Featured Articles

Joe Klein and the Loyalties of the Neocons

/in /by

In a post to his blog for Time Magazine, Joe Klein made a point that has been obvious to many for quite some time: “The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives—people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over atCommentary—plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.”

Needless to say, he was lambasted for this indiscretion. John Podhoretz, writing in the Commentary blog, labeled him “manifestly intellectually unstable”; others labeled him an anti-Semite and called for his firing from Time.

And the ADL went into its usual hysteria whenever such comments surface:

The notion that Jews with “divided loyalties” were behind the decision to go to war is reminiscent of age-old anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government, which has unfortunately gained new currency of late with public figures such as Jimmy Carter and professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt suggesting that American Jews are disloyal and that pro-Israel groups have undue influence over American foreign policy.

As Klein has noted, these attempts at silencing, character assassination, and intimidation are “happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society.”

It is not in the least surprising that there are conflicts between Jewish interests and the  interests of the wider society. The theme of Jewish disloyalty has a very long history and there are great many plausible examples where indeed Jews have been disloyal to the societies in which they reside. Nor should this be surprising given what we know about evolutionary psychology.

It seems only yesterday that Jacob Heilbrunn’s book They Knew They Were Right announced in the mainstream media that yes indeed neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. However, Heilbrunn took pains to deny that the neocons were disloyal.

The good news, then, is that even though Heilbrunn pushed the envelope a bit, he is already well behind the curve in terms of frank discussion of Jewish identities and influence in the mainstream media.

Issues that were formerly only discussed in places like The Occidental Quarterlyor The Occidental Observer are now discussed in Time Magazine,Commentary, and the Huffington Post.

The times they are indeed a-changin.

Media Watch – Vox Populi, Verboten

/in /by

The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages.  Guess which types of comments won’t make the cut.

New York Times’ “Public Editor” Clark Hoyt announced in his most recent column that our paper of record will soon begin allowing reader comments to be posted on its Web pages. See  Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet, Nov. 4, 2007.

Before delving in, I knew exactly The Times’ concern:  racially conscious whites.  Midway through the column, Hoyt confirms this by telling us who won’t be allowed to appear:  “Take, for example, ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’, who recently managed to get a comment posted on one blog, The Lede, suggesting that The Times ‘have all the displaced ILLEGALS form the FIRES Move into the TIMES NYC HQ Builiding… and let them urinate in the halls like they do infront (sic) of most every Home Depot in all the rest of the USA.”

Hoyt proudly tells readers that he personally directed that the comment be removed.  Needless to say, he does not ask whether Hispanics are indeed urinating outside.  Hoyt also informs us that to ensure future censorship of racially conscious comments, the Times has hired a four-person Memory Hole team to seek out and destroy any blips of white racial consciousness.

Editors have no doubt that the bounds of legitimate comment do not include racial realism. Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus, the Times’ political blog, objects to “intolerance” and “vitriol,” wishing that “we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.”  It is easy to imagine what Ms. Phillips considers “vitriol” and what she considers fair comment.

This is indeed a serious problem for a mainstream media controlled by elements hostile to America’s white majority.  The Internet has drawn back the curtain between the media producers and media consumers, and as it turns out, the white consumers don’t share the values of the often Jewish, minority, or liberal white producers.

What’s amazing is that The Times is actually admitting that it needs to be protected from the public, and describing what steps it will take to do so.

One might think the sentiments revealed by the Internet would cause the media to do some self-evaluation.  If it really cares about fair and insightful coverage of American society, as well as reporting to its audience, it might ask whether its coverage is geared toward that.  If white Americans are angry about what has happened to their country, why not cover that, even you as the journalist disagree?  They might just find that their (mostly white) readers appreciate seeing their side of the story for once, instead of the incessant coverage of any and all minority complaints.

But this assumes, of course, that the mainstream media is interested in either fair coverage or maintaining readers.  In fact, it is not interested in either.  On racial issues, the media does not waver from a steady course of denying inherited racial differences, denying Jewish influence, extolling the supposed virtues of “diversity” and denigrating whites.  The biggest story of the past 50 years is this:  America had a white majority approaching 90 percent for several hundred years, and now finds itself headed toward a white minority.  But that story gets no coverage.  Whites are not asked how they feel about this.  It prompts the question:  if an entire race died in the forest and the media didn’t cover it, would it make a noise?

