Featured Articles

On VDARE.com’s Peter Brimelow and “Electing a New People”

/in /by

John Derbyshire has rather pointedly described the fate of those who would criticize Jews in a remarkable exchange with Joey Kurtzman, a Jewish editor of the website Jewcy.com:

So far as the consequences of ticking off Jews are concerned: … I was making particular reference to respectable rightwing journalism, most especially in the U.S. I can absolutely assure you that anyone who made general, mildly negative, remarks about Jews would NOT — not ever again — be published in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The New York Sun, The New York Post, or The Washington Times. I know the actual people, the editors, involved here, and I can assert this confidently.

I thought about this when reading Peter Brimelow’s speech at Michael Hart’s Preserving Western Civilization conference in early February. Brimelow runs the excellent racial realism site VDARE.com, an immigration reform site that champions the interests of the American majority — European-Americans.

For this, Brimelow and his writers have drawn the wrath of the mainstream and liberal left, particularly the SPLC — routinely referred to as the $PLC at VDARE. [Editorial note: TOO announces that from now on it will shamelessly copy this wonderfully accurate designation.)

He has also been shunned by mainstream conservative publications such as National Review where he was once Senior Editor. Jonah Goldberg, who personifies the changing of the guard at NR after Brimelow left, referred to Brimelow as “a once-respected conservative voice.” As Brimelow notes, NR is “a once-conservative, now respected, magazine.” I’m sure that the $PLC couldn’t be happier that Jonah Goldberg and his ilk are ensconced at NR.

Brimelow introduces the problem he sees the West facing, delivered in the form of an observation followed by a question:

This is a problem which we see throughout the Western world—an unprecedentedly huge influx of non-traditional immigration. The result of this is that every major Western nation will be a minority in its homeland the foreseeable future. It takes less time in some places and more time in others, but the calculations can easily be made. . . .

What’s so amazing about this transformation is that it has no economic benefit for the traditional people of the Western nations that are voluntarily giving up their identity — and their political power. As Brimelow phrases it, the question then becomes “Why are these countries doing this to themselves if they are not benefiting their native-born — their own people?”

We at TOO have little doubt about the main force behind these transformations: The organized Jewish community.  These transformations have nothing to do with economics but everything to do with ethnic activism and identity politics.

There are hints of this in Brimelow’s talk, although it was probably impolitic for him to mention it given the strong participation of Jews at the conference. As noted by The Searchlight (an $PLC-like outfit in the UK that is now running a “Hope not hate” campaign against the BNP), the conference was “an attempt to create a new ideological pole friendlier to Jewish participation, but within the broader white nationalist movement. They would bind Islamophobia and nativism with scientific racism.” Not quite the way I’d say it, but you get the idea.

Brimelow points to the growing Jewish support for Democratic politics in America — despite their relative prosperity.  Jews are an economic elite but their voting patterns much more resemble non-white minorities — they “earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans,” as Milton Himmelfarb phrased it.

Indeed, Brimelow notes that higher percentages of Jews voted for Obama than the average for other minorities (83% to 79%). Why this is so “is a good question and in some ways the most important question in the immigration debate. And I recommend it to you for further discussion.”

Never one to pass up an invitation like that, I would point out that from the time they came to the US in large numbers, Jews have had a very negative view of traditional Americans and their culture. As Elliott Abrams put it, the mainstream Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” As portrayed by the Jewish media, “Western civilization is … a failing, dying culture, but at worst it is … sick and evil compared to other cultures.”  It’s all about identity politics.

Brimelow gets right down to brass tacks about one side of the equation—he discusses and defends the interests of whites.

Obama doesn’t have 43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government: a coalition of united minorities that succeeded in uniting the minorities and dividing the majority.

As fate would have it, this observation resonated with something I had just read about the way Bolsheviks had assumed power in 1917 at the beginning of the Soviet era. A shadowy Executive Committee ruled, and among those with power “more than half were Jewish socialists.” Native Russians did not even make up a quarter. One participant noted that “the most striking thing about the composition of the EC was the number of foreign elements.” The deaths of tens of millions of underrepresented white non-Jews followed. (The details of this genocide come from Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s two-volume study of Russian-Jewish relations, Two Hundred Years Together. Still lacking an English translation after seven years, Occidental Quarterly contributor F. Roger Devlin has worked from the French translation to provide a superb overview of Solzhenitsyn’s work. See The Occidental Quarterly Fall 2008 and Winter 2008-2009. Order here.)

Brimelow offered further room for discussion when last month he published Kevin MacDonald’s VDARE.com piece Memories Of Madison—My Life In The New Left. There MacDonald reiterated his argument that radical Jews of the 1960s “had destructive fantasies in which the revolution would result in ‘humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors.’“

In particular, the dispossession component is being accomplished by support for massive non-traditional immigration. MacDonald argued that “Jewish activism on behalf of non-white immigration can be directly traced back to Jewish activists on the left.” Indeed, “Massive non-white immigration into Western societies has been a project of the Jewish left for pretty much the entire last century. The Jewish left has been the most influential component of the organized Jewish community. And even when a significant number of Jews defected from the left, giving rise to the neoconservative movement, they retained the traditional Jewish attitudes on immigration.” (Read MacDonald’s chapter on this phenomenon here).

As with Solzhenitsyn above, MacDonald connected such displacement of a native population with the genocide that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s in the Soviet Union. After the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, “Jewish radicals were able to actually carry out in the USSR the fantasies of the New Left Jewish radicals in the US—i.e., the ‘humiliation, dispossession, imprisonment or execution of the oppressors.’”

MacDonald is proposing that a substantial component of the Jewish activism in the area of immigration is motivated by aggressive hostility toward the European American majority. Another, more defensive explanation of why Jews have led immigration reform movements that favor non-whites is the belief that a less homogeneously white America will be less likely to give rise to a powerful anti-Semitic movement. In an oft-cited passage, Jewish activist Earl Raab wrote:

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.

It seems likely that Raab’s wish to protect Jews is assured. After all, Jews are now famously dominant in media, government, academia and finance (for better or for worse).

Meanwhile, the rest of us Americans are left with many of the less pleasant aspects of diversity and non-white immigration, as last weekend’s news yet again drove home. As reported by CNN, a man wearing body armor used his car to block the rear door of an immigration services center, then entered the building and proceeded to murder thirteen people. “A federal law enforcement source identified the suspected gunman as Jiverly Wong. [The spokesman] said Wong, who was from Vietnam, was 41 and had changed his last name to Voong.”

I’m sure I’m not the only one who breathed a sigh of relief when it turned out that the shooter was not a white male. As VDARE’s Steve Sailer explained, “You can imagine how the Mainstream Media was itching to start typing denunciations of hate-filled white male anti-immigration rednecks when the news came in today that 13 people had been shot dead at an immigration center.” Brimelow is even more pointed on this issue: “If the killer in the Binghamton immigration center massacre had been a white American, I have no doubt that much of the VDARE.COM Editorial Collective would be in police custody right now.”

What has thus far been left unexplained is why there is any immigration to a region that has been devastated economically since at least the 1970s. Even the New York Times recognized this in a story about an area where “the number of 25-to-34-year-old residents in the 52 counties north of Rockland and Putnam declined by more than 25 percent. In 13 counties that include cities like Buffalo, Syracuse and Binghamton, the population of young adults fell by more than 30 percent.” In a perverse side note, The Times adds that “population growth upstate might have lagged even more but for the influx of 21,000 prison inmates, who accounted for 30 percent of new residents.” Is this the kind of place that needs legions of new immigrants?

