I’ve been observing and studying the fall of Western man for about two decades now. For a number of years I could not really understand the process, but eventually I caught on. I’ve shared my fears and observations about our displacement with friends and family in a haphazard way but it was not until this winter that I systematically reached out to try to warn them. More than the election of the first African American president last fall, it was the sudden implosion of the economy that convinced me that my minimum duty was to at least pass on my estimation that a few basic measures of preventive self defense were in order.

Before talking to anyone, however, I pondered the likely response to my warnings. Like almost every White racialist out there, I’ve experienced rejection from nearly every White I’ve talked to. Why this is so remains a mystery to me, for the evidence of White decline is everywhere. Sure, humans are prone to denial, but how can it continue this far past the obvious?

Denial or not, I resolved to go one step beyond the writing I’ve been doing to actually talk to specific friends and family members about the elevated risks they face simply by being a White person in today’s America. Of particular concern are the naïve young women in my family.

Looking back on it, the impetus for this personal campaign probably came from a column by the editor of The Occidental Quarterly, Greg Johnson. Mr. Johnson used the occasion of the release of a low-keyed video about race in America to ponder precisely what I’m talking about. In his words: “When a White person awakens to our race’s peril, the first impulse—and the first duty—is to try to awaken others. But where to begin?”

His decision was to “highly recommend Craig Bodeker’s masterful 58 minute documentary A Conversation about Race. It is an ideal first step on the road to racial awakening.” Taking this advice, I started there, ordering a copy for my brother in Virginia. A blue collar man, he’s been hard hit his whole life by stagnant or declining wages, in part due to the massive immigration—legal and illegal—of laborers with little education. Since he’s a nice guy who is at least superficially willing to listen to my ideas on race, I figured he’d react favorably.

A Conversation about Race

I sent him a copy of the documentary, which he acknowledged receiving, but in subsequent e-mails and phone conversations, he’s never brought up the subject. I have to assume then that he simply has chosen not to watch it. And it’s not that he doesn’t like to watch TV. On the contrary, he’s one of those guys who watches hours and hours of it after work and on weekends. I can always get a pretty good idea of what the latest popular sayings or phrases are just by listening to him.

Well, my brother was just a start. Being Irish America of a certain generation, I’ve got a good number of relatives both back in my hometown and spread out across America. Cousin Mike, for one, is about as good as they come. A few years younger than me, he never went to college but has worked hard enough all these years to allow his horse-loving wife to be a stay-at-home mom. (It helps that land and home prices in small town America are still low.)

As a self-employed businessman—a guy who works with his hands but also has to focus on the bottom line—Mike is probably a little more serious about events than the average guy his age. That’s why I approached him in a unique way. In essence, I made him an offer: “Mike, I’ve got cash in a bank that might be going under someday soon and I can’t be sure federal insurance will mean a lot at that point. Thus, I’d rather use some of that money to buy something here and now that could make a big difference in our lives: I’m willing to pay for whatever firearms and ammo you would feel comfortable owning.”

Because Mike knows how to use dangerous tools and has a fairly sharp sense of what human beings can be capable of in a pinch, I thought it better that he rather than more innocent relatives be in charge of legal firearms. Unfortunately, I never heard back from him.

Now before you get worried about this talk of firearms, let me state directly what worries me most: the chance that our society will even more extensively allow our underclass to blame Whites for whatever perceived misdeeds the underclass feels we are responsible for, and worse, to tacitly allow them to act on their sense of resentment or vengeance more than they already do. And it’s not even the carjacking or street crime that most worries me; it’s the rape. 

If you’re reading this column, you don’t have to be reminded of the sources for statistics on this kind of thing. We’ve got the hard science from the likes of Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray. Further, we have the aggregated figures on the highly elevated rates of Black crime as documented in The Color of Crime, which comes from the same team that has consistently brought us the race realism writing of Jared Taylor and his writers at American Renaissance.

