Featured Articles

For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls — Part 2

“Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is. Palestine is just the place for the world state headquarters.”  Israel Shamir in Cabbala of Power

“The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.”  Kevin MacDonald

“We had no idea that we were about to trade places with the Black man.” Edgar Steele

In Part One of this essay, I argued that it was nearsighted to view the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza as an isolated event. Rather, I suggested, the Jews were intent on eventual world domination. Most certainly this is true with respect to Jewish power over white Christians.

To bolster that claim, I pointed to Wilmot Robertson’s observation in his book The Dispossessed Majority that in the 1960s and 70s white American Christians “had become a people of little or no account in their own country.” I then pointed to a theological explanation for this dispossession, turning to the views of Israel Shamir, who wrote, “Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state. . . . De-spiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday’s Masters of the World [non-Jews] will become slaves in all but name.”

For those not disposed to a divine view of this kulturkampf between Jews and whites, Shamir’s theological views can be piggy-backed onto secular arguments such as Robertson’s. Rather than using Robertson’s arguments, however, I prefer to turn to an intriguing essay that appeared in a book edited by the late Sam Francis. Titled “Race and Religion: A Catholic View,” the essay was written by New Yorker Richard Faussette. Though Faussette situates his arguments in the Old Testament, his analysis is a sociological one in the mold of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s theory on group evolutionary strategies.

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

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

If you conceived of this as today’s multiculturalism, which Faussette portrays as a new Babel and a recipe for disaster, you would not be wrong. But, should we surrender to this program, we will suffer what Moses prophesized: “You will become a horror, a byword, an object lesson to all the peoples amongst whom the Lord disperses you.”

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

If this system is not broken, who built it and for what purposes? In essence, the goal is to displace white Americans with non-whites, and in particular white elites with Jews. Shamir also observed this: “The Jews compete with the native elites of the Gentile society for the right to exploit the Gentile worker and peasant.” Outcompete is the more appropriate word, for Shamir found that in 17th-century Ukraine Jewish masters were far more efficient, “extracting from the natives SIX times more taxes and dues per person than a gentile landlord did.”

In this struggle with non-Jewish leaders, Jews can either massacre or expel their rivals, as they did in Russia during the Revolution. Shamir quotes Solzhenitsyn as follows:

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

While much of this has gone down the memory hole, an excellent confirmation of the above can be found in Yuri Slezkine’s exposé, The Jewish Century. Kevin MacDonald later isolated the anti-Christian eliminationist focus of the Bolshevik attack, which can be found in his review of Slezkine called “Stalin’s Willing Executioners?” (See here and here.) Chillingly, Slezkine quotes Leonard Schapiro’s comment that  “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.” The Black Book of Communism estimates that up to twenty million Soviet citizens were murdered during the period of Jewish dominance in the early decades of the USSR. This is why Slezkine originally coined the phrase “Stalin’s willing executioners.”

So what does this have to do with America today? A lot, as both Faussette and MacDonald note. For the Jews’ ancient displacement strategy is as effective as ever, as Jewish ethnic activist Earl Raab made clear:

The Census bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible — and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

Because the West could not yet be conquered militarily, the Assyrian strategy of capturing and removing the native population, which demoralized the people and prevented organized resistance, was untenable. The tactic then became the importation of foreign elements “to devalue our niches, fragment our communities and place us under foreign administration. The result is the same.” In other words, as Faussette writes, “the Jews will recover their niches in the lost nation of Israel which will be a Jewish land under Jewish rule (homogeneous and religiously unified), but the host nations where Jews settle in Diaspora are condemned to a fractious and imposed proto-Assyrian cultural pluralism (heterogeneous with no dominant religious influence) that ensures Jewish hegemony in Diaspora.”

Often cloaked as “anti-racism,” this program of dispossession applies equally to America and Palestine. “Anti-racism,” Shamir writes, “is a denial of the autochthon’s [native’s] right to decide his fate; a tool to separate Man from his native landscape. This concept de-legitimizes objections to swamping a land with a flood of immigrants and ruining the society’s fabric.”

Again, because Jews in America are incapable of defeating or removing us militarily — unlike their ability in the Middle East — they resort to ideological attacks, an important one being the imposition of their new religion, the Holocaust Narrative. ”Whoever accepts the Holocaust as the most important historical event,” Shamir quotes one thinker as saying, “is able to carry out the civil war against the traditionalist majority and becomes a member of the in-group for the globalists.”

