Just after St. Patrick’s Day of this year, my review of Jeff Gates’ new book Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War appeared. The reference to deception and self-deceit in the subtitle are apt, for Gates explains that these techniques are responsible for America’s war in Iraq, among other things. “The war in Iraq is the product of a trans-generational syndicate skilled at displacing facts with (false) beliefs.” In such a short book, Gates makes great claims. For instance, he writes that “those masterful at manipulating thoughts and beliefs are also responsible for enabling organized crime to expand to a global scale.”

As we now watch the unprecedented spectacle on Wall Street — venerable firms collapsing, the government giving bailouts to survivors, and now fat bonuses spread around financial firms such as Goldman Sachs — it’s instructive to contemplate how trillions of dollars can come and go.

Yes, trillions. Not long ago we rarely heard that word. Instead, billion was the term for large sums of money, as the old economists’ joke shows: “A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” Now, however, a billion serves in the way that million used to.

If it’s any consolation to American taxpayers who are footing the bailout bill, Russians not long ago were bilked for a similar amount. In his book, Gates claims that the pillage of Russian wealth in the 1990s is of a piece with the ongoing economic meltdown in the West now.

Gates fingers former Treasury Secretary and Harvard President Larry Summers, arguing that Summers used his status to legitimate the massive loan-for-shares fraud that created the Russian oligarchs.

Gates is not alone in making such a charge.  Left-wing scholar James Petras, for instance, also claims that Ashkenazi economic advisers associated with Harvard, such as Andrei Shleifer and Jeffrey Sachs, backed the Russian regimes that allowed the plunder of that nation’s 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 VDARE writer Steve Sailer illustrates, however, it is the Jewish aspect of the entire scandal that stands out. The principals of this scandal were Jews, and they were allegedly protected by fellow Jew 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.

As Wiki explains: “In an 18,000-word article in Institutional Investor (January, 2006), the magazine detailed Shleifer’s alleged efforts to use his inside knowledge of and sway over the Russian economy in order to make lucrative personal investments, all while leading a Harvard group, advising the Russian government, that was under contract with the U.S. The article suggests that Summers shielded his fellow economist from disciplinary action by the University.”

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.

In any case, what we are dealing with here is a claim of massive fraud and deception in pursuit of resources. Sounds familiar to us Americans now, doesn’t it? While most of us have likely long since lost interest in the Russian story, our minds have become wonderfully focused by the stunning economic gyrations in America taking place before our very eyes. And as in Russia, so many of the central players—accused mega swindlers such as Madoff, Friedman and Karatz, for instance–are Jews.

Gates, of course, sees this: “Is a multi-trillion dollar fraud being perpetrated on America by Lawrence Summers and the same transnational network that defrauded Russia of $1 trillion?”

For those not paying attention, Summers is back in a high government position, currently as head of the National Economic Council (The August 2009 issue of The American Conservative notes that Summers is “strongly tipped” to be the next Fed chairman, which would continue the remarkable run of Ashkenazi men in that position). The Fed, Goldman Sachs, Madoff, there sure are a lot of Jewish players there — as well as intimations (and sometimes proof) of financial fraud and deception.

As Kevin MacDonald pointed out last year in a TOO column, “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.” A major goal, of course, is to buttress their already formidable power in the media (and then combining that power with other Jewish movements such as Zionism, pro-immigration activism, etc.)

One could go on at length about Jewish power in the media. (A good place to start is the preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique.) Jewish blogger Henry Makow gives a concise argument for why control of the media is so important (though he uses the nebulous term “Illuminati” rather than the more precise term “Jewish”):“The Illuminati grabbed control of the mass media because they understood its overwhelming power to set social norms. Human apes are cowardly conformists and mimes by nature. The mass media has enormous power to deceive, control and pervert.”

There’s that word “deceive” again.

Now, I intend all of the above as but an introduction to my main topic: spying. Spying, needless to say, implies deception. And to no one’s surprise, I’m going to focus on acts and allegations of Jewish spying against American interests, starting with the aborted trial of AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman who acknowledged passing information to Israel. They were acquitted when the defense pointed out that government employees Kenneth Pollack and David Satterfield, were not prosecuted for giving the information to Rosen and Weissman. Pollack is strongly associated with the Israel Lobby and Satterfield is a Jewish-American with a position in the State Department related to Middle East affairs. This is what one might call the chutzpah defense: If government employees aren’t prosecuted for giving information to Israel, then it’s clearly unfair to prosecute AIPAC employees for receiving it. Just business as usual for the Lobby.

Writing in The American Conservative, Philip Giraldi last year chronicled the long history of Jews in America spying on behalf of Israel. He began by rehashing how “Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison in 1986,” then moved on to a more pathetic case: “Pollard’s name was in the news again on April 22, when former U.S. Army weapons engineer Ben-Ami Kadish was arrested for passing secrets to Israel. Kadish had been an agent run by Yosef Yagur, who directed Pollard. Yagur, under cover as a science attaché at the Israeli Consulate General in New York, fled the U.S. in 1985 after Pollard was arrested, but remained in touch with Kadish.”

