Featured Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Post-Genome Princeton

Shirley Tilghman, President of Princeton, lectures on race

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

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

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

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

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

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

[adrotate group=”1″]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cornel West

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

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

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

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

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

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

AAS 339/ENG 339 Josephine Baker and the Modern

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

Josephine Baker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Witherspoon

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

Trudie Pert is a pen name.  Email her.

Ethnic Conflict in German Physics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethnic Competition in Physics

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

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

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

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

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

Philipp Lenard (1862-1947)

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

Wilhelm Wien (1864-1928)

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

Friedrich Hasenöhrl (1874-1915)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The renowned psychologist Carl J. Jung remarked of Hitler:

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

Adler and Freud described him quite differently.

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

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

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

My Smackdown with Anti-White Crusader Tim Wise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Tim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i agree with Tutu and have said so. 

I support the boycott and divestment from israel. 

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

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

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

Fuck you very much. Tim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish privilege is real and it is doing genuine harm. 

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

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

Who’s the hypocrite?

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

Mossad’s One Million Helpers World-Wide

Mossad icon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Activities of the Sayanim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·         Shrill accusations of “anti-semitism”; or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin Jordan in 1962

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louis Ferdinand Céline — An Anarcho-Nationalist

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

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

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

Cadaverous Schools for Communist and Liberal Massacres

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

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

Louis-Ferdinand Céline

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

[adrotate group=”1″]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mortal Voyage to Endtimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selective Moral Panics in Higher Education

Christopher Kernich: Kent State student Murdered by Blacks

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

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

John White and Christopher Kernich, RIP.

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

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

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

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

2 Wisconsin Colleges Investigate Racist Flyers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pledge to students: strategies to combat intolerance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who hung the noose at UC-San Diego?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are Q-tips a hate crime?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UC-Santa Cruz noose graffiti horror!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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