VDARE.com has a veritable stable of race realist writers, while the more courageous individual can go to a place like David Duke’s website for unvarnished discussions of the problems we Whites face—and the people who are mainly responsible for our plight. Or you could visit Western Voices World News or maybe Ziopedia. (For the more aurally oriented, one might turn to James Edwards’ radio show The Political Cesspool, which was just mentioned in a front-page story in The London Times.)

My point is this—there are many good sources for finding out about the scourge we Whites generally face today in America (and Canada, England, etc.) And like I said, one of the most fearful is Black-on-White rape. In addition to a brother, I have four sisters, and among the six of us we have a lot of young White girls, mostly blondes. Maybe now you can see why I’m worried.

We race realists all have something that triggered our escape from the imposed lies about racial equality and the ideology of unique White wickedness. For me, it was certainly the Wichita Massacre, in which five young Whites were raped and/or murdered by two Black men in a horrendous attack—one which our national media utterly ignored. For others it may have been the Knoxville slayings, or maybe the way the news media focus far more on the alleged crimes of White men, as in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax or the Jena 6 fraud.

In any case, you readers know the score about interracial crime, which, as Greg Johnson tells us, Bodeker discusses openly in his race documentary:

In the United States in 2005, 37,000 White women were raped by Blacks, while in the same period “fewer than ten” Black women were raped by Whites. (The odd locution “fewer than ten” rather than a specific number leads me to think that the number could be zero, but that the statistical margin of error is ten.) Bodeker then makes another brilliant point: according to the conventional wisdom on racism, we are supposed to be worried if, on any given day, a White person somewhere in America is harboring racist attitudes towards Blacks; but if one is concerned that, on the very same day, one hundred White women are being raped by Blacks, that is racism most foul.

What I’m trying to do here is understand why what is obvious to me and other race realists is so stubbornly resisted by my friends and family. I mean, what more than is already happening will it take to wake them from their stupor? As an academic, my approach has been through the written word, often in ways that might test the patience of the general reader. Still, I think even my academic prose is accessible and, because it is almost exclusively focused on popular culture, of interest to a wide audience.

For instance, my thirty-something columns at this site cover a broad range of popular culture. My longer works in The Occidental Quarterly do the same but in far more depth. The most popular essay to date seems to be one on television—The Jews of Prime Time. Others can be read here, here and here (this year expect three more essays in my “Understanding Hollywood” series).

My focus on Hollywood comes from the common assumption—heavily supported by an immense body of scholarship—that media influence the way a population thinks and acts. For example, a major thrust of Kevin MacDonald’s recent work (see also here and here) is on showing the power of culture to shape attitudes and control behavior. As he says, “It’s the culture, stupid.”

And it is not only media like film, television and newsprint that do this. It can also be advertising, even in ways that are not directly related to the bottom line.

For instance, the blatantly anti-White male series run by Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) a few years back is unmistakable in its disdain for traditional White society. The conceit is that a nonthreatening and personable Black man in khaki trousers is superior to the crowd of stuffy White (non-Jewish) male bankers who are “from the last century.” Have a look. As we are introduced to a series of White male faces, the narrator intones, “They’re out of touch. They’re old fashioned. They’re greedy.” In contrast, the audience consists of “regular people.” You know, Black women, Pakistani immigrants, and most of all our Black male emcee.  The White males are imbeciles — one stating “I’m clueless and rich.”

Another commercial in the series has the herd of White male bankers threatening to jump from the roof of the bank because super banker Bill (the African American) has introduced wildly successful new banking products that the White bankers had never dreamed of. The ad closes with the bankers’ wives being hydraulically lifted to the roof to berate their emasculated banker husbands.

In perhaps the most offensive version, our Black banker Bill explains the source of WaMu’s success. Taking a secret elevator down into the basement, he reveals his secret: “Here at WaMu we have the bankers’ pen. It’s simple—If these stodgy old bankers think an idea is wrong, then we know it’s right.” When the pen of White bankers gets riled up over the new business practices Bill has overseen, he placates them by having a large champagne dispenser lowered into the cage, just as baby calves are bottle fed out in the barn.

(Far be it from me to gloat over the failures of multiculturalism, but I did notice that last fall WaMu went bankrupt. I guess Black banker Bill’s ideas were not that applicable in the real world.)

