Featured Articles

Race and Immigration in the Writings of Michele Wucker

/in /by

Michele Wucker

Michele Wucker is Executive Director of the World Policy Institute, a nonpartisan center for “progressive global policy research.” Her writing is an interesting insight into what passes for thinking about race and ethnicity among contemporary mainstream American intellectuals.

Wucker’s social and racial history of the peoples of Hispaniola, Why the CocksFight: Dominicans, Haitians, and the Struggle for Hispaniola is an important indicator of how she sees immigration for the United States, a topic explored in her 2006 plea for open borders, Lockout: Why America Keeps Getting Immigration Wrong When Our Prosperity Depends on Getting It Right.

In Why the Cock Fights, Wucker artfully combines both the physical and the cultural anthropology of the indigenous peoples of Hispaniola, an island divided between  Black French-speaking Haiti and mulatto Spanish-speaking Dominican Republic. She describes the ethnic conflicts that have troubled that unfortunate island for centuries. The Dominicans finally won their independence from Haiti in 1844 after a 22-year brutal and corrupt occupation.

The dividing line separating the two peoples runs along Rio Massacre, so named because of the thousands of Haitians and Dominicans slaughtered at the border. In 1933 alone, the Dominicans massacred 25,000 Haitians on the river border.

Wucker sees the political and sociological situation on that perpetually troubled island as a continual cockfight enjoyed by both parties. Although cockfights are strictly in the male domain, Wucker manages to gain a true appreciation of the cockfighters (galleros), the arenas (galleras, gagaires), and even the triumphant strutting cock (gallo), and to convey that understanding and appreciation to her readers. Equally popular in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the cockfights are highly symbolic of the cross-cultural violence between the two major population groups — the  Blacks of Haiti and the mulattos of the Dominican Republic.

Wucker has great respect for the peoples she discusses. For example, when referring to Haiti’s folk religion, a mixture of African animism and Roman Catholicism, she uses the spelling ‘Vodou’ to distinguish it from what she calls Hollywood’s grotesque portrayal of ‘Voodoo’. In depicting Vodou practices, Hollywood typically cannot refrain from including a scene in which the priest or priestess drives a needle into a doll image of an individual the priest intends to harm. In reality, the doll piercing is very much like Chinese acupuncture in which the practice is aimed at healing not harming the targeted area.

Likewise she uses the term ‘Kreyol’ when referring to Haiti’s language, better suggesting its origin as one of the group of languages called creoles and reflecting that they are a mixture of African and European languages. Language, Wucker observes, can be a divisive political force as on Hispaniola, or a unifying force as English is in the project of globalization.

However, the rough classification of Black and mulatto is an oversimplification. Both countries, initially at least, shared the same racial composition, consisting of French, Spanish, English, African, Arawak Indian and Taino Indian blood. Only after the African element revolted against their French rulers, first slaughtering all Whites and then most mulattos, did the complexion of Haiti darken.

Their racial histories are fascinating, reflecting their colonial beginnings, genocidal outbursts, and subsequent racial amalgamation. The peoples of Haiti classify each other by color, fluency in Kreyol and hair texture. Drawing upon the research of Dominican, French and French-Canadian scholars, Wucker provides a detailed racial history of Hispaniola. Particularly interesting is the obsessive detail with which race was categorized and how it influenced every aspect of life:

In the early 16th century, even before the Africans arrived, Nicolas de Ovando, the Spanish colonial governor, had forced many of the colonists to marry Indians. . . . Many of the men, according to Dominican historian Roberto Cassá, were already living with Taino women. In the late 16th century, desperate to keep up the dwindling Spanish population as a last defense against French and English aspirations to shrink Spain’s territory on Hispaniola, the colonial government went so far as to encourage White colonists to marry the former slaves. These mixed-race children were treated as Spanish and White, and brought up with a strong sense of Roman Catholic identity to strengthen their resolve in fighting off Protestant (English) invaders. . . .

Over the centuries, the racial lines within Dominican society blurred, and it became, as it still largely is, mulatto. . . .

As early as 1549, according to the Dominican historian Franklin J. Franco, Santo Domingo’s colonial government defined seven racial types:  Black, or “negro,” slaves brought from Africa; White, Spaniards; mulatto, offspring of  Black and White; mestizo, descended from Indian and White; tercerón, child of a mulatto and a White; cuarterón, child of a tercerón and White; and grifo, mixed Indian and  Black. There does not seem to be a term for tri-racial ( Black-White-Indian) hybrids.

In the early 1970s the Dominican sociologist Daysi Josefina Guzmán identified nine hair colors and 15 main kinds of hair texture on a spectrum between bueno (good) for soft, Caucasian hair and malo (bad) for kinky, Negroid hair. [Among these were] lacio for straight and smooth; achinado for straight, stiff hair; espeso, thick, abundant and very slightly wavy; macho, thick and strong, abundant but without luster; rizado, thick and fine with small waves but dull; muerto, thin and greasy; ondulado, wavy; vivo, thick, dry, and out of control; variable, indescribable; crespo, thick and frizzy; de pimienta, peppery, growing slow and tight to the skull in small balls; motica, like peppery hair but thin, wavy; and pegaíto, so close to the skull that it is impossible to comb. . . .

She identified 12 skin colors: lochoso, “too White,” like milk; blanco, White; cenizo, ashen; descolorido, “without color”; pálido, so pale as to appear sick, desteñido, jaundiced; pecoso, freckled; pinto, mostly light but with large freckles or moles; trigueño, light, with a very slight dark touch; manchado, dark, with light streaks; “negro,” very dark; morado, so  Black as to be “almost purple.” In addition, there were 10 facial structures, six physical types and five general racial types.

Each category could be used as a guide to where any Dominican stood on the social scale. . . . In the Dominican Republic, calling someone “Haitian” is on the surface synonymous with describing them as negro or morado, but with an added psychological weight of fear and hatred.

The early French colonists in Saint-Domingue identified 128 different racial types, defined quite precisely along a mathematical scale determined by simple calculations of ancestral contributions. They ranged from the “true” mulatto (half White, half  Black), through the spectrum of marabou, sacatra, quarterón, all the way to the sang-mêlé (mixed blood: 127 parts White and one part  Black. . . .

The sociologist Micheline Labelle has counted 22 main racial categories and 98 subcategories (for varying hair types, facial structure, color and other distinguishing factors) used among Haiti’s middle class in Port-au-Prince in the 1970s. Within each category, the words are often as imaginative as they are descriptive: café au lait (“coffee with milk”), bonbon siro (“candy syrup”), ti canel (“little cinnamon”), ravet blanch (“White cockroach”), soley levan (“rising Sun”), banane mûre (“ripe banana”), brun pistache (“peanut brown”), mulâtre dix-huit carats (“18-carat mulatto”). . . .

The decidedly darker complexion of the Haitians dates back to 1804, when dictator Jean Jacques Dessalines decided to slaughter all the “Whites” still residing in Haiti. Because some of the “French colonists” already had African blood, Dessalines devised a language test to weed out “Whites” that could pass for  Black on the basis of skin color. The test was simple and effective. Since the colonists spoke continental French, rather than Haiti’s Kreyol, suspected colonists were asked to sing a country tune containing the line, “Nanett alé nan fontain, cheche dlo, crich-a li cassé” (“Nanette went to the fountain, looking for water, but her jug broke”). The “French,” meaning anyone who gave himself or herself away when they could not reproduce the Kreyol sounds or African cadences of the melody, were summarily bayoneted.

After Toussaint had been removed, his successor Henri Christophe mimicked the vanquished French by crowning himself King Henri I, building a magnificent palace and the massive Citadele La Ferrière, and appointing Afro-Haitian dukes and lords to rule over his domain.

Haiti soon began its rapid descent from the richest colony in the Caribbean to the absolute poorest. Lothrop Stoddard, the once famed (now politically incorrect) American scholar whose views very much influenced the U.S. immigration law of 1924, described these early events in his famed The French Revolution in San Domingo, published in 1914 and now available online.