This trend has continued, despite a steady drop in circulation at most major papers over the years.  The illegal immigrants so beloved by The New York Times are not, I am guessing, reading The New York Times.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The proper journalistic reaction to ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’ is to find out why he believes as he does, not shut him up.  That an organization ostensibly dedicated to gathering information, viewpoints and trends would announce itself to be working against that very mission by censoring whites is remarkable.

The irony is lost on The Times.  But we now at least have proof of how dead-set against whites it is.  And with the Internet, we know that our death will make a noise — and perhaps be postponed.

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

Media Watch – The Nameless Whites of CNN’s Shenandoah Coverage: When Will Our People Speak Without Fear?

/in /by

As one might expect, the beating death of a 25-year-old Hispanic man in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania by white teenagers took the top spot on CNN’s web page.

And, as any white advocate (and most whites in general) knows, this is in sharp contrast to media treatment of obviously racial attacks on whites by other racial groups, such as the Knoxville Horror and the Wichita Massacre.  When whites attack others, “hate crime” is presumed, and when others attack whites, “hate crime” is strenuously denied — both by law enforcement, and the media.

This point is almost too obvious to belabor.

But in reading CNN’s coverage, I was struck by something.  First, the reporters included the fact that they were approached by several “Anglos” who wanted to talk about Hispanic-on-white violence, but wouldn’t give their names.

I vividly recall this phenomenon when I was a reporter.  Whites rarely wanted to be quoted by name.  They saw me as a communist agent for Big Brother of some kind, whose goal was to make them look foolish in the newspaper.  They had (sometimes irrational) fears of losing their jobs or being harassed for speaking their minds on anything.  Blacks and Hispanics, however, saw me as a hero, a “safe” figure riding into town with a white hat.  They did not doubt that I, as the journalist, was on their side.  They spoke freely to me and identified themselves without hesitation.

As it happens, both white and minority perceptions were entirely accurate.  In fact, the press is on the side of blacks and Hispanics.  And it does set out to make whites look foolish.  I was merely seeing the logical result of my anti-white, liberal profession’s efforts.

The experience of the CNN reporters in Shenandoah echoed mine.  I could just imagine the frustrated, probably working-class whites approaching the CNN van, caught between a desperate desire to let their side of the story be known and the tremendous (and as I now see, real) fear of retaliation from the system for being seen as pro-white.

Meanwhile, the usual suspects — the church minister, authorities, and townspeople on the “good” side of the racial issue — offers their names without hesitation.

I was struck by another thing, and that was the reaction of Crystal Dillman, the white fiancé of the murder victim.  She was quoted as saying “People here are just ignorant. They think life begins and ends in Shenandoah.”

I imagine that Ms. Dillman is the one who, because of her willingness to pair off with a Hispanic man, is the one who considered herself superior.  She obviously imagined her relationship as a sign of her great intelligence, open-mindedness and cultural experience.  She was going to escape the suffocating confines of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania one way or another.

I am disappointed by this attitude, because it demonstrates how well the anti-white brainwashing of our times has worked.  We’ve convinced several generations of whites — both young men and women — that their own race is no good, and that to validate themselves, they need to glom on to person of other races.  Even if that person works as a berry-picker.

Listen to the quote of Jessica Lane, described by CNN as an “Anglo”:  “The young guys around here are racist because they think they’re so much better than everyone else,” said Lane, 18.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Yet it’s hard to imagine that whites in a hard-scrabble part of Pennsylvania actually think they’re “better than everyone else.”  More likely, they’re frustrated by living in a society where white males are denigrated and anyone else is celebrated.  Again, it’s probably Ms. Lane who thinks that because of her open-mindedness, she’s the one who’s “better than everyone else.”

Like the rest of the “preferred” subjects, Ms. Dillman and Ms. Lane know that their remarks will be greeted with widespread support, and thus do not fear giving their names.