I know my friends and relatives are watching such advertising all the time. In addition to a similar message of White displacement being preached at all levels of education (ever look at the textbooks your kids are assigned?), the meaning is crystal clear. Why the denial, then?

Honestly, this kind of image is now part of the furniture that is found in the American living room. Think about Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show for starters. For many Americans — especially young adults, he sets the stage for viewing reality. Now, I know what the response of the vast majority of Whites is to anti-White images: as long as they are funny, anything goes. It doesn’t’ matter how vile, untrue or damaging the images are, just as long as they are funny. Needless to say, Blacks, Jews, women, and a string of other minorities long ago learned that humor was one of the most effective ways to attack, belittle and disenfranchise a target group. Whites in general, however, are clueless.

For instance, The Daily Show recently ran a skit called White in America—the Children, which operated on a number of levels. The most basic message was that Whites’ days as majority Americans were numbered. Stewart opens the skit by announcing that “President Obama was elected on a message of change. But is that change good for everyone?” Light-skinned Black Larry Wilmore adopts the role of reporter, introducing one set of Americans at risk: “There is one group of Americans who are now facing the biggest challenge in their history: White people.”

This “once proud race” faces dispossession at the hands of Blacks, Asians “and most rapidly, Latinos” (the transition being represented in the skit by White minivans being replaced by Black cars, Asian motorcycles and low-rider Mexican American cars). In a faux-serious interview, Wilmore faces a group of eight White children and tries to make them understand that their future is bleak. The children—brainwashed already by a steady diet of multiculturalism—are not only in denial about their prospects, they positively welcome the coming change.

The only blonde young girl, for instance, testily responds to observations about her group’s decline, blurting out “We’re not upset in any way, shape or form.” More realistic about race realities, interviewer Wilmore solemnly informs them: “You will be.”

Of course he is absolutely right. Displacement and loss of power have been utterly devastating to groups throughout history. Think how well Americans Indians have fared. Or modern Palestinians. To fail to be upset by such a prospect goes far beyond mere denial, it seems to me. To give up power in a situation where the groups who inherit power (particularly Jews, Blacks, and Latinos) have historical grudges against Whites seems the ultimate folly.

Showing his well-rehearsed multicultural response to the “inevitable” coming changes in America, a White boy quizzes Wilmore, asking “What if this happens and only good change occurs in America?” What kind of Kool-Aid are such young White children already drinking? Perhaps it’s understandable that White children believe these things. The truly pathetic part is that such childish fantasies of about the future of Whites in multicultural America are believed by White adults.

Again, I want to stress the pervasiveness of such images of White dispossession. As mentioned, I’ve written extensively about Hollywood’s scripted replacement of Whites, but you can find it just about everywhere. The venerable Atlantic Monthly, for instance, has for some years now been running prominent ads from the top corporations in America—Microsoft, UPS, Lockheed Martin, etc.—that visually celebrate the coming diversity they see in our future.

Aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, for example, envisions their future rockets being built by a whole range of races — completely unlike the real history of rocketry, where White males did all the thinking, designing and building.

Lockheed Martin ad with future rocket scientists

Microsoft took an even more blatant approach to the same idea, announcing: “We see a rocket scientist.” In the picture, a Black youth is the future rocket scientist. (The odds of someone from a population with an average IQ of 85 producing a rocket scientist are miniscule.) Around him are an Asian boy, a presumably Hispanic boy, a mulatto girl, and two White girls. Real White male rocket scientists and astronauts need not apply.

Microsoft ad: “We see a rocket scientist” (I don’t)

To be sure, NASA itself has been part of this lunge toward diversity, scrapping its all-White male pool of Apollo astronauts for a predictably diverse cast, such as we see here in a crew photo of the space shuttle astronauts who died in the 1986 Challenger explosion:

Space Shuttle Challenger Crew

Space Shuttle Columbia Crew, with Israeli flag

(Nearly two decades later, the multicultural look was still in force at NASA, though the second time a shuttle orbiter was lost, an Israeli was among the crew. This made for a good photo op with both nations’ flags.)

