Featured Articles

Marrying someone from another race: So What?

/in /by

Racial intermarriage, or “miscegenation”, raises an important question which, even only recently, seemed to have the following answer:

First, too close inbreeding can be disastrous health-wise for offspring, due to the possible inheritance and pairing of identical, unhealthy, recessive alleles (genes) at the same spot on a chromosome, one from each parent. But it has been unclear how much out-breeding was necessary and/or desirable. Marrying at least beyond lst or 2nd cousins seemed essential for avoiding the above “inbreeding depression”, but was there such a thing as too much out-breeding? The answer was yes for the case of breeding between species, e.g., horses + donkeys producing sterile mules. But what about breeding outside one’s ethny or race? The only problems there seemed to be the likelihood of intercultural incompatibilities, the removal of family wealth and land to beyond the extended family and ethny, and, in the extreme, the destruction of human diversity through homogenization. On the other hand, people such as presidential candidate Barack Obama, actress Halle Berry, or Canada’s Governor General Michaëlle Jean have seemed illustrative of certain benefits of race mixing, and of hypergamy (marrying up) — and possibly smarter children for a disadvantaged race.

This month the journal Science (yes, the great one) published what, from the multi-cultural/racial viewpoint, can only be described as a bombshell.

It is a paper on 160,811 Icelandic marriages over several centuries, by Agnar Helgason et al, showing that in biological terms, marrying either closer to or out beyond the optimum 3rd or 4th cousin reduces the number children per family and the number of grandchildren.  Both number of children and the life span of the children are reduced when couples are 2nd cousins or closer. The authors do not rule out 100% the possibility of some unknown “socioeconomic” factor in all this, but social class was definitely not it. Since they found a statistically significant difference between marriages at the levels of 6th and 7th cousins, biological factors (of which such spouses would not likely be conscious) seem most probable.

So what?

The only practical implication drawn by these Icelandic authors is that because of urbanization (and presumably multi-cultural diversity, as well, outside Iceland) there is a relative increase in distantly related couples today, and this should slow population growth.

[adrotate group=”1″]

We might add another: If any parent or grandparent out there wishes to see the continued survival of his/her family or ethny, especially during the present period of below replacement level fertility for Euro-ethnies, they ought to encourage their children to marry not too far afield in terms of kinship. Marrying a 3rd or 4th cousin would be ideal, and for heavens sake avoid other races — or even ethnies unless, like many European ethnies, they are not very distant kinship-wise.

Perhaps of equal importance, this paper has legitimized the preference for ethnic and racial similarity in marital choice, which still is sometimes openly expressed in newspaper ads by people looking to meet potential mates, and which can be achieved indirectly by the increasing residential segregation in the US.

The paper helps to de-legitimize the effort of Hollywood and its celebrities in promoting inter-racial breeding.

Here, arguably for the first time, is a scientifically supported biological basis for the supposedly “racist” objection to one’s daughter marrying “one.”

Anthony Hilton is Associate Professor of Psychology (Ret.) at Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

ProPublica, or ProJudaica?

/1 Comment/in /by

The journalism world is abuzz over an ambitious plan to reinvigorate investigative journalism through a group called “ProPublica,” described as a would-be staff of 24 in-depth reporters based in New York whose work will appear on-line, but possibly also in big dailies, as well. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post provides the most recent update on the journalist resumes now flooding in. (See Digging for Support in Kurtz’s Media Notes, Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2008.)

Months ago, Slate’s Jack Shafer cast a sharply critical eye on the ProPublica enterprise, asking whether the major funders, Herb and Marion Sandler, will create a firewall between their own deeply Democratic leanings and the journalism.

The Sandlers, Bay Area billionaires who made their fortune in finance, have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats.  That’s enough to make a conservative or a skeptic wary about their intentions in setting up “ProPublica.”

But as Businessweek reports, the Sandlers aren’t just big fans of Democrats — they’re big fans of Jewish causes, and have given handsomely to those projects, as well.  And naturally, both are Jewish.