VDARE.com’s Brenda Walker today made the broader point clear:

The problem of rampaging immigrants is not guns or unfriendly Americans or conservative radio programs or VDARE.com. The problem is the strangely persistent myth among elites and the media that millions from Somalia and Iraq and Red China can be plunked into our unique society and be expected to get along like they were putting on a different coat. . . . Immigration as a marker of the imaginary one-worlder multicultural paradise has been a screaming failure. The symptoms are everywhere, from ethnic gangs to mass murder.

Someday someone might look into this phenomenon, for it seems to fit the pattern of dispossession of traditional Americans. According to one blog, the US State Department has adopted a policy to spread refugees out to small and middle-sized American cities and away from the traditional “gateway cities.” Research found that “eleven top cities that had the largest refugee populations as a percentage of the foreign born in the city” were:

Utica-Rome, NY

Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN

Erie, PA

Binghamton, NY

Spokane, WA

Portland, ME

Lincoln, NE

Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA

Burlington, VT

Manchester, NH

Des Moines, IA

Odd that all eleven of these cities are overwhelmingly white gentile locales.

When considering this crazy jumble of immigration situations I’ve described, casual observers may mutter that the system sure seems to be broken. But as I’ve stressed before, the problem is not that the system is broken; rather, the problem is that it is working as intended. Whereas Ms. Walker notes that “a homogenous nation evokes loyalty, stability and harmony,” the sad fact is that Jews in general detest these qualities in others. For Jews, homogeneous masses of white people reminds them of marching storm troopers with swastikas on their uniforms. As I wrote last year, “Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies.”

To me the lesson seems clear: Majority white Americans need to develop a sense of solidarity and then act on their interests. This too was the lesson Solzhenitsyn drew from his experience in the Soviet gulag: “More compact or tribally-minded peoples managed to look out for one another in the harsh conditions of camp life, and so stood a better chance of survival.” Time is not on the side of traditional Americans, so let this be a minor wake up call. Are you willing to allow the Powers That Be to elect a new people and replace you? I know I’m not.

Comments on “Memories of Madison”: White ethno-nationalism and Zionism

/in /by

I received many positive responses to my VDARE.com article “Memories of Madison: My life in the New Left” — quite a few from people who went through similar experiences. I hope that some of these people would write up their experiences. They are very valuable as a firsthand account of history. Another column based on others’ experiences would certainly have quite a bit of interest.

A lot of us are still “getting over” those days, and there can be little doubt that the sensibilities of the 1960s are a major ingredient in our current cultural malaise. The big story of the 20th century in the US is a struggle for influence by the Jewish-dominated left. The Jewish Old Left was contained during the 1950s by the influence of McCarthyism. But the breakthrough of the New Left into the mainstream culture in the 1960s has had a very large influence on current cultural norms, especially on elite attitudes toward immigration and multiculturalism. As I mentioned in the article, the implicit agenda of the Jewish left has been thegeneral displacement of non-Jewish whites.

Two comments bear an extended discussion. A correspondent, Mark A. Mendlovitz, asks why I “oppose Zionism. Is not what Israeli Jews are doing analogous to what you and I are seeking to do here in the U.S.?”

It seems to me that Mendlovitz and others like him should first and foremost ask this question of their fellow Jews. That is, the vast majority of American Jews are Zionists but the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of American Jews are opposed to the idea that European-Americans have any legitimate interest in retaining political and cultural dominance. My view is that Jews who are interested in supporting European Americans in these goals should attempt to change the views of other Jews.

I certainly do not oppose the principle that it is legitimate for people to carve out a piece of real estate so that they can develop their own form of ethnic nationalism. Indeed, in a previous VDARE.com article, I emphasized the legitimacy and benefits of universal ethnic nationalism, based on the work of Jerry Z. Muller and Frank Salter.

Mendlovitz writes “Yes, supporting Israel is trouble for the U.S., but as is often the case, doing what is right is troublesome.” As he suggests, the problem is that Jewish ethnic nationalism has resulted in a very large cost to the United States for all the reasons that writers like Mearsheimer and Walt — and I — describe.

Frankly, I do not believe that it is in my ethnic interests nor is in the interests of the United States to antagonize the Arab and Muslim world in the interests of an expansionist, ethno-nationalist Israel. It’s simply not our fight. And now there is a real danger that the Israel Lobby will persuade the US to go to war against Iran. This would be yet another enormously costly effort. There can be no question at all that the hostilities between Iran and the US are centered around US support for Israel.

I completely agree that Arabs and other Muslims should be excluded from Western countries, but I don’t single them out in this regard. As an ethnic nationalist, I would like to see Western countries committed to preserving European peoples and their cultures. Let the Arabs continue to fester in their failed, undemocratic societies, with veiled women, clans, polygamy, and cousin marriage. I certainly do not blame Israel for their failures, any more than I blame the West for Africa’s problems. The neocon dream of converting the Arab nations into democratic, republican states was always nothing more than a bit of utopian propaganda that was aided and abetted by staunchly Zionist academics like Bernard Lewis and his neocon publicists. (Yet the ADL and the SPLC claimthat I am the dishonest one who attempts to use his academic position to spread falsities.)

I would be willing to make a quid pro quo with the organized Jewish community: If you support white ethno-nationalism in the US and provide intensive, effective support for ending and reversing the immigration policy of recent decades (i.e., something approaching the support you presently provide Israel), I would be willing to go to the wall to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, even at substantial cost for the US. The fact that a miniscule number of Jews — none of them part of the main Jewish activist  organizations that have been so destructive to white ethno-nationalism — are immigration patriots and see value in America as a European civilization is certainly not a reason for someone like me to support Jewish ethno-nationalism.

As a humorous aside (we can’t always be serious!), Philip Weiss reports that Abe Foxman made the following argument for why just about everyone should support Zionism. It is a reductio ad absurdum of the argument that white ethno-nationalists should support Jewish nationalism:

Can you be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite? Almost never. Unless you can prove to me you’re against nationalism. If you’re one of those unique individuals in this world that’s opposed to American nationalism, French nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, then you can be opposed to Jewish nationalism. Is it racist? You bet it is. Every nationalism is racist. It sets its laws of citizenship, it sets its own capital… It sets its songs, it sets its values. It is, if you will, exclusive, and you can even call it racist. But if the only nationalism in the world that is racist is Jewish nationalism, then you’re an anti-Semite.. I don’t want to make any apologies for it.

Hmmm, racism means excluding anyone from anything? In practice, Jewish nationalism means, among other things, erecting an apartheid society and enacting racialist marriage laws in Israel (see below). On the other hand, mainstream forms of American “proposition-nation” nationalism — led by the ADL — seem resolutely committed to a post-European America. If sing the Star Spangled Banner at a baseball game, I must logically support Jewish nationalism as it exists in Israel?  I think not.

As I argued previously, white people must be less principled and more self- interested. This implies that they should support others’ nationalism only when it is in their self-interest.

I must agree with Weiss that Foxman is “a loud man with reality issues.”

I agree with Mendlovitz that “while many Jews still vote largely Democrat and have a soft spot for liberal causes, the number of Jewish ‘radicals’ is vastly less than it once was, partly because of the general affluence of the Jewish population, and partly because of a number of other factors.” The problem is that the Jewish defection from the far left has not really altered the fundamental conflicts of interest between the organized Jewish community and white Americans.

A major factor easing the defection of Jews from the radical left (in addition to concerns about anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and Soviet support for the Arabs against Israel in the Cold War) was the leftist critique of Zionism. Mark Rudd’s comments, quoted in my article are typical of the leftist critique: Israel is “militarized, racist, religio-nationalist, corporate, riven with so many internal splits and hatreds that only the existence of a perpetual enemy keeps the nation from exploding.” Whereas Rudd remained a leftist, Jews deserted the left in droves when it became impossible to reconcile their leftism with their commitment to Jewish ethno-nationalism and the state of Israel.