My favorite ad is another Lockheed Martin creation, this one celebrating the joys of diversity in (allegedly) fostering unique perspectives and innovation — which is why the world has seen such stunning fighter jets conceived and produced in places ranging from Mozambique to Polynesia to Ecuador. Here are the people who will be responsible for Lockheed Martin’s future jets. You go, girls!

Lockheed Martin ad featuring non-White female space scientists

The gauntlet laid down for the White race is formidable: demographics, immigration, affirmative action, White self-hate, and the relentless efforts of Jewish groups to eliminate Whites as rivals for world domination.

But I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is room for optimism, such as that displayed by VDARE’s Steve Sailer, who recently wrote, “The interaction of government-sponsored non-traditional immigration and “disparate impact” affirmative action constitutes a doomsday machine the will rapidly dispossess, and probably seriously radicalize, White America. It’s a recipe for revolution.”

Obviously, I don’t see our dispossession as positive, but I sure would be happy if Sailer is right about a coming White revolution. Sadly, I just don’t see it—and the non-responses of my friends and family discussed above strikes me as typical.

No doubt what really turns people off is when I persist in discussing what I see as the root cause of White dispossession: Jewish activism. We at The Occidental Observer have focused on this cause since the inception of the website last year. I insist on this because I believe political philosopher Carl Schmitt was right: “It’s not only you who chooses your enemy, it’s more often your enemy who chooses you.”

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

The acquittal of former AIPAC operatives Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman on espionage is yet another victory for the Israel Lobby.  As happens so often these days, stories that are much discussed in some sectors of the Internet are pretty much ignored in the MSM. The New York Times buried it and the LA Timesignored it entirely. It was missing from network news and from cable TV talk shows of all political leanings.

Lobbies, it is said, live in the dark and die in the light of day. And here the media cooperates with a bit of self-censorship.

One of the major points made by the defense was the following argument:

Highlighting the curious underpinnings of this prosecution, the high-level government officials with whom Rosen and Weissman regularly met and who, according to the Indictment, illegally disclosed classified NDI [national defense information], have not — with but one exception — been charged criminally. Indeed, one of the disclosing officials has since received, not charges or reprimands, but a series of promotions to one of the highest, most sensitive positions in the government.

The “one exception” is former Pentagon official Lawrence A. Franklin, who has been sentenced to a 12-year prison term.  The two other high-level government officials were given coded names in the original indictment, but they are now known to be Kenneth Pollack and David Satterfield. The indictment indicates that both Pollack and Satterfield gave classified information to Rosen and/or Weissman.

Despite the wording of the indictment, Pollack claims that he “could not imagine having relayed classified information.” I guess we are supposed to take his word for it.

The indictment also mentions two Department of Defense employees who put Rosen in contact with Franklin. Neither of these has ever been named, but it would be interesting to find out their names as well. One of these employees was at a breakfast meeting with Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman when Franklin provided the AIPAC employees with classified information.

Rather than being indicted as Franklin was, life has been good for Satterfield (and Pollack; see below). Satterfield has been promoted — three times:  to Principal Deputy in the Department of State’s Mideast Bureau, then to Deputy Chief of Mission with the rank of Ambassador in Iraq  and most recently to Principal Adviser to the Secretary of State on Iraq.

All of these are sensitive assignments and all of them relate to the area of AIPAC’s main concern. AIPAC is doubtless quite happy that there are high-level US government officials who are stationed in just the right areas and who cooperate in giving them classified information.

The point of the defense, of course, is that since Satterfield and Pollack have never been indicted, Rosen and Weissman were not doing anything out of the ordinary. That is, they were talking with government officials who were not seen as doing anything wrong because nothing was done to them. And if the government officials weren’t doing anything wrong, then how could the defendants possibly be doing anything wrong? It’s all part of business as usual in Washington.

This is an excellent argument. The government’s prosecution seems to have been capricious at best. And at worst, one might speculate that the prosecution decided to sacrifice a non-Jew so that it would not be seen as exclusively targeting Jews.