The same process of a nation’s unnecessary descent into chaos and poverty has been repeated in our own day in the case of Rhodesia, one of the most prosperous states in Africa. When most of the members of the government, who were of European origin, were expelled from the country because of the color of their skin, prosperous Rhodesia became basket case Zimbabwe. The UK, the USA, and the USSR then pressured South Africa to permit the  Blacks to govern that state. As of today over a million Whites have migrated out of the country, which is fast becoming a criminal state.

Early in World War II, President Roosevelt, to aid Jewish refugees from Europe without the need of Congressional consent, made a deal with Rafael Trujillo in which the Dominican leader agreed to take in Jewish refugees from Europe. Trujillo, who had just recently slaughtered about 20,000 Haitians along the Rio Massacre, was under the impression that by admitting the Jews he would be infusing new “White” blood into the Dominican racial stock. As it turned out, however, most of the Jews subsequently entered the United States, and the Dominican Republic remained mostly mulatto.

In recent years, U.S. President Bill Clinton was so captivated by the charms of a renegade priest, the defrocked Jean-Bertrand Aristide, that he used 20,000 U.S. troops to reinstate the expelled demagogue to power. It is not surprising, however, that today, despite an infusion of billions of American dollars, Haiti has returned to its natural state: chaos, lawlessness, postponed or phony elections, corruption, drugs, poverty and the rest. Consequently, as Wucker notes, in the last two decades one out of every eight Haitians and Dominicans has moved to and now resides in the United States. To this day, Clinton remains a friend to Haiti, helping it as best he can. Sadly, Haiti has not yet found a native leader, wise and strong enough to institute a just and effective government.

The French critic and playwright Aimé Césaire once described Haiti as follows:

Poor Africa! I say poor Haiti! It is the same thing. Over there, tribe, languages, rivers, the castes, forest, village against village, hamlet against hamlet. Here,  Blacks, mulattos, griffes, marabouts, what-have-you, clan, caste, color, defiance and conspiracy, fights between cocks, between dogs over a bone, the combat of fleas!

Wucker’s fine study of Hispaniola demonstrates the importance of ethnicity and ethnic conflict as very important determining factors in human affairs. The politics of the island have been one continual cockfight. But perhaps of even greater importance, she also shows the limits of racial analysis and the utter futility of attempting racial classifications based on simple surface appearances after miscegenation has progressed through several generations. Early racial studies were based solely on the color of the skin and hair texture. Modern DNA studies have provided a wealth of new information. 

By 2006, however, following two years at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, Ms. Wucker has emerged a more “enlightened” person. Incredibly, in her second book, Lockout: Why America Keeps Getting Immigration Wrong When Our Prosperity Depends on Getting It Right, written in her new capacity as Executive Director of the World Policy Institute and advisor to the U.S. Government on immigration policy, Wucker disregards ethnicity entirely as a criterion for immigration. Despite the long history of ethnic violence on Hispaniola, Wucker proposes that the things Haitians and Dominicans share in common can lead to reconciliation. For example, she notes that there have been no reports of violent attacks since the recent earthquake. (Of course an earthquake would tend to take your mind off routine everyday squabbles.) Perhaps not coincidentally, after the publication of Lockout Ms. Wucker received a 2007 Guggenheim Fellowship.

The Institute describes itself as a progressive non-partisan source of informed leadership that develops and champions policies requiring a global point of view. The Institute appears to share the economic and social goals of globalization and operates under the Boasian dogma of racial equality. Ms. Wucker pleads that America not put any restrictions on further immigration. Despite the long history of racial conflict she so ably documents in Why the Cock Fights, she advocates — against all logic and common sense — that diversity need not be divisive in the long run.

Among other solutions for the resolution of possible conflicts resulting from diversity, Ms. Wucker suggests mongrelization. She first disingenuously identifies herself as a mongrel, pointing to her parents and grandparents as having spoken different languages and having lived in different parts of Europe. Then extrapolating wildly makes the completely unfounded statement:

Americans today are as proud of being mongrels as the higher classes of earlier Americans of British and German roots were of their “purebred” family trees. (Lockout, p. 219)

By turning up the heat under the melting pot and encouraging miscegenation, a mongrelized uniformity could indeed be achieved, but older Americans are not yet ready for it. More importantly, such a solution ignores the reality of racial differences in IQ and other valuable traits. A mongrelized population will inevitably be stratified by degree of admixture of genes from groups higher or lower on these traits. Only Draconian laws administered by a police state could possibly result in completely diluting all racial differences to the point where race becomes irrelevant as a way of classifying people. Wucker goes on and on about getting “the best and brightest” as immigrants as necessary for economic progress, but completely ignores the fact that in reality the vast majority of immigrants are uneducated and have low IQ — the sort of people who suck up public services rather than contribute to a modern economy.

But her greatest failing is her lack of appreciation of how massive non-White immigration is likely to lead to ethnic conflict and the Balkanization of America. The fact that immigrants from different parts of Europe did indeed manage to assimilate to America is no sign that this will continue into the future. The recent law in Arizona banning ethnic studies programs in public schools was motivated by the well-founded fear that such programs fuel hatred toward the White majority of America. Such programs are common throughout the American education system.

Far better is the advice of the quintessential American poet Robert Frost who once wrote that “good fences make good neighbors,” a sentiment that most older Americans understand and believe.

When Jean Raspail published his prophetic novel The Camp of the Saints in the 1960s, American liberal intellectuals called it hate literature. By the 1990s Raspail in his essay The Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic had to concede that his France was irretrievably lost and could never return. Without any popular mandate at all, the US government in the past half-century has been derelict in its responsibility to control immigration. As a result, the ethnic composition of the country has rapidly changed from predominantly European to a mixture of races. In effect, the country is being repopulated.

The consequences of this massive transformation are unknown. But if human history is any guide, the result will be a very large increase in ethnic conflict and a very perilous future for the traditional people and culture of America.

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

The Christian Question in White Nationalism

/7 Comments/in /by

There is a strong anti-Christian tendency in contemporary White Nationalism.

The argument goes something like this: Christianity is one of the primary causes of the decline of the White race for two reasons. First, it gives the Jews a privileged place in the sacred history of mankind, a role that they have used to gain their enormous power over us today. Second, Christian moral teachings—inborn collective guilt, magical redemption, universalism, altruism, humility, meekness, turning the other check, etc.—are the primary cause of the White race’s ongoing suicide and the main impediment to turning the tide. These values are no less Christian in origin just because secular liberals and socialists discard their supernatural trappings. The usual conclusion is that the White race will not be able to save itself unless it rejects Christianity.

I think that this argument is half right. I do believe that Christianity is one of the main causes of White decline, for the reasons given above. But I do not believe that discarding Christianity is a necessary condition of White revival. I am not a Christian. But the fact that I am not a Christian might lend credibility to my argument that the White Nationalist movement need not and indeed should not be anti-Christian.

First, although intellectual debate is definitely part of White Nationalism (perhaps too large a part), we must never lose sight of the fact that White Nationalism is a political movement, not an intellectual one. Intellectual movements require agreement on first principles as well as ultimate goals. Political movements require agreement only on practical goals.

Our goal is a White homeland in North America. This political goal is, as a matter of fact, shared by Christians and non-Christians alike. To achieve a White homeland, we have to work with our allies, not against them. We might wish that they agree with us on other matters besides the goal of a White homeland. But this is not necessary, and emphasizing differences of opinion is not productive. When one is on the barricades, one does not turn to one’s comrades and start finding fault.

Not emphasizing differences of opinion is not the same thing as hiding them, however. A mature and healthy White Nationalist movement should cultivate a culture of openness and frankness. We need to be as willing to express our differences in a civil manner as we are to put them aside to work for the common good.

Second, Christianity may be a necessary condition of White racial suicide, but it is not really the driving force. Christianity has long ceased to be the ruling power in Western societies or individual Christian lives. Instead, the churches preach White suicide and Christian Zionism because they wish to suck up to the real intellectual and political power structure, and today that power structure is overwhelmingly dominated and defined by Jews and Jewish interests.

[adrotate group=”1″]

This is not a new phenomenon, either. The church has long trimmed its sails to the winds of expediency. When there were absolute monarchs, the church preached the divine right of kings. When there was slavery, it bade slaves to obey their masters. When there was patriarchy, it taught wives to obey their husbands.