Shamir adds how the Holocaust “also has a theological value as this event is offered to supplant the Crucifixion for believers.” Certainly any Christian even half aware of culture and law in the last half century must admit a growing emphasis on Jewish suffering and the guilt of the Christian West. There is a reason for this, as Shamir explains:

Slave cults are growing now among the Europeans, and the cult of the Holocaust is one of them. Theologically, this cult is an adaptation of the Jewish spiritual rule for Christian minds, as it replaces Christ with Israel, Golgotha [Calvary] with Auschwitz, and the Resurrection with the creation of the Jewish state. People who argue with the dogma of Holocaust are met with treatment the heretics were given in the days of yore. They are excommunicated and excluded from society.

Given the vast power of modern media, Jews have naturally turned to it as a means of control. The fracturing of native populations through use of the media is central to this. Faussette makes this point with respect to the indigenous white population’s loss of the media:

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

Examples of vilification of white men and elevation of Jews and other minorities are far too numerous to mention. The list of Holocaust and anti-Nazi films alone is massive. Add to that the rise of African American movie stars such as Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, and Will Smith, most of whose movies fit the numinous Negro narrative, and you will have some idea of the visual power arrayed against whites.

Faussette makes this clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible that they are entering into a racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. It’s happened before.

Faussette draws the same dark conclusion:

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

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

Make no mistake, we white Christians in America are being as effectively removed from our lands as are the Palestinians from theirs now. While our disappearance is far less immediate and painful, the end result is the same. Indeed, if we white Americans were thinking correctly, we would be in the streets chanting “We are all Palestinians now!”

Instead we are treated to nonsense in the opposite direction, as goyim show fealty to the Jews by proclaiming solidarity. One need only skim news channels to find this. For instance, our media masters are again trying to divert our attention from Gaza by screaming over the appearance of mere graffiti on a few synagogue walls. (Never mind that in many of these cases — in which, by the way, no harm comes to any Jew — a Jew is found to have perpetrated the act.) Yet with respect to the burning bodies of Palestinian women and children, our media is subdued.

Shamir correctly interprets this posture: “The quietude of the West should frighten us well beyond the Middle Eastern context, as it possibly means our civilization is dead. . . . It implies that the Europeans and Americans have lost the sacral core, and our profaned civilization is doomed to extinction, unless we’ll turn away from the edge of the abyss.”

Is there a solution? James Petras suggests that “Until we neutralize the pervasive power of the Zionist Power Configuration in all of its manifestations — in American public and civic life — and its deep penetration of American legislative and executive offices, we will fall short of preventing Israel from receiving the arms, funding and political backing to sustain its wars of ethnic extermination.”

Agreed. But effecting this change will be a monumental task.

One of the first steps is to recognize that your fate as a white American may quickly become as perilous as that of the Palestinians caged into Gaza. Next, follow the advice of Kevin MacDonald from the column just noted:

Whites need to tell their family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept the consequences when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white. . . . No revolution was ever accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.

Now replay in your own mind the recent scenes of unopposed slaughter and destruction in Gaza. Then imagine that it is you and your family caged and massacred like that. Will this thought experiment prompt you to at least acknowledge your identity and interests as a white American?  It should.

Finally, follow the word of intrepid Internet warrior Justin Raimondo, who just wrote in his column Gaza Is the Future: “Look at Gaza and see the future. Then go out and do something about it.”  Well said.

Naming Neocons

“It is anything but an anti-Semitic canard to label neoconservatism a largely Jewish phenomenon. Neoconservatism is ‘ineluctably Jewish.’” Jacob Heilbrunn, quoted in Evan R. Goldstein, “Fight Makes Right,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 18, 2008

Just last week, in my first TOO column, I wrote that we were never going to hear about the Jewish nature of the neoconservative movement from a heavily Jewish paper like the New York Times.  I cited a December book review on central neocon operative Richard Perle that had utterly failed to notice he or others were Jewish.

Noting the long list of names like Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen and David Frum mentioned in the review, I argued that no one at the Times was going to mention their ethnic identity or that of editor Andy Rosenthal, who had just appointed neocon superstar William Kristol to the Times’ op-ed page.

Well, now I’m confounded in that claim because here, a month later, the very same Times Book Review has reviewed Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neoconsanother book on neocons written by a Jewish author. But this time, the reviewer, Timothy Noah, could not be more blunt about the Jewish nature of the movement: “There’s no doubt denying it: neocons tend to be Jewish.”

For a decade now we’ve been witnessing a kind of schizophrenia within the Jewish community regarding the wisdom of admitting that the most powerful and active purveyors of neoconservatism have in fact been Jewish.

Initially, many prominent Jews and publications that are considered to be heavily Jewish were quite proud of the above fact and were not shy about sharing this information publicly.  As the “cakewalk” in Iraq turned sour, however, there was a concomitant turn toward silence about this fact.  When respected sources such as former President Jimmy Carter or elite scholars Mearsheimer and Walt came out with books that uncomfortably pointed to Zionist power in America, one could witness a circling of the wagons in many venues.