So the question is: Why weren’t Pollack and Satterfield indicted? And why was Lawrence Franklin targeted as the fall guy while two high-level Jewish officials —officials that the government claims gave Rosen and Weissman classified information — were not charged at all?

From the standpoint of the government, it should make much more sense to go after the ethnic Jews who are providing classified information to AIPAC than to go after a hapless non-Jew who seems to have been seeking to advance his career by doing what his Jewish peers are doing — providing information to AIPAC. What better way to ingratiate oneself into the power structure?

Indeed, in the indictment, Franklin asks Rosen “to put in a good word for him” for a position on the National Security Council (NSC), and Rosen replies “I’ll do what I can.” Quite clearly, Franklin was seeking to advance his career in the national security establishment by cooperating with AIPAC. What a statement on the power of AIPAC in the eyes of people trying to get ahead in Washington!

On the other hand, during his trial Franklin portrayed himself as seeking to get information to people on the NSC. He had nothing but the highest motives.

But this implies that Franklin thought that it was reasonable for him to believe that by giving information to Rosen and Weissman he could influence the NSC. This shows that Franklin viewed AIPAC as having extraordinary access to the NSC — more access than he had as an employee of the Defense Department going through regular channels. Obviously, this does nothing to diminish one’s estimate of the power of AIPAC in the US government.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But the big point is that if the government really wanted to end the funneling of classified information to AIPAC and to Israel, it would go after the ethnic Jews in the government who are providing the classified information. The “passionate attachment” of ethnic Jews to Israel is the stuff of legend and is an obvious motivation that any reasonable person concerned about security issues should be aware of and try to eliminate.

The question is important because Pollack and Satterfield are exactly the types of people whose presence at high levels of the US government illustrate the power of the Israel Lobby and its ability to get information from the highest levels of the US government.

Indeed, there is now a long list of Jewish patriots who have been credibly charged with spying for Israel. Jonathan Pollard and Ben-Ami Kadish were convicted or pled guilty, but there is also a top drawer list of neoconservatives in that category who were not convicted: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen.

Satterfield has kept a fairly low profile in terms of his associations, but Pollack is a classic Jewish activist who has gone back and forth between high positions in the government and high positions in pro-Israel activist organizations. In particular, he was working for the NSC at the time when he was mentioned in the indictment of Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman — presumably indicating that Rosen and Weissman did indeed have a close contact at the NSC and would be able to put in a good word for the ambitious Mr. Franklin.

At the end of the Clinton administration, Pollack moved seamlessly to hardline pro-Israel advocacy as Director or Research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. In this role he has been a strong advocate for the war in Iraq. Whereas the Iraq War was definitely a project of the neocons, Pollack is a Democrat who used his influence to successfully promote the war among liberals. New York Times columnist Bill Keller noted “Kenneth Pollack, the Clinton National Security Council expert whose argument for invading Iraq is surely the most influential book of this season, has provided intellectual cover for every liberal who finds himself inclining toward war but uneasy about Mr. Bush.”

And liberal columnist Matthew Yglesias pointed to Pollack’s influence among liberals in creating a bi-partisan agreement in favor of the war. He describes himself as among those “who read Pollack’s celebrated 2002 book, ‘The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq,’ and became convinced as a result that the United States needed to, well, invade Iraq in order to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s advanced nuclear weapons program (the one he didn’t actually have).”

Pollack therefore is a good example of how the Israel Lobby plays both sides of the aisle. The neocons take over the Republican Party, while the liberals are swayed by the likes of Pollack.  And wealthy activists like Haim Saban are there to endow the Saban Center so that people like Pollack can have good jobs and a prominent platform for their ideas.

As noted in my previous column, dual citizen Saban’s love for Israel knows no bounds. Indeed, one aspect of Saban’s commitment is that he seems to be involved in yet another AIPAC scandal as the person who asked Rep. Jane Harman to use her influence to get the charges against Rosen and Weissman reduced.

Saban and Pollack obviously have a lot in common. Like Pollack, Saban is a Democrat. Saban is a huge donor to the Democratic Party — he gave over $10,000,000 in 2001–2002. But he’s a liberal who loves war if it’s in Israel’s interests, and he obviously got the right man in Pollack to head his center.