Neocons — really the only significant group of “conservative” Jews — are no helpon issues like immigration. Their main concerns are to organize US support for Israel and to keep the conservative wing of American politics safe for Jews. Neocons only adopt conservative social policies as positions of conveniencein order to appeal to the Republican base. As Peter Brimelow noted, “[William] Kristol will return to immigration  enthusiasm once he has helped persuade Bush to attack Iran.” (Kristol failed to persuade Bush, but he is now hard at work trying to persuade Obama.)

Even though the organized Jewish community is  now best described as liberal rather than radical, it is still deeply committed to a post-European America, and that is really the only important issue.  A recent spectacle illustrating this is the “Progress by Pesach” campaign to promote open borders immigration reform. Even Lawrence Auster, whose role as a Jewish activist seems to be to advance the cause of Israel within what he calls the “traditionalist, politically incorrect Right” (see below), sees this as a Jewish problem:

What they are explicitly saying, as a national Jewish coalition, is thatas Jews, they are required by their Jewish tradition to seek to undermine American law and sovereignty and allow America to be invaded by a mass immigration of illegal aliens.

I have said before that when Jews declare that as Jews they are required to strive for open borders, when as Jews they demand U.S. national suicide, that allows critics to criticize Jews as Jews, and not just as generic “liberals.” This is the strongest case of that nature I’ve ever seen. [italics in text]

Well, I thought I made a pretty good case for that over a decade ago. Anyway, even the prospect of millions of Muslim immigrants is not enough to diminish the enthusiasm for massive non-white immigration by the organized Jewish community — a sure sign that the decades-old emotional commitment of the organized Jewish community to a post-European America trumps rational considerations altogether.

Mendlovitz’s comments are interesting and reflect fairly widespread Jewish concerns. On the other hand, Lawrence Auster’s comments, posted on his website, are first and foremost an attempt to place me beyond the realm of legitimate discourse. By titling the article “The idiocy of Kevin MacDonald,” Auster is saying, “Don’t go near MacDonald—he is off limits.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

This is the same sort of thing that Jewish activists like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Chait have tried to do with Mearsheimer and Walt. Dershowitz calledThe Israel Lobby a “hate-filled screed against Jewish participation in American politics.” Chait chimed in with “Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book that, even by the account of fair-minded and even ideologically sympathetic critics, is a shoddy, paranoid screed.”

Certainly no respectable person would want to publicly sympathize with screed writers — or idiots.

Auster is clearly living in an alternate universe — a universe in which Israel is a “post-Zionist” state dominated by “soft-hearted liberals.” Whereas everyone else is pondering the horrific brutality of the Israeli invasion of Gaza under a Kadima government and the specter of a Likud government organized by Benjamin Netanyahu with Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister apparently with a secret agreement for expansion of a critical settlement near Jerusalem, in Auster’s world Israel has already ceased to exist as a Zionist state.

The connections between the racialist Jabotinskiist wing of Zionism and the current politics of Israel are straightforward. The Likud party and its leaders — people like Ariel Sharon (who later formed the Kadima Party), Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir — have been open in their allegiance to Jabotinskyism. (Here’s a photo of Sharon speaking to a Likud Party convention in 2004 under alooming photo of Jabotinsky.) Jabotinsky believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.” As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”

One knows that racial Zionism has completely won the day in Israel when Kadima — the party of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and the Gaza invasion — was described by Benjamin Netanyahu during the recent election campaign as the party of the left. (The LA Times dutifully calls it “centrist” but, as Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery writes, Livni “cries to high heaven against any dialogue with Hamas. She objects to a mutually agreed ceasefire. She tries to compete with Netanyahu and Liberman (sic) with unbridled nationalist messages.”) Indeed,Netanyahu’s only worry during the election was that the openly racist Lieberman — a disciple of the notorious Meir Kehane — would take away too many votes from Likud. Avnery analogizes the election to a joke where a sergeant tells his men: “I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you are going to change your dirty socks. The bad news is that you are going to exchange them among yourselves.”

Now, if Israeli politics was dominated by people like Avnery, Auster would be quite correct. But Avnery’s Gush Shalom movement has no power in Israel. Even labeling the Labor Party as “soft-hearted liberals” is a huge stretch given that Labor has supported all of Israel’s wars, including the expansionist 1967 war when it held power and the recent Gaza invasion which was implemented by Defense Minister Ehud Barack — leader of the Labor Party.

Labor is dwindling away to nothingness, its only role to provide cover for the far right. Labor won only 13 out of 120 seats in the Knesset in the February election. Parties to its left (including Arab parties) won another 15 seats. Labor has opted to join Netanyahu’s government, or, as Avnery describes it, “Ehud Barak decided that the Labor Party must join the ultra-right government, which includes outright fascists.” This move is seen by many as providing the government with a fig leaf of respectability (see also here) that will appeal to European governments and others who have been critical of Israel’s behavior while nevertheless allowing the government to pursue its ethno-nationalist agenda.

Even excluding Kadima, the right wing nationalist and religious nationalist parties form a majority of the Israeli electorate — a percentage that is sure to increase because of the high fertility of religious and ethno-nationalist Jews and because intensified troubles with the Palestinians tend to make other Israelis more sympathetic to their cause. And if one makes the reasonable conclusion that Kadima is part of the ethno-religious-nationalist right, this faction holds 92 of the 120 seats in the Knesset.

Another phenomenon illustrating the ethno-religious-nationalist bent of current Israeli politics is that some of the rabbis accompanying the Israeli Defense Force during the Gaza invasion lectured soldiers that the purpose of the invasion was to banish non-Jews from the biblical land of Israel. Nationalist rabbis turned the invasion into a religious, messianic — “war against an entire people, not against specific terrorists.” Particularly noteworthy is that religious nationalists have taken over senior positions in elite combat brigades.

In other words, the army has become much more like what Auster wants it to be.

Although (as usual) there are conflicting accounts of the role of the role of religious fundamentalists in the atrocities committed in Gaza, J. J. Goldberg’s account does not dispute the general finding that religiously Orthodox soldiers form a substantial percentage of soldiers in infantry combat brigades and officers training programs. Moreover, ‘some of them appear to be a sub-rosa part of the unfolding story of the ethical standards upheld by the military, which Israelis praise routinely as ‘the most moral army in the world.’” Avnery’s accountdetailing the atrocity allegations is a must-read.

Over a decade ago Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky noted that Gush Emunim — a religious group that believes that a greater Israel was allotted to Jews in the Book of Deuteronomy — already constituted a significant percentage of the elite units of the Israeli army. (By “Greater Israel” they mean all the land promised to Abraham in Genesis: From the Nile to the Euphrates. Americans who support Israel should prepare themselves for a very long series of wars indeed.) The Gush Emunim are quite willing to treat the Palestinians in a savage and brutal manner. Their ideology is what one might call “theological racism”: A founder of Gush Emunim, Rabbi Abraham Kook taught that “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”

Just another soft-hearted liberal fuzzball.

Finally, Avnery also discusses the recently enacted law barring Arab citizens of Israel from marrying someone who lives on the West Bank. The law contains the following remarkable sentence: “The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.” That means that the State of Israel has declared itself to be at war with all Palestinians, including the ones living in Israel. The purpose is to create a homogeneous Jewish state: “The inherent aim of the Zionist enterprise was and is to turn the country — at least up to the Jordan River — into a homogeneous Jewish state. Throughout the course of Zionist-Israeli history, this aim has not been forsaken for a moment. Every cell of the Israeli organism contains this genetic code and therefore acts accordingly, without the need for a specific directive.”