It is tempting to condemn this tendency as mere political opportunism, but that would be a mistake. The church has always been supple at bending to the reigning political and intellectual orthodoxies because, ultimately, its kingdom is not of this world. In spite of aberrations like the Social Gospel movement, the church has always been more concerned with saving individual souls than with social justice. Thus churchmen regard sucking up to the secular powers as a small price to pay to stay in the soul-saving business.

What this implies for White Nationalism is that the church will resist us less fervently than those whose aims are primarily secular, such as Jewish organizations, non-White ethnic organizations, and the secular left. And when we gain power, ministers will begin hunting for Bible verses to justify the new regime. There is no reason why a White Nationalist regime cannot become a new Caesar, to whom Christians render their secular loyalty while reserving their religious loyalty for God. 

Third, it is a basic principle of political struggle that one should always work to preserve the unity of one’s ranks while sowing division among the enemy. Christian resistance to White Nationalism will be weaker if the churches are divided, and they can be divided if there are Christians in our ranks, especially Christians with personal ties to church leaders. Resistance will be stronger, however, if White Nationalism ceases being a merely political movement and takes on the aspect of an anti-Christian crusade.

Once a White Nationalist regime emerges, White Nationalist Christians can use their ties with the churches to better bring them into compliance with the new order.

Although the presence of Christians in the White Nationalist movement will help split the churches and weaken their resistance, their presence will not split or weaken White Nationalism as long as it remains a purely political movement unified solely by the pursuit of a White homeland.

Today White Nationalism is a movement of the political right. Someday, however, it may become the common sense of White people up and down the political spectrum. To my mind, this would be a positive development, because when it comes to religion and politics, I am very much a liberal: I believe in the separation of religion and politics and in basing political decisions on secular reason.

To me, it seems fortunate that the separation of church and state in the White homeland may well be necessitated by political reality. The White Nationalist movement must unite Whites of widely different religious convictions in the struggle for a homeland. That means we must build religious pluralism and tolerance into our movement today, which means they will be built into our homeland tomorrow.

Greg Johnson is the Editor-in-Chief of Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd. He can be reached at editor@counter-currents.com.

John Mearsheimer and the Future of Israeli Apartheid

/in , /by

John Mearsheimer has given a fascinating prognosis of the situation in Israel. The basic argument is as follows (skip to the end of the bulleted list if you’ve already read it):

  • There is not going to be a Palestinian state. There is no political will for it in Israel, and the US lacks the power to impose a two-state solution, largely because of the continuing power of the Israel Lobby. Netanyahu’s “victory was so complete that the Israeli media was full of stories describing how their prime minister had bested Obama and greatly improved his shaky political position at home.” Mearsheimer quotes Andrew Sullivan’s comment on “a cardinal rule of American politics: no pressure on Israel ever.  Just keep giving them money and they will give the US the finger in return. The only permitted position is to say you oppose settlements in the West Bank, while doing everything you can to keep them growing and advancing.”
  • A Palestinian state is anathema to the Israeli government — the most radically ethnonationalist in its history — and it contradicts basic Zionist ideology, going back to Mandate days: “From the start, Zionism envisioned an Israeli state that controlled all of Mandatory Palestine.  There was no place for a Palestinian state in the original Zionist vision of Israel.”
  • It is possible that there would be a mass ethnic cleansing — but such a “murderous strategy seems unlikely, because it would do enormous damage to Israel’s moral fabric, its relationship with Jews in the Diaspora, and to its international standing.”  Nevertheless, “we should not underestimate Israel’s willingness to employ such a horrific strategy if the opportunity presents itself.  It is apparent from public opinion surveys and everyday discourse that many Israelis hold racist views of Palestinians and the Gaza massacre makes clear that they have few qualms about killing Palestinian civilians. … Still, I do not believe Israel will resort to this horrible course of action.”
  • The result is that the trends toward an “incipient apartheid state” will become a full-blown apartheid state “over the next decade.”
  • “In the long run, however, Israel will not be able to maintain itself as an apartheid state.  … It will eventually evolve into a democratic bi-national state whose politics will be dominated by the more numerous Palestinians.”
  • An apartheid Israel is non-viable for several reasons: The information freely available on the Internet; continued outrage among the Arabs and Muslims; because it is “antithetical to core Western values”; because it endangers American lives; and because most American Jews will not back it.
  • Elaborating on the last point, he divides American Jews into three groups, “righteous Jews” (liberals like Norman Finkelstein and Philip Weiss who are critical of Israel), “the great ambivalent middle,” and the “new Afrikaners” — people like Abe Foxman and Elie Wiesel whose views are identical to those of the politically dominant ethnonationalist government in Israel. At the very least, the new Afrikaners will support Israel no matter what it does.
  • Although the organized Jewish community is now dominated by the new Afrikaners, this will not last because Jews, like other Americans are ill-informed about the extent of Israeli apartheid. “This situation, however, is unsustainable over time.  Once it is widely recognized that the two-state solution is dead and Greater Israel is a reality, the righteous Jews will have two choices: support apartheid or work to help create a democratic bi-national state.  I believe that almost all of them will opt for the latter option, in large part because of their deep-seated commitment to liberal values, which renders any apartheid state abhorrent to them.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is where I part ways with Mearsheimer. It is certainly true that Jewish activist organizations like the ADL are constantly going into high dudgeon at the very mention that Israel is an apartheid state. Any such assertion is regarded as an “extreme anti-Israel rhetoric” by the ADL and has the effect of shaping the views of ordinary Jews and preventing them from acknowledging Israeli apartheid as it already exists.

But how is this going to change? The reality is that American Jews are quite comfortable with a morally schizophrenic view in which they have vastly different moral standards when it comes to Israel versus the US. This has been going on for a long time — to the point that I started a recent blog by writing, “Finding examples of Jewish double standards and hypocrisy vis-à-vis their attitudes about Israel and the US is like shooting fish in a  barrel. But their posturing on the Arizona immigration law is particularly egregious.” Recall that opposition to Arizona-type laws spans the entire organized Jewish community in the US, despite the fact that such practices are routine in Israel.

Jewish moral particularism is a powerful reality among Jews. Mearsheimer takes Jewish liberalism in America and throughout the West at face value, as representing “deepseated commitment to liberal values” that is central to Judaism itself.

In accepting this, Mearsheimer is taking people like Gideon Aronoff of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society at face value — always a bad idea. The HIAS declares,

Drawing strongly on Jewish tradition, we provide services to Jewish immigrants, refugees, and others in need – without regard for their religion, nationality, or ethnic background. We are guided by our Jewish values and texts. The Torah (Hebrew Bible) tells us 36 times in 36 different ways to help the stranger among us. This, and our core belief that we must “fix the world” (tikkun olam, in Hebrew), are the driving principles behind our work.”)

Aronoff makes it sound as though Jewish advocacy of immigration is part of a deep ethical commitment that goes to the heart of Judaism. But of course he never attempts massive resettlement of non-Jews into Israel, nor does he agonize about Israel’s biologically-based immigration laws. His moral posturing is entirely directed at the US. Even a casual look at traditional Jewish society shows it to be highly authoritarian, with no concept of individual rights or free speech and deeply concerned about the racial purity of all group members. However one interprets the Torah, Jewish society has never welcomed the stranger, and that is certainly true of Israel.

Jewish commitment to liberalism in the West has been all about ethnic hardball, not about high-flown moral values. Jewish liberalism is the cutting edge aimed at displacing previously dominant WASP elites and their culture. It is not motivated by a moral universalism of human rights — a philosophy that is utterly foreign to the Jewish tradition. Rather, it is motivated by fear and loathing of the traditional peoples and cultures of Europe — and the desire to become a dominant elite.

Obviously, the vast majority of Israelis fail to hold liberal values, and historically the common denominator of Jewish behavior in traditional societies has been alliances with elites, often rapacious alien elites. Jewish radicals in the Soviet Union became “Stalin’s Willing Executioners,” perpetrating the greatest mass murders of the 20th century,  and the Jewish left in the US rationalized or ignored it for decades. Indeed, the remnants of the Jewish left in the US are far more concerned about the imagined excesses of McCarthyism than they are about the horrific deeds of their co-ideologues in the Soviet Union.

