could be a more emphatic message about the risks you as a White person face than outright murder by a non-White?” Sadly, I can’t properly answer the question, but I do have some ideas.

First, as I’ve argued routinely in my writing, Jewish-led movements have been successful in portraying all White societies as racist and immoral, inciting rage in allegedly sinned-against non-Whites. Recall that Jews, winners of the Russian revolution, were able to say to the losers, “You were the masters before, now it’s our turn!” As The Black Book of Communism relates, “The Bolshevik leaders encouraged anything that might promote this aspiration to ‘social revenge’ among the masses seeing it as a moral legitimization of the terror, or what Lenin called ‘the just civil war.’” Constant media attention given to White-on-Black transgressions (generally more of a verbal than lethal nature) is the counterpart in today’s America.

I can further explain the process by referring to a column I wrote in 2008 called Letter of Termination to the White Race. It dealt with a brief and boastful letter written to Whites of the world. The letter tersely describes why the White race is toast. The ninety-two percent of the world’s population that is not White is being led by an “out group” that has been using our own “media and government, academia, and law enforcement organizations” to “terminate” us. Consider this passage:

By carefully controlling and managing the schools, universities, media, and press, this “out group” has managed to convince the great bulk of your racial kinsmen that not only is resistance futile, but that it is immoral, barbaric, depraved, and unworthy of a “thinking” individual. By promoting the stereotype of a “racist redneck resistance”, they have made the idea of a struggle for white Identity a veritable sin in the minds of nearly every white person. In short: they have convinced European-derived peoples that a prolonged suicide is preferable to the unmitigated evil of “racism”.

When I read the author’s statement that “you whites have become a neutered, egoless herd of cattle, easily manipulated and posing no threat to the Out Group,” I couldn’t help but think of the countless family members and friends I have who fit that description.

Thinking about The Wichita Massacre or The Knoxville Horror (in which a young White couple were raped, tortured and murdered by five Black men), I had a shudder of recognition when I read his next statement. “We will beat and murder your sons; we will rape your wives and daughters.”

Though we Whites are the victims, “the Out Group will use their media to label you with shocking epithets and broad smears: racist, hater, bigot, neo-Nazi, nativist, white supremacist, domestic terrorist, etc.” I’ve written about this very thing previously in this space, and Kevin MacDonald has shown how White identity has became pathologized by the success of several Jewish intellectual and political movements.

What makes this all so demoralizing is the fact that, as the author so cruelly reminds us, a good portion of the White population welcomes our demise. “Adios, white man! You had a good, long run, but your day is over . . . and your race is no longer wanted here. . . . Besides, many of you are even anticipating this with something akin to sick glee. After all, that’s how the TV set told them to feel. The brainwashing is almost complete, and the sheep are in line to shear.”


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

For God and the Reconquest of the West!

Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand lead the Reconquistadors, holding aloft a cross

Recently two articles in TOO have expressed diametrically opposed views of the proper place of Christianity in the fight to save the West demographically.

Thomas Dalton outlines Friedrich Nietzsche’s critical view of Christianity and its origins. Nietzsche ridiculed the traditional religion of the West as senile and decadent and speculated that Christianity was invented by embittered Jews, especially St. Paul, to turn the lower classes against Rome and thus provide Israel with a degree of freedom from Roman rule.

Michael Colhaze is loyal to Christianity. He attacks Nietzsche’s character and sanity, portraying his writings as fanciful and his superman ideal as monstrous social Darwinism. He praises Christianity for embodying the love and compassion of Christ that empowers believers.

I have agreements and disagreements with both perspectives based on the criterion of what is good for the survival of ethnic groups that adopt Christianity, though my main interest is the corporate survival of Western peoples. I come down roughly in the middle of the two positions, though tilting decidedly towards a Christianity of the traditional variety informed by anthropology and genetics.

Thomas Dalton, in his article “Nietzsche and the Origins of Christianity,” demonstrates considerable sympathy for the German philosopher  —  born 1844, died 1900. Dalton reveals aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy that will be attractive to many White advocates, as we shall see.

Nietzsche began his treatment of Christianity with a bold accusation — that it is decadent, weak, and nihilistic. Dalton writes: “It led to a sickly, subservient, herd morality, and suffocated the quest for human excellence. Worst of all, it replaced a life-affirming naturalness with an otherworldly, life-denying negativism. It has become, in fact, ‘the greatest misfortune of mankind so far.’”

Here Nietzsche must be radically wrong. The Church ministered to European peoples during our long resistance to Islamic aggression, our invention of science and industry, and our spectacular global expansion. That includes all three Christian worlds — Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox. The arrest of Western confidence and expansion and its accelerating contraction have coincided with the liberalization of Christianity or its actual suppression under communist regimes. I shall take up this theme again.

The alleged disaster of Christianity can only be explained, Nietzsche thought, by understanding its Jewish origins. Jesus and the apostles were Jewish, as were Mark, Luke and Paul and the many unknown authors who contributed to the New Testament. This meant that Christianity is stamped with the Jewish character, which Nietzsche refers to as “race.” That character comes through in the slave morality embodied by the religion from the beginning, which Nietzsche interprets to be Paul’s strategy to subvert the masses of the Roman Empire, weaken Rome’s aristocratic grip on its far-flung provinces, and thus give Israel a chance to break free.

It should be emphasized that this is speculation.

For the success of this alleged strategy Nietzsche mainly blames the West. Dalton quotes Nietzsche: “There is no excuse whatever for their failure to dispose of such a sickly and senile product of decadence [as the Christian God].But a curse lies upon them for this failure: they have absorbed sickness, old age, and contradiction into all their instincts — and since then they have not created another god. Almost two thousand years — and not one new god!”

Dalton states that a fitting — a fitness enhancing? — re-conception of religion needs to be “a truly uplifting, life-affirming, and ennobling enterprise — decidedly unlike Judeo-Christianity — and must never be taken as permanent and absolute truth. All superstitious, i.e. anti-natural, religions are out of the question. The human condition, and human ‘salvation’, must be firmly rooted in the present, physical world — the real world.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the need for a religion that engages reality, especially the reality of humans as an evolved species with biological interests of survival and continuity. However I cannot accept such a negative depiction of the traditional religion of the West. At the same time I have difficulties with blanket praise for what it has become, which brings me to the article critical of Nietzsche.

Michael Colhaze, in his article “Nietzsche and No End” turns Nietzsche’s critical blowtorch back on its inventor. Colhaze describes Nietzsche’s superman as “[a] kind of socio-Darwinian zombie whose general credo is the exact reversal of Christian ethics. Goodness is stupidity, compassion the dumbness of slaves, beauty ugliness, love utter contempt, gentleness dirt under his fingernail. In short, a two-hundred-fifty-page glorification of hate without any strings attached.”

I agree that Nietzsche’s superman is not the sort of person to invite for dinner, at least to the family table. And would he be someone who could be relied upon? I also agree with Colhaze that this so-called superman evinces some social-Darwinistic values which should be rejected. But social Darwinism is not the same as modern evolutionary theory and it has never constituted the theory. In fact Darwin himself was interested in untangling the causes of morality and compassion, not abolishing them, even if at the same time he was quietly proud of his English and European identity and pessimistic about the potential of primitive races.