Whatever else one might say, Israel has definitely not entered into a post-Zionist era.

Rather than condemning me for telling the truth, Auster should be happy that things are going his way in Israel. I wish that a similarly powerful (but not similarly brutal) ethno-nationalist European movement was on the horizon in the US and other countries of the European Diaspora.

The Oakland police murders, President Obama’s teleprompter, and implicit processing

/in /by

The headline of Sunday’s LA Times screamed “Oakland mourns 3 slain officers” (online version). Immediately I constructed a mental model that the murderer was a low-life black man between the ages of 18 and 30.

And of course, I was right. His name was Lovelle Mixon, age 27. Mixon, who was killed in the gun battle, was wanted on a no-bail warrant for violating his parole on a conviction for assault with deadly weapon. A fourth officer is near death.

My mental model was based partly on the reputation of Oakland as famous for black crime. This is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Oakland:

Despite comprising only 30–35% of the population, African-Americans are over-represented in crime statistics, with the majority of crimes occurring in heavily African-American neighborhoods. Earl Ofari Hutchinsonmentions crime in Oakland as an example of a rising problem of “black-on-black” crime, which Oakland shares with other major cities in the US. Bill Cosby mentions Oakland as one of the many American cities where crime is “endemic” and young African-American men are being murdered and incarcerated in disproportionate numbers. Cosby alleges that the parents of such youths and young men, and the Black community in general, have failed to inculcate proper standards of moral behavior.

In a November, 2008 Congressional Quarterly Press publication, the city of Oakland has the dubious distinction of ranking fifth worst in a nationwide ranking of violent crime. The ranking takes into account six crime categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft.

In other words, Oakland has a reputation— a reputation that I was well aware of and that fed into the way I processed a headline like “Oakland mourns 3 slain officers.” In my brain there was an automatic connection between this headline and the thought that the perpetrator was black. Of course, the hardcopy LA Times article did not mention that he was black, and there were no photos. But with the link to Oakland, there was little doubt in my mind, and finding out that his first name was Lovelle clinched it. Online newspaper articles did not mention his race, but did include photos. Here is Mr. Mixon:

Lovelle Mixon

The photos also showed that the victims were white:

Sgt. Mark Dunakin       John Hege               Sgt. Daniel Sakai     Sgt. Ervin Romans

The race of the victims was not an automatic thought. There certainly are large numbers of non-white policemen. But I was quite curious to find out the race of the victims, and I rather doubt that I was alone in that. Whereas the vast majority of black-on-white crime is kept out of the newspapers, crimes against police are an exception. And because I am concerned about the ongoing disaster of white displacement, I was particularly saddened when I saw the faces of these victims who had been murdered by a black man.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The publicity given to this crime will doubtless sharpen the attitudes of whites that they are often the victims of black criminality — at least in California where the story has been given a great deal of play.  Even though black on white crime is not typically publicized, exceptions such as this feed into negative stereotypes that whites have of blacks. And there is no question that in fact blacks are far more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse.

Because they are typically part of the academic culture of the left, many psychologists have agonized about the fact that whites have unconscious negative stereotypes of blacks lurking down deep in their brains. These stereotypes are “implicit” in the sense that they are automatic, “knee-jerk” responses to images associated with blacks. For example, in most studies, about 80% of whites are quick to associate blacks with negative traits like criminality and low intelligence — traits that indeed are more common among blacks.

These implicit associations are difficult to change, but they may be influenced by media images. A recent study showed a dramatic drop in implicit negative attitudes of whites toward blacks since the presidential campaign of Barack Obama — from the usual 80% down to 51%. The 49% of whites without implicit negative associations with blacks is higher than the percentage of whites who voted for Obama, presumably because the subjects were college students — the only white group of whites to vote for Obama.

The researchers claim that the long-term effects will depend on whether Obama is viewed as a success: “If his presidency is highly successful, he would activate positive traits, thoughts and feelings for most people. However, the result may be less positive should his presidency prove to be less successful.”

This may be so, but images like the Oakland police murders will also feed into the implicit attitudes of whites. It would be interesting to do a study of implicit attitudes of whites toward blacks in the San Francisco Bay Area  in the aftermath of the murders of the policemen. I suspect that whites’ unconscious associations with blacks may have returned to the baseline rate of 80% negative or even higher.

Despite the slobbering love affair between Obama and the media, reality has a way of intruding on the constant propaganda emanating from the liberal media. Already there are images of a less-than-competent Obama in conservative-oriented media. Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, and The Washington Times among others have hammered away on the theme that Obama seems lost without a teleprompter. Instead of saying “Obama announced that …,” Limbaugh routinely says “Obama’s teleprompter announced that ….” (Here’s a particularly stumbling performance sans teleprompter.)

It’s one thing to routinely make fun of former President Bush. (Jay Leno has led the way on this for the last eight years. Recently, his monologues feature a segment titled “What’s George Bush doing today?” in which an actor playing Bush does something completely mindless. For example, in one episode Bush lies face down on a swivel chair and propels himself in circles with a leaf blower.) Imagine the hysteria if Leno did the same with an Obama look-alike. Such images may be considered anti-white, and Leno often does his best to portray whites negatively. But the liberal media have a very long way to go to make people think that whites in general are unintelligent.

But in the case of blacks, the association of blacks with low intelligence continues to be part of whites’ implicit associations with blacks. And this association is solidly grounded in reality: Dozens of research studies show that whether in Africa or America or Brazil, on average blacks are indeed substantially less intelligent than whites; there is good evidence that these racial differences are genetically influenced.

What this means is that the image of a stumbling Obama as an automaton who can only speak coherently when he is reading others’ words very easily feeds into the negative images that most whites already have of blacks: Blacks are less intelligent and blacks in America are achieving far more than justified by their talents. Barack Obama as the affirmative action president.

And it means that the long-term effects of the Obama presidency on how whites think of blacks may depend not only on how successful Obama is. It will also depend on whether whites believe that Obama is anything more than an image created by the mainstream media desperately in search of a black man who could act the part of president.

In recent years, it became fashionable to talk about how Karl Rove was George W. Bush’s brain. Suggestions that David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel are Obama’s brain have a whole different connotation. And a very significant effect on how whites view blacks.

Media Watch: Who’s a White Supremacist?

/in /by

Few terms are more beloved by the media than “white supremacist.”  It conjures an image of a tattooed skinhead barking “sieg heil” or a gap-toothed Klansman at a lynching.  Proper people recoil in horror.

Every so often, a genuine moron pops up in the news who practically begs for the term, however many galaxies away he is from actual white advocacy. However, naming your child “Adolf Hitler” or the combination of a swastika tattoo and a vague threat against a public official are more likely signs of mental illness or a desire to shock the community than manifestation of a genuine concern about whites.

A major contributor to use of the term “white supremacist” and its grab-bag of related terms (neo-Nazi, hate group, supremacist group, racist, avowed racist, etc.) is the Southern Poverty Law Center, an increasingly discredited organization that, properly described, operates as an anti-white group.  “Anti-white hate group,” really, though I’m not expecting the media to call it that anytime soon.

Critics of a given presidential administration sometimes complain that this or that interest group practically has an office in the White House.  Likewise, the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t have a reporter’s desk in the middle of most American newsrooms so much as it’s got an editor’s suite, closed off by glass in the corner.

The media faithfully describes the SPLC as a “civil rights group” or a “watchdog group” and routinely sends its press releases to print without much more change than the addition of a reporter’s byline.