[adrotate group=”1″]

So don’t look for “ProPublica” to dive too deeply into every issue bearing on America’s future.  Not only can it be expected to take a generally liberal slant in its “investigations,” it can be expected to steer clear of any fair examination of Jewish influence over domestic or foreign policy.

In this, “ProPublica” is no different from just about every form of media in America, from the “MSM” (mainstream media) to supposedly conservative newspaper like The Washington Times or opinion journals like National Review and The Weekly Standard.  It’s yet another laughable pretense of unrestrained journalistic fearlessness.  A journalist hoping to truly bite all hands can’t be fed by any of them.

Most conservatives, and many American whites, are convinced that the media is hopelessly liberal.  It might enhance their understanding to look a little deeper at the ethnic motivations behind that trend.

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

Eye on Hollywood: The System is Not Broken

/in /by

I’m afraid this column will not be overly original today. Rather, I will point to the same phenomenon so many others throughout the blogosphere have been discussing: the ongoing dispossession of white men in this world of ours.

Visually, this is obvious at every turn, beginning with the coronation of America’s first black president. Just in case this is not visually arresting enough, the new United States Attorney General is also African America, replacing the Jewish Michael Mukasey, who in turn replaced the Hispanic Alberto Gonzales. For good measure, even the Republican Party elected its first black National Committee Chairman, former Lt. Governor of Maryland Michael Steele. (Vdare’s Patrick Cleburne says all you need to know about Steele.)

Eric Holder                                  Michael Steele

How do we explain the fast-growing black presence in government, popular culture, and so on? While the fruits of the Civil Rights era account for some of this move toward center stage, the fact remains that in a socio-economic sense, blacks have yet to accumulate the resources needed to rise in American society. What then is behind their rise?

Likely, most readers of The Occidental Observer are familiar with the litany of names associated with rigorous accounts of lower black IQ and higher crime rates compared to whites. Jared Taylor and his crew do excellent work on this at American Renaissance. Scholars such as Richard Lynn (bio is here), Philippe Rushton (see his bio here), Michael Levin, and Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray have meticulously documented race differences in a variety of critical areas. The facts of highly elevated rates of black crime are documented in The Color of Crime.

My guess is that TOO readers are on page when it comes to race realism, so you will not be surprised by the consistent failure of blacks anywhere in the world to excel in intellectual tasks, let alone to build anything resembling a thriving black civilization. So again, how do we explain their recent success in America?

If you agree with my assertion that black intelligence does not account for their recent rise, you might assert that it’s political. With Obama’s victory, we can find political moves to improve the overall situation of blacks. Take, for example, this demand for a non-white Obama press office.

I belong to the school which argues that it is the century-long effort Jewish groups have made to promote blacks at the expense of whites that accounts for our current situation. This argument is hardly a new one, having been expounded at length by scholars such as Hasia Diner and David Levering Lewis. Both support the thesis that German Jews (the first large group of Jewish immigrants to America) fought anti-Semitism by supporting the black struggle against racism. In other words, they fought anti-Semitism “by proxy” in Diner’s words and “by remote control” in Lewis’s words.

In my view, this account is simplistic. While it does refute claims of totally altruistic motives for Jewish agitation on behalf of blacks, it fails to appreciate the larger goals of Jewish Americans. They were not merely interested in defeating anti-Semitism so that they could participate comfortably in American life. They were waging a massive war on Majority Americans, the results of which we see all around us today.

Let’s focus on how Jews have employed blacks as foot soldiers in one front of this war. Further, let’s focus on only on one segment of that front, leaving aside for now Jewish efforts on behalf of blacks in education, the law, etc. Let’s look at Hollywood, an empire Jews created and still dominate. By the end of the 1960s, the white Protestant elite and the large Catholic ethnic groups in America had lost the culture wars. Joe McCarthy and the other conservative forces that had kept Hollywood in check had disappeared, with the result that Jewish Hollywood was unleashed to embark on its campaign to displace white America.