[adrotate group=”1″]

We need to reach a time when whites with a defensive perspective are unafraid to speak.  Unfortunately, there is good reason for keeping identities mum. (I write under a pen name myself.)  Anti-white groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center relish digging out whites who speak up on behalf of whites and destroying their lives with “intelligence reports” or even a single phone call.  Their efforts get real results, and the fear generated reverberates to all whites who would defend their race.  Even if the SPLC doesn’t get you, the press, the police, and more importantly, your boss, just might.

I encourage whites to be braver.  Those with the courage to speak out will find more friends than they imagine.

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

Media Watch – Top of the Masthead: How To Handle Walt and Mearsheimer

/in /by

In 2003, when The New York Times found it necessary to address the issue of Jewish prompting for the war in Iraq, no less than the Editor — that’s the No. 1, capital “E” editor — wrote the piece himself.

Said Bill Keller, the belief the the war is for Israel is “simple-minded and offensive”.  But wrong?  The article had enough concessions, though, that it’s easy to imagine the angry phone calls that would have poured in — and been heard — had anyone under Keller penned the piece.  Here, a demand to speak to the highest authority in the newsroom would have had the caller patched through to the writer himself — thus defusing the bomb.

Anyone looking for an indication of the gravity of having the editor write about an issue should check to see how many times, since his ascension to the spot, Mr. Keller has done so.

This pattern repeated itself in September of this year, when New Yorker editor David Remnick, who is Jewish, stepped in to discuss Walt and Mearshimer for “Talk of the Town.”

Remnick’s approach is like Keller’s:  concede the “grain of truth” to the allegation of Jewish control over foreign policy, but dismiss it otherwise as an oversimplification (Using a quote from Zbigniew Brzezinksi, Remnick compares the Israel lobby to the Armenian, Greek and Taiwanese-American lobbies).  And make sure to distance yourself from shrieks of anti-Semitism, which are just as much of an oversimplification.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But both editors, of course, ultimately dodge the issue.  With the evidence stacked so high, they best they can do is to tell us that the issue is really more complicated than that.  This rhetorical technique is easily manipulated:  Matters are “complicated” when the obvious point makes Jews look bad, but very simple when the obvious point makes them look good — or white gentiles bad.  You will never hear Keller or Remnick argue that the Third Reich or apartheid South Africa was “complicated,” for instance.

Both the weakness of their retorts — and the positions of the writers — are yet another insight into the undeniable power of Jews over the direction of America.

Eye on Hollywood: Reel Bad Whites

/in /by

As I wrote back in early June, Arab-American professor Jack Shaheen has long been concerned about the consistently negative images Hollywood comes up with when portraying Arabs. Over the years he has written three books on the topic: The TV Arab; Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People; and Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs After 9/11. In the massive second book Reel Bad Arabs, he canvassed 900 films, “the vast majority of which portray Arabs by distorting at every turn what most Arab men, women, and children are really like.”

Shaheen was wise to point to the selective framing of Arabs and how it is repeated endlessly. Naturally, such repetition has a goal, one captured in an old Arabic saying: “Al tikrar biallem il hmar. By repetition even the donkey learns.”

With respect to an ethnic group—nay, a whole race—closer to my own heart, I worry about the images of the white majority. You know, the Leave It to Beaver types that we were (and were surrounded by) in our youth. 

Hollywood, it seems, has not favored us over the last half century or so. Either they supplant favorable white images with favorable images of African Americans and more recent Americans such as Jews. Or they create images of whites that are far more negative than typical of the first half of Hollywood’s existence. Why the change?

Further, why has the “reel,” or contrived studio image of whites, especially men, taken such a hit? Have whites really become that bad? Or have we always been evil, but our oppressive powers hid that truth?

Allow me to illustrate. Consider the following actual, or “real,”  stories:

The Ithaca Christmas Massacre of 1989: Ithaca, New York, home to Cornell University, is small, like many such towns in the Finger Lakes region. A white man, Tony Harris, married with two children, felt it was a good place to raise a family. Unfortunately, he, his wife, son and daughter were murdered there three days before Christmas 1989. Sixteen-year-old daughter Shelby was raped before she was killed. The suspect was African American Michael Kinge. Records indicate that Kinge had ridden his bicycle to the country setting of the Harris’s home, assaulted them with a gun, then tied all four to beds in two upstairs bedrooms. He shot all four, then attempted to dispose of the evidence by burning the bodies.