A recent story in the Augusta Chronicle about the National Policy Institute (which is, in fact, a white advocacy organization) went a step beyond that by actually interviewing a spokesman for the group, Louis Andrews. But it still manages to describe the NPI as promoting “white supremacy.”

Reporter Stephanie Toone doesn’t say what about NPI “promotes white supremacy” and probably didn’t think too much before using the term.

Here’s another example: Pennsylvania reporter Michael Gorsenger bandies about “racist” and “white supremacist,” but it’s unclear to me how a flyer saying “Love Your Race” implies supremacy.  You can rest assured Mr. Gorsenger would not describe such a flyer distributed by the NAACP as “supremacist.”

I propose to Ms. Toone, Mr. Gorsenger and their colleagues in the media that they reconsider use of this term.  As we lawyers like to say, the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.

First, “supremacist” is not a very precise term.  What does it mean, exactly?

The implication is that a “supremacist” would have license to engage in any kind of abuse or debasement of another he fancied.  But I know of no white advocate who seeks that.  The term “white separatist” might actually describe the policy goal of some white advocates, but it still wouldn’t hurt to ask whether that is, in fact, his or her goal.

Most white advocates seek a general right of group self-determination that at most involves non-involvement with other racial groups, especially coercive involvement.  Forced busing, affirmative action, immigration and non-discrimination laws are all examples of coercion that are opposed by white advocates.

In other words, they wish to simply decline the demands of other racial groups. That’s “supremacy”?  That’s like calling a woman who refuses a man’s sexual advances a “female supremacist.”

Second, the term “supremacist” is deeply pejorative.  The Southern Poverty Law Center uses the term because they want to discredit white advocates and frighten its base into making large donations.  It works because it sounds scary.

But the media should not be in the business of adopting partisan terms.  The problem with “supremacist” is that it stops thought rather than encourages it — instantly, the reader or viewer’s blood runs cold — a “supremacist”!  Oh no!  The media should be using terms that accurately describe, not scare.  The goal should be to impart information, not further the agenda of one side of the debate.  “Supremacist” fails that test. 

I personally prefer “white advocate” or “white advocacy”.  These terms are good because they first eliminate the dishonesty or evasion problem presented by terms like “Western” or “conservative” or “traditional.”  These terms certainly have their place, but at the end of the day, there is a need for the honesty of presentation that goes with using the “W” word.  Also, the term “advocacy” flatly describes what’s going one:  a person or group who seeks the good of whites, as a group.  An editor can’t complain that the term “white advocate” hides an agenda.

I might also propose that black or Hispanic groups be called “black advocacy” or “Hispanic advocacy” groups, instead of the partisan-sounding “civil rights group.”  Really?  “La Raza” is concerned about everyone’s civil rights?  Please.

So what do the media ethics gurus have to say about slapping any white advocate with the “white supremacist” smear?  Intending to make a serious e-inquiry, I Googled up the famous Poynter Institute in Florida to see if I couldn’t find an expert willing to weigh in.

Take a look at this link, however, and you’ll see why I never bothered.

That’s right, the Poynter Institute has actually melded “ethics” with “diversity” in such a way as to suggest that “ethical” journalism is a booster for “diversity.”  Needless to say, I doubt the Poynter Institute will be taking up the unfairness of the term “white supremacist.”
[adrotate group=”1″]
I continue to be frustrated by the dilemma presented by filmmaker Craig Bodeker, who notes that on racial issues, whites are only allowed two positions:  total indifference, or crazy, mean racist.

I, too, object.  Whites are a unique group who face an array of problems that remain unaddressed in the popular media, culture and politics.  We need advocates.  When they appear, the media should describe them accurately.

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

Media Watch: Late Night too white, NYT’s Alessandra Stanley complains — Would she make the same complaint about Jews in the media?

/in /by

Some whites might have thought that by casting a ballot for Barack Obama, they’d be treated to a few reverse turns on the vice-grip of white guilt in America. Even a few pro-white folks might have speculated an Obama win would serve to quiet the shrill attacks on whites as the source of all evil.

No such luck.  In fact, for some anti-white activists and media figures, it’s been just the opposite:  The election of Obama only underscores the need for the rest of white society to exit the stage.

And no corner of the culture is safe.  Alessandra Stanley, a critic for the New York Times, complains that on late-night TV, “every single host of a late-night network talk show is white, male and mainstream.  Still.”

We could stop for a moment and point out that this isn’t exactly a big group — from Jack Paar on, we’re talking about maybe 25 people.  We could note that Arsenio Hall, a black man, had a successful run as a late-night TV host in the 1990s.  We could note that comedians tend to be male.  We could note that the men who’ve ascended to these spots tend to be pretty funny, and that a focus on their race is unfair so long as they’re delivering the laughs.  And we could note that the world of entertainment overall is hardly a bastion of white exclusion.

But the biggest thing to note is that we’ve come to a place where the smallest of white redoubts gets hit with the diversity howitzer.  Jimmy Fallon takes over from Conan O’Brien, who in turn will replace Jay Leno, and, for the New York Times, it’s as if the Nazis are marching through Paris.

Read her complaint, and you’ll see that it’s not just the whiteness and maleness of the hosts that Stanley hates — it’s their affirmation of white culture.  “Each night a network talk show repeats a ritual of civility that is both intimately familiar and a total fantasy — a relaxed Thanksgiving dinner where no daughter-in-law bolts from the table in tears…. At the close of each show they convince us that everything is all right in the world, and Mommy and Daddy still love each other.”

What Stanley means to say is that 1950’s-style white America is a bad thing, and anything that resembles it should be whacked.  If you’re not doing crude, scatological Howard Stern-style humor or blue material a la Richard Pryor, you’re out of touch.  In other words, you’re white.

For an enemy of whiteness, Stanley is at least targeting correctly.  I have always been a huge fan of David Letterman, who is possibly one of the smoothest white men alive:  cool, unflappable, hilarious.  He’s also unafraid to engage in a little ethnic humor, as with his light mockery of Mujibur and Sirajul, the Bangladeshi owners of the tourist trap down the street from his studio.

Letterman’s not just funny — he’s definitively white in his demeanor, and that must drive some crazy.  Clearly, it drives Alessandra Stanley crazy.  All these white men — Johnny Carson, Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Fallon — are calm, well-dressed, and in complete control from center stage.  They’ve got a dapper style — Fred Astaires of the monologue, conjuring images of dry martinis, steak dinners and rounds of golf with Ben Hogan.  Their humor allows them to poke fun at the world around them.  They’ve got power and they’re having fun.  It is, in short, an image of white men that our anti-white cultural elite despises. 

[adrotate group=”1″]

Stanley herself has been accused of having a (more than standard?) liberal bias, and is mistake-prone, according to gossip site Gawker.

None of this is surprising, and whatever her own ethnicity, it’s a safe bet that she’s cozy with the Jews who populate New York power circles and the Times.  With Wikipedia accuracy issues in mind, Stanley reports that she was once married to a journalist named Michael Specter and is friends with the Times’ Jill Abramson.

Needless to say, we won’t see Stanley complaining that in the entertainment industry, “almost every single writer, producer, owner is Jewish and hostile to whites.  Still.”

White men, don’t let the Alessandra Stanleys of our world hector you off the stage.

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

Jeff Gates’ Guilt by Association

/in /by

Not many people think about Jews as much as I do. Decades of research have exposed me to a number of classic books on this topic, beginning with John Murray Cuddihy’s rollicking Ordeal of Civility. Next comes Paul Johnson’s A History of the Jews, or Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears. Or course readers of this site and The Occidental Quarterly well know about Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on Jews, which examines Jews through the lens of a group evolutionary strategy.