Nowhere was this more obvious than with respect to the evolution of the black image in film.

An account of black images in film since the 1960s would be a book-length project, but the outlines are clear. Once we got to the 1990s, our book would have plump chapters on the rise of various African American stars joining the only previous black man of note in Hollywood, Sidney Poitier. The black stars are now household names:  Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, Samuel L. Jackson, and so on. Young people today no doubt take black Hollywood stardom for granted, but the fact is it is a recent phenomenon.

To fit the confines of this short column, let me point to a timely and representative Eddie Murphy film, one that resonates with the rise to power of Barack Obama and nicely illuminates the battle lines of the Jewish war—by black proxy—on white America.

In the year Bill Clinton was first elected, 1992, Eddie Murphy appeared in a film called The Distinguished Gentleman. Murphy played a con man fortunate enough to share a name with the just-deceased U.S. Congressman, Jeff Johnson. Taking advantage of the value of name recognition, Thomas Jefferson Johnson (Murphy) shortens his name and runs for Congress. (Presciently, his entire campaign consists of a promise for “change” — a pledge we would hear repeatedly from a real African American politician in 2008.) Interested only in the easy perks of the job, Johnson is woefully ignorant of the election process and the workings of Washington. Fortunately, he is aided in the campaign by a Jewish retiree from New York and wins the election. (The two even banter in Yiddish at one point.)

On the whole, this film is structured as a “culture of critique” view of Majority American society, which means mainstream gentile society is subjected to withering criticism at all times. All whites in high-status positions are shown to be deeply flawed or hypocritical. This stance calls to mind the thesis of Kevin MacDonald’s book The Culture of Critique in which he identified a “very deep antipathy to the entire gentile-dominated social order.” Jews on the left —like much of the Hollywood elite— were described as viewing this social order as “an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society.” The Distinguished Gentleman creates this image on screen.

For instance, the film opens with a reception for the original Congressman Johnson, surrounded by throngs of white supporters. Soon, however, the good Congressman is shown in flagrante delicto with his white secretary, an act which brings on his death by heart attack. (His long-suffering wife later propositions the new Congressman Johnson, trotting out the tired canard that Southern white women cannot resist black men.) Clearly, black political power means power over white women.

As the only black man in attendance at the reception, Murphy’s character Johnson is mistaken for a waiter, a sign of the pervasive racism of whites. In fact, Murphy is a con man, one who employs a fellow African American and a Hispanic to extort money from a philandering white company president. Once in Washington, Johnson quickly realizes that all the white congressman and lobbyists surrounding him are con men like himself—only the stakes are far higher. So Johnson sets out to enrich himself by playing the game.

The images of the white male legislators and lobbyists are predictable—they are corrupt, immoral, racist fools. Opposite these white frauds is a cast of aggrieved multicultural peoples—blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, Asians—the whole rainbow coalition.

At every turn, the image of the white is negative. Fat cat gun lovers are shown stupidly hunting ducks with semi-automatic rifles. A white taxi driver ogling street walkers rear-ends Johnson’s car and then shamelessly leaves the scene of the accident.

The moral center of the film, unsurprisingly, is a black man, a theme that was still original in 1992 but by now is de rigueur (and should be passé). The black man is a preacher intent on doing what is right. His idealism has rubbed off on his niece, an intelligent, incorruptible African American lawyer activist who becomes romantically involved with Johnson. (One of her fellow activists is Ira Schecter, a humble and unassuming Jewish do-gooder.)

Exposure to her and her preacher uncle forces Johnson to find conscience. While grappling with this new conscience, he backslides when the stakes get high, but then he risks losing his girlfriend. Finally, he decides on one last scam in the service of doing justice. In a Congressional hearing room, he exposes the white male chairman and greedy white lobbyists, humiliating them in the process.