The Wichita Massacre of 2000: Pat Buchanan was one of the few nationally-known personalities to reference the Wichita Massacre of 2000. In his book The Death of the West, he described the crimes that took place on the night of Dec. 14, 2000:

Five young people were at a party when their home was invaded by brothers, ages twenty-three and twenty. The five were put into a car, driven to an ATM machine, forced to withdraw their money, and taken onto a soccer field. The two women were forced to strip and were raped. Then the victims were forced to have sex with each other at gunpoint. All were made to kneel down. Each was shot in the ear. The three young men and one woman died. The other woman, left for dead, ran bleeding and naked for a mile in the cold to find help, as the brothers drove back to ransack the house.

One of the victims had decided to become a priest. Another had bought an engagement ring and was about to propose, but “in the minutes before he died, Jason Befort was forced to watch as the woman he hoped to marry was raped.”

The Knoxville Torture Murders of 2007: On the night of January 6, 2007, a young white couple, Channon Christian, 21, and Christopher Newsom, 23, were on a date. On the streets of Knoxville, they were allegedly carjacked by black men, then kidnapped, beaten, gang-raped, tortured and murdered. The national press was silent.

As with the Wichita Massacre cited above, Hollywood wanted nothing to do with the story of black men anally gang-raping a 23-year-old white man. They did not want to graphically portray black men pouring cleaning fluid down Ms. Christian’s throat after orally, anally, and vaginally gang-raping her. Nor did they want to discuss how Newsom’s body, with “multiple gunshot wounds,” was discarded and set afire next to railroad tracks.  Ms. Christian’s body was found wrapped in garbage bags in a trash can. Some have suggested the body had been dismembered.

Now consider how Hollywood portrays interracial crime:

A Time to Kill (1996): In A Time to Kill, two Southern rednecks, dirty and disheveled, race their souped up yellow pickup trick across the red dirt of rural Mississippi. Sweaty and drunk, they hurl a full bottle of beer at black youths innocently playing basketball outside a small grocery store. Inside the store, the rednecks cruelly harass the long-suffering blacks of the neighborhood, including a young black girl.

Walking home alone along a country lane, groceries in hand, the girl is struck down by a can of beer thrown by one of the rednecks. As the bag of groceries flies out of her hands, a broken egg on the ground with its yoke running into the dirt symbolizes what is about to take place with the girl. Lying prone on the ground, she is filmed from various angles as the two white men take turns brutally raping her. Once finished, the men intend to leave no witness alive, so they roughly fit a rope around her frail neck and lynch her.

Déjà vu (2006): This film portrays a young white self-styled “patriot,” not unlike executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. The villain here has planted a bomb on a New Orleans ferry, killing 543 innocent Americans in the process. The scene accesses Americans’ memories of three traumatic events—the Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, and Hurricane Katrina (complete with its overtones of racist whites).

A previous victim had been a beautiful young African American woman brutally butchered by the white man. He tied her hands behind her back, placed a burlap hood over her head, then poured gasoline over her in preparation for her immolation. Next, he sadistically brandished pruning shears as he approached the thrashing black captive, slowly picked up her hand and cut off the fingers of her right hand in order to remove evidence from under her fingernails.

Transforming Politically Incorrect Reality to Suit Hollywood’s Anti-white Agenda

But It goes beyond creating fictitious cases of whites preying on blacks. Hollywood has taken real cases where blacks have brutalized whites and portrayed them as the exact opposite: White men brutalizing innocent blacks.

For instance, in October 2001, African American Chante Mallard, a young nurse’s assistant, hit a homeless white man, Greg Biggs, leaving him half lodged in her windshield. Ms. Mallard then drove home, parked her car in the garage, and left Mr. Biggs stuck in the window. For two days she checked on Biggs’ condition, talked to him, and when he finally bled to death, she and her boyfriend dumped the body in a park.

Hollywood transformed this into an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation as well as a film. In the CSI episode Anatomy of a Lye (the twenty-first of the second season), the driver became a white lawyer. In the 2007 film Stuck, Mena Suvari, the actress who played Lester Burnham’s blonde, blue-eyed high school love interest in American Beauty, starred in the role of Ms. Mallard.

