The following article is the slightly edited version of the speech Mr. Sunic gave on August 7, 2010 at the festival-conference of the NPD (National Democratic Party), near the town of Goerlitz, Germany.

Sunic’s live speech in German can be accessed on the VOR radio broadcast. The original text in German (“Wem nutzt der Krieg in Irak und Afghanistan?”) will shortly appear in the NPD monthly Deutsche Stimme.

The text that follows was translated into English by the author.
Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, dear friends. Thank you all for being here. Many thanks for the invitation to our friends, the NPD chief Mr. Udo Voigt and Mr. Gerd Finkenwirth. Also many thanks to a lovely young lady Silvana for her professionalism and her kindness. I’d like to extend also my best greetings from my friends in the USA and from my colleagues from the American Third Party Position, our Chairman, William Johnson, Prof. Kevin MacDonald, the radio host of Political   Cesspool, James Edwards, and many, many other valiant members. Our recently launched party shares many similar ideas and pursues similar goals.

*    *    *

Instead of raising the question “who benefits from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq,” one might just as well ask the question: Who was the instigator of these two wars? The latter question does not sound very specific and provides a treasure trove for various conspiracy theoreticians. Wild speculations about the true motives of these wars are of no interest for us despite the fact that some of these conspiratorial allegations may be true. What we wish to find out is how these two wars were justified from the standpoint of international law and how they were legitimized by public discourse.

By the way, conspiracy theories, often ascribed to proverbial right-wingers, are not only the hallmark of right-wingers. The ruling class in the West does not shunusing different types of conspiratorial vocabulary whose prime purpose is to demonize and criminalize the political foe. In addition, the liberal system resorts frequently to conspiracy theories in order to justify its military interventions. Months before the invasion of Iraq, many American politicians, including the media had in all seriousness ranted about the “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.” It soon turned out that the Iraqis had no such weapons, which was later conceded by the very same politicians.

From my own experience I could give you some firsthand illustrations of this conspiratorial vocabulary.  As a young man in communist Yugoslavia, I witnessed daily the endless verbal demonization of fictitious political opponents. The Yugo-communist system used the words “Nazi and fascist threat” in order to legitimize its repression against its critics. Although there were no more fascists in communist Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the Second World War, the system and its scribes had to dig up fictitious Nazi-Croats in order to justify its shortcomings and its terror. Back then we used a joke, which soon became iconic all over ex-communist Europe: “Even when a fly farts the Yugo-communist judiciary will not level criminal charges against the fly, but will instead apprehend the proverbial ‘Nazi-Croats.’” Similar linguistic escapades have now become part and parcel of the official vocabulary of the European Union, whose politicians dish out their propaganda under the elegant cloak of “freedom of speech” and “human rights.”

It is important to analyze how the liberal politicians and their warmongers manipulate public discourse.  On the one hand we are bombarded by a litany of horrific labels, such as “war on terror”, “Islamo-fascism”, and “Al Qaeda terrorists”; on the other, we must daily stay tuned to their sentimental utterings such as the “fight for human rights,” “multicultural tolerance”, or “freedom for Afghan women.” The German Chancellor Angela Merkel did not sound credible at all when she recently rendered homage to fallen German soldiers and the enduring commitment of German troops in Afghanistan, “which serves the interest of our country.” The entire address by Chancellor Merkel was teeming with theatrical verbiage, better known in Germany as “cemented language” (Betonsprache), once commonly used in former communist East Germany.

Regardless of the hyper-moralistic lexicon used by the Western ruling class, empirical evidence regarding the true motives for the US commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan is very sparse if not completely absent.