Then, in the final scene, comes a dialogue I had missed when I saw the film a decade ago. About to be drummed out of Congress for the antics he employed, Johnson and his girlfriend are seen walking away from the Capitol. Lamenting his loss of power, the girlfriend asks what he’s going to do now that he cannot run again for Congress. Pondering his options, Johnson hits on an idea: “I’m gonna run for President!” Remember, this was 1992.

How do we tie this film in with Jewish activism?

First, as I have tried to show elsewhere, Hollywood is a thoroughly Jewish milieu, controlled today more than ever by Jews. No other group—most particularly blacks—has a fraction of the power Jews have to create celluloid imagery. Thus, we need to know what attitudes Jews have toward non-Jews to explain the images they create. As MacDonald again says in the preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique, the heavily Jewish media elite sees to it that Western culture “is presented as sick and evil compared to other cultures.”

Hollywood insider Ben Stein confirmed that argument, writing, “People are told that their culture is, at its root, sick, violent, and depraved, and this message gives them little confidence in the future of that culture. It also leads them to feel ashamed of their country and to believe that if their society is in decline, it deserves to be.” He too pointed to the heavy representation of his fellow Jews in Hollywood and other media.

While that speaks to the general case of media distaste for mainstream American culture, the specific case of the black rise to stardom amidst the fall of corrupt majority culture is the story at hand. And here I argue that the recent spate of movies with blacks at the moral center is but part of the larger campaign Jews have waged against whites by using blacks.

MacDonald addressed this in his chapter “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” which appeared in Race and the American Prospect, writing, “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.”

This hatred of whites and their culture is routine in Hollywood fare. The Distinguished Gentleman was not the first time Murphy was tasked with playing the role of an underclass black man who exposes the alleged pervasive immorality of majority culture. In 1983, he did a similar job of humiliating elite white males and replacing them in Trading Places. In fact, the theme has become so common now that it is a genre unto itself. Watch, for instance, the 1988 Caddyshack II or the 1991 Addams Family Values. Or watch ninety-five percent of ALL of Denzel Washington’s films, from Crimson Tide (1995) to Remember the Titans (2000) to Déjà vu (2006).

As I wrote in my previous column, Richard Faussette claimed with respect to unchecked non-white immigration that “the system is not broken.” Similarly, I would argue, the Hollywood system is not broken. It produces the plethora of anti-white films that it does because Hollywood Jews are bent on massively critiquing white society . . . and working furiously to physically replace us. What we see on screen, then, is the template for what is actually taking place. Morgan Freeman was the President in Deep Impact; Barack Obama is now the real President.

Edgar Steele recently lamented that “We had no idea that we were about to trade places with the Black man.” Yes, and the Asian man (and woman), and Hispanic man (and woman), and at the top the Jewish man (and woman). Look at the people around Obama, from Rahm Israel Emanuel on down.

The case of heretofore underachieving African Americans suddenly springing to positions of power and prominence is about the hardest to explain on its own terms. As one reviewer of MacDonald’s Culture of Critique concluded, MacDonald’s insights were right because “It is very rare for fundamental concepts to be stood on their heads in the course of just a generation or two, as has happened with thinking about race. Such speed suggests there has been something more than natural change.”

It is ALL more than natural changes. Much of it has to do with vigorous Jewish activism to put blacks where whites once stood. This, as I’ve discussed above, is perhaps nowhere more common than in current Hollywood fare. After all, as one observer wrote, “The way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated back to us every day.” Yes, Spielberg and Brooks and Mazursky and the Coen Brothers and a thousand others Jews making movies.

James Petras: Another Powerful Voice on the Neocons

/in /by

Any number of prominent commentators have pointed to the power of the Israel Lobby in the United States, and to one degree or another they have noted that Jews compose the bulk of the segment of the Lobby known as neoconservatives.  Opinions about this Lobby and Jewish neoconservatives range from pungent to calm and reasoned, with a pundit like Pat Buchanan representing one end of the spectrum and former President Jimmy Carter or scholars Mearsheimer and Walt and Kevin MacDonald the other.