Then two years ago I discovered the work of retired scholar James Petras. His unvarnished prose is just the tonic for the Orwellian times in which we live. I even made a minor contribution to Petras scholarship in a review I wrote of two of his books, The Power of Israel in the United States and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants. (See also Zionism, Militarism, and the Decline of U.S. Power.)

Now I believe I’ve run across a new book that might join the ranks of the above. Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War is written by Jeff Gates, a former counsel to the U.S. Senate. His first task is to explain how America lost control of its foreign policy to pro-Israeli elites and extremists. His brush, however, paints far more broadly, as this mixture of press releases shows:

In an account covering presidencies from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush, the author chronicles the influence wielded by pro-Israeli agents operating inside administrations over the past century regardless of party.

Harry Truman, a political product of organized crime from the 1920s, recognized Israel in 1948 over the strenuous objections of Secretary of State George Marshall and the entire U.S. foreign policy and intelligence establishment.

Guilt by Association makes treason transparent. The corruption that plagues American politics is traced to an alliance with elites and extremists loyal to the Land of Israel. Unable to rid politics of campaign finance corruption, the U.S. finds its security imperiled by those skilled at deceiving America into waging wars for the Zionist state.

Tracing this corruption to criminal syndicates from the 1920s, Guilt by Association reveals how those skilled at displacing facts with beliefs wield clout from the shadows. Both deception and self-deceit play critical roles in enabling this criminality to expand its reach on a global scale. Guilt by Association documents how by operating in the realms of politics, media, academia, think tanks and popular culture corruption came to dominate politics, as shown by presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama. Chronicling systemic corruption that predates these candidates by decades, the book explains how organized crime expanded worldwide while the U.S. discredited itself in the eyes of a global public astounded that Americans would tolerate such corruption to their own detriment. Featuring sophisticated analysis presented in layman’s language, Guilt by Association will transform political debate in the U.S. and beyond.

This chronicle of duplicity and trans-generational manipulation describes how dysfunctional personalities are identified and then positioned for elective office. Chronicling systemic corruption that predates the current presidential candidates by decades, Guilt by Association describes how organized crime expanded worldwide in plain view yet with legal impunity.

Praise for the book has been strong. For instance, Paul Findley, longtime former Congressman and one of the first casualties of the Zionist attack on lukewarm supporters of Israel, writes that the book is “Magnificent, timely, and persuasive.” Ambassador Andrew Killgore calls it “Brilliantly provocative,” while fellow Ambassador Ed Peck, Deputy Director, Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism, dubs it “explosively revelatory, powerful, compelling and certain to be highly contentious.” 

Gates does appear to be audacious in his goals. In Guilt, he appears to be offering us a tool for understanding the massive financial scandals and upsets much of the Western world is now enduring and he ties it to America’s going to war in the Middle East. “America’s post-war leadership embraced an alliance with an elitist and fundamentalist subculture within Judaism’s broader faith tradition.”

Nicely put about “Judaism’s broader faith tradition,” but what he has to say about that subculture is less charitable: “The Zionism chronicled in this account describes a transnational organized crime agenda featuring financial and political domination by elites and extremists.” For instance, America, Gates argues, is in Iraq now because “the war in Iraq is the product of a trans-generational syndicate skilled at displacing facts with (false) beliefs. Those masterful at manipulating thoughts and beliefs are also responsible for enabling organized crime to expand to a global scale.”

At first blush, this mental manipulation seems to be the trick whereby this subculture controls the majority. The “displacement of facts with beliefs” is responsible, in Gates’ view, for the American electorate and its representatives swallowing the lies about Saddam Hussein’s mythical weapons of mass destruction. What is the limit to our gullibility? Well, whatever “people can be deceived to believe.” Such as the “widely shared opinion that Israel is a democracy and an ally. All false and all induced beliefs.”

As a scholar and teacher of American film, an obvious example of this kind of manipulation comes readily to mind. In chapter one, Gates outlines his views on how today’s unconventional warfare “relies on game theory and the application of mathematical models to anticipate the response to staged provocations. Reactions become ‘perfectly predictable’ in the sense that they are foreseeable within an acceptable range of probabilities.” America’s (mistaken) response to 9/11 illustrates this. Years prior to those attacks, people’s minds had been exposed to scenarios of Arab enemies and terrorists, a signal example being the broad attention given to Harvard historian Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” thesis.

We also had the myriad neocon think tank studies suggesting that a “new Pearl Harbor” might serve as catalyst for a power reconfiguration in the Middle East. Gates steps back to put these disparate items into a frame he calls “a period of preparing the minds.” Here, of course, I thought of the pre-9/11 pop culture portrayals of events exceedingly similar to what transpired on September 11th. I was not alone. David Ray Griffin, for one, retired theologian and author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé, drew our attention to a new show spun off from the popular series “The X-Files.” “In March 2001, the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which reportedly had 13 million viewers, was based on a rogue group within the US government crashing a remote-controlled 747 into the World Trade Center.” Don’t believe it? Watch the scene.

An example that works even better for me is the big-budget film The Siege (1998). This action-packed thriller stars Denzel Washington as an FBI agent tracking Arab terrorists in New York. If Gates is right about this plot to “prepare the minds” of Americans for future events, then The Siege fits the mold. For instance, Arab terrorists blow up themselves and a busload of innocent passengers in broad daylight (think suicide bombers in Israel). Then comes an attack on a theater. Finally, we have a scene that is more than suggestive of the airliner hits on the Twin Towers. In The Siege, Arabs drive a van loaded with explosives into the FBI Counterterrorism Division at One Federal Plaza, raining debris down on New York streets.

Again, Gates is painting with a wide brush here. For example, the longest chapter deals with the deliberate Israel attack in 1967 on the American spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty. He also discusses John McCain’s connection to a Zionist cabal. Chapter 7 deals with “the new anti-Semitism,” followed by thoughts on Obama as President.  Gates is not confident that Obama will be his own man and break out of the Zionist grip that held his predecessors.

As Gates documents, Obama is but the product of the Jewish machine in Chicago, having been nurtured by Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. Further, his top three contributors were also Jews from the “Chicago Outfit”: Penny Pritzker, the Crown family (ne Krinsky) and George Soros. (Sticking with his crime lineage thesis, Gates claims that the Pritzker family dates from the Jewish syndicate of the 1920.)

Emanuel and Axelrod bear watching. Both emerged as young Democratic party activists in Chicago in 1984, just two years after AIPAC had taken down 22-year incumbent Congressman Paul Findley for his perceived lack of Zionist zeal. His replacement was Dick Durbin, “now #2 in the Senate leadership who shares a house in Washington with Chuck Schumer, now #3. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, from mobbed-up Nevada, is Mormon.” Though Gates doesn’t mention it here, Reid is married to a woman born to Jewish parents, which dovetails with accounts others have provided about such marital ties. For instance, in The Jewish Century Berkeley professor Yuri Slezkine notes the high proportion of intermarriage higher up the chain of command in the Bolshevik hierarchy. Bukharin and Molotov, to name two, were married to Jewish women.

Perhaps the most explosive claims made by Gates concern the nexus of Jewish involvement in both the pillage of Russian wealth in the 1990s and the ongoing economic meltdown in the West now. On his blog he asks “Is a multi-trillion dollar fraud being perpetrated on America by Lawrence Summers and the same transnational network that defrauded Russia of $1 trillion?”

Tracing the actions of Larry Summers over his time in the Clinton Administration and as President of Harvard, Gates argues that Summers used his status to legitimate the massive loan-for-shares fraud that created the oligarchs. His analysis resonates with what James Petras has also argued.