The result is that Jewish liberalism is far better seen as ethnic strategizing rather than a core ethical commitment:

The Jewish identification with the left should … be seen as a strategy designed to increase Jewish power as an elite hostile to the White European majority of America. As I have argued, Jewish intellectual and political movements have been a critically necessary condition for the decline of White America during a period in which Jews have attained elite status. All of these movements have been aligned with the political left. As Democrats, Jews are an integral part of the emerging non-White coalition while being able to retain their core ethnic commitment to Israel. Indeed, the organized Jewish community has not only been the most important force in ending the European bias of American immigration laws, it has assiduously courted alliances with non-White ethnic groups, including Blacks, Latinos, and Asians; and these groups are overwhelmingly aligned with the Democratic Party. (Review of Norman Podhoretz’s Why are Jews Liberals?) (See also Ch. 3 ofThe  Culture of Critique, p. 79ff)

Mearsheimer suggests that American Jews, especially young Jews, will over time be less committed to Israel as they realize that they are safe in America, so that Israel is not needed as a safety valve. He also points to a very real phenomenon — that Jews in Israel are increasingly dominated by the religious fundamentalists and, I would add, the secular ethnonationalist descendants of Vladimir Jabotinsky. Both groups are highly fertile and they will increasingly dominate Israel in the future. Indeed, they are already the backbone of support for the current ethnonationalist government, which features the openly racialist, pro-apartheid Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister.

But it is highly questionable that commitment to Israel by American Jews has anything to do with Israel as a safety valve. Anti-Semitism in the US declined to vanishingly low levels in the aftermath of World War II, and there has been absolutely no possibility of a serious anti-Jewish movement since.

Nor is it likely that the dominance of the ethnonationalist right in Israel will alienate American Jews. American Jews with even a modicum of Jewish identity see themselves as part of the Jewish people, with interests that transcend the interests of the country they happen to live in. This has always been the case, and is the source of the recurrent charge of dual loyalty (see here, p. 60ff). There is no reason to suppose that this will change in the future.

And this means that if Israel is seen as threatened — and the ADL will see to it that Israel is always presented as threatened, American Jews will rally to its defense. All the more so if the threat is real and dire.  If there was a real threat to Israel, as happened during the Six-Day War, American Jews will suddenly develop an intense commitment that will surprise even them:

[As expected by social identity theory in psychology] in times of perceived threat to Judaism there is a great increase in group identification among even “very marginal” Jews. … Jewish identification is a complex area where surface declarations may be deceptive and self-deception is the norm. Jews may not consciously know how strongly they in fact identify with Judaism.… [For example,] around the time of the 1967 Arab/Israeli war, many Jews could identify with the statement of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that “I had not known how Jewish I was.” (Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 9)

I think it is highly doubtful therefore that when push comes to shove the American Jewish community will fail to come to the defense of Israel — no matter how overtly racialist and explicitly apartheid it becomes. Recall Paul Gottfried’s reminiscence about what the 1967 war looked like on American college campuses :

All my Jewish colleagues in graduate school [at Yale], noisy anti-anti-Communists, opposed American capitalist imperialism, but then became enthusiastic warmongers during the Arab-Israeli War in 1967. One Jewish Marxist acquaintance went into a rage that the Israelis did not demand the entire Mideast at the end of that war. Another, though a feminist, lamented that the Israeli soldiers did not rape more Arab women. It would be no exaggeration to say that my graduate school days resounded with Jewish hysterics at an institution where Wasps seemed to count only for decoration. (Paul Gottfried, On “Being Jewish”, Rothbard-Rockwell Report [April]:9–10, 1996.

I saw the same thing among Jewish radicals at the University of Wisconsin at that time: Radical internationalists suddenly became obsessed about Jewish nationalism. Similarly, the Jews who are most critical of Israel would alter their views in a heartbeat if Israel was really threatened.

The internal dynamics of the Jewish community are always led by the most committed activist elements within it, with the rest of the community ultimately going along with them. The best example of this is Zionism itself — once the view of a small minority of deeply committed Jews, but eventually becoming the defining feature of the entire community. Jews who do not go along with the policies advocated by the radicals have been aggressively marginalized by the mainstream Jewish community. I see no reason to suppose that that trend will not continue into the future.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Mearsheimer concludes that “Greater Israel will eventually become a democratic bi-national state, and the Palestinians will dominate its politics, because they will outnumber the Jews in the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.” This could be avoided by an energetic commitment to a two-state solution, but that just isn’t going to happen for all the reasons noted above. Israel will therefore self-destruct, a victim of Palestinian fertility and the non-viability of an apartheid state in the modern world.

The problem here is that Mearsheimer assumes that the globalist values that he as an American liberal holds dear have triumphed and there is no going back. But the reality is that, as Pat Buchanan noted in a recent column, globalism is on the defensive. Everywhere except the West, that is.  Ethnonationism is utterly normal around the world, except for Whites.

The triumph of ethnonationalism is especially apparent in Israel. Historically, the Middle East has always erected societies based on apartheid. Different religious and ethnic groups lived together, often in superficial harmony overlaying relationships of dominance and subordination. But they remained separated socially into endogamous groups. It’s sobering to realize, for example, that the nethinim who were the remnants of the peoples conquered by the Israelites during the late Bronze Age, remained as an unassimilated, unmarriageable group for hundreds of years within Israelite society. Western ideas of individualism and exogamy are completely foreign to this part of the world. What we see now is Judaism returning to its ancient roots. The only difference now is that the groups are physically separated by walls and separate roads. Israel will jettison democracy long before the Palestinians have a majority.

Moreover, looking ahead, there are numerous signs that the power of the West to enforce its liberal worldview on others is in decline. America cannot afford another trillion dollar war with Iran, and it seems to be losing in Afghanistan. Its hold on Iraq depends on continuing massive injections of money and an occupying army, and in any case has not altered the sectarian, ethnically based structure of the society typical of the Middle East. The entire Muslim world is what it has always been — resolutely opposed to building Western-type societies based on representative government and individual rights against the state.

Moreover, the rise of China certainly does not mean that they will develop an interventionist foreign policy aimed at ensuring human rights and democracy. Far from it. Indeed, China is a model of an ethnonationalist state, with no commitment to democracy but a strong commitment to economic nationalism and remaining ethnically Chinese. For example, its response to the threat of minority breakaway states on its borders has been to flood those areas with Han Chinese.  It’s foreign policy is dominated by its economic goals, not by dedication to abstract principles of democracy and individual rights, and there is no reason to think that that will change in the future. Such principles have no historical basis within Chinese society.

In the case of Israel, the will of Western powers to force an end to apartheid is non-existent.  And while the US and the West are set to decline in influence, Israel remains armed to the teeth. Mearsheimer’s argument is an updated version of the argument in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy that the influence of the Israel Lobby should be curbed for the long term good of Israel. But from Israel’s point of view, continuing their aggressive ways has a good chance of winning:

After all, Israel is by far the preeminent military power in the region and can easily act to preempt the development of weapons of mass destruction by its enemies, including Iran. And as a nuclear power, it could inflict huge costs on any enemy who even contemplated destroying it. It also has the world’s one remaining military superpower completely at its bidding, so that it’s difficult to envision a worst case scenario in which Israel is decisively defeated. Why should the Israelis give up anything when victory is in sight?

Mearsheimer concludes with some generally sensible advice to the Palestinians. But again, he assumes the perspective of a liberal Westerner. Two of his suggestions show his belief that somehow everyone thinks and acts just like White folks.

It is essential that the Palestinians make clear that they do not intend to seek revenge against the Israeli Jews for their past crimes, but instead are deeply committed to creating a bi-national democracy in which Jews and Palestinians can live together peacefully.  The Palestinians do not want to treat the Jews the way the Jews have treated them.”

 

Finally, the Palestinians should definitely not employ violence to defeat apartheid.  They should resist mightily for sure, but their strategy should privilege non-violent resistance.  The appropriate model is Gandhi not Mao. Violence is counter-productive because if it gets intense enough, the Israelis might think that they can expel large numbers of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza.  The Palestinians must never underestimate the danger of mass expulsion.