Now we have the entry of an eminent American scholar who gives Buchanan a run for title of most strident anti-neoconservative: James Petras.

James Petras is a retired Bartle Professor of sociology at Binghamton University.  A well-known Marxist, he is the author of the sizzling 2006 book The Power of Israel in the United States.   How his approach compares to that of Carter, et al. is of some interest.

Carter, of course, has raised the hackles of many because of the arguments he makes in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.  For instance, he claims that the United States exhibits “undeviating backing of Israel” and that “because of powerful political, economic, and religious forces in the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned” and “voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media.”

This echoes the thesis of Mearsheimer and Walt, whose The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has powerfully critiqued the existence and goals of what they define as “a loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction.” It also echoes much of the thinking in MacDonald’s “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement“, where he describes  neoconservatism as “a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel.”

Pat Buchanan adopted a far more belligerent tone in his seminal cover story in The American Conservative back in early 2003.  Entitled “Whose War?,” it answered that the pre-planned attack on Iraq following 9/11 was instigated by a “neoconservative clique.”  Ratcheting up the rhetoric, Buchanan went on to write, “We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars.”

Petras adopts a similar tone but expands Buchanan’s arguments into a book-length exposé, arguing persuasively that the Zionist project to subvert American sovereignty has succeeded, much to the detriment of many non-Israelis: “The tyranny of Israel over the US has grave consequences for world peace and war, the stability and instability of the world economy, and for the future of democracy in the US.”

Like other critics of neoconservative influence, Petras emphasizes the Jewish identity of so many in the campaign, including unofficial political advisers who organized an array of groups to prosecute the Zionist agenda.  He goes further, however, in positing a far more extensive network of Zionist activists:

While the design and execution of the US war strategy was in the hands of Zionist civilian militarists in the Pentagon, they were only able to succeed because of the powerful support exercised by Sharon’s acolytes in the major Jewish organizations in the US.  The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, and the thousands of their activists—doctors, dentists, philanthropists, real estate magnates, financiers, journalists, media moguls, and academics—acted in concert with key Jewish politicians and ideologues to press the case for a war because, they would argue, it was in the interest of the State of Israel. . . .

Closely echoing the arguments of Kevin MacDonald about Jewish intellectual “movements,” Petras drives home the point that “the ZPC’s [Zionist Power Configuration’s] formal and informal structure has a crucial dynamic element to it: each power center interacts with the rest, creating a constant ‘movement’ and activity, which converges and energizes both leaders and followers” (p. 47).

In a book not reaching two hundred pages, Petras goes on to discuss the connection between Israel and 9/11, analyzes the Libby Affair, unmasks Seymour Hersh and Noam Chomsky as Jewish protectors of Zionism, examines the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, and exposes Danish editor “Flemming Rose” of the Muhammad caricature cartoon confrontation as a Mossad asset.  He also argues that the Jewish Lobby, not Big Oil, fabricated the bogus Iraqi weapons of mass destruction threat.

An astute student of power politics, Petras examines how Zionists virulently attack critics, often under cover of “respectable” media such as The New York Times.  (These “swarm” attacks were aptly described in an essay by Israeli anti-Zionist Israel Shamir.)

As if he hadn’t taken on enough work, Petras returned with a new book in 2007, Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants.  Here, Petras expands the scope of his charges, making the (Marxist) case that Finance Capital dominates America (and by extension much of the world).  Critically, Petras highlights the overlap between our financial rulers and those agitating on behalf of Israeli interests; a high percentage of both are Jews.