The film was directed and co-written by Stuart Gordon, a Jewish American who has evidenced a highly critical view of majority culture, beginning with his founding of Screw Theater in 1968 and an adaptation of Peter Pan that featured nudity and hallucinogenics, for which Gordon was arrested. His Organic Theater Company later staged Sexual Perversity in Chicago.

Hollywood, of course, has not limited its inversions of politically incorrect reality to portrayals of white-on-black crime. A plethora of films have portrayed women or African Americans in high-status positions such as doctors, lawyers, or professors that were traditionally dominated by white males. An exception — until recently — was that Hollywood continued to portray airline pilots as white males. But even here, Hollywood now often shows a preference for women or African Americans as pilots.

For instance, in Turbulence (1997), a blonde flight attendant flies a 747 while a crazed white man played by Ray Liotta stalks her. In the Tom Hanks flick Cast Away (2000), we see both a female and a black pilot. And in a related theme, Jodi Foster plays an aeronautical engineer in Flightplan (2005). This, of course, is all part and parcel of the forward march of multiculturalism in the United States, as in the West more generally.

Another common example is for a Jewish character to rescue people in distress. A classic in this genre is the 1996 film Independence Day, which starred Jeff Goldblum as a hero fighter pilot along with African American Will Smith. (In this film, President Thomas J. Whitmore was still played by a white man; but, as we all know, portrayals of blacks as president have become commonplace, to the point that such portrayals have been suggested as paving the way for Barack Obama’s looming presidency.)

It is so common for Jews to be such heroes in film that one film expert has created a category specifically called “Jews to the Rescue.”

Then of course there are the numerous films in which the engineering genius is played by a black. One genius that comes to mind is Dr. Miles Bennett Dyson, “the original inventor of the neural-net processor which would lead to the development of Skynet, a computer A.I. intended to control and defend the United States, but which would later seize control of the world and launch a global war of extermination against humanity.” His appearance, of course, was in Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

Speaking only for myself, I fear that such fictional images of the dispossession of white males signal a real desire on the part of some segments of society to dispossess white males in real life. What then will future films look like when in fact the majority has been eclipsed?

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

“Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies.” Part I

/in /by

In a recent two-part column in this forum, Hereward Lindsay wrote that “Jews instinctively fear and feel threatened by nationalistic, particularistic societies.” Allow me to offer three examples of this. That all three come from vastly different places only points to the central truth Lindsay identifies.

First, consider the United States Air Force, a group which is heavily white, with a strong evangelical presence. Per Lindsay’s maxim, a Jew saw this as a threat, as a recent article in the Jewish Forward makes clear: “One of the primary critics of the Air Force has been Michael “Mikey” Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and a Jewish graduate of the Air Force Academy. Last March, Weinstein’s organization sued the federal government to combat what it calls creeping evangelism in the armed forces, arguing that it violated the constitution.” 

The Air Force Academy, incidentally, is located in Colorado Springs, CO, home to so many major Evangelical groups that it has earned the nickname “the Protestant Vatican.” One might credit Mr. Weinstein, then, with the courage to go to the heart of the particularistic problem.

A separate point to note here is the brazenness with which American Jews in power put other Jews in top slots. The above story from The Forward makes it sound like Jews are hardly represented in America’s armed forces, but the facts speak otherwise about a group that is only about 2% of the U.S. population:

With his appointment, Schwartz becomes the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, who heads the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, who is the assistant commandant of the Marines.

The writer tries to dismiss the obvious—that a Jew now in charge of the service that is most likely to act against Iran is an unlikely coincidence—by passing it off as some nutty Iranian conspiracy mongering. But of course it is too much to be a coincidence, just like the odds are heavily against both our Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General “just happening” to be committed Jews.

Next, blogger Steve Sailer writes about the actions of one Franca Eckert Coen, “an Italian Jew in an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic city who lives in an apartment filled with Jewish art [who] was in charge of multicultural policy under the former mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni. Ms. Coen recalled a year when Chinese celebrated their New Year with dragons around the Day of Epiphany.”