Such comfortable homes to neoconservatism as The Public Interest, The National Interest, and Commentary (published by The American Jewish Committee) began to ignore any connection between Jews and neoconservatism. For example, the Winter 2004 issue of The Public Interest has an essay titled “Conservatives and Neoconservatives.” Yet author Adam Wolfson offers not even an oblique reference to Jews. Never mind that journal co-founder Irving Kristol is considered by many to be the father of neoconservatism, or that the other three editors over the forty-year life of the magazine have also been Jews.

Over at its more foreign-policy oriented sister publication, The National Interest, Francis Fukuyama, in “The Neoconservative Moment” (Summer 2004) also fails to mention this connection. And in the October 2005 issue of Commentary, Joshua Muravchik does likewise in his article “Iraq and the Conservatives.”

This phenomenon is also now visible at The American Conservative, which was created to resist a major neocon initiative—the war in Iraq.  Pat Buchanan and Taki in particular verged on bellicosity in their comments on Jewish power.  Last year, however, Taki left the magazine and Jewish businessman Ron Unz took over as publisher.

This change gives one pause when reading a cover article on Rudy Giuliani that appeared in Jan. 14 issue.  Author Michael Desch duly notes that “Team Rudy is all neocon all the time” but fails to say more than that when referring to Giuliani advisors Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer, Stephen Rosen, Daniel Pipes and Peter Berkowitz.

To be sure, Desch notes that Giuliani’s platform is favorable to Israel and in turn is appreciated by Israelis.  Giuliani, Desch notes, tried to close the PLO’s New York office and had Arafat thrown out of a Lincoln Center concert.  Further, at the 2004 Republican National Convention, Giuliani is quoted as saying “Israel’s war is our war.”  But throughout, Desch ascribes this only to ties to neoconservatism, never referring to the strong ties between neoconservatism, pro-Israel activism, and the organized Jewish community.

Which brings us back to the Times.  Noah’s review of Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons returns to the unapologetic practice of tying Jews to the rise of neoconservatism, noting, for instance how “neoconservatism’s priorities, which range from strong support for Israel to vehement opposition to affirmative action, are heavily influenced by the values, interests and collective historical memory of the Jewish people.”   Heilbrunn even divides his book into sections with Old Testament names such as “Exodus,” “Wilderness,” “Redemption” and “Return to Exile.”

This month, another mainstream forum, The Chronicle of Higher Education, also has a forthright review of Heilbrunn’s neocon book.  Reviewer Evan Goldstein quotes Heilbrunn as saying neoconservatism is “ineluctably Jewish.”  Therefore — again quoting Heilbrunn — “It is anything but an anti-Semitic canard to label neoconservatism a largely Jewish phenomenon.”

Perhaps this brings us full circle back to 2004, when Kevin MacDonald wrote that “neoconservatism is indeed a Jewish intellectual and political movement.”  “The current situation in the United States is really an awesome display of Jewish power and influence.”

And the future of this movement?  Some have claimed that the quagmire in Iraq has seriously discredited the neocons, but Evan Goldstein, in summing up his views on Heilbrunn’s book, feels otherwise:

They are in it for the long haul; they have been at this for decades. None of these people are going away. They remain energized. This is not a movement that is on its heels. And though the professionalization of the neoconservative movement was in part its undoing as a vibrant intellectual force in American life, the very fact that it has been so institutionalized in Washington guarantees that it will remain an influential force well beyond Iraq.

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

For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls

“The Israelis can kill whomever they want whenever they want.”

Paul Craig Roberts

I sometimes think that it’s pointless for Americans to talk much about recent events in Gaza because we know how it will play out — America will do absolutely nothing to interfere with the ongoing massacre.

British journalist Robert Fisk reminds us of the drill:

So once again, Israel has opened the gates of hell to the Palestinians. Forty civilian refugees dead in a United Nations school, three more in another. Not bad for a night’s work in Gaza by the army that believes in “purity of arms.” But why should we be surprised?

Have we forgotten the 17,500 dead — almost all civilians, most of them children and women — in Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon; the 1,700 Palestinian civilian dead in the Sabra-Chatila massacre; the 1996 Qana massacre of 106 Lebanese civilian refugees, more than half of them children, at a UN base; the massacre of the Marwahin refugees who were ordered from their homes by the Israelis in 2006 then slaughtered by an Israeli helicopter crew; the 1,000 dead of that same 2006 bombardment and Lebanese invasion, almost all of them civilians?

This time around, Israel shows not the slightest compunction about brazenly massacring an imprisoned population in front of the world. But why should they? They know no real opposition will arise from power centers anywhere on earth. And they continue to have America — Republicans, Democrats, Christian Zionists and almost everybody else — in their thrall. In large part, this is due to what Israel Shamir wrote with respect to Jewish financial mischief: ”The rich Jews buy media so it will cover up their (and their brethren’s) misdeeds.”