Petras points to the historically Jewish firm of Goldman Sachs and its “unprecedented” presence in the flow of representatives from Wall Street to Washington.  Lest one make a partisan argument for Republican dominance here, Petras quotes a financial newspaper as saying “Neither Mr. Bush nor Goldman have been criticized by Democrats for holding too many powerful jobs in part because the investment bank also has deep ties to the Democrats.”  How deep?  “Goldman represented the biggest single donor base to the Democrats” prior to the 2006 mid-term elections.

This 2007 book also allows Petras the benefit of hindsight, which he uses to update his discussion of the 2006 Israel attack on Lebanon and to illustrate how Zionist power worked to negate the peace initiative of James Baker and his Iraq Study Group.

Displaying a simmering rage, Petras caustically offers an example of the Israeli-tail-wagging-the-American-dog nature of the relationship between the two countries:

. . . Israel and its US Lobby were and are largely unmoved by the death and injury of US soldiers in Iraq and the squandering of the US taxpayers’ money.  This has been reinforced by the fact that less than 2/10 of one percent (0.2 percent) of the US soldiers in Iraq were Jewish and probably very few of those were on the front lines.  More young American Jews volunteer to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces. (p. 118)

In my last column, I quoted Evan Goldstein as believing that the Jewish neocons were in it “for the long haul; they have been at this for decades.”  Petras agrees, noting that “Israel’s hegemonic position has endured under both Democratic and Republican presidencies for almost half a century.  In other words it is a structural historical relation, not one based on personalities, or particular transitory policy making configurations.”

As far-reaching as Petras’s two books are, they deal with only a portion of the vast spread of Jewish power throughout the world.  This power affects far more than foreign policy in the Middle East or the operations of Finance Capitalism, as Petras realizes.  “The power of Israel is based on that of the Diaspora, the highly structured and politically and economically powerful Jewish networks which have direct and indirect access to the centers of power and propaganda in the most powerful imperial country in the world.”

This Jewish Diaspora is energetic and shows no sign of relaxing.  Its dazzling display of power in Washington during the last two administrations is but one of its many command performances.

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

Arun Gandhi: Another Casualty of Jewish Censorship

/in /by
Just how unable are we to discuss Jews and their attitudes and behavior? An amazing admission from the Washington Post’s ombudsman recently tells it:  very unable.  As in, don’t even think about it, or you’ll lose your job.
Deborah Howell, in a Sunday center-of-the-page column, responded to the controversy surrounding an online column by Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, which was solicited by the Washington Post’s online “On Faith” website for reactions to the PBS series “The Jewish Americans” (no need to wonder about where that presentation was coming from, trust me).  Gandhi?  That’s right.  The grandson of the Gandhi.
Gandhi’s sin?  The question put to the panelists, of which he was a member (but now may be removed), was, “PBS is airing a series on ‘The Jewish Americans.’ We know what ‘Jewish identity’ has meant in the past.  What will it mean in the future?  How does a minority religion retain its roots and embrace change?”  Gandhi’s response, said Howell, included the following:

Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the Holocaust experience… It is a very good example of how a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends…The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger. . . . The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. . . . We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.

Needless to say, any suggestion that Jews have done anything untoward creates a hysterical reaction, even when the suggestor is the grandson of a veritable god of pacifism.  Under Jewish pressure, Gandhi resigned from his post at the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence at the University of Rochester.  How’s that for Jewish commitment to peace?
As for Howell, she simply condemns Gandhi’s article, without any specific refutation, and declares that “the piece should not have been published.”  End of story.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But of course, for racially conscious whites and others, the Washington Post’s censorship of criticism of Jews is not the end of the story.  The criticisms should be made, heard, and weighed for credibility.  The course of action chosen by the Post — and those calling for Gandhi’s head — creates a dangerous corking of legitimate discussion.  That same corking has contributed to unchecked policies of open immigration and Middle East warfare, both of which have hurt whites — to say nothing of Palestinian suffering.