Sailer, alluding to Coen’s goal of diluting the Italian Catholic nature of Italian society, closes with a quip that mirrors Lindsay’s maxim above:

Do you ever get the impression that Kevin MacDonald has secretly bought a controlling interest in the New York Times and is rewriting its articles to make them prove his theories correct?

Sailer, in reviewing a NYT’s article on diversity in Italy, sarcastically titled his blog “Italy lagging lamentably on de-Italianification.” As he paraphrases:

Wouldn’t the whole world be better off if Italy weren’t so damn Italian? I mean, what has Italian culture ever contributed to anything? When will the Italians get with the program and adopt the Universal Globoculture? The New York Times wants to know!

Just by quoting Ms. Coen, Sailer achieves his point about Jews in fact working to deconstruct nationalistic, particularistic societies:

The newspapers said the Chinese were against Christianity,” she said. “So we held a public event on the Campidoglio about Chinese culture and the New Year celebration, and now we have a Chinese parade each year.

“It was the same with the Sikhs,” she added. “We had a public event after 2001. We also organized tours of the Capitoline Museums for immigrants. Then we asked them to do something. The Poles, for example, had someone play Polish music at the museum.”

“Little things,” she called them. “They can overcome big fears. I saw all these immigrants become a little bit Italian citizens. Culture is crucial to give people here a chance to see that to be foreign is to bring a different ethnic life to the city, that diversity is a positive.”

Evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald spelled out Lindsay’s formula about Jews in a longer version. While we’ve seen it in the final book of his trilogy on Jews, The Culture of Critique, a quote from his essay in the compilation Race and the American Prospect will suffice. In “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” he writes:

Consistent with what we know of the psychology of ethnocentrism, this implies that a fundamental motivation of Jewish intellectuals and activists involved in social criticism has simply been hatred of the non-Jewish power structure, perceived as anti-Jewish and deeply immoral.  This hatred is typically combined with the specific complaint that the pre-World War II U.S. culture was deeply anti-Jewish. A particular focus of Jewish anger was the Immigration Law of 1924, which closed off immigration of Eastern European Jews to the U.S.  There is no question that the 1924 law was partly motivated by a consensus in the U.S. opposed to the political radicalism and clannish ways of the recent Jewish immigrants.  The emotional intensity of Jewish involvement in the black-Jewish alliance is mirrored in Jewish involvement in altering U.S. immigration policy; both of these movements had strong overtones of hatred against the entire white, Christian culture of the U.S., which was viewed as anti-Jewish and profoundly immoral (emphasis added).

This year I’ve been reading a decidedly non-racialist account of the black-Jewish alliance, written by Culture Wars editor E. Michael Jones. While I cannot agree with his insistence that the religious/spiritual is primary in this struggle, I do find much of great value in his wide-ranging writing.

In the March issue (Vol. 27, No. 4), Jones addresses the founding of the NAACP and the role played by “revolutionary” Jews.  Jones has long been at work on a book about the revolutionary Jew, and it now seems to be available as a colossal book of over 1,000 pages, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History.

Jones begins with a useful overview: “The founding of the NAACP marked the beginning of Jewish impact on American life. . . . The NAACP was a Jewish organization, run by a board with no black representatives. . . Harold Cruse [said it was created] ‘to fight anti-Semitism by remote control.'”

Jones shows how these revolutionary Jews (“Spingarn argued for violent insurrection”) recruited a black face for the movement, and thus W.E.B. Du Bois became the public face for the NAACP. What is interesting is not just the fact that such Jews used blacks as a battering ram against white rule and independence, at the same time they prevented blacks from forming a nationalistic, particularistic society of their own.

To wit, they mercilessly attack Booker T. Washington and his movement, using Du Bois as the main agent. Washington was destroyed by a manufactured “scandal”: “Washington, the leading black figure in America, was now associated with voyeurism and the fatal sin of sexual attraction to white women.”

Jones sums up his essay thus: “Du Bois’s job at the NAACP was to delegitimatize any Negro leader whom the New York German Jewish elite found unacceptable.”

In the June issue, Jones explains how “Du Bois moved on to his second job; the destruction of Marcus Garvey.”  (The April and May issues deal with the Leo Frank Affair.  Southerners especially might be interested to read how Jewish animus against the “nationalistic, particularistic society” that was the South motivated the long assault on that part of white America.)