Earlier this year Giraldi returned to the Kadish case, asking “Where is Ben-Ami Kadish?” It seems the old man failed to appear for his court date, yet “no one in the media seems interested in the case. The Federal Court for the Southern District of New York website is supposed to include all past and pending court cases, but if you search for Kadish, you come up with nothing.”

As a former CIA officer, Giraldi is interested in spies, noting that both neocon heavyweights Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith have been investigated “for passing classified information to Israel.” (He could also have mentioned that neocons Richard Perle, Stephen Bryen, and Michael Ledeen were similarly investigated; in all cases, including Wolfowitz and Feith, the charges were dropped.) Giraldi further mentions that the General Accounting Office “concluded that Israel ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally.’”

If you are beginning to sense a pattern, you’ll be keeping right up with Giraldi. Israeli spy networks, he claims, go deep:

Now, there may have been an Israeli student subculture in the U.S. selling cheap reproductions. But it is also clear that the art-student mechanism was used by intelligence officers to provide cover for espionage. The students were organized in cells of eight to ten members that traveled in vans, which provide concealment for electronic equipment. Several of the students were able to afford expensive airline tickets to hop from plane to plane, two of them flying in one day from Hamburg to Miami, then to Chicago, and finally winding up in Toronto on tickets that cost $15,000 each. In Miami and Chicago, they visited two government officials to try to sell their art. Another student had in his possession deposit slips for $180,000. Six students used cellphones provided by a former Israeli vice consul. Many claimed to be registered at either the University of Jerusalem or the Bezalel Academy of Arts in Jerusalem, but not a single name could be connected to the student body list of Bezalel, and there is no University of Jerusalem.

Naturally, this account brings to mind Carl Cameron’s Fox News reports about Israeli spying in America. Reportedly, sixty Israelis were detained for engaging in a long-running intelligence operation in the US. “Many of those arrested were active Israeli military or intelligence operatives.” More seriously, experts believed that these Israelis had advance knowledge of 9/11 plans yet did not share it with Washington.

This week intrepid blogger Justin Raimondo takes some serious swipes at Israel for its spying efforts against the U.S., mocking the “special relationship” we allegedly have with Israel. “What’s so ‘special’ about this relationship is that it permits the Israelis to spy on us to their hearts’ content — without fear of prosecution, even if they’re caught.”

Referring to the Kadish spy case, the judge observed, “Why it took the government 23 years to charge Mr. Kadish is shrouded in mystery.” Raimondo provides the answer:

Allow me to clear up the mystery, Your Honor: as the case of the mysterious “Israeli art students” and the shenanigans that took place with the Urban Movers in New Jersey on 9/11 make all too clear, Israel has carte blanche to spy in the United States and carry out whatever covert actions it deems necessary. Using the Israel lobby and its multifaceted organizations and front groups, Israeli intelligence has thoroughly penetrated American political life, including the U.S. government at every level. And political influence is routinely used to steal U.S. “secrets” — which, as far as the Israelis are concerned, are very far from secret.

Kadish’s transgressions were no mere trifle. As Wiki notes, “Kadish took classified documents to his handler’s home in Riverdale, Bronx several times (including information about nuclear weapons, a modified F-15 fighter, and the Patriot missiles) and let an unnamed Israeli government worker take photographs of them.” Admitting his guilt, Kadish still got off with a laughable sentence: no jail and a measly fine of $50,000. The judge was quoted as saying he gave a lenient sentence due to Kadish’s age and infirmity. (Contrast this with accused Nazi camp guard John Demjanjuk, an 89-year-old American recently shipped to Germany for yet another trial — Israel found him not guilty in 1993. German doctors have determined that he has about 16 months to live, due to his incurable leukemic bone marrow disease, yet that will not affect his trial.)

Raimondo certainly has Jewish spying on his mind this month, for he also wrote a long review of two books on KGB spies in the U.S. before, during, and after World War II. Well, I suppose I shouldn’t say Jewish spying because this time—writing in the August American Conservative — he gets nowhere near identifying the many Jews discussed as anything but deracinated individuals. (In contrast, we read about “the waspish” Sen. Karl Mundt and “young, educated scions of WASPy Brahmin families.” )

Raimondo draws the conclusion from the two books that “The U.S. government, during the war years particularly, was inundated with Communists who were turning over our secrets to the Soviets as fast as they could glean them.”

Here we get into the thorny issue of Jewish identity and the Bolshevik takeover of the Soviet Union. In recent years it has been shown convincingly that Jews played a massive role in this—and the subsequent murder of tens of millions of hapless Christians in those lands. Two excellent sources on “Stalin’s Willing Executioners?” can be found here and here.

Since the bulk of Jewish immigrants to America were from the lands controlled by the Soviet Union, it can be asked if they too shared many of the negative perceptions of non-Jews that their brethren back in the Soviet Union did. One can further ask if such perceptions facilitated Jewish spying in the United States during this era. The conclusion seems to be “yes.” Despite a long history of apologetics in which leftist Jews in the US have been depicted as having no Jewish identity, they in fact had a strong Jewish identity.

Just as it has been shown that many Jews in Hollywood accused of loyalties to the Soviet Union were in fact guilty of such, similar evidence exists for Jews elsewhere in America. The names of Harry Dexter White, journalists Walter Lippmann, George Seldes, and John Spivak dance across the pages of Raimondo’s review, but one searches in vain for even a code word to show Jewish identity.