Finally, Judge T. S. Ellis III forced the government to have a very high standard for conviction. The government had to prove that Rosen and Weissman “had a bad faith reason to believe the disclosures could be used to the injury of the United States or to the aid of a foreign nation; and … intended that such injury to the United States or aid to a foreign nation occur.”

This is a very high standard and would make it pretty much impossible to convict anyone of spying on behalf of Israel. Indeed, the first line of defense for neocons against accusations of dual loyalty is to claim that they sincerely believe that are advocating policies that are in the interests of the United States. As I noted elsewhere,

One need not be a professional psychologist to realize that sincere beliefs can be influenced in subtle ways by one’s ethnic commitments. The neocons may not be consciously disloyal, but there is every reason to suppose that their beliefs are tailor-made to conform to their perception of ethnic interests. And in the case of the neocons … there is overwhelming evidence for deep ethnic commitments among neoconservative Jews.

Jewish organizations have every reason to celebrate this victory. Not only were the AIPAC operatives acquitted, the Jewish activists  inside the US governmentwho are alleged to have given AIPAC classified information were not even indicted.

True to form, their reaction is to take full advantage of their victory. Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations hinted darkly that the investigation was motivated by anti-Semitism: “Hoenlein questioned ‘the justification’ for the case and the decision to bring charges under a law that had barely been used in more than 90 years.” As one activist rabbi noted, “We are very, very happy this has been dismissed,” But “for us this is not over, this is the beginning.” “The government should not be able to get away with this.”

The effects of this are obvious. US government personnel will be very reluctant to mount such investigations in the future. They will be intimidated — afraid to investigate any espionage on behalf of Israel because of effects on their own career.

The result will be a repeat of what happened to the State Department. In the bad old days (from the standpoint of the organized Jewish community), the State Department, and especially the Near East Desk, was run by people who were not sympathetic to Israel. All that has changed as a result of a major push by Jewish activists to assume positions in the State Department and to shift policy their way. David Satterfield seems to fit this profile, and it is certainly the case with Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, both of whom have had long careers shuttling back and forth between influential positions in the diplomatic corps related to Israel and high-profile positions within pro-Israel activist organizations.

Jewish activists may not be able to influence the security establishment to quite the same extent. But they surely will use the results of the current case to do what they can to make the people who were responsible for this case pay a very high price. And they may well succeed.

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

Disloyalty is an age-old issue with Jews, and for a simple reason: Jews often have interests as Jews that stretch beyond national boundaries. Even before the existence of Israel, Diaspora Jews often could be said to have a “foreign policy” in the sense that there was a general consensus among Jews to favor some nations and disfavor others.

For example, the Spanish Inquisition targeted Jews who pretended to be Christians, with the result that Jews in other countries sought Spain’s downfall. From 1881 until the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was seen as an enemy of Jews. As a result, the organized Jewish community in other countries often opposed Russian interests. Jacob Schiff, the preeminent Jewish activist of the period, financed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, and he financed revolutionaries in Russia.

At times, Jewish foreign policy interests were in conflict with those of the wider society. In 1908 Schiff also led the successful effort to abrogate the Russian Trade Agreement which was opposed by the Taft Administration as not in the interests of the United States. Schiff’s motive for helping Jews in Russia conflicted with US national interests as understood by the US government.

Questions of disloyalty are by no means unique to Jews. Loyalty issues are common for minority groups living as a Diaspora, as with Overseas Chinese and Indian groups living as minorities abroad. In the US, issues of divided loyalties arose among pre-1965 immigrants who retained attachments to their countries of origin. During World War I, many German-Americans were reluctant to support the Allied cause against Germany because of their ties with their homeland.