It is one thing to criticize Nietzsche’s excesses, another to rubbish his call for a religion that respects reality. Colhaze does so by mischaracterizing the evolutionary process:

a process similar to tossing an infinite amount of golf balls into the air, each numbered, and each falling accidentally into a hole with the corresponding number.

The only alternative, Colhaze concludes, is an omnipotent God, “one whom I believe to be solely responsible for the world’s creation and its grandiose theatre, though not for the crimes of mankind which cause about ninety nine percent of all its suffering.” Actually the great majority of suffering is caused by competing life strategies, e.g. between predator and prey.

Colhaze believes that Christianity delivers “man’s highest and most sublime aspiration. An aspiration to consummate, on a strictly personal level, Christ’s divine message of Love and Compassion. A message that is, for those who handle it calmly, an inexhaustible font of joy and inner certainty, a way of life that can brace adversities more thoroughly than any other. And a message that might one day, ’one day’ after many a summer, enable mankind to live in the Utopia we sometimes dreamt about when we were young.”

The science of human bonding is converging remarkably on the moral truths of Christianity, especially the traditional Catholic ordering of love and duty. Christianity does distil and train a purity of attachment dependent on abstract intelligence. Since our ancestors converted at the urging and example of pioneer Medieval monks, we have been enjoined to nurture our families and local communities and to stand against the heathen at the city gate.


Nietzsche longed for a religion that embraced nature red in tooth and claw, that did not shy away from reality. There is no doubt that the West needs religious leadership that defends our temporal interests, not only short-term individual ones but corporate survival — cultural and genetic continuity. And it is undeniable that Nietzsche appeals to masculine values of strength and heroism in an age of white domestication. Those familiar with the shortcomings of the modern mainstream churches might find his writings attractive on that score.

In the face of diversity’s many sins, not one major Christian denomination stands with the majority of Westerners in opposing mass Third World immigration. Nor do they defend voluntary reciprocal segregation in multi-ethnic societies or criticize the elites that are forcing diversity on an unwilling but leaderless public. The depredations of diversity — higher divorce rates, alienation, destruction of downtown social life, uncaring societies, the decline of education, rising corruption and crime, loss of general social trust, reduced economic growth, less foreign aid, not to mention civil war and genocide — all have been shown to be exacerbated by diversity (see here and here).

Despite these failings Christianity is not inherently weak or ignoble. For example, post-Vatican II Catholicism does not represent much of the Church’s noble history.

Nietzsche’s criticisms remain valid only if they are taken to apply to the Church’s weakness in defending the ethnic interests of their modern Western congregations. However that interpretation reduces his charge to a criticism of Church policy, not of Christianity root and branch.

Such a reinterpretation is a favour to Nietzsche because his accusation of Christian weakness is absurd when tested historiographically. As Kevin MacDonald has documented during the Middle Ages the Church became an organic part of European society. Not for nothing was the West known as Christendom. The Church acted to save bodies and posterity as well as souls. It blessed new knights in the ceremony of knighthood, sanctified the new code of chivalry that forbade harming civilians and enacted the first codified rules of war. War was justified when it advanced Christendom — an ethnic-friendly legitimization that reduced or at least regulated fighting among Christians and culminated in the Crusaders’ attempt to wrest Near Eastern lands of the Eastern Roman Empire back from the Arabs. The Church defended the ordinary man from a parasitic aristocracy. It helped forge nations with responsible governments. It protected the mass of the people from enemies without and within. The English Church promoted the expulsion of Jews — who had become a predatory financial elite — from the country in 1290 as a pastoral duty, also a trend elsewhere in Western Europe. Throughout Europe the Church was Gentiles’ repository of sophisticated culture, of literacy and record keeping. It was indispensible for governance, advising kings and educating princes. It prevented the Jews from monopolizing the niche of trans-generational literary group strategy. It underwrote the earliest stirrings of modern science. The university, one of the greatest creations of the West, was founded under the Church’s auspices. Professors were priests of learning. Gregor Mendel was an ethnic German monk!

Instead of speculating on the basis of almost non-existent ancient documents concerning St. Paul, Nietzsche should have been looking for the origins of the seamless dovetailing of Christianity and European culture, achieved in a very few centuries. A plausible theory is offered by James C. Russell in his book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity (1994).

Russell shows that the seamlessness resulted from the missionaries’ policy of accommodating the Church to local custom. The result was the reciprocal Germanization of Christianity, though the process is better described as the Europeanization of Christianity because the Celtic peoples of the British Isles and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe also had their folk festivals incorporated into the Church. Irish monks were instrumental in converting the Germans, working from the Lake Constance area northwards from the fifth century, while Greek monks began the conversion of the Russians. The deep imprint of the northern winter and isolated settlements is clearly evident in the Christian calendar.

Nietzsche should have been content that this Europeanization was, as Russell puts it, part of the broader phenomenon of a “world-rejecting” religion such as early Christianity being transformed by its accommodation to “world accepting” Indo-European peoples.

Very few grasp how central the Church was to European society for more than 1500 years because modern education and the mass media — notably the movies — have all but expunged the monk and Sunday services from the record or pathologized them. Ministers and priests are routinely shown as corrupt and generally deplorable.

That was not always so. Even Hollywood finds it difficult to delete Friar Tuck from the story of Robin Hood or his dual identity as priest and warrior. Religious patriots were depicted in the glory days of Hollywood, when its Jewish proprietors were disciplined by powerful Christian elites. Who can forget the striking imagery of Charton Heston as an upper class Jew awestruck by the grace of Christ in Ben Hur (1959) or as a Visigoth nobleman smiting the Muslim occupiers “for God, Alfonso, and Spain” in El Cid (1961). Christian-conservative external control of Hollywood slipped after 1965, and the rising Jewish elite had its coming-out decade, a general uprising against White Christian society and culture. Some modern movies, notably Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, show monks blessing the Scottish army on the battle field. But that is rare. Who wants to be accused of religious bigotry?

Civilized and cultivated by this “senile” religion, the West rose in a little over one millennium from the ashes of the Roman Empire to dominate global trade, to invent modern science and industry, to subdue most of the world and settle three continents. As Churchill would say, some senility!

All this was done without knowledge of genetic interests, that humans are a specially endowed evolved species with the same vital interest in reproduction as all other species (even more vital if those endowments are valued). However the Church always  acknowledged the values attendant on individual reproduction. It blessed sex within marriage because the resulting children and bonds harmonize reproduction and the stability of the child-rearing family. Partly for that reason the Church stands against sex outside of marriage and against homosexuality.

Whatever the deviations of this stance from an evolutionary perspective — for example homosexuals also have ethnic interests — the fact is that the Christian Church has historically stood for the heterosexual family, which makes good evolutionary as well as humanitarian sense.

Modern knowledge of biology supports the Church’s pro- family policy. And extends it. Humans have never existed as isolated individuals or even single families but as parts of genetically related communities. We evolved to have genetic and cultural interests not only in the continuity of our families but of our tribes and nations. Historically the Church recognized this, not perfectly but well enough to establish precedent. The Christian Church was the West’s evolutionary group strategy. We were Christendom, and Christendom defended, elevated and shaped us. Priests were not abstractly removed hermits but organic parts of their communities. As they became more mobile, taking up appointments in the Church’s far-flung domain, so they served the wider European interest.