Interestingly, from Jones’s writing, I find more modern parallels. For instance, Jones writes that “Du Bois’s job was to promote integration and destroy any black leadership in competition with the NAACP.” Isn’t that what we saw Jews doing with William F. Buckley and his attack on “anti-Semites,” as suggested by Murray Friedman in his book The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy?

In a bombshell revelation, Jones writes of the (in)famous An American Dilemma,

Friedman claims that Myrdal ‘was neither Jewish nor American,’ but, even after indicating that Myrdal did not in fact write Dilemma, he fails to tell us that people like University of Chicago sociologist Louis Wirth, who wrote large sections of  Dilemma, was both, and that Myrdal had been brought in to give credibility to what was largely a Jewish project, because, as Friedman himself points out, “the scholarly critique of society that evolved into sociology had, like psychoanalysis, earned the reputation of being a Jewish science (emphasis added).”

Then, in a key passage, Jones writes:

The NAACP was interested in ‘integration,’ especially in the South, because they understood that integration would mean the end of the South as an independent culture. The same was true of all of the other ‘white’ ethnic groups in the North. As Harold Cruse later pointed out, the Jews were interested in the integration of every ethnic group but their own, and in the Negro, people like [Jew] Louis Marshall, now on the board of the NAACP and still smarting from his defeat at the hands of Southerners like Tom Watson, had found the vehicle for that subversion.

Jones goes on to document the destruction of black nationalist Marcus Garvey, who had started a steamship line to repatriate blacks back to Africa:

Once Garvey cited the NAACP as one of the conspirators determined to bring him down, it was only a matter of time before he would bring the Jews into the same picture. Garvey’s suspicion that he was the victim of an NAACP/Jewish-inspired conspiracy was strengthened when he learned that the presiding judge at his trial was Julian Mack, in Friedman’s words, “a member of the German-Jewish aristocracy who also served on the board of the NAACP.” When Garvey’s motion to have Judge Mack dismissed for conflict of interest was denied, he became even more convinced that he was the victim of an ‘international frame-up,’ declaring: “I am being punished for the crime of the Jew Silverstone [an agent for the line]. I was prosecuted by Maxwell Mattuck, another Jew, and I am to be sentenced by Judge Julian Mack, the eminent Jewish jurist. Truly I may say ‘I was going to Jericho and fell among the thieves.'”

Garvey got the maximum sentence of five years, integration became the norm, and here we are where we are today.

See also Part II of this article.

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

Philip Weiss on AIPAC

/in /by

Despite its general unwillingness to tread too far into Jewish issues (see this gem by Edmund Connelly), The American Conservative certainly has done itself proud with the publication ofPhilip Weiss’s account of the recent AIPAC convention.

The AIPAC convention is really a ritual of Jewish dominance in America. We read about the sheer political power able to command the presence of both presidential candidates and over half the Congress. The politicians truckle before their masters, competing to outdo each other with their promises and concern for Israel.  There are large banners featuring photos of wealthy AIPAC donors with their presumably non-Jewish trophy wives.

The clear message is: “We’ve got your politicians eating out of our hand. We have taken your most beautiful young women as wives (typically after having Jewish children with our non-trophy first wife). You will do what we want when it comes to anything related to Israel no matter what the cost to the U.S. Life is good.”

Power is not just having official Washington do one’s bidding. It’s also the ability to prevent public discussion of Jewish influence. There is almost no journalistic coverage of the event. “The reason seems obvious: the press would have to write openly about a forbidden subject, Jewish influence.”

Most egregiously, Weiss notes that the New York Times printed an article on a major Jewish fund raiser without mentioning that his main motivation is Zionism:

There was Donald Diamond, an Arizona real estate developer whom the New York Timesrecently profiled on the front page after he raised $250,000 for John McCain. The Times said nothing in its piece about Diamond’s Israel work. But that was all the banner was about. “The U.S.-Israel relationship is the single most important determinant of democracy in the world, and we must commit to securing it,” Diamond wrote. “It is so obvious to us that the Jewish community is a family and that we have to take care of each other.”