The German-Americans eventually assimilated completely, at least partly because of their racial similarity to other White Americans. However, assimilation is  unlikely for post-1965 immigrant minorities given their racial dissimilarities to the traditionally dominant people and culture of America. This is even more so because of the rise of multiculturalism as a paradigm for Western societies. As I noted in my review of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby,

dual loyalty has become legitimate because of the rise of multiculturalism in America — a phenomenon that is due in no small part … to Jewish activism. … Beginning with Horace Kallen, Jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront in developing models of the United States as a culturally and ethnically pluralistic society. … Within the multicultural perspective, there is tolerance for different groups but the result is a tendency to deprecate the importance or even the existence of a common national identity. If there is no national identity, it’s hard to see how there can be a concept of national interest.

However, until the multicultural utopia legitimizes all loyalties in the name of world citizenship, divided loyalties will likely be a chronic issue.  For example, ethnic Chinese who are American citizens have been convicted of spying for China. An April, 2008 Washington Post article listed 12 cases of ethnic Chinese spying on the United States.

We should not, therefore, be surprised that at least some American Jews may be more loyal to Israel than  to the United States. Unlike the German-Americans who assimilated to America, Israel remains a powerful source of identity for the great majority of American Jews. Chi Mak, the Chinese spy who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for sending information on military technology to the Chinese, has as his counterparts Jonathan Pollard and Ben-Ami Kadish, convicted of spying on behalf of Israel.

Besides Pollard and Kadish, there is a bumper crop of neoconservatives who have been credibly accused of spying for Israel: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen.

None of the neocons were convicted, and now we have the AIPAC espionage trial in which former AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman have been accused of providing information to Israeli Embassy employees. Jewish Congresswoman Jane Harman has allegedly been caught agreeing to “waddle in” to help get the charges against Rosen and Weissman reduced.

As part of her defense in the media, Harman pointedly noted that “anyone I might have talked to was an American citizen, and these were conversations that took place in the United States.”

This is the multicultural defense par excellence. Harman was talking to an American about the business of AIPAC, an American organization that has not been required to register as an agent of a foreign government. What could possibly be wrong with that?

One problem with that is that the American citizen that Harman may well have been talking to was Haim Saban who is not only an American citizen but also a citizen of Israel. Saban’s commitment to Israel seems almost a caricature of a nut case Zionist — someone who makes Alan Dershowitz and  Martin Peretz seem lukewarm by comparison.

Saban’s commitment to Israel really knows no bounds. This is from an interview with Haaretz in 2006; Saban’s comments are in quotes.

You said once that you are a one-note person, and that note is Israel. Why?

“You can’t explain love.”

It’s really love?

“More than love. Passion. A love that is passion.”

Please explain.

“When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don’t play ‘Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,’ but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.”

Is Israel also part of your everyday life here, in Los Angeles?

“At 9 A.M. I start with London and Kirschenbaum [Channel 10’s evening current events program]. After that, throughout the day, if I see something about Israel on one of the four channels that are always on in my office, on mute, I immediately turn on the sound. And I have Israeli music on my computer, classics and contemporary singers, too.

“Let me tell you a story. A few years ago I got some new albums and I put them on the computer. Suddenly ‘The Photos in the Album’ [sung by Haim Moshe] comes up. I’m standing there, shaving, listening to the lyrics. And the tears stream over the soap, without my even being able to explain why. Grandma, mom cooking, I promised you wouldn’t fight against anyone. A knife in the heart. That is the heart of the nation. And I love this nation. I love the Jewish people, even more the Israeli people. I feel a very deep bond which I can’t explain.”

Haim Saban is an American citizen, but can there really be any question where his loyalty lies? I suspect it’s the same with the neocons accused of spying, and with AIPAC’s Rosen and Weissman. A big part of my article on neocons was simply to document their intense commitment to Israel.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Nevertheless, I suppose that if we asked these people whether they are more loyal to Israel than the US, they would deny it and they may be utterly sincere in their denial.

But how could any reasonable person believe what they are saying? Psychological research shows quite clearly that people with strong ingroup loyalties are likely to suffer cognitive distortions that would bias their attitudes and their policy recommendations. They may well believe that their recommendations also benefit the United States, but they might not even be aware of how their commitment to Israel can bias their judgment.