A Balance Sheet

The war in Afghanistan was launched 3 weeks after the terror attack on September 11, 2001 in New York. Even a halfwit can tell that a long-term military strategy for Afghanistan could not be readied in three weeks. The plan to overthrow the regime in Afghanistan and Iraq had already been waiting in the wings. The first indications of the upcoming war in the Middle East and Central Asia had been put on paper by pro-Zionist academics in America in the early nineties, namely, after the first indecisive Gulf War in 1991. Many American pro-Israeli journalists and many well-known Jewish-American scholars had began drafting a long term plan for the reorganization of the region — “regime change” in the Middle East and Asia. Especially important was the role of the American Enterprise Institute and the launching of “the Project for the New American Century.” Many important names participated in these projects, names that later came to be associated with the code term “neoconservatives.” September 11, came to them as if sent by God.

Any war anywhere in the world must be always preceded by cultural warfare. TheUS neocons understood that very well. The war in Afghanistan and Iraq began first as an academic dispute — largely spearheaded by neocon journals, such asCommentary and The Weekly Standard. Today however, the language of “weapons of mass destruction” has replaced its bellicose denominator with the euphemism of “fighting for democracy.” In retrospect, one must raise the question whether one could also draw parallels between the fraudulent motives for the current war in Iraq and the Allied motives for their WWII commitment in Europeand the subsequent “reeducation” of the German people.

Even after nine years of war in Afghanistan, even after seven years of Iraq, the security climate in the Middle East and Afghanistan, or for that matter in the entire West, has not improved. It has deteriorated. There is far more terrorist threat today than eight or nine years ago. One can argue that the risk of Islamic terrorism in Europe and the USA grows in proportion to the continuation of war inIraq and Afghanistan.

And what happened with European politicians during that time?  In 2001, during the deployment of US troops in Afghanistan, as well as two years later during the invasion of Iraq, the consent of the European allies was difficult to come by. European NATO members, apart from their servile policies toward Washington, knew well that no quick war results were at hand. Official Germany and Francewere skeptical because they have twice as many Muslim immigrants than the entire U.S., and in addition, they have different visions about how to fight terrorism. For Germany, as a valiant US ally and a NATO member, it was not easy to openly defy the Americans. It is not worth talking about this post-World War II German subservience now. In order to grasp German foreign policy somersaults over the last 60 years one must first delve into the Allied laundering of the German character and the process of massive reeducation which is still part of the German media landscape.

Unlike Germany and France, the Bush administration had no problem drumming up support among Eastern Europeans for their foreign expeditions. Here are two reasons:

Only two decades ago all East European countries were allies of the Soviet Union; they became NATO members just a decade ago. The political and cultural mimicry of Americanism — albeit with a broken Slavic accent — in this part of Europe is more widespread than in Germany or in France.

The other reason is that the bulk of politicians and academics from the Baltics to the Balkans, is made up of rebranded  communist apparatchiks and their progeny. In order to cover up their own criminal past, or for that matter their former communist terror policies, they needed to become more Catholic than the Pope, i.e. more Americans than the  Americans themselves.

Hence the reasons Eastern Europeans politicians can now be far better manipulated and are far easier to bribe into political servility than Western European politicians — with the exception of Russia. Once upon the time East European politicians made obligatory pilgrimages to Moscow, Belgrade, orHavana. Today, their mandatory places of pilgrimage are Washington and Tel Aviv.

American Political Theology

The beneficiaries of these two wars were, at least at the beginning of the hostilities, US neoconservatives and the state of Israel. But it is wrong to blame them only. To understand the deep-seated motives of U.S. foreign policy, one has to delve into American political theology — the conviction of many American politicians of their country’s divine chosenness. The architects and beneficiaries of these wars are motivated by secular political consequences, but the root causes of these wars have a theological dimension. These two cannot be separated.  Uri Avnery, an Israeli leftist writer, remarked some time ago that “Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.”

Sure, it goes without saying that an Israeli journalist, but also many left-leaning Jewish American scholars, such as Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein can easily get away with such an anti-Israeli rhetoric. Its is questionable what type of grammar, let alone language structure a non-Jewish intellectual, or some “right-winger” would need to use in order to express the same judgments.