James Petras also weighed in on Israel’s ongoing war against the Palestinians, writing, “Israel’s sustained and comprehensive bombing campaign of every aspect of governance, civic institutions and society is directed toward destroying civilized life in Gaza.” Echoing Shamir, Petras noted that Israel’s attempt to “purge Palestine of its Arab population” continues without apology because “The Israeli totalitarian leaders knew with confidence that they could act and they could kill with impunity, locally and before the entire world, because of the influence of the US Zionist Power Configuration in and over the US White House and Congress.”

Another voice that showed exasperation with Israel’s actions was that of Taki Theodoracopulos, who wrote, “Israel can now safely be called the Bernie Madoff of countries, as it has lied to the world about its intentions, stolen Palestinian lands continuously since 1948, and managed to do all this with American tax payer’s money.”

Perhaps no one, however, is more morally outraged than former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts, who wrote on VDARE:

Caterpillar Tractor makes a special bulldozer for Israel that is designed to knock down Palestinian homes and to uproot their orchards. In 2003 an American protester, Rachel Corrie, stood in front of one of these Caterpillars and was run over and crushed.

Nothing happened. The Israelis can kill whomever they want whenever they want.

They have been doing so for 60 years, and they show no sign of stopping.

Roberts continued, “While the rest of the world condemns Israel’s inhumanity, the US Congress — I should say the US Knesset — rushed to endorse the Israeli slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza.” How pervasive was this endorsement? “The US Senate endorsed Israel’s massacre of Palestinians with a vote of 100-0. The US House of Representatives voted 430-5 to endorse Israel’s massacre of Palestinians. . . .” (See here for further details.)

Readers who have followed Roberts in the post-9-11 period know that he has been a persistent critic of Israel’s influence over President Bush and the Congress. He has not changed his position with respect to Gaza either: “The US Congress was proud to show that it is Israel’s puppet even when it comes to murdering women and children. The President of the United States was proud to block effective action by the UN Security Council by ordering the Secretary of State to abstain.”

Two days later, Roberts added to his critique, displaying how fully Bush is a puppet to an Israeli master:

“Early Friday morning the secretary of state was considering bringing the cease-fire resolution to a UN [Security Council] vote and we didn’t want her to vote for it,” Olmert said.  “I said ‘get President Bush on the phone.’ They tried and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said ‘I’m not interested, I need to speak to him now.’ He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call.” [PM: Rice left embarrassed in UN vote, By Yaakov Lappin , Jerusalem Post, January 12, 2009].

Roberts then turned to a friend’s comments to summarize this exchange:

“Let me see if I understand this,” wrote a friend in response to news reports that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert ordered President Bush from the podium where he was giving a speech to receive Israel’s instructions about how the United States had to vote on the UN resolution. “On September 11th, President Bush is interrupted while reading a story to school children and told the World Trade Center had been hit — and he went on reading. Now, Olmert calls about a UN resolution when Bush is giving a speech and Bush leaves the stage to take the call. There exists no greater example of a master-servant relationship.”

Aptly, Roberts concluded, “In his final press conference, President Bush, deluded to the very end, said that the whole world respects America. In fact, when the world looks at America, what it sees is an Israeli colony.”

And the behavior of America’s master is none too pleasant, as retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski recently made clear:

One needs only to look at the death toll (one-sided), the difference in military capacities between Israel and Gaza (shocking) and the kind of arsenals employed by both sides to determine what is happening. We’ve seen it on the elementary school playground, but this version is played out with incredible destructive force, no supervision, no brave friends, and no justice.

Not only is incredible destructive force in view for the whole world, a bizarre Israeli response to the slaughter has surfaced: It is the “ultimate spectator sport,” in the words of a London Times reporter.

As a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal also described, from hilltops overlooking Gaza, Israelis would come with lawn chairs and picnics lunches to watch the one-sided death circus that is Gaza. Israelis “have made the trek, they say, to witness firsthand a military operation—so far, widely popular inside Israel—against Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip. Over the weekend, four teenagers sat on a hill near Mr. Danino’s, oohing and aahing at the airstrikes. Nadav Zebari, who studies Torah in Jerusalem, was eating a cheese sandwich and sipping a Diet Coke.”

Levinson took quotes from observers: “I’ve never watched a war before,” one said. Meanwhile, a group of Israeli police officers took turns snapping pictures of one another with smoking Gaza as a backdrop. “I want to feel a part of the war,” was one comment.