I completely agree that violence by the Palestinians might trigger expulsion, but expulsion or at least continued apartheid will happen in any case. Non-violent resistance will be met with effective counter methods. The latest non-lethal method used by the Israelis is spraying Palestinians with “skunk”:

Imagine the worst, most foul thing you have ever smelled. An overpowering mix of rotting meat, old socks that haven’t been washed for weeks — topped off with the pungent waft of an open sewer. Imagine being covered in the stuff as it is liberally sprayed from a water cannon. Then imagine not being able to get rid of the stench for at least three days, no matter how often you try to scrub yourself clean.

Whatever form of resistance the Palestinians adopt will be ineffective.

Non-violent forms of resistance seem to be effective in gaining the sympathies of White Europeans, but I can’t think of any other group of people that they have been effective with. I suspect that the effectiveness of non-violent protest among Westerners is due to their weak ingroup bonds — another aspect of Western individualism which cannot be assumed to operate among other peoples. While everyone else sees human suffering primarily in terms of how it affects people in their ingroup, Westerners seem susceptible to moral appeals — the moral universalism at the psychological level that was exploited so effectively in the civil rights era and now on behalf of impoverished immigrants (legal and illegal), persecuted refugees, Third World orphans, and Haitian earthquake victims.

On the other hand, Jewish fanatics like Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, and the entire Jewish activist community led by the new Afrikaners feel nothing but contempt and hatred at the sight of suffering Palestinians. They are prone to elaborate rationalizations that rationalize any and every sort of brutality against them. Psychological research shows that powerful ingroup commitments make one morally blind to the suffering of outgroup members — especially if the outgroup members are seen as in conflict with the ingroup.

Mearsheimer believes that images of suffering Palestinians will eventually pull at America’s heartstrings, especially if among those who browse certain sites on the Internet. But there are a lot of reasons why this won’t have a decisive influence in the foreseeable future:

  • Most non-Jewish Americans don’t care about the Middle East and the largest group of those who do care, the Christian Zionists, see Israeli atrocities as easing the way for the End Times. When Americans browse the Internet, they are much more likely to go to entertainment sites — sex, sports, and movie stars — than to anti-Israel sites. They won’t see images of suffering Palestinians unless they appear in the aboveground media.
  • But the aboveground media is still in Zionist hands and that won’t change any time soon. Media moguls like Haim Saban — a new Afrikaner if ever there was one — would go all out to prevent any change away from the status quo. Historically, Jews have been very effective in pressuring media they don’t like with negative economic consequences, such as advertizing boycotts. This is true whether the media is Jewish-owned or not.
  • Even if the American public became motivated on this issue, politicians would think twice about opposing Israel because their opponents would suddenly have lots of campaign money. There are quite a few issues — most notably immigration — where popular attitudes are irrelevant to public policy. America is run by its elites, and Jews are a very prominent component of American elites at all the points of influence — media, financial, legal, and political. Far more than immigration (whose disastrous effects are getting obvious to pretty much everyone), popular anger about Israel is unthinkable without elite concurrence.

 

 

Moreover, it would be foolish for the Israelis to believe that the Palestinians would not hold a grudge against them for all that has happened if indeed the impossible dream of a bi-national democratic state comes to be. This is the same impossible dream that White Americans have when they think that the future multi-racial, multicultural, White-minority America will cease to hold historic grudges against the formerly dominant Whites and that it will retain all the institutional structures as when Whites were dominant. It won’t happen.

The Israelis surely know what their fate would be in a democratic society dominated by the Palestinians and they will go all out to prevent it. Surely no one would suppose that Israelis are so committed to democracy as a principle that they would commit themselves to certain persecution and destruction by continuing to adhere to it. What’s good for the Jews and all that.

Would that White Americans were less committed to principles and more committed to survival. Unfortunately, White Americans still don’t grasp what is in store for them in a society dominated by Jews and other groups with a historical grudge against them. The end of democratic and republican institutions will be the least of it.

Mearsheimer’s almost child-like faith in what the bi-national state would look like shows that he certainly does not really grasp the deadliness of ethnic politics. The Israelis and Jews in general are under no such illusion.

The main point here is that Mearsheimer’s point of view makes a great deal of sense if one can assume that post-1960s liberal Western values will persist into the future and that Western societies will have the power and will to enforce them on Israel. It makes sense if in fact there is some deep democratic impulse in the soul of all Jews. But for all the reasons mentioned above, this is wishful thinking.

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

Julius Evola on Race

/in /by

Growing interest in English speaking countries for the Italian philosopher Julius Evola may be a sign of the revival of the awesome cultural legacy of the Western civilization (see here and here). This legacy is awkwardly termed the “traditional –revolutionary – elitist – anti-egalitarian – postmodern thought.” But why not simply call it classical thought?

The advantage of Evola, in contrast to many modern scholars of the same calibre, may be his staggering erudition that goes well beyond the narrow study of race. Evola was just as much at ease writing thick volumes about religion, language and sexuality as writing about legal issues related to international politics, or depicting decadence of the liberal system. His shortcomings are, viewed from the American academic perspective, that his prose is often not focused enough and his narrative often embraces too many topics at once. Evola was not a self-proclaimed “expert” on race — yet his erudition made him compose several impressive books on race from angles that are sorely missing among modern sociobiologists and race experts. Therefore, Evola’s works on race must be always put in a lager perspective.

In this short survey of Evola’s position on race I am using the hard cover of the French translation of Indirizzi per una educazione razziale (1941) (Eléments pour une éduction raciale, 1984) and the more expanded Sintesi di dottrina della razza (1941), (“Synthesis of the racial doctrine”), translated into German by the author himself and by Annemarie Rasch and published in Germany in 1943. To my knowledge these two books are not available in English translation. His and Rasch’s excellent German translation of Sintesi had received (in my view an awkward and unnecessary) ‘political’ title; Grundrisse der faschistischen Rassenlehre (“Outlines of the fascist racial doctrine”) and is available on line.

Race of the Body vs. Race of the Spirit

Evola writes that race represents a crucial element in the life of all humans. However, while acknowledging the clear-cut physical and biological markers of each race, he stresses over and over again the paramount importance of the spiritual and internal aspects of race — two points that are decisive for genuine racial awareness of the White man. Without full comprehension of these constituent racial parts — i.e., the “race of the soul” and the “race of the spirit” — no racial awareness is possible. Evola is adamantly opposed to conceptualizing race from a purely biological, mechanistic and Darwinian perspective. He sees that approach as dangerously reductionist, leading to unnecessary political and intellectual infighting.

Diverse causes have contributed until now to the fact that racism has become the object of propaganda entrusted to incompetent people, to individuals who are waking up any day now as racists and anti-Semites and whose simple sloganeering has replaced serious principles and information. (Eléments pour une éduction raciale, p. 15)

Evola freely uses the term ‘racism’ (razzismo) and ‘racist’ (razzista). This was quite understandable in his epoch given that these words in Europe in the early thirties of the 20th century had a very neutral meaning with no dreaded symbols of the absolute evil ascribed to them today. The same can be said of the word ‘fascism’ and even ‘totalitarianism’ —  words which Evola uses in a normative manner when depicting an organic and holistic society designed for the future of the Western civilization. For Evola, the sense of racial awareness is more a spiritual endeavor and less a form of biological typology.

And in this respect, we need to repeat it; we are dealing here with a formation of a mentality, a sensibility, and not with intellectual schemes or classifications for natural science manuals. (Eléments p. 16)

For Evola, being White is not just a matter of good looks and high IQ, or for that matter something that needs to be sported in public. Racial awareness implies a sense of mysticism combined with the knowledge of one’s family lineage as well as a spiritual effort to delve into the White man’s primordial and mythical times. This is a task, which in the age of liberal chaos, must be entrusted only to élites completely detached from any material or pecuniary temptation.

Thus, racism invigorates and renders tangible the concept of tradition; it  makes the individual get used to observing in our ancestors not just a series of the more or less illustrious “dead,” but rather the expression of something still alive in ourselves and to which we are tied in our interior.  We are the carriers of a heritage that has been transmitted to us and that we need to transmit  – and in this spirit it is something going beyond time, something indicating,  what we called elsewhere, ‘the eternal race.’ (Eléments, p.31)

In other words race is at a same time a heritage and a collective substrate. Irrespective of the fact that it expresses itself among all people, it is only among few that it attains its perfect realization and it is precisely there that the action and the significance of the individual and the personality can assert themselves. (Eléments, p.34)

Evola offers the same views in his more expanded Sintesi (Grundrisse), albeit by using a somewhat different wording. Racial awareness for Evola requires moral courage and impeccable character and not just physical prowess. It is questionable to what extent many White racists today, in a self-proclaimed “movement” of theirs, with their silly paraphernalia on public display, are capable of such a mental exercise.