Over one hundred years US politicians and their advisors have tapped into the Old Testament in quest of their notion of the political. Many American politicians have adopted their political conceptualization from the ancient Hebrew thought. One hundred and fifty years ago it was the ante bellum secessionist South which became the symbol of absolute evil; later, at the beginning of the 20th century, the symbol of the absolute evil became the “bad German” and shortly afterwards the proverbial  “Nazi.” During the Cold War it was temporarily the role of Communists in the Soviet Union to play the bad guys. As there are today no more Communists, no more Fascists, no more Southern Segregationists, some substitute had to be urgently looked for. So for many American Bible do-gooders the Ersatz was to be found among the so-called Islamo-fascists, or Islamic terrorists.

Soon this new category of absolute evil expanded to include the Palestinian Hamas, the Lebanese Hezbollah and  “rogue states”, like Iraq, Syria and Iran. Geopolitically, these states, including Israel, are of no importance to America’s security whatsoever. But America’s metaphysical ties to Israel make many American politicians perceive Israeli’s enemies as their own.
It is wrong, therefore, to solely blame the Israelis and US neoconservatives, or for that matter the Jews for these two wars. They were or may still be the beneficiaries, but much of the popular support for this “make-the-world-safe-for-democracy” political theology comes from the millions of Christian-Zionists.

Their spirit of chosenness has had its offshoot in a secular ideology of human rights, taken now for granted as something humane and indispensable by the entire world. Yet it is in the name of human rights that the worst mass crimes are often committed. It is in the name of “human rights” that many non-conformist intellectuals can be easily shut up. When a self-proclaimed democrat talks about human rights, one should raise a critical question: “What happens then to those who do not fit into the category of humans or democrats?” Logically, they must be tagged as beasts and animals and therefore, cannot be re-educated, but must be physically wiped out or shut down. Let us try to picture what was crossing the mind of young American pilots who flew over Cologne and Hamburg in the summer of 1943. They had no remorse firebombing these cities below. They viewed the creatures down below as the embodiment of the absolute evil, as the most dangerous beasts that needed to be exterminated for good.

Christian-Zionists bear some of the responsibility for these two wars. Their self-serving idea of some special divine election does not lead to better understanding among different nations and different races, but to endless and futile wars.

Dr. Sunic (www.tomsunic.info) is a writer and former U.S. professor in political science. He is on the Board of Directors of the American Third Position. He is the author of several books. His latest book, dealing with the meaning of national identity is in French, La Croatie; un pays par défaut? (Paris: éd Avatar, 2010)

The Jewish love of mockery is famous. Given the chance, they mercilessly mock many things, particularly their enemies, the goyim. Toward that end, they also mock that which is sacred to goyim, such as Christianity and Christian holidays.

For example, one of Freud’s first students, Theodore Reik, found such aggressive themes and hostility toward non-Jews in Jewish humor. Here is an example:

Little Moritz sees an historical film showing the early persecutions of the Christians. During a Roman circus scene in which many Christians are thrown to the lions, Moritz breaks out in sobs and says to his mother: “Look at that poor little lion there, it has not got any Goy to eat!” Under the disguise of duty for the neglected beast is an old hatred and repressed cruelty toward Gentiles. It breaks through here, surprisingly, and reaches the emotional surface.

Brandeis University professor Steven Whitfield shares this relatively innocuous but revealing joke about Gentiles: “Why did God create goys?” “Somebody has to buy retail.”

Whitfield notes that Moritz Saphi “may well have been the first writer to perceive Jewish wit as ‘the defense and weapon of the oppressed,’ a way of getting revenge and a form of stress management.” As an example, he describes a pious Jew on his deathbed who announces that he wants to covert to Christianity. Shocked, his family asks why. “Better one of them should go than one of us.”

Cutting humor about Christianity is at times a staple of Jewish American humor, though Jews have been careful to gauge the reception such humor among Gentiles is likely to receive.  One comic who pushed these limits — further than many Jews of the era would have preferred — was Lenny Bruce. In a “funny variation on Jewish delusions and gentile nightmares,” Bruce joked about Presidential contender Barry Goldwater:

So dig. Goldwater lives in Arizona. He did a switch, man. He says, “Frig it. I’ll keep my name and I’ll change my religion.” That was his bit.