Now Christianity’s domain is the entire world and priests should be true to the vital interests of all peoples. That is the truth of Christian universalism. But just as the Church protects parental rights and the autonomy and dignity of families, so it should defend national rights. It would be wrong for Chinese bishops to promote mass foreign immigration to China, or for Japanese monks to undermine Japanese homogeneity.

This is doubly true for those who believe that God has been an agent in human genetic and cultural evolution. If He created distinct peoples over countless millennia, Christians should stand against the atheist-humanist drive to confound that creation. If one believes in God’s agency in the real world, Christians who support mass non-European immigration to the West on the basis that the immigrants are Christian are as blind to God’s will as are the immigrants themselves. They are destroying His creation by trying to rebuild the tower of Babel, not in the mythical way of a single language group challenging God’s glory but by forcing — against their will — a diversity of peoples to lose their many cherished identities in a single cosmopolitan mishmash that dissolves communities, flattens ethnic genius and is good for nothing except facilitating globalism.

The West is literally dying for the lack of warrior-scholar priests. White advocates need to win back their churches to become once again defenders of their congregations’ vital interests.

With Nietzsche we declare: “The last sacrament will always be irrelevant to us as a people!” But with Charles Martel, El Cid, Edward I of England, the English lords at Runnymede, Isabella I of Castille, and the Alamo martyrs we welcome the Victory Psalm [reprinted below] with the shout: “For God and the reconquest of the West!”

A cross looms over the army of Charles Martel at it defeats the Muslims at the Battle of Tours


The 35th Psalm is a regular part of Christian services, considered one of the masterworks of prayer that constitute the psalms. It was composed by King David and is part of the Old Testament, and as such Friedrich Nietzsche would undoubtedly approve. He would like the muscular tribalism, the unapologetic ethnocentrism. Yet it is also part of the Christian tradition. And it is a work of beauty.

I read the Psalm recently in the memoir by English super soldier Andy McNab (Seven Troop, 2008, pp. 414–415), recipient of the Distinguished Conduct Medal and the Military Medal. It was given to Andy by another soldier who was a devout Christian. McNab saw frequent evidence of Christianity among elite soldiers. The Psalm is what one would expect from a biologically informed religion. Of course a universal religion seeks to defend the temporal interests of all believers, and as these can be opposed it would seek to harmonize those interests. It would seek peace and reciprocity. But it would never pretend that temporal interests do not exist and that people are not justified in defending them.

Psalm 35 (King James Version)

1Plead my cause, O LORD, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me.

2Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help.

3Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation.

4Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt.

5Let them be as chaff before the wind: and let the angel of the LORD chase them.

6Let their way be dark and slippery: and let the angel of the LORD persecute them.

7For without cause have they hid for me their net in a pit, which without cause they have digged for my soul.

8Let destruction come upon him at unawares; and let his net that he hath hid catch himself: into that very destruction let him fall.

9And my soul shall be joyful in the LORD: it shall rejoice in his salvation.

10All my bones shall say, LORD, who is like unto thee, which deliverest the poor from him that is too strong for him, yea, the poor and the needy from him that spoileth him?

11False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.

12They rewarded me evil for good to the spoiling of my soul.

13But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom.

14I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother.

15But in mine adversity they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together: yea, the abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; they did tear me, and ceased not:

16With hypocritical mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me with their teeth.

17Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions.

18I will give thee thanks in the great congregation: I will praise thee among much people.

19Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.

20For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.

21Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.

22This thou hast seen, O LORD: keep not silence: O Lord, be not far from me.

23Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.

24Judge me, O LORD my God, according to thy righteousness; and let them not rejoice over me.

25Let them not say in their hearts, Ah, so would we have it: let them not say, We have swallowed him up.

26Let them be ashamed and brought to confusion together that rejoice at mine hurt: let them be clothed with shame and dishonour that magnify themselves against me.

27Let them shout for joy, and be glad, that favour my righteous cause: yea, let them say continually, Let the LORD be magnified, which hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.

28And my tongue shall speak of thy righteousness and of thy praise all the day long.

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

Jews and Money

Editor Kevin MacDonald has just written about Our Unethical Financial Elite. This is a worthy topic, especially to the extent it openly discusses Jewish involvement.

Two things stand out here: First, the level of deceit and corruption is stunning. Second, the combination of Jews and financial malfeasance has a historical record thousands of years long. In other words, it is part of an old and sordid story, as I related in my essay The Culture of Deceit.

There I wrote how historians, including Paul Johnson (A History of the Jews) and Albert Lindemann (Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews), showed this pattern of Jewish deception and fraud. For example, in 1781 Prussian official Christian Wilhelm von Dohm published a tract claiming, in Johnson’s paraphrase, “The Jews had ‘an exaggerated tendency [to seek] gain in every way, a love of usury.’ These ‘defects’ were aggravated ‘by their self-imposed segregation . . .’ From these followed ‘the breaking of the laws of the state restricting trade, the import and export of prohibited wares, the forgery of money and precious metals.’” In short, von Dohm’s describes traditional Jewish communities as far more resembling a mafia-like group engaged in organized crime than what we think of as a religion.

Lindemann notes that during the 19th century in Eastern Europe there were also persistent complaints about Jewish perjury to help other Jews commit fraud and other crimes. For example, in Russia a neutral observer noted that judges “unanimously declared that not a single lawsuit, criminal or civil, can be properly conducted if the interests of the Jews are involved.” Writing in 1914, American sociologist Edward A. Ross commented on Jewish immigrants to America that “The authorities complain that the East European Hebrews feel no reverence for law as such and are willing to break any ordinance they find in their way. … In the North End of Boston ‘the readiness of the Jews to commit perjury has passed into a proverb.’”

Jewish involvement in financial scandals became a prominent theme of modern anti-Semitism. Johnson writes, “The Union Générale scandal in 1882, the Comptoire d’Escompte scandal in 1889—both involving Jews—were merely curtain-raisers” to a far more massive and complex crime, the Panama Canal scandal, ‘an immense labyrinth of financial manipulation and fraud, with [Jewish] Baron Jacques de Reinach right at the middle of it.’”

Lindemann offers a parallel description of the rise of Jewish power paired with Jewish involvement in major financial scandals. In Germany, Jews “were heavily involved in the get-rich-quick enterprises” of the period of rapid urbanization and industrialization of the 1860s and 70s. “Many highly visible Jews made fortunes in dubious ways . . . Probably the most notorious of these newly rich speculators was Hirsch Strousberg, a Jew involved in Romanian railroad stocks. He was hardly unique in his exploits, but as Peter Pulzer has written, ‘the . . . difference between his and other men’s frauds was that his was more impudent and involved more money.’”