Race means superiority, wholeness, decisiveness in life. There are common people and there are people “of race”. Regardless of which social status they belong to, these people form an aristocracy(Grundrisse, p.17).

In this particular regard, the racial doctrine rejects the doctrine of the environment, known to be an accessory to liberalism, to the idea of humanity and to Marxism. These false doctrines have picked up on the theory of the environment in order to defend the dogma of fundamental equality of all people. (Grundrisse, p. 17)

And further Evola writes:

Our position, when we claim that race exists as much in the body as in the spirit, goes beyond these two points of view. Race is a profound force manifesting itself in the realm of the body (race of the body) as in the realm of the spirit (race of the interior, race of the sprit).  In its full meaning the purity of race occurs when these two manifestations coincide; in other words, when the race of the body matches the race of the spirit and when it is capable of serving the most adequate organ of expression. (p.48)

Racial-Spiritual Involution and the present Dark Ages

Evola is aware of the dangerous dichotomy between the race of the spirit and the race of the body that may occur within the same race — or, as we call it, within the same ingroup. This tragic phenomenon occurs as a result of selecting the wrong mates, miscegenation, and genetic flaws going back into the White man’s primordial times. Modern social decadence also fosters racial chaos. Evola argues that very often the “race of the body” may be perfectly pure, with the “race of the spirit” being already tainted or destroyed. This results in a cognitive clash between a distorted perception of objective reality vs. subjective reality, and which sooner or later leads to strife or civil war.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Evola harbors no illusions about master race; he advocates racial hygiene, always emphasizing the spiritual aspect of the race first. On a practical level, regarding modern White nationalists, Evola’s words are important insofar as they represent a harsh indictment of the endless bickering, petty sectarianism and petty jealousy seen so often among Whites. A White nationalist may be endowed with a perfect race of the body, but his racial spirit may be dangerously mongrelized.

Studying racial psychology is a crucial task for all White racialists — an endeavor in which Evola was greatly influenced by the German racial scholar and his contemporary Franz Ludwig Clauss.

Furthermore, a special circumstance must be singled out, confirming the already stated fact that races that have best biologically preserved the Nordic type are inwardly sometimes in a higher degree of regression than other races of the same family. Some Nordic nations — especially the Anglo-Saxons — are those in which the tradition-conditioned normal relationship between the sexes has been turned upside down. The so-called emancipation of woman — which in reality only means the mutilation and degradation of woman — has actually started out among these nations and has been most widespread among them, whereas this relationship still retains something of a tradition-based view among other nations, regardless of it its bourgeois or its conventional echo.(Grundrisse p. 84).

Evola is well aware of the complexity of understanding race as well as our still meager knowledge of the topic. He is well aware that race cannot be just the subject of biologists, but also of paleontologists, psycho-anthropologists and mystics, such as the French mystic René Guenon, whom he knew well and whom he often quotes.

Following in Evola’s footsteps we may raise a haunting question. Why individuals of the same White race, i.e. of the same White in-group frequently do not understand each other? Why is it that the most murderous wars have occurred within the same race, i.e. within the same White ingroup, despite the fact that the European ingroup is more or less biologically bonded together by mutual blood ties?  One must always keep in mind that the bloodiest wars in the 20th century occurred not between two racially opposed out-groups, but often within the same White ingroup. The level of violence between Whites and Whites during the American civil war, the savagery of the intra-White civil war in Spain from 1936 to 1939,  the degree of mutual hatred amidst White Europeans during WWII, and not least the recent intra-White barbarity of the Yugoslav conflict, are often incomprehensible for a member of the non-European outgroup. This remains an issue that needs to be urgently addressed by all sociobiologists. It must be pondered by all White nationalist activists all over the world.

There are actually too many cases of people who are somatically of the same race, of the same tribe, indeed who are fathers and sons of the same blood in the strict sense of the word and, yet who cannot “understand” each other. A demarcation line separates their souls; their way of feeling and judging is different and their common race of the body cannot do much about it, nor their common blood.  The impossibility of mutual understanding lies therefore on the level of supra-biology (“überbiologische Ebene”). Mutual understanding and hence real togetherness, as well as deeper unity, are only possible where the common “race of the soul” and the “spirit” coexist. (Grundrisse, 89)

In order to understand his political and moral predicament, the White man must therefore delve into myths of his prehistory and look for his faults. For Evola, we are all victims of rationalism, Enlightenment and positivistic sciences that keep us imprisoned in a straitjacket of “either-or,” always in search for causal and rational explanations. Only by grasping the supraracial (superraza) meaning of ancient European myths and by using them as role models, can we come to terms with the contemporary racial chaos of the modern system.

It is absolutely crucial to grasp the living significance of such a change of perspectives inherent to racist conceptions; the superior does not derive from the inferior. In the mystery of our blood, in the depth of our most abysmal of our being, resides the ineffaceable heredity of our primordial times. This is not heredity of brutality of bestial and savage instincts gone astray, as argued by psychoanalysis, and which, as one may logically conclude, derive from “evolutionism” or Darwinism. This heredity of origins, this heredity which comes from the deepest depth of times is theheredity of the light. (Eléments 72–73)

Briefly, Evola rejects the widespread idea that we have evolved from exotic African monkeys, as the standard theory of evolution goes, and which is still widely accepted by modern scientists. He believes that we have now become the tainted progeny of the mythical Hyperborean race, which has significantly racially deteriorated over the eons and which has been adrift both in time and space. Amidst the ruins of the modern world, gripped by perversion and decadence, Evola suggest for new political elites the two crucial criteria, “the character and the form of the spirit, much more than intelligence.” As a racial mystic, Evola warns:

Because the concept of the world can be much more precise with a man without instruction than with a writer; it can be more solid with a soldier, or a peasant loyal to his land, than with a bourgeois intellectual, professor, or a journalist. (quoted in Alain de Benoist’s, Vude droite, 1977, p. 435)

We could only add that the best cultural weapons for our White “super-race” are our common  Indo-Aryan myths, our sagas, our will to power — and our inexorable sense of the tragic.

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

James Angleton and Ezra Pound

/in /by

For it is not the wolf or any of the other beasts that would join the contest in any noble danger, but rather a good man. — Aristotle,Politics, Book IIX.

Before James Angleton became an institution at the CIA as czar of the counterintelligence staff from 1954 to 1975, he was friends with the poet Ezra Pound. Both men sacrificed themselves in an attempt to save their country from plutocrats. Pound did this by speaking his mind, while Angleton sold his conscience for “the greater good.”

Angleton first met Pound in Rapallo, Italy in 1938.  Ezra was often visited by famous or aspiring artists. Then a young man, Angleton photographed Pound at the meeting. Mary Barnard reminisces that these portraits were among the poet’s favorites.

TIME Pound portrait, attributed to J. J. Augleton but likely to be by J. J. Angleton

What was a young American doing in Italy in the 1930s? Angleton was born in Boise, Idaho. His father Hugh was a self-made man working for the National Cash Register company. Hugh had married a Mexican lady in a small border town while serving as a cavalry officer under General Pershing. (Hence James’ middle name “Jesus”.) (See Tom Mangold, Cold Warrior: James Jesus Angleton — CIA’s Master Spy Hunter,)

Hugh Angleton made his fortune by developing NCR’s Italian branch during the 1930s. Italy had been transformed under Mussolini’s rule and Hugh seems to have had sympathies with the leader’s policies. Yet, during WWII he joined the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) presumably to supply information on Italy. By 1943 he had shifted to training recruits, and he distanced himself from espionage after 1945.

His father’s work meant James Angleton enjoyed a cosmopolitan lifestyle. Apart from exploring the expatriate scene in Italy, in 1933 he entered Malvern College (an elite British boarding school) and went on to Yale University in 1937. He developed a taste for poetry, which in the pre-war years was as glamorous as rock musicians are today.