That’s weird, you know? Finally we have a man in — that’s going to be Goldwater’s last step: gets in, gets before the T.V. cameras for the acceptance speech, and he rips off the mask and you see the big nose and the semitic look and the spittle coming out and [Goldwater screaming vindictively] “YAHAHAHAAAAAA!  WE’LL BURN ALL THE CHURCHES!”

Bruce performed one of his most famous routines in a Chicago nightclub:

You and I know what a Jew is — One Who Killed Our Lord. I don’t know if we got much press on that in Illinois — we did this about two thousand years ago. . . . And although there should be a statute of limitations for that crime, it seems that those who neither have the actions nor the gait of Christians, pagans or not will bust us out, unrelenting dues, for another deuce.

Alright, I’ll clear the air once and for all, and confess. Yes, we did it. I did it, my family. I found a note in my basement. It said: “We killed him . . . signed, Morty.” And a lot of people say to me, “Why did you kill Christ?” “I dunno . . . We killed him because he didn’t want to become a doctor, that’s why we killed him.”

Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner share a milder story about Christ, “The Two Thousand Year-Old Man,” which begins:

You’re a little storekeeper in Nazareth, and I would like to know what happened the day when they crucified Christ on the mountain. Did you know Christ?

Yes; thin, thin, nervous — wore sandals. Came in the store, didn’t buy much, mainly water, wanted water — so I gave him water. Look! You have a business. You can’t always make a sale. So when people want water, you give them water. But one thing I have to admit.  He was a bit of a troublemaker. He beat up a couple of rovs on the steps of the shul — and you know you can’t do that! But they didn’t have to nail him up. They could have given him a severe lecture. I didn’t agree with such a severe punishment. Oh, such a terrible day! All that yelling and screaming up on the mountain. I tell you it was very upsetting. In fact, it got so bad, I had to close up the store.

The authors of a book on Jewish humor relate a joke that is a good summation of three Jewish themes relating to Gentiles: love of the shiksa [non-Jewish woman], social acceptance, and Gentile gullibility:

Three Jews who have recently converted to Christianity were having a drink together in a posh WASP country club. They started talking about the reasons for their conversions.

“I converted out of love,” said the first, and noticing the dubious looks on his friends’ faces, he continued: “Not for Christianity, mind you, but for a Christian girl. As you both know, my wife insisted that I convert.”

“And I,” said the second, “I converted in order to rise in the legal system. You probably know that my recent appointment as a federal judge may have had something to do with my new religion.”

The third man spoke up: “I converted because I think that the teachings of Christianity are superior to those of Judaism.”

“Are you kidding?” said the first man, spitting out his drink. “What do you take us for, a couple of goyim?”

This joke, Professor Whitfield writes, “reveals more than a hint of contempt toward a sister monotheism.  It slyly stabs at the mental inferiority ascribed to non-Jews, whose religious creed is too preposterous to be credible.”

This sentiment is in evidence in another Jewish joke he cites:

Three recent converts to Christianity were being tested.

“What is Easter?” the first man was asked.

“Easter is when Jesus was born.”

“Go back and study,” they said to him. “Next!”

“What is Easter?”

“Easter,” said the second man, “was when Jesus split the Red Sea.”

“I’m sorry,” he was told. “You’ll have to do some more studying. Next!”

“What is Easter?” the third man was asked.

“Easter,” he said tentatively, “was when Christ was reborn.”

“Excellent. Please continue.”

“Well,” the man said cautiously, “he was in the grave for three days. . . .”

“Very good; and then?”

“And then he came out, saw his shadow — and went back in!”