Lindemann offers an account that sounds much like what Americans have been hearing about their own economic woes in the last few years:

In the summer of 1873 the stock markets in New York and Vienna collapsed. By the autumn of that year Germany’s industrial overexpansion and the reckless proliferation of stock companies came to a halt. Jews were closely associated in the popular mind with the stock exchange. Widely accepted images of them as sharp and dishonest businessmen made it all but inevitable that public indignation over the stock market crash would be directed at them. Many small investors, themselves drawn to the prospect of easy gain, lost their savings through fraudulent stocks of questionable business practices in which Jews were frequently involved.

Like Johnson, Lindemann believes that accusations of fraud against many European Jews were not based on mere fantasy. With respect to the Panama Canal scandal of 1888–1892, for instance, Lindemann writes:

Investigation into the activities of the Panama Company revealed widespread bribery of parliamentary officials to assure support of loans to continue work on the Panama Canal, work that had been slowed by endless technical and administrative difficulties. Here was a modern project that involved large sums of French capital and threatened national prestige. The intermediaries between the Panama Company and parliament were almost exclusively Jews, with German names and backgrounds, some of whom tried to blackmail one another . . . .

Thousands of small investors lost their savings in the Panama fiasco. . . . A trial in 1893 was widely believed to be a white-wash. The accused escaped punishment through bribery and behind-the-scenes machinations, or so it was widely believed. The Panama scandal seemed almost designed to confirm the long-standing charges of the French right that the republic was in the clutches of corrupt Jews who were bringing dishonor and disaster to France.

In many cases, the Jewish nexus of the financial scandal includes the idea that Jews involved in financial scandals were being protected by other highly placed Jews: As Lindemann notes, “The belief of anti-Semites in France about Jewish secretiveness was based on a real secretiveness of some highly placed and influential Jews. What anti-Semites suspected was not so much pure fantasy as a malicious if plausible exaggeration, since solid facts were hard to come by.”

Consider, for example, the spectacle of the Wall Street scandals of the 1980s. So much of it was played out on the pages of major newspapers and magazines, so there was no doubt about the identity of the vast majority of culprits—at least for those with eyes to see it.

Two writers who both had the eyes to see it and the talent to write about it intelligently were Connie Bruck—who happens to be Jewish—and James B. Stewart—who is not. Bruck wrote The Predators’ Ball: The Inside Story of Drexel Burnham and the Rise of the Junk Bond Traders. The book has more than enough information to convince the average reader that Jewish financial mischief is rife—and has a massively negative effect on the greater non-Jewish world.   

Stewart’s book is even better, beginning with its title, Den of Thieves. For those whose biblical knowledge is sketchy, the title comes from Matthew 21:12–13, where he recounts

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves. And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Stewart goes on to chronicle the misdeeds of Ivan Boesky, Martin Siegel, Dennis Levine, and Michael Milken, the mastermind behind it all. Simply by describing all the Jews involved Stewart makes clear that it was a cabal of Jews that pillaged and destroyed some of the most well-known corporations in America at the time by inventing and peddling “junk bonds” as an advance in capitalist operations. Lindemann was careful to include this in his story as well, writing that it had become clear that “the stock market scandals of the mid-to-late 1980s in the United States saw an overwhelming preponderance of Jews — at least ninety percent was a widely accepted figure.”

Jumping ahead to our own day, one of the best accounts of Jewish financial power—and its relationship to other forms of Jewish power—comes in the writing of retired professor James Petras. He has penned series of books starkly exposing “the Zionist Power Configuration” that includes Jewish dominance in Western finance.

In particular, his book, Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants, focuses on this, but he also addresses it in The Power of Israel in the United States, Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power, and Global Depression and Regional Wars: The United States, Latin America and the Middle East.

Here are some of the observations Petras makes: “Jewish families are among the wealthiest families in the United States” and nearly a third of millionaires and billionaires are Jewish. He also points to similar wealth in Canada, where “over 30 percent of the Canadian Stock Market” is in Jewish hands. Alan Greenspan’s tenure as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is also linked to Zionist power, since Greenspan was “a long time crony of Wall Street financial interests and promoter of major pro-Israeli investment houses.” (Greenspan was succeeded by coreligionist Ben Shalom Bernanke.)

Debunking the “high school textbook version of American politics,” Petras argues that “the people in key positions in financial, corporate and other business institutions establish the parameters within which the politicians, parties and media discuss ideas. These people constitute a ruling class.” Of the two groups cited by Petras—those in control of financial capital and Zioncons—both are so heavily Jewish as to constitute a single “cabal,” a word which Petras uses liberally throughout both books.

Wall Street supplies many of the “tried and experienced top leaders” who rotate in and out of Washington. At the top of the hierarchy, he finds the big private equity banks and hedge funds. Thus, political leadership descends from Goldman Sachs, Blackstone, the Carlyle Group and others. Goldman Sachs is a historically Jewish firm, Stephen A. Schwarzman is co-founder and current head of the Blackstone Group, while David Rubenstein is co-founder of the Carlyle Group and served in the Carter administration as a domestic policy adviser.

To get just a minor sense of the interconnectedness of Wall Street and Washington Petras is discussing—and to see its heavily Jewish ethnic nexus—note that during the second Clinton Administration, Robert Rubin served as Secretary of the Treasury and was succeeded by Larry Summers (also Jewish). Rubin worked his way to Vice Chairman and Co-Chief Operating Officer of Goldman Sachs prior to becoming the Secretary of the Treasury, and later became the Chairman of Citigroup. He is currently co-chairman of the board of directors on the Council on Foreign Relations.

Petras claims that former President Clinton and his economic advisers backed the regimes that allowed the plunder of Russian wealth. Though relegated to an endnote, he names Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs as those involved. What is relevant here is the ethnic connections going to the top of American society that validate Petras’s emphasis on the combined power of Zionism, media and financial control.

Petras’s endnote shows that Harvard paid $26.5 million to settle a suit stemming from various improprieties associated with Harvard professors. As 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, Harvard President Lawrence Summers (who had just finished a stint as Secretary of the Treasury). The upshot of the scandal 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.”

Sailer claims that he had not known about the Jewish identity of the “oligarchs” until he read Yale law professor Amy Chua’s book World on Fire (when Chua correctly noted that six out of the seven of Russia’s wealthiest oligarchs were Jews, her Jewish husband quipped to her, “Just six?  So who’s the seventh guy?”). These oligarchs had “paid for Boris Yeltsin’s 1996 re-election in return for the privilege of buying ex-Soviet properties at absurdly low prices (e.g., Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky was put in charge of auctioning off Yukos Oil, which owns about 2% of the world’s oil reserves—he sold it for $159 million to … himself).” Meanwhile, Jews in Russia represented about one percent of the population.

Sailer’s further observations only cast more light on the extent and value of these ethnic connections:

As I’ve said before in the context of exploring how Scooter Libby could serve as a mob lawyer for international gangster Marc Rich on and off for 15 years and then move immediately into the job of chief of staff to the Vice President of the United States, the problem is not that Jews are inherently worse behaved (or better behaved) than any other human group, but that they have achieved for themselves in America in recent years a collective immunity from anything resembling criticism [emphasis added].

Petras makes a similar argument when noting that  “Political corruption, not economic efficiency, is the driving force of economic empire-building.” As part of this “unprecedented pillage in Russia (1991-99) brought on by Harvard economist Jeffrey Sachs’s and others’ “shock therapy” in Russia, at least a trillion dollars was transferred to U.S. and EU parties from Russia and Eastern Europe.