Angleton maintained his relationship with Pound at Yale. He also tapped into some of his father’s contacts from the OSS. In the words of E. E. Cummings to Ezra: “Jim Angleton has been seemingly got hold of by an intelligent prof & apparently begins to begin to realize that comp mil ser [compulsory military service] might give the former a respite from personal responsibility. … maybe he’s developing.”

The “prof” was Norman Holmes Pearson. Later during WWII, Pearson would run the OSS’s X-2 counterintelligence division in London. But in 1937 the professor was already famous for his anthology of English literature which Pound recommended to his young daughter Mary. (See James J. Willhelm, Ezra Pound: The Tragic Years, 1925-1972.)

Pearson was a man at the heart of the pre-war literary world. Under the professor’s wing, Angleton would launch his most successful publication: Furioso. Angleton’s ebullient wife Cicely recalls that Pound described her husband as “one of the most important hopes of literary magazines in the United States.” This is high praise — Pound had left the US in 1908 because of the dearth of opportunity for writers.

1939 Letter to Jim Angleton from Pound, discussing content of proposed journal. Beinecke Library, Yale University.

First Copy of Furioso, Summer 1939

The first volume of Furioso (Summer 1939) is a nexus of history: Writers who would be promoted by the new establishment wrote alongside those old-fashioned enough to criticize the Washington regime. Archibald MacLeishwould be made the head of the Library of Congress by FDR and would help the CIA coordinate its fact-finding there. William Carlos Williams a college friend of Pound, would write for The New Republic and become a mentor to Charles Olson. Whereas,  E. E. Cummings would have a fecund career without obvious Washington patronage. The root of the political tension was described in Pound’s contribution Introductory Text-Book, which is among the most succinct explanations of Pound’s views: A free nation has control of its own currency and this is what the Founding Fathers intended for America.

The following is the text of Pound’s contribution to the first copy of Furioso, Summer 1939.

Introductory Text-Book [In Four Chapters]

  1. “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from want of honor and virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” – John Adams.
  2. “… and if the national bills issued, be bottomed (as is indispensable) on pledges of specific taxes for their redemption within certain and moderate epochs, and be of proper denominations for circulation, no interest on them would be necessary or just, because they would answer to every one of the purposes of the metallic money withdrawn and replaced by them.” – Thomas Jefferson (1816, letter to Crawford).
  3. “… and gave to the people of this Republic THE GREATEST BLESSING THEY EVER HAD — THEIR OWN PAPER TO PAY THEIR OWN DEBTS.” – Abraham Lincoln.
  4. “The Congress shall have power: To coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and to fix the standards of weights and measures.”

Constitution of the United States, Article I Legislative Department, Section 8, pp.5. Done in the convention by the unanimous consent of the States, 7th September, 1787, and of the Independence of the United States the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names. — George Washington. President and Deputy from Virginia.

NOTE.

The abrogation of this last mentioned power derives from the ignorance mentioned in my first quotation. Of the three preceding citations, Lincoln’s has become the text of Willis Overholser’s recent “History of Money in the U.S.,” the first citation was taken as opening text by Jerry Voorhis in his speech in the House of Representatives, June 6, 1938, and the passage from Jefferson is the nucleus of my “Jefferson and/or Mussolini.”

Douglas’ proposals are a sub-head under the main idea in Lincoln’s sentence, Gesell’s [Silvio Gesell] “invention” is a special case under Jefferson’s general law. I have done my best to make simple summaries and clear definitions in various books and pamphlets, and recommend as introductory study, apart from C. H. Douglas’ “Economic Democracy” and Gesell’s “Natural Economic Order,” Chris. Hollis’ “Two Nations,” McNair Wilson’s “Promise to Pay,” Larranaga’s “Gold, Glut and Government” and M. Butchart’s compendium of three centuries thought, that is an anthology of what has been said, in “Money.” (Originally published by Nott).

Rapallo, Italy.

Ezra Pound.

These are the ideas that brought Pound 12 years in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital. Angleton deserves a lot of credit for publishing them in 1939.

Furioso has double significance. Pound returned to the US briefly in 1939 in order to dissuade influential Americans from letting us enter another war. He tried to get an audience with hawkish President Roosevelt, but ended up talking with senators, congressmen and literary personalities. Pound’s trip to visit Angleton at Yale allowed him to publish his ideas in the US —  a paper ambassador that could still speak once he had gone.

After Yale, life moved quickly for James Angleton. He married Cicely, tried a stint at Harvard Law and was eventually recruited for X-2 by Prof. Pearson in 1943.

Angleton ran X-2’s Italian desk, which meant he would scour local sources for information about enemy spies. Pound’s Italian broadcasts would have certainly come to his attention. These radio readings contained the same views that Angleton had published at Yale four years previously and were the immediate cause of Pound’s persecution.

What Pound said cut close to the bone for financiers and their minions like Franklin Delano. Biographer David Martin claims Angleton visited Pound while he was being held in Genoa. If this is true, it seems to be the last time they met. Pound would be imprisoned without trial for over a decade.

American Cages at Pisa

Angleton’s job in Italy involved ferreting out enemy informants and developing a spy network for the Americans. He worked with mafioso figures to do this and was part of re-instituting the corruption that Mussolini’s regime had got under control. Biographers of Angleton describe him as a polished anglophile who by day ran American mobsters over Italy looking for Fascists; and read Pound in the dark of night.  (See Ezio Costanzo, The Mafia and the Allies: Sicily 1943 and the Return of the Mafia.)

This must have been a tortured time for Angleton. The “liberation” of Italy had dubious results and the government he served was persecuting a poet he respected. Angleton must have rationalized the situation to himself: bad methods would serve America’s greater good.

Angleton had some sort of breakdown in 1947. He had abandoned pregnant Cicely to work in Italy in ’43, but returned to her parents’ home in January 1948 to recuperate for six months. In July James was called back to Washington to work in the newly-formed CIA’s counterintelligence division — despite deep depression. His 25-year career in DC would not be glamorous.

Tom Mangold, another of Angleton’s biographers, quotes a “Last Will and Testament” that Cicely Angleton says her husband wrote at this time:

“Life has been good to me and I have not been so good to my friends,” he [Angleton] confessed. He further requested that “a bottle of good spirits” be given to Ezra Pound, e e cummings, and other poet friends from Furioso days.”

One bottle wouldn’t have helped much. In 1947 Pound had been captive in St. Elizabeth’s for a year under the care of OSS contractor Dr. Winfred Overholser. But Angleton had not lost faith in “the greater good.”

Angleton’s new job with the Agency required him to root out communist spies inherited from the “Oh So Social” days of the OSS. CIA and MI6 intelligence on the Soviet Union was very poor after the war, while the Soviets seemed to be able to penetrate Western agencies easily: Kim Philby was the crowning example. (See David C. Martin, Wilderness of Mirrors: Intrigue, Deception, and the Secrets that Destroyed Two of the Cold War’s Most Important Agents.)

Angleton was less effective in his new role: His career relied on patronage from Allen Welsh Dulles and Richard Helms. James saw the potential for communist infiltration everywhere and this hindered the Agency’s ability to recruit Soviet defectors. Many historians have come to the conclusion that Angleton’s paranoia — and a total lack of oversight from his superiors — undermined the Agency’s ability to counter the Soviet threat.

Angleton’s obstructive behavior stemmed from his obsession with Soviet strategy. He focused on researching things like Bolshevik “black ops” which particularly irked some of his colleagues in the Soviet Department. His trust of Anatoliy Golitsyn, a very clever Soviet defector, sent CIA, MI6 and French counterintelligence services into tailspin. However Angleton wasn’t squeezed out until 1974, ostensibly because he was investigating people in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. (This operation was called MH-CHAOS.)

While Angleton struggled during his first decade at the Agency, Pound’s case became a cause célèbre  for American literati. Former Furioso contributors like William Carlos Williams and Reed Whittemore lambasted Pound in the pages of The New Republic — which seems to have been a premiere literary outlet for writers close to CIA leadership. Archibald MacLeish even had the gall to ask “What happened to American literature?” from its tony pages. [1]

Angleton was forced out of the Agency in 1974. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s the CIA had been surreptitiously testing drugs on Army personnel and college students, funding the Frankfurt School’s re-emergence in Germany and the US, and pushing the anti-Stalin socialist scene around the world. [2] To borrow Ezra’s words — the Agency was “pseudo-pink.”