Petras claims that former President Clinton and his economic advisers such as Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs backed the regimes that allowed the plunder of Russian wealth. Because of these advisers’ positions at Harvard, that institution paid $26.5 million to settle a suit stemming from various improprieties associated with them. As one observer illustrates, however, it is the Jewish aspect of the entire scandal that stands out. The principals of this scandal were Jews, and they were allegedly protected by fellow Jew Summers.

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

This very much speaks to the effort Gates makes to bring the broader picture into focus. Thus, when we observe the common intersection of Jewish identity, networking and media power, for example, we can answer the question: “How did the defendants in the Russia project—Harvard, Shleifer, Hay and, though he was not charged with wrong-doing in the matter, Summers—convince the [New York]  Times, the [Washington] Post and the Financial Times that the collapse of [Harvard’s] Russia Project was not a worthy story?” One answer is Jewish power.

Of course the Jewish identity of the Russian oligarchs has not always been readily highlighted, which may be deliberate. For example, when Yale law professor Amy Chua, author of the book World on Fire, mentioned this identity to a Jewish colleague who himself had participated in the “debacle” of Russian privatization , the professor dismissed her impatiently. Her Jewish husband, however, was more nonplussed—when Chua correctly noted that six out of the seven of Russia’s wealthiest oligarchs were Jews, her Jewish husband calmly quipped, “Just six?  So who’s the seventh guy?”

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

While most Americans have likely long since lost interest in the Russian story, their minds have become wonderfully focused by the stunning economic meltdown in America taking place before their very eyes. And as in Russia, so many of the central players, “good” (Obama’s new economic team) and bad (accused mega swindlers such as Madoff, Friedman and Karatz) are Jews.

In a TOO column last year, Kevin MacDonald pointed out two consequences of Jewish involvement in these financial scandals: “One is that crime does pay. Jews like the Sandlers and the Arnalls whose actions contributed to the current crisis made huge fortunes. Their money is now being used to further specifically Jewish political agendas.” Second, the Sandlers and the Arnalls “are a microcosm of Jewish political activism. The beneficiaries of their largess define the boundaries of acceptable politics in the US — from the far left to the neoconservative, pro-Israel, pro-immigration right.”

Given the reluctance of the (heavily Jewish) news media to make sense of all this, it is ironic that we can find confirmation in a skit from (heavily Jewish) 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 would seem that the SNL skit corroborates Gates’ own conclusions about Jewish fraud. Just as Russian state shares ended up in the hands of the oligarchs, in America they are headed for large firms that are predominantly Jewish. “As in Russia, both the advisers and the new owners qualify for Israeli citizenship. Summers had a hand in both bailouts. As President-elect Obama scrambles to stabilize the financial system, will his pledge of clarity and transparency include an account of how—and by whom—he was advised to capitalize a transnational Ashkenazi oligarchy?”

To be sure, Gates’ claims are vast and there is a bit of Da Vinci Code breathlessness to them. But consider this a preliminary consideration of important topics that need to be understood. If Gates is right to link them through an overarching network of Ashkenazi Jews, then we might begin to unravel many of the mysteries Gates takes on. After all, many of us have seen the “disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, pop culture, politics, academia and think tanks,” and we can also verify the heavy Jewish presence in all of them.

These are matters of war and peace, prosperity and poverty. Many of the same people responsible for the economic meltdown are either still there, or worse, being brought into the Obama team. And last week’s battle over the appointment of Chas Freeman is over, pointing to increased risks that moves for more war in the Middle East will proceed unchecked. (See also here and here.)

Since many of you no longer rely on traditional venues for gathering accurate information about our world, it is worth the effort to get and read Gates’ book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. Then judge for yourself.

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

Dysgenics of a Communist Killing Field: The Croatian Bleiburg

/in , /by

In the study of communist terror different methods from different fields have been applied, ranging from the fields of political science, historiography, philosophy, to international justice. An impressive number of books about communist crimes have enabled observers to grasp this unique phenomenon of the twentieth century, which inevitably brings about a large and emotional outcry, followed by constant haggling about different body counts. Whether it is former communist Cambodia, or former communist Poland, in the minds of many citizens of former communist countries, communism is a synonym for an inhumane political system.

Despite the fall of communism as an ideological and political-legal system, the communist ideas of egalitarianism and the belief in permanent economic progress are still alive, albeit in other forms and under different names, and even amidst people who describe themselves as anticommunists. Perhaps the reason for that lies in the fact that the ideas of equality, internationalism (‘globalism’) and economic growth may be more easily achievable, or at least appear to be more easily achievable, in the liberal, capitalist West than in the former ‘real-socialist’ countries in the East.

Little effort has been made so far to analyze the communist system within the framework of modern genetics. As discussed below, communist terror was at least at times disproportionately directed at the upper classes. From a genetic perspective, this suggests that it had dysgenic effects on the gene pool of victim populations — that is, by removing the upper classes, there would be a general lowering of the genetic quality of the population.

According to Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, the average IQ for European countries ranges from 90 to 100. They find that the average IQ for Croats is a meager 90. Why such a modest IQ for Croats?

Besides possibly lowering IQ, one might also ask the question: Did communism in the former Soviet Union, or for that matter in the former communist Yugoslavia, gave birth to a unique subspecies of people predisposed to communism?  Did it give rise to people who would fit into and feel comfortable in a largely bureaucratic regime with little scope for personal freedom?

In fact, the description of communist lifestyle has already been well described by former Russian dissident and novelist, Alexander Zinoviev in his Homo Sovieticus, (1982). Zinoviev introduced the term homo sovieticus into the study of communist pathology, albeit more as a literary metaphor than as a term for a specific anthropological species. Seen from the perspective of sociobiology, Zinoviev’s homo sovieticus is not only a literary figure reflecting a distinctive life style or an allegory for communized masses in the former Soviet Union or the former Yugoslavia. It is a peculiar biological sub-creature of modern mass democracies.

Zinoviev was well aware that communism directly appeals to the lowest instincts of each human being, and therefore that communism is an ideal system for future mass societies facing shrinking natural resources. Unlike the erratic free market system, communism provides workers with a complete sense of psychological security and economic predictability, however Spartan their living and working conditions may be. Only by deciphering such a communized mindset will Western observers be able to comprehend strange feelings of “Yugo-nostalgia” or fond memories of Stalin in post-communist Eastern Europe — even among former victims of communism and despite the terrible legacy of Gulag and Kolyma. The communist workers motto, so often analyzed by Zinoviev, summarizes it best: “Nobody can pay me as little as little I can work.”

The Aristocide of Bleiburg and other communist killing fields

The Croatian Bleiburg (see also here and here) is a name of a mass killing field in southern Austria. In mid-May 1945 hundreds of thousands of fleeing ethnic German and Croatian civilians and soldiers surrendered to the British — only to be turned over promptly to the advancing and victorious Yugoslav communist troops. Subsequently, the term ‘Bleiburg’ became a metaphor for the Croatian holocaust and is widely used in contemporary Croatia by those who suffered under the communist rule, long after WWII. In the collective memory of Croats the word ‘Bleiburg’ means an absolute biological catastrophe whose historical, psychophysical and anthropological (and craniometrical?) consequences are yet to be evaluated. The word Bleiburg means to Croats what the word Katyn means to Poles, or what Auschwitz means to Jews. Although the true body count of Bleiburg is subject to emotional disputes, one thing remains certain: Bleiburg meant the violent disappearance of the Croat middle class in 1945.

The word “aristocide” first entered into the English vocabulary thanks to Nathaniel Weyl, a former American Communist of Jewish origin, who became a celebrity in the fifties after converting to a radical anticommunist and a denouncer of his former communist comrades. In his essay “Envy and Aristocide,”  Weyl describes how envy prompts less intelligent people to criminal behavior and malice.