For this so interested, here is a brief bibliography of books dealing with the topic of Jews and money:

Stephen Birmingham, Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of New York (New York: Harper and Row, 1967); and The Grandees: America’s Sephardic Elite, (New York: Harper and Row, 1971); Jean Baer, The Self-Chosen: “Our Crowd” is Dead—Long Live Our Crowd (New York: Arbor House, 1982); Judith Ramsey Ehrlich and Barry J. Rehfeld, The New Crowd: The Changing of the Jewish Guard on Wall Street (New York: HarperPerennial, 1989); Richard L. Zweigenhaft and G. William Domhoff, Jews in the Protestant Establishment (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1982); Gerald Krefetz, Jews and Money: The Myths and the Reality (New Haven and New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1982); Dennis B. Levine, An Insider’s Account of Wall Street (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1991); Benjamin J. Stein, A License to Steal: The Untold Story of Michael Milken and the Conspiracy to Bilk the Nation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992); and J.J. Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1996).

Finally, there is the promise of a new book on capitalism, with due attention to its Jewish roots, by prolific author E. Michael Jones. His tome The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (order it here), shows the value in honestly discussing Jewish power and behavior. Keep an eye out for his new book. The topic of Jews and money is forever important.

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

Bookmark and Share

AR Conference Cancellation: What About White Victims of Terrorism?

This weekend was to have been the American Renaissance conference, a fantastic gathering of white advocates from across the Western world.  Its cancellation was forced, as most know by now, because of pressure and terroristic threats received by three (or four?) hotels that were to have hosted.  The anti-white and left-wing elements are gleeful about this development, naturally.

I don’t personally know all the details, and this was actually the first of about four or five conferences in a row that I would have missed (financial reasons, in part).  So I’m casting about in the dark here, but here is what I would like to see.

1.  A thorough investigation by federal law enforcement.  Whether the FBI, the civil rights division at the Department of Justice (criminal or civil sections) or Homeland Security, this entire episode screams out for agents to look into what happened.  Imagine if the NAACP had to cancel a conference because of similar threats.  What would law enforcement’s reaction be?  Swift, fierce and overwhelming.  Law enforcement should set up a sting.  It would be so easy — and bound to catch someone, as the anti-whites are increasingly convinced they’re untouchable.  Yes, most white advocates laugh at the notion that the federal government would ever investigate crimes against us — but don’t be too sure.  Not everyone in federal law enforcement is sitting around itching for the death of the white race, believe me.

2.  Consideration by American Renaissance organizers of civil legal options.  A lawsuit against the hotels, against Fairfax County or D.C. government, against law enforcement, against One People’s Project — whoever else could be named.  Breach of contract, outrageous conduct, prima facie tort, tortious interference, interference with First Amendment rights of assembly and speech, interference with civil rights, emotional distress… you name it, there’s a cause of action, if not a hundred.  Who is this Daryle Jenkins?  Or Jeffrey Imm?  What do these men know about what happened?  Did they encourage illegal activity?  Or civilly tortious activity?  Who are their financial backers, and could those sources be reached?  This option may go nowhere, but it’s worth thinking about.  As a civil defense attorney, I saw the absolute fire-bombing a plaintiff’s attorney could accomplish with nothing but a well-pleaded complaint and discovery.  If you can lay waste to a company because one employee claims sexual harassment — bringing the CEO on down to the cleaning lady in for day-long depositions — imagine what else you could do.

3.  Coverage by the press.  The press hates white advocacy, but they love a juicy story.  “White supremacist conference cancelled” is a juicy story, and there are plenty of people to talk to and comment.  A good reporter should do some digging around.  He (or she) might come up with gold.  If not the NYT, how about the Village Voice?  If there’s no legal recourse here, this must at least be known to the general public, who can usually be expected to say “I don’t agree with those guys, but they should have the right to speak.”  We as white advocates cannot let this incident go undocumented and forgotten, like a modern-day Katyn.  Are you listening out there, journalists?  Jared Taylor will speak to the press, and Lord knows the SPLC will, too.  It’s all packaged up and ready to go… unless, of course, you actually have zero sympathy for white advocates being prevented from meeting, and actively seek to suppress that story because it would present them in too sympathetic a light.  I will be watching, I can assure you.  And I know damn well some of you know about this incident.

4.  Strategizing by white advocates about how to stop this in the future.  This has already been going on, and lots of good ideas have come out, like more-public (i.e., government-run) or private venues.

What’s so depressing about this episode is that it can’t really be called a “wake-up call” for white advocates.  We already know exactly how marginalized we are.  We know exactly what the stiff consequences are for standing up publicly on these issues.  We’ve seen violence against our people.  We’ve seen our people fired from their jobs.  We can’t get paid ads run in publications.  We know CPAC wouldn’t allow us a table.  So, this really is a hard blow.

Could the speakers have their comments recorded and uploaded to the AmRen site for youtube-style viewing?

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

Bookmark and Share

Birthright Israel: A Model Ethnic Charity

Taglit-Birthright Israel, a Zionist charity that provides free 10 day trips for young Jewish adults to visit Israel, celebrated its tenth anniversary in January.  Shortly before the creation of the charity, American Jewish college students were asked to name the top 20 countries they would most like to visit.  Israel did not make the list at all and prominent American Jews became alarmed. Too few young Jews seemed to care much about Israel, and about religious observances, and too many of them married non-Jews.  Also of concern was the lack of growth in the Jewish population worldwide — stagnant between 1970 and 2000, at 13 million.

Birthright was created to correct these problems. One of the co-founders of Birthright, Michael Steinhardt, stated at the initiation ceremony of the organization, “We are at a crucial juncture in the history of the Jewish people, a time when we must do everything possible to strengthen young people’s connection to their culture and religion.”

In the 10 years since its creation, over 250,000 young Jews from 52 countries of the Jewish Diaspora have visited Israel through the Birthright program.  Seventy five percent of them have been American.  The organization hopes to bring 27,000 young people to Israel this year, a 20% increase from previous years.  It is estimated that at current rates 1/3 of American Jews born since 1995 will go on Birthright trips by their 27th birthdays.  The program is open to all young Jewish adults, ages 18 to 26, who have never traveled to Israel, or lived there past the age of 12.  Participants must have at least one Jewish parent and not be practicing another religion.  Its founders hope that the trips will inspire those who are non-observant and in danger of assimilation to strengthen their identification with Judaism, to discourage intermarriage, to create a stronger Jewish community worldwide, and to increase allegiance to Israel.”Taglit” is Hebrew for discovery, and young Jews are supposed to discover their racial and religious essence through contact with the land of Israel.  “Birthright,” refers to the right of each Jew to belong to the tribe and the right to settle in the land of Israel.

The deep concern about the ethnic basis of Judaism can be seen in this statement by Charles Bronfman, a main sponsor of Birthright Israel, on why encouraging Jewish identification and Jewish marriage is so important: “You can live a perfectly decent life not being Jewish, but I think you’re losing a lot—losing the kind of feeling you have when you know [that] throughout the world there are people who somehow or other have the same kind of DNA that you have.”(Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2000).