The reader of the New York Times article goes away thinking that Diamond is just a regular Republican kind of guy, when his main motivation is presumably to get McCain to hew to AIPAC’s line on Israel.

The result is that organized Jewry is able to have its cake and eat it too. All those politicians and the media elite are quite aware of Jewish influence. But they cannot mention it in public without suffering the consequences.

Of course, in the case of much of the media—including the NYT, the taboo against discussing Jewish influence is self-imposed. And for very good reason:  The NYT is itself a paradigm of Jewish influence.

Another example of the media blackout of AIPAC relates to the dual loyalty issue. AIPAC would probably not want it widely known that “when the national anthems are played, one cantor sings the ‘Star Spangled Banner,’ but the ‘Hatikvah’ has two cantors belting it out, with the audience roaring along.”

Dual loyalty? What dual loyalty? If emotions are any indication (and they are), it’s pretty clear where their hearts lie. But don’t worry. The New York Times or, for that matter, Fox News or any other American media outlet would never think of publicizing such incidents.

As Weiss notes, “AIPAC and its roll call of politicians would say that American and Israeli interests are identical.” But how would they know? Everything we know about human psychology argues that their powerful emotional attraction to Israel would cloud their judgment and bias their thinking on anything related to Israel.

In addition to the dominance and power theme, the article is a primer on other aspects of Jewish psychology.

1.)  There’s a constant stream of Holocaust imagery designed to motivate the Jews, legitimize whatever Israel does to the Palestinians, and pull at the heartstrings of the goyim.

2.)  Tying in with the Holocaust imagery, there is a palpable sense of threat. The situation is dire—1939 all over again, and we’ve got to rally round the flag to avert total destruction. Sure, the wine is flowing and just about everyone at an AIPAC convention is rich; the goyish political and social elite are bowing and scraping before you. But disaster looms, so we have to batten down the hatches and rally the troops.

3.)  But it’s not all negative emotions. There is an unbounded love for Jews and all things Jewish. “Even a sharp critic like myself of what AIPAC is doing to American policy in the Middle East was frequently moved by the pure loving feeling that surrounds you at every moment.” Of course it’s not love for humanity as a whole (much less the Palestinians), but love for one’s tribe.

4.)  Stuff that’s okay to say among the tribe should not be publicized outside the ingroup. It’s okay to worry about whether Obama is sufficiently pro-Israel. But this sort of talk should be relegated to private conversations—exactly what Mearsheimer and Walt have found as a general characteristic of discussion of Israel. As they note, there’s far more public discussion of controversial aspects of Israel policy in Israel than in America.  And Jews who publically criticize Israel are ostracized by the Jewish community.

5.)  When someone like Obama is not an entirely known quantity in the Jewish community, then the group relies on trusted tribe members to plead his case. In this case, it’s Lee Rosenberg , a board member of AIPAC, whose main point was that Obama had “gotten to know” Benjamin Netenyahu, a stalwart on the Israeli right and well known as a strong supporter of colonizing Palestinian territory.

Besides Jewish psychology, we really have to wonder what’s going through the minds of the non-Jews in attendance. We can assume that the politicians are completely cynical and self-serving sociopaths who feel no twinges of guilt for truckling before their masters even though their masters are hardly subtle about where their loyalties lie. Who else but a sociopath could perform such a degrading ritual?

But what about the Christian evangelicals? Weiss describes one evangelical as follows: “Carrie said that at a synagogue she addressed, the first question came from a high-school girl who said, ‘But isn’t Israel an apartheid state?’”

That must cause a bit of cognitive dissonance. Let’s see. God wants the Jews to control all the land of Israel, including the West Bank, expel or otherwise dispose of the Palestinians (even the Christian ones), and erect an apartheid state where Jew and non-Jew live in separate worlds behind high barriers. And when all this comes about, then God will rapture the believers, the Jews will finally be converted, and the Second Coming will be at hand.

God works in mysterious ways.  Can these people really be that out of touch with reality? Sadly, the answer seems to be yes. But the good news is that, for a variety of reasons, their influence may be on the wane. Let’s hope so.

In the meantime, we should all be thankful to Philip Weiss for shedding a little more light on the Israel Lobby.