Raimondo then drops what was a bombshell to this reader: He relates how serving Congressman Sam Dickstein was an active spy for the KGB:

The Soviets further succeeded in placing a number of agents as congressional staff members, and in Rep. Sam Dickstein (D-N.Y.), who according to Allen Weinstein’s The Haunted Wood was paid $1,250 a month by the Soviets, they had an actual member of Congress. . . . Dickstein wasn’t just a traitor and a Communist: he was also a crook. Indeed, “Crook” was the KGB’s cover name for him. In the winter of 1936, the New York congressman approached Soviet Ambassador Alexandr Troyanovsky with the bright idea of paying him as much as $6,000 for the Un-American Committee’s files on White Russian exiles in the United States. At a series of meetings detailed in the KGB archives, Dickstein dickered until he got the Soviets to agree to a fee that, in 2008 dollars, amounted to more than $200,000 annually. . . . He resigned from Congress in 1945 to become a judge of the New York Supreme Court. He died in 1956, with no one the wiser as to his KGB affiliation.

Raimondo’s review cries out for a discussion of the ethnic antagonisms permeating those years. For instance, Rep. Dickstein, whom Kevin MacDonald has already characterized in Culture of Critique as a Jew highly committed to his fellow Jews and a stalwart in the anti-immigration restriction forces of the 1920s, was openly hostile toward White Christian Americans who were conscious of their own interests. He “embarked on a witch-hunt against any organization or individual who dared speak out against U.S. intervention abroad, labeling them Nazis, fascists, and saboteurs.” Like today’s ADL or the heavily Jewish $PLC, Dickstein saw anti-Semites everywhere; he “exaggerated the extremist threat far beyond its small size, claiming that the German American Bund had two hundred thousand armed men who were ready to don their brown uniforms and overthrow the government.”

Like Dickstein, Susan Jacoby, author of one of the books under review by Raimondo, displays an animus toward Christian Americans. Raimondo does a good job of teasing this out. Jacoby, as he notes, “fails to understand the real history and nature of McCarthyism, which pointed to an internal enemy, rather than the alleged external military threat from the Soviet Union, as the main danger to America. This is why liberal anti-Communists, and the intellectual predecessors of today’s neoconservatives, recoiled at the sight of the populist McCarthy rallying millions of Americans against their own government and the elites who controlled it.” Is this not the description seen time and again that the numerically smaller Jews have given of the masses of non-Jews around them?

Imagine what would happen if a contemporary McCarthy held hearings on Israeli spying or went on TV brandishing a list of Israeli agents like Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Bryen and Ledeen in the State Department and Defense Department. The cries of “smear” and “witch hunt” — not to mention “anti-Semitism” — would be deafening.

Prior to WWII, Dickstein would surely have been jailed had his spying been discovered. Today, Raimondo explains, “the line between lobbying and espionage is now so blurred that it no longer seems to exist. And so, even as we absorb the lessons of this chronicle of treason, a new chapter in the history of ideologically motivated espionage is being written.” I’d substitute the phrase “ethnically motivated” for “ideologically motivated” in that sentence. But in any case, I’m not sure I want to read that chapter when it’s finished.

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

One of my interests in life is the bizarre phenomenon of anti-Jewish propaganda manufactured by elite and well-organized cadres of Jews.

Israel Shamir, in his controversial book Cabbala of Power, makes an interesting point about “hook-nosed Jews.” It seems that many Jews, far from shrinking from mention of their noses, never lose an opportunity to reinforce this particular stereotype by referring to their own noses negatively if there is no one else around to do so. When Jewish cemeteries are vandalized or swastikas are found defacing walls, the culprits on numerous occasions have turned out to be Jews. (See, e.g., here and here.) So it is with the legendary “Jewish nose”: a protected species of stereotype deliberately nurtured and kept alive by organized Jewry for propaganda purposes.

Shamir recounts several of these instances. David Mamet, Jewish American playwright, once noticed a bumper sticker on a car: “Israel, Out of the Settlements!” Mamet took umbrage. “This could well be translated,” he huffed, “as Hook-nosed Jews, Die!” Writing an article for The Age, a Jewish publication, Graham Barrett slyly invoked the same carefully cultivated stereotype. “The retired Malaysian Prime Minister,” he told his readers, “took a parting snipe at the ‘hook-nosed Jews’ who rule the world by proxy.”

But this is ridiculous. The Malaysian Prime Minister, as everyone knows, made no reference to “hooked-nosed Jews.” And Mamet is simply fantasizing about the attitudes of someone who was taking an entirely reasonable point of view on the Middle East. In his twisted world, any criticism of Israel, no matter how reasonable, is just another crazed statement of a Jew-hater whose images of Jews come right out of a Der Sturmer cartoon.