The elite trips are organized by various private Israeli companies accredited by Taglit-Birthright, which sets the educational and security standards. Tours vary according to age, degree of religiosity, and interests of the participants. One of the required features of the trip is a 5–10 day encounter with Israeli peers, especially soldiers serving in the Israeli Defense Forces, who join the tours. Over 30,000 Israeli soldiers have taken part in the program, disseminating a strong Zionist message.

The itineraries include visits to historical, religious and cultural sites around the country. The required sites are chosen for their emotional pull to Jewish historical memory as a long history of persecution: the Western Wall (the remnant of the Temple destroyed by the Romans), Yad Vashem (the Holocaust memorial), and Masada (the last stronghold of Jews battling against the Romans in 73 AD). There are five central themes: contemporary Israel, the narrative of the Jewish people, their values, their arts and culture, and the Jewish calendar (most importantly, the Sabbath).  Completion of the trips is celebrated by a huge “Mega event.”

This year’s Mega event brought together young Jews from 52 countries, musicians, Israeli luminaries, and benefactors. (Mega event highlights can be viewed at:  www.BirthrightIsrael.com ) The music is hip, the attractive young soldiers are dancing, and the audience participation is loudly enthusiastic.  With great emotion, Israeli President Simon Perez tells the enormous crowd that they are in “a family reunion of Jewish youth. Each of you is so precious, and we don’t have enough of you!” He states that it is “difficult to be a Jew, but it’s great” and points out that “we are always struggling. He concludes by saying, “let’s be together forever.” Also speaking are the largest benefactors of the charity: Michael Steinhardt, Charles Bronfman, and Lynn Schusterman.  Forbes Magazine includes all three in its yearly listing of billionaires.

[adrotate group=”1″]

An additional speaker at the most recent Mega event was Natan Sharansky, former world chess champion, who once served ten years in a Soviet Siberian labor camp for treason and spying for the US.  Because the Americans considered him a human rights spokesman, he was awarded the US Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush and the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. (Present at that ceremony were Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, and Cindy McCain.)  Thereafter, Sharansky became a pillar of the political right in Israel, opposing plans to withdraw from the settlements in Gaza and taking a hard line on the Palestinians.  He has made Jewish Peoplehood a priority and is director of the Israeli Diaspora Museum, a required stop on the 10 day Birthright Israel trip. According to him, “Birthright is one of the brightest ideas in Jewish history.”

Judging by the responses of some of the participants who were interviewed at the Mega event, Sharansky seems to be right.  Typical responses include: “It made me feel like I was taking part in something bigger than myself.” “Too many times during the trip, I found myself speechless, and by the end of the trip, I found myself connected to the State of Israel and even more a Jew.” “Coming to Israel and learning more about why being Jewish was special really changed my view of myself and my life. A year ago I would have never believed that I would be on a program like this — or be wanting to marry a Jewish girl — my whole perspective on life and on Judaism has changed because of Birthright”.

A study released at the same time as the 10 year Birthright celebration is the first to describe the long range impact of the program.  The results are quite spectacular. The report by the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies at Brandeis University is based on responses of interviews with 1,223 participants of the program between 2001 and 2004. The study found that of those who are now married 72% had a Jewish spouse, compared to 46% of married non-participants. 73% said that Birthright was a “life changing” experience.” Participants were 23% more likely to say that they felt “very” connected to world Jewry.  And those on campus were much more likely to come to Israel’s defense in student and class discussions.

Steve Cohen, a sociologist who specializes in American Jewish life, described the current situation for Jews as “a race between intermarriage and Birthright.” The study found that 52% of intermarried Birthright participants said that raising their kids as Jews is “very important,” compared to 27% of inter-married non-participants. Birthright participants are 12% more likely than non-participants to have a special meal on the Sabbath (an important indicator of “Jewishness”). 

These figures are quite astonishing if one considers that they pertain mainly to secularized Jews.  Devout Jews from observant families who have traveled to Israel were not eligible for the trip because many have participated in post-high school year-in-Israel yeshiva programs and are not in need of assistance to prevent assimilation.  For the great majority of secular young Jews, however, Birthright Israel is an inspired idea which has been enormously successful in promoting Jewish identification.

To encourage networking among its alumni Birthright Israel has begun an alumni outreach program called, “Birthright Israel Next.” According to the Executive Director of Birthright Israel Next, “behavior is only going to change through relationship building.  Young American Jews don’t feel comfortable in existing institutions like synagogues.” One of Birthright Israel Next’s ideas is to organize free Sabbath dinners. Birthright Israel Next will pay $18 per person for up to 16 people for Birthright Alumni to host a Sabbath dinner at their homes, thus encouraging young fellow Jews to continue to participate in Jewish life. Over 700 have now done so.

Not only do many of the participants in Birthright Israel become more Jewish, some of them actually become American-Israelis. The State of Israel, one of the benefactors of the charity, generally encourages Diaspora Jews to immigrate to Israel.  When the Jewish Agency, which is in charge of Israel’s relationship with world Jewry, sends officials to speak to Birthright groups, many stress the possibility of living in Israel.  In addition, all of Birthright’s tour guides are Israeli and personally support immigration.  If an American Jew decides to live in Israel (full or part time), he will not lose his American citizenship and can easily add an Israel citizenship.  Under the Israeli ‘Law of Return” an American of Jewish origin going to Israel becomes an Israeli citizen automatically unless he declines the offer.  In the future, dual citizenship for a great many Jewish Americans, even for a majority, seems inevitable.  Also inevitable will be the growing problem of divided loyalties.

As stated above Birthright Israel was designed to raise $100 million per year from a small group of donors: the Israeli government, the American Jewish Federations, and private donors. (Additional funding also comes from the German government – Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany.)  In practice, the program has relied most heavily on its founders and principal donors, Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman.

One ought to give credit where credit is due, and obviously Birthright is an inspired Jewish idea and its philanthropic donors most generous for a Jewish cause. Although it’s easy to find wealthy Jews who contribute to Jewish causes that strengthen Jewish identification and prevent intermarriage, this is definitely not the case with non-Jews.

Three non-Jew billionaires come to mind for their philanthropic contributions. Ted Turner has donated huge amounts to the United Nations for environmental study and population limitation.  Turner is America’s largest private landowner, owning 2 million acres — greater than the areas of Delaware and Rhode Island combined.  Bill Gates has just donated a vast sum to be used to develop vaccines for AIDS and other African diseases.  In the past, he has also set aside millions for inner city education. However, the Millenium Scholarship financed by his foundation explicitly denies eligibility to White children. Warren Buffett has donated several billion to the Gates Foundation.

Recipients of Bill Gates Millenium Scholarships

Imagine for a moment that a program were created called “Birthright Europe,” in which every young adult of the Euro-White Diaspora had the opportunity to travel to Europe for 10 days in order to visit European sites of historical, religious, and artistic significance, to befriend White Europeans, to learn to appreciate the superiority of his European culture, and thus to decide to marry only Whites.  Would Turner or Gates or Buffett give the enormous amounts necessary for great numbers of vulnerable young Whites to travel to Europe to develop pride of race and heritage?