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

NPR’s Not-So-Fresh Air

/in /by

“Fresh Air,” the midday talk show out of Philadelphia and broadcast on National Public Radio, is hosted by Terry Gross, a bookish liberal who tends toward typical NPR fare: Jazz, the Holocaust, poetry and poets, more jazz, and more Holocaust. Her inquisitive but sympathetic tone gives the feel of a comfortable but animated coffeehouse chat.

Like so many of her NPR colleagues, Gross is Jewish, and her guests are also frequently Jewish. For those aware of the extent of Jewish influence in the media, this comes as little surprise.

But the January 24, 2008 episode of her program provided a singularly pungent example of the insular nature of Jewish media influence.

Her guest that day was Jacob Weisberg, the powerful editor of the online journal Slate (an enterprise also heavily dominated by Jews), who was on to discuss his most recent book about George W. Bush. (His The Ultimate George W. Bushisms: Bush at War (with the English Language) offered us the always-amusing “Bushisms.”)

As described by Weisberg, a central theme of his book was an examination of Bush’s Christian faith. As one might expect, it was not a positive assessment. Weisberg accused Bush of being insincere and calculating in his professions of evangelical Christianity. He also accused Bush of being simplistic and unbending as a result of his faith.

The first point may have merit, while the second is an unfair linking of Christian faith with rigid simple-mindedness (a favorite theme for Jews). But what struck me as I listened was Weisberg’s complete license to delve so deeply into Bush’s religion — a delving that, if aimed at a Jew, would immediately be denounced as anti-Semitism.

Weisberg went so far as to describe one evangelical as a “Jesus freak” (listen to hear Weisberg’s defense of the term). One need only imagine the reaction if a Christian commentator made a similarly derisive remark about a fervent Jew.

Later, Weisberg and Gross discussed the causes for the failure of the Bush administration (a failure I certainly wouldn’t dispute). Rigid and simplistic Christianity? Possibly. The overwhelmingly Jewish “neoconservative” movement and its aims? Not mentioned once.

This despite the fact that it is now well known that Jewish neocons were a critical force in producing the pressure and disinformation that led Bush to his most disastrous decision — the decision to invade Iraq. All of these neocons have a very strong Jewish identification, and some of them (e.g., Douglas Feith and Elliott Abrams) are deeply involved in Jewish religious activism and have strong ties to the religious right in Israel. As depicted in Christiane Amanpour’s God’s Jewish Warriors, many of the most aggressively ethnocentric Jews are religious fanatics who are fighting to expand Israel as a Biblical imperative. These fanatics and their neocons supporters have been central to the Bush administration’s effort to restructure the politics of the Middle East in favor of Israel. If one wants to blame religion for the Bush administration’s failures, one could more plausibly blame Jewish religious fanatics.

And on it went: the Christian faiths of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are, Weisberg boldly noted, valid reasons not to vote for them. Suffice it to say that Feith’s and Abrams’ Judaism won’t even be mentioned, much less offered as a reason to criticize their actions in the Bush administration.

The arrogance was something to behold. It was as if Gross and Weisberg had deputized themselves as psychoanalysts and were subjecting white Christian gentiles to an in-depth couch examination — minus the couch. The two of them spoke as if that entire portion of the population weren’t even there to hear them (and probably many weren’t). And needless to say, Jews and their motivations were not discussed at all.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Yet in a country where the white gentile population remains scattered and largely oblivious to its treatment by Jews, Gross and Weisberg need not worry about an angry reaction any time soon. Nobody will call for the firing of Terry Gross a la Don Imus or demand that Jacob Weisberg be removed as editor of Slate. And many white gentiles listening to NPR no doubt absorbed the themes pushed by Gross and Weisberg without once considering that they have their own motivations that go beyond mere objective analysis.

America’s traditional majority could use a healthy blast of fresh air, yes — but the fresh air needed is an awareness of the ethnic competition underlying so much of our media content.

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

For Whom the Gaza Bell Tolls — Part 2

/in /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faussette makes this clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faussette draws the same dark conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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