David Mamet  Imagines  How Critics of Israel See Jews

With the reader’s permission, I shall continue my disquisition on Jewish noses for a bit. The legendary ‘Jewish nose’, though fairly common among non-Jews, appears to cause our Jewish cousins extra special anguish. Rhinoplasty, invented by German-Jewish surgeon Jacques Joseph in the 1890s, largely caught on because its earliest and most enthusiastic customers were Jews. When Jewish comedienne Fanny Brice had her nose job, Dorothy Parker (herself half Jewish) quipped: “Fanny has cut off her nose to spite her race!”  Since then, many famous Jews have gone under the knife, including Natalie Portman (Herschlag), Winona Ryder (Horowitz), Gwyneth Paltrow (Paltrowitz), and Sarah Jessica Parker (Bar-Kahn).

Though this would appear to be a relatively frivolous subject, the intelligent reader will understand that it is not the Jewish nose per se that is of interest to me. I am really interested in Jewish power — in this case, the power to suppress any public discussion of a Jewish stereotype based to a considerable extent on the reality of Jewish noses. It’s really the same as Jewish ability to suppress statements that Jews have inordinate influence on the media. Truth is irrelevant.

In fact, it is the whole cluster of alleged anti-Semitic stereotypes and fabricated “canards“ that hover over any discussion of organized Jewry, or of Israel, and which make it almost impossible for anyone to discuss Jewish issues without being branded “anti-Semitic.”

“Eagle County is on the lookout for a Big-nosed Jew!” screams the inflammatory headline in a recent edition of the Denver Post.  Apparently a man who broke into someone’s house was spotted by a member of the public who then went on to give the police a description of the burglar: a man of medium height, medium weight, nondescript looking face, baseball cap pulled low. Helpful? The cops didn’t seem to think so — until the witness suddenly blurts, “Oh yeah, he had this big Jewish nose!”  Light suddenly dawns. The cops grin. The pieces of the jigsaw are beginning to slip into place. Hey, with a description like that you can’t go wrong! You’ve more or less got your man.

Denver Post reporter Susan Greene, who describes herself as Jewish, tackles the story with considerable aplomb, making all the right politically correct noises. First of all, the witness who described the burglar as having a “big Jewish nose” was clearly an anti-Semite. He should have watched his language, the bigoted lout. The cops were equally insensitive for taking down the witness’s toxic words without so much as a murmur. As for the local newspapers, how could their editors have been so stupid as to legitimize anti-Semitism by giving traction to the stereotype that Jews had funny cartoon noses? 

One Adam Sutner, quoted in the Denver Post, is beside himself with rage. The whole sordid affair reminds him of “one of Joseph Goebbels’ finer works of propaganda.” Reporter Greene notes caustically: If the “scary Semitic sneakthief” (burglar) had horns, the bigoted witness “failed to mention it.”

Needless to say, the ADL has been quick to complain. The editors of local rags, beating their breasts in anguish at their own insensitivity, offer unparalleled apologies. “This has shaken my confidence in my own ability,” one of them confides dolefully. Being Jewish, however, he hopes to be forgiven. The remainder, the goyim contingent, need to grovel a bit longer before absolution is granted.

“As a Jew with a nose, I’m sitting out this debate,” reporter Greene concludes on a wistful note.

What is the point of this storm-in-a-teacup brouhaha? Is it the need to create distractions? Are the goyim being lured into thinking about Jewish noses in order to deflect their attention from Jewish crimes? Forget Madoff, mister, think about our goddamn noses! No, I don’t think so.

The point I am making is this: if you can brainwash the lumpengoyim to such an extent that they dare not even refer to a “Jewish nose” for fear of offending Jews, then you have nothing to worry about in regard to the Jews’ real sins: hijacking US foreign policy in the interests of serving the racialist, apartheid state of Israel while at the same time being the main force responsible for erecting the culture of Western suicide, including especially the attack on traditional values and the sacral core of life. These, after all, are the things that matter. Not the Jewish nose.

But let’s get back to Jewish noses.

In Cabbala of Power Shamir describes an email from a stranger called ‘Sam Jones’. It said: “Your valiant efforts and writings are appreciated throughout this nation. I deeply share your contempt for the hook-nosed Zionist vermin. Every dirty Jew should be put back into the ovens. Thanks once again for your help in conveying this vital message.”

Shamir reveals that his unknown correspondent’s email address was finally traced to a certain Zionist provocateur. The same mischief maker had been bombarding Jeff Blankfort with similar emails, but Jeff saw through his game. The phrase “hook-nosed Jew” is always a giveaway, Shamir notes — “a clear sign of the Jewish effort to turn antizionist or anti-Judaic polemics into racist ones.”

If the “Jewish nose” ceased to exist, organized Jewry would be all the poorer for the loss of a valuable propaganda tool. In fact, if anti-Semitism didn’t exist, it might have to be invented.

Many of these bogus “insults” to Jews follow a predictable pattern. An initial gaffe that purportedly wounds the feelings of millions of traumatized Jews all over the world is invariably followed by howls of protest from Jew and gentile alike. Apologize, or be damned! A groveling apology follows.

Here are two cases which help to illustrate the point that Jew and gentile, these ancient ideological enemies, are now locked in a sadomasochistic bondage game in which the Jew wields the whip and the non-Jew cowers and cringes.

In October 2007, celeb actress Halle Berry appeared on “The Tonight Show” where she made an innocuous joke about the Jewish nose. Berry had been showing photographs of herself taken the previous day, using the Mac program Photo Booth, which distorts images like in a fun-house mirror. Commenting on the first picture, in which her nose looked like an enormous gherkin, Berry foolishly blurted: “Here’s where I look like my Jewish cousin!”