The big picture here is that the Israel Lobby has managed to create a climate in which issues of the loyalty of American Jews are off limits at the highest reaches of government. However, this sensitivity to Jewish concerns (and susceptibility to Jewish pressure) has not filtered down into the intelligence and military establishment, especially at the lower echelons.

Commenting on the Harman case, “an official with an American Jewish organization,” stated that suspicion of the loyalties of American Jews is “rooted deep in the system and it comes from the bottom up.” An Israeli official is paraphrased as claiming that “suspicion toward Israel [is] prevalent in the military and intelligence establishments but [is] not common at the political and diplomatic levels.”

These lower-level people are less susceptible to public pressure because they represent an institutional consensus that has not yet embraced multiculturalism and the slavish American commitment to Israel. Instead, they seem committed to the quaint view that America is a nation state with interests that are different from other nations, including Israel.

This in turn suggests that the powers that be may eventually get the charges against Rosen and Weissman dropped.  As a result of court rulings in favor of the defense, this certainly looks to be the case. Elite culture is far more influenced by Jewish sensibilities and far more on board with the multicultural zeitgeist than those responsible for initiating these investigations.

Rosen and Weissman may be exonerated, but the lower-level people still have quite a bit of power. The American intelligence community is doubtless the only reason Jonathan Pollard languishes in prison despite huge public relations campaigns proclaiming the injustice of his sentence. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were strongly pressured to pardon him so that he can return to a hero’s welcome in Israel. However, as an Israeli commentator has noted, “Each time, over the last 2 decades that there has been some sense that a commutation or a pardon might be in the offing, there have been official leaks to the media, creating such devastating press about Jonathan that it made it difficult for the president to proceed with commutation.”

The notorious Mark Rich received a pardon by throwing enough money at Bill Clinton. But there was no powerful constituency opposing Rich. It’s different with Pollard. No president dare release Pollard, even though Bill Clinton, at least, would have loved to do so. Clinton agreed to release Pollard but changed his mind when CIA Director George Tenet threatened to resign if Pollard was released.

It’s noteworthy that the Israeli official quoted above exempts the diplomatic service from the charge of being insufficiently sensitive to Israel. This was not always the case. The State Department  was famously an anti-Israel bastion beginning with Secretary of State George Marshall in the Truman Administration. Jewish foreign policy activists — most notably the neocons — viewed the State Department, and particularly the Near East Desk, as dominated by Protestant Ivy Leaguers who were insensitive to Jewish concerns and particularly Israel.

But all of that is long gone — an early casualty of the demise of the East Coast Yankee Protestant elite and Jewish ascendancy in those same circles. But the intelligence and military establishments have still not capitulated entirely. As a result, we see little  flare-ups of rebellion from time to time, like the current AIPAC case, the investigations of so many neocons, and the continued incarceration of Jonathan Pollard.

It is doubtless noteworthy that the Whites who remain influential in the intelligence and military establishments are relatively unlikely to be East Coast Ivy Leaguers. They are more likely to be Southerners or have other White identities. As the co-author of a recent academic report noted, “Politically and economically, the South remains the heart of our country’s military.” The FBI remains a whipping boy of liberals unhappy because it is insufficiently diverse.

The concern of the Israeli official that suspicions of Israel remain prevalent in the US military and intelligence establishments is particularly interesting. The attraction of White Southerners for the military is on a par with the attraction of White descendants of Puritans to moralistic aggression. The Southern military tradition is a legacy of the Scots-Irish Celtic culture so well described in David Hackett Fisher’s classic Albion’s Seed, Kevin Phillips’ The Cousin’s Wars,and James Webb’s Born Fighting.

As I have noted elsewhere, this is the only significant group of American White people with any cultural confidence. For this group of Whites — and only this group — there is  “a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with ‘the real America.’”

This is implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture.

The current angst about  the obvious examples of Jewish disloyalty is part of a larger cultural struggle. The old East Coast Protestant elite and its bastions, such as the State Department and the Ivy League universities, have fallen to the new multicultural zeitgeist in which Jewish disloyalty is more or less inconceivable. But there are still some holdouts. And therein lies the hope.

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