“On another hilltop overlooking Gaza,” Levinson continued, “Sandra Koubi, a 43-year-old philosophy student, says seeing the violence up close ‘is a kind of catharsis for me, to get rid of all the anxiety we have inside us after years of rocket fire’ from Hamas.”

Perhaps most pointedly comes the testimony of one Jocelyn Znaty, “a stout 60-year-old nurse for Magen David Adom, the Israeli counterpart of the Red Cross,” who could “hardly contain her glee at the site of exploding mortars below in Gaza.” “Look at that,” she shouts, clapping her hands as four artillery rounds pound the territory in quick succession. “Bravo! Bravo!” . . .  I am sorry, but I am happy.”

Pavel Wolberg/European Pressphoto Agency

Orthodox Jews watched smoke rise over the northern Gaza Strip Tuesday.

Roberts, like Taki and others, put much of the blame for such a spectacle clearly on the shoulders of the American public. “What is happening to the Palestinians herded into the Gaza Ghetto is happening because of American money and weapons. It is just as much an attack by the United States as an attack by Israel. The US government is complicit in the war crimes.”

Repeating charges he has made consistently for years, Roberts laments the fact that “’Our’ president was a puppet for a cabal led by Dick Cheney and a handful of Jewish neoconservatives, who took control of the Pentagon, the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, and ‘Homeland Security.’ From these power positions, the neocon cabal used lies and deception to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, pointless wars that have cost Americans $3 trillion, while millions of Americans lose their jobs, their pensions, and their access to health care.”

While Roberts et al. may be right that each and every American taxpayer bears some responsibility for the carnage in Gaza, the fact is that most Americans are tired of violence in the far-away Middle East. Besides, the economy is in the tank, the NFL playoffs are in progress, and the kids have to go back to school. Everyday life takes priority for most Americans.

Unfortunately, such short-sightedness will not do, for the pitiful denizens of Gaza are not the last targets of the Israeli army or the worldwide network of Diaspora Jews. The dispossession of the Palestinians since 1948 is but a dress rehearsal for more ambitious dispossessions of non-Jews throughout the world.

Do I exaggerate? I believe that we have to take Israel Shamir seriously when he writes in Cabbala of Power. “Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews; the world is. Palestine is just the place for the world state headquarters.”

Shamir has made a fascinating study of the two thousand-year struggle between Jews and non-Jews, particularly Christians.  His arguments are far too subtle to summarize here, so interested parties should consult the above-mentioned book as well as his more recent work, Masters of Discourse. I will simply cherry pick some of his more striking ideas.

Shamir — an immigrant from Russia to Israel — holds a low opinion of his fellow Jews in the Holy Land.  “Israelis are the riffraff of World Jewry, sent to conquer the land for the NWO HQ.” This process is revealed in a parable of the “Messiah’s Donkey” often used by religious Jews. This is a story in which disposable secular Jews (the donkey) are used by religious Jews to attain religious, messianic goals. “In plain words, spirit always wins over matter; the way of the Messiah of Spirit is to use the Donkey of Matter.”

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

Shamir sees a two-pronged approach to this quest for world domination, Zionism and Mammonite Liberalism. “While Zionism establishes the basis for the NWO HQ, the Mammonite Liberalism establishes the world-wide slavery. Jabotinsky and Soros are doing different tasks for one system; the Iron Wall and the Open Society are just different names for the same thing.”

Shamir’s analysis is eerily close to the Dispossessed Majority thesis of Wilmot Robertson, albeit cloaked in theological garb. Robertson described how in the 1960s and 70s white American Christians “had become a people of little or no account in their own country.” This was not an accident.

In my next column, I will expand on this argument.

Move Along, Folks. Just Another Conservative Here at the New York Times

Likely we’re all aware of issues on which all sides of the “debate” happen to be covered by members of a certain media-dominant group.  How often have we seen this with respect to Middle East issues, gun control, etc.?

Bill Kristol has been appointed as a columnist for the New York Times. For those who might not know, Kristol is the son of neocon godfather Irving Kristol and prominent Jewish writer Gertrude Himmelfarb.  Kristol the Younger and Robert Kagan (also Jewish) co-founded the (infamous) “Project for the New American Century” in 1997, which some have seen as a blueprint for our post-9/11 world.  In any case, anyone even half awake for these last six years should know of his Jewish identity and neoconservative activism.

So far, the only controversy resulting from the appointment has been that Kristol is a “conservative.” In fact, the Times has long preferred its “conservative” columnists kosher. For years, William Safire was the in-house “conservative,” while more recently David Brooks has taken over. (And would someone please remind me what was ever conservative about him in the first place?)