A stunned silence. Host Leno blinks and veils his troubled eyes. “I’m glad you said that and not me,” he sighs. Berry tenses, her eyes literally popping out on stalks. “Ohmigod,” she whispers, “have I just like ruined my career?”

Let’s assume it was a genuine gaffe and not a publicity stunt for Jewish noses.

Wasn’t it a subtle kind of cat-and-mouse cruelty to put this lovely actress through her subsequent humiliation? To force her to grovel? For a start, why, pray tell, does her career have to depend on the Jews? How come the Jews have managed to achieve a position of such total transcendence in America that they can now ruin someone’s career just for referring to their noses?

After a long and unnecessary apology for offending precisely no one, Berry concluded pathetically on this note of abject contrition: “It just came out of my mouth. I didn’t mean to offend anybody. I didn’t. I didn’t mean any harm. I am so sorry, and I apologize.

Oh Mr. Foxman, why weren’t you there to receive the lady’s kiss on the sole of your sainted foot?

The second incident of goy humiliation has nothing to do with the Jewish nose—a subject which, I confess, is now beginning to fatigue me. It is the famous incident involving one of America’s most hated men, the monster who made that unforgettable movie in Latin and Aramaic celebrating the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Because he’d had the chutzpah to make this “anti-Semitic” movie which in every way was the antithesis of the type of filth and feculence that now oozes from the sewers of Hollywood, Mel Gibson was a marked man. They were waiting for him to slip up. And slip up he did — big time.

I hardly need to repeat the story. I will summarize. Gibson got drunk. He was then arrested, and in the course of his close encounter with the cops, he made a few unhelpful and inappropriate remarks. He didn’t tell the cops that it might be a good idea to boil Jesus Christ in excrement.  No, he left that to the Talmud. He didn’t call the Virgin Mary a whore, either, though it’s true he referred to a female cop as “sugar tits.” He didn’t tell anyone to cut off other people’s testicles, as Ariel Sharon, “man of peace,” told Israeli soldiers to cut off the testicles of Palestinian demonstrators in the West Bank. (See here, Chapter 4, note 111.)

No, Mel went one step further. He insulted the police officer arresting him by asking him the politically incorrect question, “Are you a Jew?” And then he spewed forth these sacrilegious words: “F***ing Jews! The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world! You mother****er, I’m gonna  f*** you!”

Such a torrent of vile abuse was clearly unprecedented, only made bearable in subsequent newspaper reports by the judicious use of asterisks.

Poor Mel! His doom was sealed. He might as well have thrown himself into a tank full of piranhas. His abject apology to the Jews, like Halle Berry’s, could hardly have provided a clearer testament to the almost totalitarian power of the kings of contemporary America.

Here, in slightly abbreviated form, is Gibson’s groveling apology:

After drinking alcohol on Thursday night, I did a number of things that were very wrong and for which I am ashamed. I acted like a person completely out of control and said things which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed  of everything I said and I apologize to anyone who I have offended. I disgraced myself and my family with my behavior and for that I am truly sorry. I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state.

Six apologies one after the other! Mel Gibson: Model of contrition. Paradigm of penitence. And here now is Abe Foxman, one of the New Masters, a cold and implacable Caiaphas:

Mel Gibson’s apology is unremorseful and insufficient. It’s not a proper apology. His tirade reveals his true self. We hope that Hollywood now realize the bigot in their midst and distance themselves from this anti-Semite.

Jesus wept.

Meanwhile, the courageous and insightful James Petras expresses his concern that in the land where Jesus walked, Jews were recently seen to picnic round the blood-spattered gates of Gaza. Here they were free to participate in the gory bloodfest of the 2008-09 Palestinian mini-genocide enjoying their favorite sport of shooting fish in a barrel. Israeli T-shirts, some showing a pregnant Palestinian woman with a crosshairs over her stomach, bore the heartless slogan, “One Shot Two kills!”  And IDF soldiers were instructed by their superior officers, “Do anything you want!”

This has now been further documented in the booklet “Breaking the Silence” which compiles testimonies of soldiers in “the most moral army in the world“:

Among the 54 testimonies are stories revealing the use of “accepted practices,” the destruction of hundreds of houses and mosques for no military purpose, the firing of phosphorous gas in the direction of populated areas, the killing of innocent victims with small arms, the destruction of private property, and most of all, a permissive atmosphere in the command structure that enabled soldiers to act without moral restrictions.

Don’t expect this report to be discussed in the New York Times any time soon.

I am too distressed to make any further observations on the Jewish nose, so let me conclude with these prophetic words by Palestinian Christian and ex-Jew Israel Shamir, as presented by TOO‘s Edmund Connelly:

“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.”

Even as I write, Americans are being dispossessed of their country. It is being stolen from under their noses and most of them do not know it.  Europeans, too, are losing control of their  homelands.

We are all Palestinians now.

Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/2009/07/controlling-anti-jewish-stereotypes-the-case-of-the-hook-nosed-jew/

Blood and Politics, published this May, is a history of “White nationalist” political activity between 1974 and 2004 by Leonard Zeskind, an anti-racist writer and activist who has monitored White political groups since the 1970s.  The book consists of a chronologically ordered series of chapters on phenomena including Willis Carto‘s Liberty Lobby, William Pierce‘s National Alliance, David Duke‘s campaigns, Klan groups, Holocaust deniers, survivalists, Christian Identity adherents, Aryan Nations, White separatist compounds, bank robberies and murders by White criminal conspiracies, the Populist Party,skinheads, Pat Buchanan‘s campaigns, Ruby Ridge, Waco, White power music, militias, common law courts, American Renaissance, The Bell Curve, the Oklahoma City bombing trials, the Council of Conservative Citizens, Sam Francis, and 9/11.

While it may be unfair of Zeskind to lump these diverse phenomena into a unitary “White nationalist movement,” one can avoid quibbling about terminology by simply assuming, as I will in this review, that by “white nationalist” Zeskind means a White who identifies in a positive manner as White, or any Jewish or White proponent of the reality and importance of IQ .

Zeskind places White nationalists along a spectrum between “mainstreamers” and “vanguardists.”  Mainstreamers, exemplified by Willis Carto and his Liberty Lobby, believe that a majority of Whites can be convinced to support their cause. They participate in the political process and try to develop messages that resonate with a wide audience.  Vanguardists, exemplified by William Pierce and his National Alliance, seek “a few good men,” a small “vanguard” of energetic revolutionaries who do not care if the public hates them.

Zeskind’s account makes clear that not all White nationalists are of one mind. Some are atheists, while others are Christian Identity adherents; some question the Holocaust, while others do not; some detest Neo-Nazis, while others idolize Hitler; some favor criminality and revolutionary violence, while others advocate political solutions.

Despite these differences, Zeskind shows, there is also a great deal of ideological overlap among the segments of the movement.  White nationalists who are otherwise political opponents will agree that Jews have disproportionate control over the media, or that David Duke’s political campaigns were a positive development.

Zeskind also shows that individuals in one segment of the movement often have connections to individuals in other segments of the movement.  For example, he points out that Jared Taylor, whose American Renaissance conferences welcome Jews, is a close friend of Mark Weber, who runs the Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust revisionist organization.  Zeskind also describes how Willis Carto (a mainstreamer), William Pierce (a vanguardist), and Tom Metzger (a Klan leader) all tried to develop connections to the White power music scene, despite having little in common with the fans of the music. Within the network of connections among individuals in the White nationalist movement Zeskind describes, Willis Carto and William Pierce were major hubs, while other individuals, such as Sam Dickson, Bo Gritz, and Louis Beam, appeared as recurring characters in a variety of significant events.

Not surprisingly, Zeskind’s point of view is firmly grounded in the conventional wisdom of the political left.  His commentary reveals that he considers the following propositions to be firmly established:

1) The idea that the Jews “control the media” is plain nonsense.

2) The media is more than willing to give White nationalists a voice. Therefore, it is not the media that marginalizes White nationalists; rather, White nationalists marginalize themselves by saying crazy things.

3) The history of the United States is a story of progress from slavery to Jim Crow to the civil rights movement to an ideal realization of the principle that all people are created equal.

4) The civil rights movement was a product of the genius of Black people. (Zeskind knows this from first-hand experience; though he is Jewish, he has been a “life time member of the NAACP”.)

5) The relative material and occupational advantages enjoyed by White people are a product of historical inertia and the “prerogatives of white skin.”

6) Minorities who organize along racial lines are merely seeking equal rights, while Whites who organize as Whites see politics as a “zero sum game” in which minority progress toward equal rights harms Whites.

Nevertheless, Zeskind’s book is interesting because it departs from the conventional wisdom in a number of ways.  When he began writing the book in the 1990s, the working title was “Hate Mongers,” but around 1996, Zeskind says, he “abandoned the usual discourse with which this topic is discussed.  The so-called paranoid style, scapegoating and other such ideas simply did not fit the facts as they presented themselves.”

For instance, Zeskind provides abundant evidence that White nationalist activity is not the result of stupidity.  He is clearly impressed by the intelligence of individuals like William Pierce, who was a physics professor before he was a vanguardist.  He notes that Sam Francis, who was formerly a Washington Timescolumnist, “demonstrated a keen grasp” of Antonio Gramsci‘s idea of “ideological hegemony.”

Moreover, Zeskind does not beat up on White nationalists for lacking credentials.  He explains that Jared Taylor, founder of American Renaissance, was raised in Japan and graduated from Yale.  Zeskind tells the story of Eveyln Rich, a woman who wrote her PhD dissertation on the Klan while supplying information about Klan activities to anti-racist watchdog organizations.  Though she “grasped the subject of her inquiry like few others” and was later active in opposing David Duke, “[a]t some point Evelyn Rich must have dropped any scholarly distance she had from white nationalists” because she married Jared Taylor.

In contrast to liberals who assume that occasional acts of violence are the only threat posed by White nationalists, Zeskind argues that White nationalism is a serious threat because the mainstreaming wing of the movement, led by politicians, lawyers and PhDs, is capable of having an effect on mainstream politics.