The reason many may laugh at the improbability of this suggestion is because they cannot fathom a wealthy person of European heritage helping his own kind. Jewish philanthropists come from the tradition of taking care of one’s own, and are very influenced by the strong religious imperative for individualized charitable giving called “tzedakah.” The highest form of charity in Judaism is to help sustain a fellow Jew by offering him a substantial gift in a dignified manner before he becomes impoverished.

Birthright Israel, as its website states, is a gift to young Jews. It is a benevolence given to them before they become impoverished by assimilation. Or, as a Jewish campus organization states, “With only about 14 million Jews remaining in the world, the Jewish community has genuine fears of extinction, so there’s a certain urgency about keeping Jewish traditions alive and teaching them to the next generation.” According to a site describing the program, “the founders of Birthright felt it was their moral obligation to touch the lives of those people whom no one was touching.”

For Jews, charity begins at home. For Whites, charity is misplaced everywhere else.

Trudie Pert is a pen name.  Email her.

Farewell, My Dear WASP

George Gilder

“Here’s a WASP joke. Question: Why do WASPs not engage in more orgies? Answer: Too many thank-you notes to write.”

Thus began a NYTime’s book review last fall about the new book Cheerful Money: Me, My Family, and the Last Days of Wasp Splendor by Tad Friend.

I read the review and highlighted a phenomenon I thought was worth commenting on later. The passage was:

In his teenage years, Tad Friend chose to attend the Shipley School in Bryn Mawr, Pa., where he first grew aware of the designation “N.O.C.D.” — “not our class, dear,” an exclusion usually directed at Jews and Catholics. Friend offers a fitting tirade against WASP anti-Semitism, reminding us that well into the 20th century, signs on the lawn of the Lake Placid Club read “No Dogs. No Tuberculars. No Hebrews,” and noting that his paternal grandfather “was hardly alone, among the WASPs on Squirrel Hill, in fretting” that it was harboring an increasing number of Jews. In atonement, the author observes that “almost everyone” he’d hung out with at Harvard was Jewish, as was his first significant other, Melanie Grayboden. When relating his painful eventual shedding of Melanie, he digresses divertingly on different forms of ethnic guilt. “If Catholic guilt is ‘I’ve been bad’ and Jewish guilt is ‘You’ve been bad,’ then WASP guilt is ‘You probably think I’ve been bad.’

This review that I clipped out of the Sunday Book Review then gathered dust on the big pile of magazines and papers that invariably grows on my side table. Atop it later came a curiously related story, this one about a WASP named George Gilder who seems to love Jews more than many of them love themselves, if that’s possible. By pure chance, I’ve just happened across the third review of Gilder’s latest book, which I take as a sign to now write about it.

My first notice of The Israel Test, Gilder‘s new book, came while reading Scott McConnell’s review of it in the Dec. 2009 American Conservative. Titled Chosen People, the review sadly noted the usual mainstream fare: “For Gilder, the superior men are not Teutonic explorers or generals but Jewish scientists and financiers.” (Save the guffaws—we’re not supposed to notice that Madoff, Summers, Rubin, Blankfein et al. are all Tribe.)

We also see that Gilder’s prose includes, “Is one able to admire and embrace Jewish superiority and creativity, or does one, out of envy, oppose it?” Getting to the central argument of the book, we find that Gilder’s thesis is that “all opposition to Israel is rooted in anti-Semitism.” Or this: “We need Israel today as much as Israel needs us, as much as we needed Jewish physicists and chemists [for the Manhattan Project].”” Ho boy, the same old tired arguments trotted out by so many Jews. Fine, Gilder must be a Jew doing the usual group-shielding, meme-selling job. Or so I thought.

Much to my surprise, McConnell revealed that Gilder is a WASP raised in an upper-class world. And McConnell thinks he has found a reason for Gilder’s strange Judeophilia, an explanation that oddly parallels that of Tad Friend above. It seems that

an incident that occurred when [Gilder] was about 17. While trying to impress an older girl, his summer tutor in Greek, he blurted out something mildly anti-Semitic. The young woman dryly replied that she was in fact “a New York Jew.” Gilder was mortified. He relates that he has never quite gotten over the episode. It is the kind of thing a sensitive person might long remember. Variations on this pattern are not uncommon in affluent WASP circles to this day: guilt or embarrassment at some stupid but essentially trivial episode of social anti-Semitism serve as a spur for fervent embrace of Likud-style Zionism. Atonement.

This is simply bizarre. I cannot relate to a group that would be so easily traumatized by, as McConnell states, something so trivial. What is going on?

It gets worse.

The next time I ran into a review of The Israel Test was in the Nov. 2009 issue of Commentary, penned by Michael Medved. Gilder is quoted as declaring: “Israel is hated above all for its virtues.”

This of course is lunacy. Could Gilder be that clueless about Israel’s actual behavior? He shouldn’t be. After all, McConnell described him as a “veteran luminary of the American Right, author of a successful polemic against feminism and a Reagan-admired ode to the free market, and publisher of a newsletter touting technology stocks.”

I believe I understand why many Jews offer explanations for anti-Semitism in which Jews are blameless. Readers will likely recall what Kevin MacDonald wrote in chapter 7 of Separation and Its Discontents about Jewish failure to be realistic about their own often bad or brutal behavior: “Historians of Judaism have often falsely portrayed the beliefs of gentiles as irrational fantasies while portraying the behavior of Jews as irrelevant to anti-Semitism” (p. 220).

But of course Jewish behavior is overwhelming responsible for occurrences of anti-Semitism: people react angrily when their culture is relentless attacked, when they are swindled, and particularly when they are subjected to genocide. This is rational human behavior. Why does Gilder miss this?

Midway through his review, even the normally level-headed Medved gets taken in and becomes party to Gilder’s fantasy about Israel. The Palestinians, Medved and Gilder agree, are fortunate to have had the Israelis take over Gaza and the West Bank because this has “decisively raised the living standards of local Arab populations” [emphasis in original]. Between 1967 and the first intifada in 1987 “per capita income tripled in the West Bank while it rose in Gaza more than twentyfold—from $80 to $1,706.”

I suppose to worshippers of mammon, this represents progress, but what about all those thousands and thousands of Palestinians— including countless women and children—blown to bits by Israeli offensive weapons? Does a dying youth utter with his last breath, “All to the best. At least I would have earned more money . . . had I not died so young”? (See my essay “For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls” here and here .)

The best review so far of The Israel Test is a negative one by Robert Sungenis that appeared in the January issue of E. Michael Jones’s Culture Wars. (Subscribe here.) Readers should know that Culture Wars and its editor are pariahs among respectable company, mostly because The Jewish Problem is addressed forthrightly. I think that’s the whole draw of the magazine. Indeed, Jones and his writers are “Jew-wise,” as TOQ editor Greg Johnson likes to say.