Overseeing the editorial page is Andrew Rosenthal, son of the Times’ former Executive Editor, A.M. Rosenthal who is described by Mearsheimer and Walt as a “passionate defender of Israel.” (A. M. Rosenthal’s other credits include breaking up a WASP fiefdom in the Times’ Washington Bureau and writing that there should be a ticker tape parade for illegal immigrants on Broadway. Andrew’s mother is not Jewish, but still . . . .)

But noting Jewish identities and interests in all of this is pretty much verboten, even among the best of publications. For example, Marcus Epstein’s article is a nice commentary on Kristol’s typically neoconnish support for open immigration. And it correctly notes the absence of authentically conservative voices at the Times.

But there is far more to it than that. Massive non-white immigration has been a goal of organized Jewish groups for nearly a century. Indeed, support for liberal immigration policy spans the Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right. And the main motive for this massive prolonged effort has had far more to do with ethnic competition than with economics or lofty moral ideals of multiculturalism: Jewish groups felt it advantageous to dilute the power of native white Christians. Given the long history of anti-Semitism in white Christian lands, this sentiment is understandable from a Jewish perspective.

Yet we are never going to hear reference to this ethnic nexus from a heavily Jewish paper like the Times.  As they demonstrate here, the Jewish identities and interests of their “conservatives” are never topics of discussion.

Such a tactic of omission is of a piece with the growing trend in the mainstream media to forgo linking Jewish activism to the rise of neoconservatism.  Here again Kristol, the Times, and neoconservatism are clearly operating as a Jewish movement, but it’s all quite invisible.

Our nation’s “paper of record” exhibits its usual chutzpah of omission when it features a review of a new book about neocon hawk Richard Perle, written by Alan Weisman, “a world-traveled journalist and the son of Ukrainian Jews.”

We read the usual names: Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, David Frum.  And we get not a word about their Jewish identity.  Not even a nod in that direction.  Is it any surprise, then, that Andy Rosenthal installs “conservative” William Kristol, and everyone pretends not to notice that he is a member of the same ethnic group?

So here at the beginning of 2008 we have the spectacle of a man who five years ago wrote that the Times was not “a first-rate newspaper of record” being named to the paper’s editorial page. Was Kristol right, then, when he claimed “The Times is irredeemable”?

Actually, it’s a bit puzzling that Kristol would have thought the Times irredeemable given its role in promoting one of Kristol’s favorite wars: the invasion of Iraq. As is well-known now, the Times was complicit in Judith Miller’s dishonest reportage leading up to the war in Iraq. Born to a Jewish father and displaying a powerful affinity to her Jewish identity, Miller played a role in the decision to invade Iraq not dissimilar to Kristol’s role.  After Miller’s claims were discredited, the Times issued a tepid apology for coverage “that was not as rigorous as it should have been.”

With the addition of a central neocon player like Kristol, the Jewish nature of the Times’ coverage of Middle East issues becomes even more obvious.

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

New York Times Spins Black Murders Into Excuse to Ban Homeschooling

Homeschooling is widely feared by the multicultural establishment because it is seen as a way for “racist” whites to shield their children from liberal indoctrination.  But arguments against it are difficult to make.  With few exceptions, most Americans consider the right to raise children as one sees fit as inviolable.

Meanwhile, never-ending examples of black pathology and criminality are deemed by the same multicultural establishment as mere aberrations, not indicative of any racial pattern worth considering.  If anything, it is some failure of the white “system” to address “underlying needs” that is responsible.

In a recent act of dizzying spin, the New York Times has found a way to advance both these agendas in a single story.

In Washington, D.C., a black mother has been charged with the murder of her four children, whose bodies were found recently in a state of advanced decomposition.  A monstrous act that finds more frequent expression among America’s inner-city black populations?  No, guess again.

An excuse to ban homeschooling.

Nowhere in the story by reporter Jane Gross is there support for the contention that the mother was in fact homeschooling her children.  It remains to be seen how she came to this conclusion.  Did the mother fill out an application for withdrawal from the school system? Appear on homeschooling support lists?  Purchase homeschooling curricula?  Gross does not say.

But assuming even a trace level of credibility to the idea that the woman, Benita M. Jacks, was “homeschooling” her children, rather than simply withdrawing them (or letting them withdraw), the connection between this overwhelming white, suburban or rural practice and the grisly murders in Washington, D.C. is simply fantastic. Ms. Jacks reportedly said she killed her children because they were possessed by demons.

So why not a story about mental illness, then?  No, it’s homeschooling in reporter Gross’s sights.  She lines up an impressive array of “experts” to wax on that “officials” are all of a sudden unable to monitor children in the evil and shadowy practice of homeschooling.  It is rather like a story following the “Twinkie defense” to murder quoting nutritionist after nutritionist warning that unless we ban sugar, murder in America will run rampant.  The reporter’s agenda could not be clearer.