For example, he argues that David Duke’s political campaigns, while unsuccessful, awakened a constituency concerned with White dispossession and thereby “opened the door” for Patrick Buchanan, a relatively mainstream figure, to bring Duke’s political issues into the Republican party.  Zeskind quotes Buchanan:

The way to do battle with David Duke is not to go ballistic because Duke, as a teenager, paraded around in a Nazi costume to protest William Kunstler during Vietnam, or to shout to the heavens that Duke had the same phone number last year as the Ku Klux Klan.  Everybody in Metairie [Duke’s district] knew that.  The way to deal with Mr. Duke is the way the GOP dealt with the more formidable challenge of George Wallace.  Take a hard look at Duke’s portfolio of winning issues; and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles.

Buchanan went on to win the New Hampshire primary in 1996 and to take over Ross Perot‘s Reform Party in 2000.

Zeskind also departs from conventional wisdom in explaining White voter behavior.  He rejects the idea that White voters voted for Proposition 187, an anti-immigrant ballot initiative in California, because they were opposed to illegal as opposed to legal immigration, or because they used immigrants as a scapegoat for the bad economy.  He explains that statistical analysis of the polling data showed only a slight correlation between voting for Proposition 187 and income level, education level, or financial worries.  There was a strong correlation, however, between a person’s likelihood of voting for Proposition 187 and the percentage of immigrants in the person’s neighborhood.  The distinction between legal and illegal immigrants did not matter to White voters.  What did matter was race and culture.

The David Duke campaigns demonstrated the same phenomenon.  The polling data showed that White voters were likely to vote against David Duke if the percentage of Black people in the neighborhood was small, but as the percentage of Black residents increased, the likelihood of voting for David Duke increased.  After carefully analyzing why Duke received the support he did, Zeskind quotes with approval a study that concluded, “Supporters in part saw Duke as a voice for whites, in the same sense that minorities have spokespersons.”  (Incidentally, that is exactly what David Duke says.)

Zeskind concludes that White nationalism is on the rise.  He argues that the end of the Cold War created a vacuum in American identity that many White people filled with an ethnic identity.  White nationalists, he says, are “committed to overturning American society rather than seeking to return it to some previous era.”  By possessing “significant resources” and giving voice and coherence to “grievances real and imagined,” White nationalists over the past three decades have succeeded in creating an “opposition to the status quo that will not go away in the near future,” Zeskind concludes.

Zeskind has condensed into narrative form a great deal of information about different White nationalist political phenomena, the overlaps among the segments, and the social connections among the individuals involved.  Reading Zeskind’s history, it was hard for me to keep straight in my head all of the meetings that took place in back woods compounds and hotel conference rooms, the large cast of recurring characters, the spiteful intra- and inter-organizational disputes, and other details that Zeskind recounts in 542 pages and supports with 77 pages of endnotes.

I created the figure below to represent visually the complexity of what Blood and Politics describes.  The overlapping colored circles constitute a Venn diagramof the White nationalist ideologies that Zeskind describes.  The dots represent individuals who hold particular combinations of views, and the lines represent social connections among the individuals.  The dots and lines in my figure are random, and the collection of ideologies is not complete, but the messy network conveys a schematic image of the world Zeskind describes: a complicated social network of individuals who inhabit different points in ideological space — what one reviewer on the dust-jacket called “a sprawling and shadowy world of racist leaders and their communities.”

Many of Zeskind’s readers will think this type of evidence proves that mainstreamers are just as dangerous as vanguardists.  But does it really show anything?  So what if every individual in the Venn circle of White nationalism, including Bell Curve author Richard Herrnstein, is connected to Timothy McVeigh by only a few degrees of separation?  So what if every White nationalist ideology, even one as tame as Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservatism, is connected by a series of overlapping ideologies to “RAHOWA” (Racial Holy War)?

Whenever there is some overlap between two ideologies, adherents of each are likely to develop a connection (one-way or two-way) on the basis of common understandings.  For example, Vanguard News Network, a web site that opposes Jews, immigration, and miscegenation (among many other things), currently has a link to a blog post by Bradley Smith, whose modus operandi is publishing advertisements in college newspapers asking for proof of Auschwitz gas chambers.  Given that Smith, a White man from Los Angeles, is married to a Mexican woman and lives south of the border, Vanguard News Network probably considers him a “race traitor,” but it promotes his work anyway.  Connections exist everywhere, but their significance is limited.

If I investigated, a la Zeskind, the social networks and political phenomena of the political left, perhaps my findings could be reduced to a diagram like the following:

Maybe George Soros plays the role of Willis Carto for the left.  Perhaps everyone on the left is only one or two degrees of separation away from such undesirables as 9/11 conspiracy theorists, who like to attend ACLU events, or leftist bomb-planters like Bill Ayers, who glom on to Barack Obama.  Liberals would think this kind of political connection-mapping is unimportant to understanding the left as a political movement.  So why does Zeskind want the left to understand White nationalists in this manner?

Zeskind actually does not want his readers to understand White nationalism; he wants his readers to defeat White nationalists politically.  For that reason, he provides details about the sneaky ways Willis Carto structured his non-profit corporations, but rarely allows his subjects to speak a complete thought. Readers are left with the impression that White nationalist ideas are mere instrumentalities of a political movement motivated by “prerational thoughts and feelings.”  Thus, the weapons to use against the White nationalists must be political, not intellectual.