Angleton may not have appreciated what he was taking on when he joined the counterintelligence division of the CIA — though a peak at Dulles‘ business contacts would have summoned ghosts from Rapallo. Personal failings aside, James Angleton wanted to save his country from international socialism. Both he and Ezra tried.

Carolina Hartley (email her) is a student of aesthetics and social history, though not from the orthodox perspective.

[1] Books & Comment: Changes in the Weather, Archibald MacLeish. The New Republic, July 2, 1956.

[2] To read more about these programs, see: Search for the Manchurian Candidate: CIA and Mind Control, John Marks. The Dialectical Imagination, by Martin Jay and The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, Francis Stonor Saunders.

William Colby fired Angleton in 1974. Both protégés of Richard Helms, they had disagreements since the 1950s when Colby supported working with the non-Stalinist left in Italy. Angleton thought that such collaboration was dangerous. Colby probably leaked Angleton’s involvement in CHAOS to Seymour Hersh to facilitate Angleton’s removal. Angleton’s replacement, George Kalaris, wanted out of the role after only two years- but not before he had burned many of Angleton’s files.

James Howard Kunstler Worries about Jewish Behavior

/30 Comments/in , /by

I’ve written before that I get a kick out of the writing of blogger and author James Howard Kunstler. And I love to observe how he twists and turns worrying that the goyim his fellow Jews are mocking and fleecing will finally wake up and take a swat at their tormentors.

A week ago, April 19th, he really let his fears of the goyim show, so much so that I began a blog about it. As things do, a few days led to a week and now we have another Kunstler blog. And he continues to sweat about “the white trash elements” that are catching on to what slick city Jews are doing to America.

For instance, he reported last week that a fellow named Litowitz ran a scam that defrauded, among others, the Thrivent Financial for Lutherans Foundation. I’ll let readers work out the ethnic trappings of that story for themselves.

Now, here’s what I really like. First, Kunstler will outline an obvious problem:

How is it not a racket to deliberately and systematically construct investments designed to fail so you can collect what amounts to insurance against them — and then to sell those financial instruments to customers without telling them that these investments were engineered to blow up? At the very least it amounts to a failure to disclose material information, which is the basis for distinguishing illegality. More to the point, it almost certainly amounts to prosecutable criminal fraud and insider trading.

Then he’ll allude to the presence of so many of his fellow Jews involved in the schemes, someone like former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who then went on to head Citicorp, which lost 70% of its value under Rubin. As a consequence, Kunstler reports, Mr. Rubin was paid $17 million in 2008 and received $33 million in stock options.

This week his column may be even more revealing. He builds his tale on a phrase uttered by then-President George W. Bush, “This sucker could go down.” Kunstler parses the meaning of the phrase, concluding that it means the whole schmeer, this “rather creaky vessel we call modern civilization.”

And he again points the blame at the Jews (well, it’s mostly Jews): “a banking system that is running a hostage-and-ransom racket on civilization.”

Allow Kunstler to expand in his own words:

This sucker is going down because the train of bankruptcies underway has a remorseless self-reinforcing power to provoke more and more bankruptcies at every stop along the line as every promise to pay is welshed on. The mortgages will not be paid and securities will not pay their investors and the banks will choke on the bad paper promises in their vaults and the pension funds will not pay their beneficiaries and the states and counties and municipalities will go broke and not pay their employees and creditors, and the federal government will not be able to “print” new money in sufficient quantities fast enough to compensate for all the money not being paid up-and-down the line… and one morning we will wake up and discover that all those promises to pay were sham promises based on no productive activity whatsoever… and that will be a sad day. Perhaps the Dow Jones Industrial Average will hit 35,000 on that day.

And make no mistake; Kunstler knows it is members of his Tribe, whom he blandly and ineffectually tries to attack: “How come no political figure of any stripe has called for the resignation of Summers, Rubin, Gensler and other Goldman Sachs ‘sleepers’ infesting high levels of government.”

Next, according to script, he turns his wary eye on the victims of all these high-level scams, and he describes those victims in his typical disdainful way:

Animosities brewing as they are among the white trash elements of the country, I just hope this sucker doesn’t resolve into an ugly bout of attempted ethnic cleansing. Certainly Obama’s racial make-up has inspired a revival of the Ku Klux spirit around the NASCAR ovals. I’m sincerely worried that the misdeeds of people name Blankfein, Rubin, and Madoff could provoke a red-white-and-blue pogrom.

Ah yes,  the infamous “cornporn Nazis” of Kunstler’s overactive imagination. And he’s right to bring up ethnic cleansing, except that he’s doing the typical Jewish tactic of projecting Jewish intentions and actions onto the actual victims. As in the Communist Soviet Union, it is ethnic White Christians who are enduring the attempted ethnic cleansing. Honestly, how many American Jews have even been physically smacked around because they are Jews? Meanwhile, the Whites who built the country are being dispossessed by massive non-White immigration and other tactics.

Still, I give Kunstler credit for consistently bringing up Jewish roles in this earth-shattering financial meltdown. It’s far more than we get from the dying Mainstream Media.

For instance, the other day I read in my newspaper a review of a new book about the collapse of Lehman Brothers. In vain did I search for even a code word about Jews. Nothing. Yet everyone even remotely connected to Wall Street knows that Lehman was a venerable old Jewish firm.

Connie Bruck and James B. Stewart wrote about Lehman’s role in the financial shenanigans of the 1980s in The Predators’ Ball and Den of Thieves, respectively. Jewish issues were always just below the surface, especially because Michael Milken was the central figure. In that case,

the mere mention of Milken and his cronies with all those Jewish names was enough to ignite a major uproar complete with accusations of anti-Semitism. Jewish activist Alan Dershowitz [who is now defending Goldman Sachs: “‘fraud’ is such a generic, vague accusation”] was center stage, even purchasing a full page ad in the New York Times (at a cost of $450,000) and ads in three other newspapers.

To get an idea of  how innocuous the references to Jews were during the Milken scandal, the following is the offending paragraph from a review of James B. Stewart’s Den of Thieves by Michael M. Thomas in the New York Times Book Review:

James B. Stewart . . . charts the way through a virtual solar system of peculation, past planets large and small, from a metaphorical Mercury representing the penny-ante takings of Dennis B. Levine’s small fry, past the middling ($10 million in inside-trading profits) Mars of Mr. Levine himself, along the multiple rings of Saturn — Ivan F. Boesky, his confederate Martin A. Siegel of Kidder, Peabody, and Mr. Siegel’s confederate Robert Freeman of Goldman, Sachs — and finally back to great Jupiter: Michael R. Milken, the greedy billion-dollar junk-bond kingdom in which some of the nation’s greatest names in industry and finance would find themselves entrapped and corrupted.

The lesson is that reviewers shouldn’t even mention Jewish names when writing about financial scandals.

The book mentioned above about Lehman Brothers is The Devil’s Casino: Friendship, Betrayal, and the High-Stakes Games Played Inside Lehman Brothers by Vicky Ward Wiley. For what it’s worth, the reviewer used a pseudonym. And as I said, there was no allusion to Jewish ethnicity, unless this opinion by the reviewer counts: “It’s tempting to conclude that what we’re dealing with here is not a cadre of crafty, evil wizards, but simply a bunch of petty, vicious schmucks.” Does that count as exposing Jewish involvement?

I don’t plan on reading these books. I did my homework in the 80s and 90s on this topic, so now it is the turn of others. Thus, I hope readers can let us know what is and isn’t useful in these new books. Kunstler will give us some hints, but it’s up to us to do the real work.

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

Goodbye, America! (Part 1)

/6 Comments/in /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[adrotate group=”1″]

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

This is a question I will attempt to answer now.

The Christian Zionists and organized Jewry: fools conned by knaves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need not have worried.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Israel and its Jewish-American Double Agents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The future looks unimaginably bleak.

End of Part I. Go to Part II.