[adrotate group=”1″]

As a cosmopolitan journalist for the New York Times (and presumably Jewish), Jane Gross has probably never met a homeschooled child or homeschooling family, imagining them all to be cross-burning white Kentuckians in desperate need of “surveillance” by liberal-minded “authorities” who will subject them to presentations on the Holocaust and posters of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cesar Chavez.

The natural result of this episode and its spin by the New York Times is that a practice of whites will become discredited, and the behavior of blacks excused.  It is yet another example of the way in which the dominant media not only ignores the legitimate interests of whites, it actively campaigns against them.

Kind Words of ‘Conservatives’ for Obama

Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post tracks what he describes as the “conservative” press singing the praises of Sen. Barack Obama, winner of the Iowa caucuses.

His first example?  A gushing quote from David Brooks, whom Kurtz calls the “conservative New York Times columnist.”  Yet Brooks, who like Kurtz is Jewish, is not, by the record of his writings, remotely conservative.  If anything, he counts as an occasionally thoughtful moderate, which tells you something about the ideological spectrum calibration of the New York Times.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Meanwhile, the power of Kurtz to boost his co-ethnic Brooks, both of whom in turn boost Obama, illuminates the ability of the Jewish network to steer America’s political ship in its direction by defining the boundaries of “left” and “right”.  Surprise!  Both flanks are covered by Jews.

For additional nausea, scroll through the comments of the others selected by Kurtz, like Bill Bennett declaring that Obama “appeals to the better angels of all our natures.”  In other words, if you’re not getting goose bumps about Obama, you’re a racist.

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

Bernie Madoff’s Jewishness

The Bernie Madoff scandal is endlessly fascinating. As the media has emphasized, many of his victims were Jews and Jewish organizations. Madoff’s behavior violated a cardinal rule of Jewish business ethics which is based on trust within the group. Indeed, a New York Times article commenting on effects in the real estate industry noted that

the outsize impact on the industry may have resulted largely because Mr. Madoff … managed his funds much the way that real estate leaders [i.e., Jews]have operated successfully for decades: He provided little information and demanded a lot of trust.

“You have a lot of wealthy people who made a lot of money on handshakes,” said Mark S. Weiss, a commercial real estate broker at Newmark Knight Frank, where several brokers had invested heavily with Mr. Madoff. There was “something about this person, pedigree and reputation that inspired trust,” he said.

And the main thing about Madoff’s pedigree that inspired trust among his fellow Jews was simply that he is Jewish. He  traveled in all the best Jewish circles:  on the board of Yeshiva University, a major donator to Jewish and Israeli charities, hobnobbing at Jewish country clubs, and living in upscale Jewish ghettos on Long Island, Palm Beach, and the upper eastside of Manhattan.

The Madoff scandal is a textbook example of how ethnic networks operate — and their pitfalls.  In traditional Jewish society, like other middlemen groups, business relationships are based on the assumption that one can trust one’s co-ethnic. Indeed, Janet Landa notes that this was one of the reasons for the success of middlemen minority groups, such as the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia:Close ethnic bonds lower the costs of doing business because there is greater trust within the ethnic group than between ethnic groups. This was certainly true in traditional Jewish society, where a handshake with a co-ethnic was enough to seal the deal, but business with outsiders was undertaken with much less trust.

The Madoff story from the beginning was presented by the media as a Jewish story. This almost certainly is because Madoff got his start among Jewish investors and because some of his victims were Jews. It was not because Madoff was Jewish.

Consider Michael Milken, the notorious 1980s junk bond king, who pled guilty to securities and reporting violations and was sentenced to ten years in prison. (He served less than two years — and is now asking George W. Bush for a pardon.) In that case, the mere mention of Milken and his cronies with all those Jewish names was enough to ignite a major uproar complete with accusations of anti-Semitism. Jewish activist Alan Dershowitz was center stage, even purchasing a full page ad in the New York Times (at a cost of $450,000) and ads in three other newspapers.

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

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

Merely a listing of Jewish names was sufficient to bring down the wrath of the Jewish activists.

But Madoff’s Jewishness is front and center in this scandal. So perhaps it’s no coincidence that both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times ran articles within a day of each other with statements from various Jewish luminaries reaffirming Jewish ethics and recounting the sense of betrayal Jews felt because Jews were among the victims.

However, the Jews-as-victims angle is at least a double edged sword. As in the Milken case, the default  strategy is to proscribe any mention that a person like Madoff, who feeds into all the negative Jewish stereotypes, is Jewish. Indeed, some voices within the Jewish community are bemoaning the fact that Madoff’s Jewishness is so central to the media coverage. For example, in a letter to theNew York Times, David A. Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee wrote, “Yes, he is Jewish. We get it. But was this relevant to his being arrested for cheating investors, or so key to his evolution as a businessman that it needed to be hammered home again and again?”