Collecting seemingly trivial details about the social networks of White nationalists is necessary for building up ammunition for an important political weapon: guilt by association.  If an up-and-coming politician makes the mistake of attending a dinner where one of the speakers suggests that Jews control the media, his or her attendance will be duly noted in the anti-racist watchdogs’ databases.  Then, some time in the future, the politician will be accused of anti-Semitism, he will deny it, and the watchdogs will produce the factoid as rebuttal evidence.

Such ‘gotcha moments’ might not win political battles, but the aggregate effect of the politics of guilt by association is to quarantine White nationalist ideas. Respectable conservative politicians develop a fear of contracting a permanent case of political cooties by coming within earshot of anyone who talks about Jews having too much power or Blacks committing too many crimes.  As a result, White nationalist political organizations fail to attract the cultural indicia of legitimacy, and the media treats them as illegitimate.

Zeskind is concerned that White nationalist ideas will gain legitimacy by piggybacking on the goodwill of legitimate political institutions.  This can happen when legitimate institutions co-opt White nationalist political issues, as the Republican Party did by letting Pat Buchanan deliver his “Culture War” speechat the 1992 convention.  This can also happen when White nationalists infiltrate a legitimate institution, as when Pat Buchanan took over the Reform Party in 2000, or, as Zeskind warned recently, when Stormfront members decide to leaflet at libertarian Tea Parties.  By ringing alarm bells about the political activities of the mainstreaming end of the White nationalist spectrum, Zeskind helps to ensure that the boundary of the quarantine is drawn wide: not just around attention-getters like Kluxers and Neo-Nazis, not just around Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, but around Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster (and maybe even the Tea Parties).

There are risks to Zeskind’s approach.  By honestly admitting that the rhetoric of White nationalists as “haters” and “extremists” does not fit the facts, Zeskind undermines the popular stereotype, inculcated as early as elementary school, that Whites who organize as Whites are psychopaths seething with “hate.” Zeskind does not need this silly stereotype in order to believe that White nationalists are wrong; he is immune to their ideas because he has an unshakeable faith in egalitarianism and the falsity of all forms of “anti-Semitism.” But when ordinary, well-meaning White people realize the “hater” stereotype is a sham and that mainstreaming White nationalists are people just like themselves, will they stop and listen?  If they do, Zeskind can only hope that their faith is as strong as his.  In the course of trying to warn people not to underestimate the White nationalist threat, Zeskind might be helping to destroy a useful stereotype that, perhaps more than anything else, prevents ordinary White people from becoming apostates like Evelyn Rich.

Do I recommend this book?  Yes.  It is long but highly readable.  It is full of facts and stories, with a minimum of commentary; only rarely does Zeskind depart from a dispassionate perspective.  The book can be read in the intended fashion as a history of White nationalist political phenomena, but it can also be read as an account of experiments in creating a self-sustaining White culture in the midst of a hostile majority culture.  Occidental Observer readers may find it interesting to think about which strategies worked, which failed, and why.

Some of these experiments relate to Kevin MacDonald’s question, “Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?”  The Christian Identity religion, for example, considers Whites to be the real chosen people.  Some groups have promoted a White Zionism of sorts, arguing for the creation of a White homeland in the northwest United States.

Many of the experiments will seem strange, but it is important to remember that designing a successful political message is entirely different from constructing a logical intellectual argument.  Consider, for example, what constitutes a successful political message for the left: the 2008 “Yes We Can” Barack Obama promotional video, which featured a multicultural cast of celebrities incanting selected phrases of an otherwise uninspiring Obama campaign speech, punctuated by “Yes we can” in English, Spanish, Hebrew, and American Sign Language.  In just three weeks, this dumb yet very poignant video was downloaded 26 million times.  Thus, if many of the unsuccessful political stunts attempted by White nationalists in the past do not seem to make sense, consider that they might not have made sense even if they were successful.

There is no way to be certain about what kinds of White cultural experiments will succeed in outcompeting the culture of Western suicide.  What is more certain, however, is that one or more of them will succeed — or at least that is the impression I have after reading Blood and Politics.  Zeskind argues:

[W]hite nationalists consistently misunderstand the larger world around them.  A significant number of White people remain determined to live and live happily in a multiracial, multicultural United States.  And they do not regard themselves as “race traitors.”

Fair enough.  But as Zeskind shows with his analysis of David Duke and Proposition 187 voting patterns, these White people who are happy with “a multiracial, multicultural United States” tend to live in relatively homogeneous White communities.  As Zeskind further shows, as the percentage of non-Whites in the community increases, White people become less happy with the “multiracial, multicultural” community closing in around them, and start to vote for their race and culture.  What has happened to some neighborhoods in past decades is happening to the entire United States this century.  Thus, while the term “race traitor” might never enter their vocabulary, Whites in the future are likely find meaning in a culture and politics of Western survival, especially if the mainstream media follows Zeskind in admitting that the vocabulary of “haters” and “extremists” does not describe the reality of White nationalism.

Jonathan Pyle (email him) is a lawyer in Philadelphia.