The Israel Test is reviewed in Culture Wars by frequent contributor Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. He begins by noting the same Gilder quotes about Jewish and Israeli superiority covered above. He then addresses some of the negatives. To be sure, Sungenis’s critique is that of an arch-conservative Catholic, but his claims are nonetheless intriguing. For example, he writes that despite Jewish prominence in capitalism, technology, etc., “there has resulted more atheism, more murder, and more sexual deviance than at any time in history. If anything, these technological advances have stunted man’s development, since the tendency is now to rely on one’s own Tower of Babel to measure human worth to the virtual exclusion of the development of the inner man.”

He goes on to charge these smart Jews with “the promoting of homosexuality, divorce, adultery, gambling, insider trading, cultural revolution, and many other societal ills.” Mischievously he adds that “Among Israel’s Muslim neighbors these ills are practically non-existent.” 

With respect to Jews and capitalism, he asks, “How much more economic upheaval, corruption, greed and scandal do the capitalists need to realize that their system is on a self-destruct course? How many Savings & Loan debacles, Enrons, WorldCom’s, Ivan Boeskys, Bernie Madoffs, deceptive collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps are needed to see that the capitalist system is a racket of smoke and mirrors?”

Sungenis goes on to skewer other categories of Jewish “geniuses.” Psychologists? Well, take Sigmund Freud. Sungenis’s estimation of the good Doctor Freud is in line with what Kevin MacDonald wrote in The Culture of Critique, MacDonald’s culminating volume in his trilogy on Jews: Freud was a charlatan cult leader who was not good for gentile society.

Jewish feminists? Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem and their ilk “have destroyed the traditional role of wife and mother.” Jewish artists and architects? Fuggedaboutit. (See here, here and here.) Ditto for the eighty percent of American comics who are Jewish—“the raunchy Sarah Silverman or the sex-crazed Woody Allen and Howard Stern.” Such humor presents “the abnormal as normal, the neurotic as necessary, the outsider as the true insider.” Even a prominent rabbi admitted that “Some of the most notoriously foul-mouthed and obscene-minded entertainers are Jewish and earn no reproof for their public aggrandizement of filth.”

In summary, according to Sungenis, “The humanist Jew has poisoned every area of our culture. Gilder can’t see any of it because he lacks a properly tuned moral compass. The moral ineptitude of the humanist Jew at large is ignored and only his ‘technological achievements,’ ‘his raw genius,’ his ‘capitalistic entrepreneurial spirit’ is enshrined as the model which the world is not only to follow but to bow down to.”

This leaves me trying to get my head around why such an obviously brilliant WASP like Gilder would write what he does about Jews and Israel. From what I can tell, he sincerely believes what he writes, too.

Consider that this man is the product of the best America has to offer—wealth, Exeter, Harvard, exposure to top leaders (he was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon), etc. His long list of books attests to his intelligence and work ethic. Among them are:

Wealth and Poverty

Sexual Suicide (updated as Men and Marriage)

TELECOSM: How Infinite Bandwidth will Revolutionize Our World

Microcosm: The Quantum Revolution In Economics And Technology

The Spirit of Enterprise (updated as Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise)

The Silicon Eye: Microchip Swashbucklers and the Future of High-Tech Innovation

Life After Television

Visible Man: A True Story of Post-Racist America

In addition he writes the Gilder Technology Report.

Clearly, we have to take such a man seriously. But, again, what could make him believe such things about superior Jews and an enlightened and moral Israel when the facts are so starkly otherwise?

Kevin MacDonald attempted to unravel the effects Jews and WASPs have had on each other. This came in his discussion of Eric P. Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. In essence, Kaufmann argued that WASPs voluntarily relinquished hegemony in America—cultural “suicide,” in other words.

Writing on VDARE.com, MacDonald explained why he viewed it as murder rather than suicide. In short, as he argued at length in his book The Culture of Critique, “the rise of Jews to elite status in the United States and the influence of particular Jewish intellectual and political movements, especially the push for mass and indiscriminate immigration, were key contributions—necessary conditions—to the demise of WASP America.”

Crucially, MacDonald complained that Kaufmann

never mentions coercion and the penalties that are imposed on people who dissent from the elite cosmopolitan consensus. The fact is, Whites who violate these strictures are severely censured — a phenomenon with which I have considerable personal experience.

Kaufmann presents the views of elite Whites who are cooperating in the demise of their own people as nothing more than the enlightened opinions of an intellectual and moral elite. But it is far more than that. Since the 1960s, Whites who depart from the consensus of cosmopolitanism have been penalized in a wide variety of ways — from lack of access to the mainstream media, to firing from their jobs, to social opprobrium. Conversely, those who collaborate are rewarded. This revolution is neither peaceful nor bloodless.

I’m not sure if this helps understand Gilder. In fact, doesn’t it deepen the mystery, because, as MacDonald concluded about the Jewish-WASP ethnic war in America, “For the Anglo-Saxons, it is a defeat of cataclysmic proportions.”

How could Gilder not recognize this? He’s old enough (b. 1939) to have grown up with older relatives who represented the apogee of WASP power in America, but his whole life has witnessed the unbroken decline of his caste — and a concomitant rise of the Jews. Are we witnessing a form of the Stockholm Syndrome, in this case, one where a formerly free man worships the power of his (cultural) captors? I confess I don’t know.

I almost wish I could find evidence that Gilder was blackmailed into writing The Israel Test, or that he did it as a quid pro quo for something else, or that he’s in love with a Jewish woman. Lacking any evidence of that, however, I’m forced to grapple with the question of how an otherwise highly intelligent man could be so misguided about Jews.

Whites in America have suffered in recent decades because of the migration of power from WASPs to Jews. To be sure, middle and working class Whites who are not elite WASPs have done their best to protect their interests. Ford was from a rural background, Lindbergh was never part of the Eastern elite, and McCarthy, Coughlin, and Buchanan were or are Catholic.

Where are the WASPs today? Some have led lives unworthy of their ancestors (think Paris Hilton), while others have died young after fleeting and dissolute lives. The Short Unhappy Life of Casey Johnson may be fitting:

Lesbian heiress, socialite, and Hollywood celeb Casey Johnson, 30, was found dead in the bedroom of her West Hollywood home on January 4, 2010. Jewish gossip website TMZ reported that Johnson, last heard from on December 29, 2009, had been dead for several days before her body was discovered by a maid. A coroner’s toxicology report has yet to be issued, but foul play is not suspected. Johnson suffered from diabetes and had a history of drug abuse.

Casey Johnson’s death provides a convenient window into the seamy underbelly of the contemporary WASP “elite.”

Mostly, it seems, American WASPs have simply disappeared. Updike died, while President Bush (41), undeniably a WASP, gave way to his son Dubya (43), who certainly did not look, speak or behave like a WASP. Where can we now find in positions of power those tall, lean men who, whatever their vulnerabilities, once so confidently bestrode the world stage?

Averell Harriman

George H. W. Bush

Where once we had men like Averell Harriman and George Herbert Walker Bush, we now have Alan Dershowitz, Larry David, Woody Allen, and Michael Chertoff.

America, including its White gentile majority, is about to find out what it’s like to be ruled by a hostile elite. The upper crust WASPs seem to have gone quietly for the most part, but what of the remaining White masses? As MacDonald said with respect to the WASPs, “For the Anglo-Saxons, it is a defeat of cataclysmic proportions.”

The same now goes for all Whites.

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