[adrotate group=”1″]

I strongly suspect that the answer to Harris’s question is ‘yes’. For one thing, Madoff seems to have personified the sort of guru I wrote about in The Culture of Critique:  Someone with a great deal of personal charisma and a following that can only be described as adulatory. Madoff “was a legend in his social and financial circles, a giant; like a rock-star in that world, that financial realm. His clients thought he was a genius. People literally begged him to take their money.”

Like the movements described in The Culture of Critique, Madoff’s scheme began within the Jewish community and then spread like a virus to the surrounding society. The analogy with a Jewish intellectual guru like Freud is striking (including the fact that both may be labeled charlatans). Like all of Madoff’s original investors, all of the original psychoanalysts were Jews. Like Madoff, Freud was idolized by Jews generally. Historian Dennis B. Klein notes that Jews “treated [Freud] as if he were ‘a God-fearing Chief Rabbi,’ or ‘a national hero.’ ” And, as noted above, Madoff was a pillar of the Jewish community. There is more than one way to become a pillar of the Jewish community, but without doubt the main one is to be a major donor to Jewish causes, and Madoff certainly fit that profile.

Madoff got his start as a macher (big shot) within the Jewish community, but he certainly went well beyond that. Just as Freud recruited non-Jews like Ernest Jones to front the psychoanalytic movement, Madoff formed relationships with  non-Jews who operated feeder funds that attracted largely non-Jewish money.  Indeed, the New York Times notes that “if the wealthy Jewish world he occupied was his launch pad, the wealthy promoters he cultivated at Fairfield Greenwich were his booster rocket.”

The Fairfield Sentry fund, headed by Walter Noel (who is not Jewish),  was the largest feeder fund for Madoff, with a total value of $7.5 billion before the collapse — a sum that dwarfs the reported losses from individual Jews and from Jewish charities. 95% of its money was from foreign investors, mostly from Europe. And the bulk of the rest of the major losers were European and Asian banks.

Another large conduit for non-Jewish money from Europe was Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet whose Access International Advisors lost $1.4 billion. Mr. de la Villehuchet committed suicide because of guilt over his role in losing so much of other people’s money:  “If you ruin your friends, your clients, you have to face the consequences,” as his brother framed it. I can’t help quoting the New York Times on Mr. Villehuchet’s death because his suicide seems to be the only shred of nobility in all of this.

Mr. de la Villehuchet’s attitude appears to be rare. So far, the leading players in Mr. Madoff’s case have maintained a stony silence, studiously avoiding apologies or statements of responsibility.

Mr. Madoff’s sons have said nothing about how they could have worked at their father’s firm for decades without noticing that the money he supposedly managed did not exist. The accountants and regulators who were supposed to protect investors have not explained their failure to do so. And the hedge funds that invested tens of billions of dollars with Mr. Madoff despite obvious red flags have said the fraud was his fault, not theirs.

Assigning the precise role of Jewishess in this scandal will take some time. As in all Ponzi schemes, the early investors are the winners, and in this case we know that Jews were the early investors and that at least some of them made money overall(Editorial note, January 27, 2009: Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America, originally invested $40 million with Madoff, and claimed that they lost $90 when the fund collapsed. They recently announced that they withdrew $130 million since 1989 from this account. In addition, they also had profits of $50 million from another account with Madoff.) (However, there is legal precedent for the winners being required to forfeit their gains, at least from the last 6 years, so some of these ill-gotten gains may be forfeited.) And we know that the really big money came from non-Jews who invested later in the scheme. (See James Murray’s TOO article.)

We are still unclear on the role of Jewishness in the lax oversight of the fund. We do know that Jonathan Sokobin, whose job was to monitor market risks for the SEC, did not respond to the critique of Madoff made by Harry Marcopolos, a former employee of a firm that competed with Madoff. We also know that Madoff boasted that his niece, who was a compliance officer for Madoff’s firm, had married a former SEC regulator. And we know that in 2006 Madoff sailed through an examination by the SEC based on Markopolos’s allegations, being required only to register with the SEC as an investment advisor.

An adequate account would be based on interviews of all the participants in the oversight process in order to shed light on their motivation. These motivations may range from unconscious biases in favor of Madoff because of ethnic ties to active collusion.

Biases resulting from Madoff’s status as a macher in the Jewish community are a likely possibility. It would be a bit like having a Jewish psychologist in charge of deciding the scientific status of Freud. The psychologist might consciously attempt to be objective, but the status of Freud as a Jewish folk hero might well get in the way of an unbiased appraisal. It is like questioning the truthfulness of God. In the end, that may be what we are dealing with here.

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