Weyl’s concept of aristocide makes it easier to comprehend the real reasons for the sanguinary behavior of Yugoslav Communists, who, in the aftermath of WWII, carried out gigantic killings against civilians of the Croatian, Serbian and the ethnic German middle class. In their incessant purges the Yugoslav secret police, the OZNA and the UDBA, were not only motivated by ideological reasons, i.e., the famed ‘class struggle,’ but rather by primordial emotions of envy and knowledge that many anticommunist and nationalist Croat intellectuals, were more handsome, more intelligent, or had more moral integrity than themselves. A German general and intelligence officer,Lothar von Rendulic, who had a keen understanding of the communist guerilla mindset in the Balkans, describes cannibal-like practices of the Yugoslav partisans against German Wehrmacht soldiers, and how German soldiers begged him for transfers from the Balkan front to the Eastern Front. (Gekämpft-gesiegt-geschlagen, 1952). It is a great pity that many of such books have been translated neither into Croatian nor into English.

[adrotate group=”1″]

In his important book Future Human Evolution, John Glad has pointed out that communist genocides had a direct impact on the decline of cultural and economic growth of the new nations of Eastern Europe because a large number of intelligent people were simply wiped out and could not pass on their genes to their offspring. One can say that all East European nations were subjected to considerable depletion of their gene pool.

Here lies the trap of the tantalizing ideology of egalitarianism and its most glaring offshoot, communism: These ideologies teach that all people are equal, which logically entails a conclusion that anybody can be replaceable and expendable at will and that his or her replica can easily be reproduced in another social environment.  There is an old Yugoslav communistic proverb, still alive in Croatia’s public life that says:  “No one is indispensable!”

Similar theses of ‘indispensability’ and ‘expendability’ had been earlier put forward by the Soviet pseudo- scientist  Trofim Lysenko, who argued that wheat can be grown in Antarctica and that intelligent citizens can be cranked out according to the communist party Five-Year Plan.

This thesis, namely that the social-economic environment engenders miracles, is still widespread, albeit in its softer version in multiracial America. The liberal philosophy of the “nurture factor” seems to be an ideal tool for petty criminals, maladaptive individuals, and especially for people of lower intelligence, who, as a rule, for their own physical and moral shortcomings, always blame “somebody else.” The formula for such procrustean ethics becomes transparent in the lexical and juridical fraud known as “affirmative action” in the USA, which is in essence a carbon copy of what multicultural communist Yugoslavia termed the “republican key quota.” This Yugoslavian version of affirmative action meant that each former Yugoslav constituent communist republic was obliged to furnish its own share of communist hacks to receive federal perks.

From the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, communist revolutionaries targeted the pre-revolutionary elites — Russian aristocrats, the Christian clergy, the ethnically German middle class, and all those whose intelligence and knowledge were above average. Because  of this, communism, with its teachings of equality, is still highly appreciated by large masses of dispossessed individuals, and particularly by frustrated intellectuals because it stresses the dogma of “equal opportunity with equal results.”

Studies should be made as to the exact number of the Croat urban population killed by the Yugoslav communists after 1945. Maybe forensic studies of the barren bones scattered in numerous unknown graves and pits all over southern Austria, Slovenia and Croatia could reveal interesting data on the decline in IQ among Croats today. A French author, Christopher Dolbeau, goes to great lengths to provide the names of countless Croatian artists and scientists who perished in Communist genocides in 1945 and after (writers: John Softa, Marijan Marijasevic, Marijan Blazic, Bonaventura Radonic, Kerubin Segvic, Yerko Skracic, Vladimir Jurcic; poets: Stanko Vitkovic, Branko Klaric, Vinko Kos, Gabriel Cvitan; journalists: Mijo Bzik, Agathe von Hausberger, John Maronic, Vilim Peros, Daniel Uvanovic, Tias Mortigjija, etc. If we add to these names the names of Croatian engineers, technicians, military officers, priests — all classes of people with higher than average IQs, the figure of human losses among Croat intellectuals in the aftermath of WWII is frightening indeed (Croatie, Sentinelle de l’Occident, 2005).

By its nature communism, and to a large extent modern liberalism, encourage mediocrity and lack of initiative, because everyone who sticks out above the average is quickly castigated for “bourgeois, fascist deviation.” Based on the rough estimates of human losses in Yugoslavia, one could also speculate about subsequent political events in Yugoslavia, including the unnecessary war between two similar peoples the,   Serbs and Croats in 1991 — which was to a large extent orchestrated by ex-communist Serb and Croat apparatchiks respectively. In addition, Croatia had also its  “silent Bleiburg,” — that is, the voluntary departure to Western countries of over one million Croats, from 1945 to 1990.

Under the romantic assumption that this biological disaster had not occurred, Croatia may well have made today some significant achievements in certain fields of science — and not just in the field of sport or in the soccer field. The same goes for all East European countries, except for one detail: Croats, Estonians, Lithuanians are small peoples and the time needed to replenish their gene pool lasts historically longer.

One can advance another hypothesis. The Yugoslav crisis in 1990 and the subsequent savage interethnic killings would have probably not taken place with highly intelligent and highly educated non-communist and non-fascist politicians such as the late Serb Milan Stojadinovic (who left in 1945 for Argentina) and his Croat counterpart Vlatko Macek (who left the same year for America). Conversely, if one had a quick glance at the phenotype of the leaders in both in Croatia and Serbia in 1991 one is struck that they were all once avid participants of the same Yugoslav communist mindset.

Murder and persecution of intelligent people leads to economic slowdown. Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) was once the main wheat exporting country in Africa. Today it must import food, because of its inept government. Algeria was once the breadbasket of France; now, although being one of the main world exporters of natural gas and oil, it depends on huge food imports. It is no wonder that the so-called Soviet miracle — most notably the launching of the space rocket Sputnik into the orbit, was due to the work of captured German scientists. It is still an unspoken truth in Croatia today that the so- called “Yugoslav miracle of the 60’s,” was due to German slave workers (i.e., captured ethnic Germans and German POWs, 1945–50).

Under the assumption that Croatia had preserved its genetic stock and that the tragedy of Bleiburg had not occurred, under the assumption that hundreds of thousands of Croats had not emigrated to Western countries, one cannot rule out that Croatia would be by now a dynamic country with 8 to 10 million people (approximately twice its current population), with completely different political elites and political values. Thus, even today, the framing of public opinion in Croatia remains the privilege of sons and daughters of former communist stalwarts whose past won’t pass away.

Sociobiological analyses may be looked at with derision by the liberal media. However, each individual knows deadly well which tribe or ingroup he belongs to when “push comes to shove” — which one is his real in-group. Should he fail to acknowledge his racial or ethnic kinsmen or his “territorial imperative,” “the Other” won’t hesitate to remind him of it. It may sound cynical, but a significant number of Croats discovered their nationalist credo only in 1990 — when the perception of the communist and the Serb threat had begun looming large on the horizon. A discovery of such ‘negative identity’ may tomorrow await Americans, which could then make the ex-Yugoslav example look like a kindergarten brawl.

Subconsciously, all races are aware of that old Latin proverb that “a man’s character lies in his face” (in facie legitur homo). And Friedrich Nietzsche was even blunter when he recalled the ancient European wisdom “monstrum in anime, monstrum in fronte (monster by spirit, monster in head). Translated into English: a political crook is recognizable by his facial expression.

Tom Sunic (see www.tomsunic.info and http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/) is an author, translator, former US professor of political science, and a former Croat diplomat.