Finally, we arrive at what must be the most blatantly hostile and offensive portrayal of Christmas ever found in the mainstream American media. The creators of the animated series South Park concocted a Christmas character to replace Santa. This new character is “Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo,” an animated human feces. Mr. Hankey was introduced in a 1997 episode that showed the young Jewish boy Kyle brushing his teeth. Mr. Hankey, wearing a Santa hat, jumps out of the toilet bowl and sings a song about Santa and Christmas. The starkest comment in the scene comes when this animated feces writes “Noel” in excrement on the mirror. (This early version can be viewed here and a long discussion I did of the topic here.)

One hardly knows what to make, then, of recent examples where young Jews really push the envelope on exposing their own power or even crimes, all done with cutting humor.

For instance, the whole question of Jewish power in Hollywood and in TV is a touchy one. In his excellent study The Jews of Prime Time, David Zurawik asks, “What is ‘too Jewish’ yet not Jewish enough?”  Answer: “the strange history of Jewish characters on prime-time network television.” The incongruence to which he refers comes from the fact that nearly all the top TV executives and producers were Jewish, yet they were ambivalent about portraying their own high status or that of Jews in other important areas of American life. To illustrate, he begins with an interview with Jewish comedian Al Franken (now a Senator from Minnesota). Zurawik’s direct access to Franken and TV mogul Brandon Tartikoff provides an inside view of Jewish thinking on the “too Jewish” issue.

Tartikoff was concerned about a sketch on NBC Entertainment’s highly popular Saturday Night Live show, in which actor Tom Hanks plays a fictional emcee of a game show called “Jew/Not-a-Jew.” Alluding to Laverne & Shirley co-star Penny Marshall, Hanks asks, “Okay, panelists, Jew or not a Jew?” Tartikoff allowed that it was funny “but was it anti-Semitic?” After agonizing over it for a week, he gave the skit a green light, whereupon his phone rang off the hook on Sunday morning “with calls from colleagues, many of whom were Jewish.” The most troubling call, said Tartikoff, came from his mother. “I cannot believe it. I’m embarrassed to call you my son. This Jew/Not-a-Jew sketch was the most anti-Semitic thing I’ve ever seen.”

While Tartikoff may have erred in this instance, there were other times he pulled the plug because a sketch or show was “too Jewish.” Why did Tartikoff and other Jewish executives so often react this way? To Franken, it was because “there’s a feeling among some Jews that ‘Hey, let’s not get too out front in our Jewishness, because people might not like it.’ . . . ‘Hey, let’s not . . . draw fire. There’s a lot of us in this business, let’s not call attention to it, you know.’” This may well explain why so many Jewish network executives and TV programmers shaded or avoided any connection between Jewish identity and what characters said or did on so many shows. In fact, Tartikoff in 1991 nearly canceled Seinfeld after just one episode for being — surprise — “too Jewish.”

Why, then, did the heavily Jewish Saturday Night Live crew ever create — let alone run — a skit that makes fun of the prominent role Jews played in the financial meltdown? The skit spoofs Jews such as Herbert and Marion Sandler, Congressman Barney Frank, and even George Soros. Here’s the unadulterated original version.

Who, exactly, are they mocking? True, everyone in the skit is by definition a buffoon, from the character of President Bush to the Yuppie scum so totally self-absorbed in their own lives.

Is the real target, however, the gentile audience which comprises the victim class in all of these Jewish financial crimes? After all, Jews are no doubt highly cognizant of the fact that co-religionists such as Bernie Madoff, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken and literally hundreds more Jews have been involved in these financial crimes.

Thus, is the joke here in part due to the assumption that the goyim watching the skit will not really understand who has done what and to whom? Further, isn’t there more than a suggestion that the skit really mocks goyim because even if they have figured out the ethnic identity of the bulk of these scammers, they still won’t or can’t do a damn thing?

Now comes an even more blatant example of this kind of humor. The problem is, I don’t really know who should get the credit. It’s a parody newscast from something called Onion News Network, an offshoot of the original newspaper of that name. At this point, I can’t say to what extent it or this particular skit is Jewish-influenced, so I’ll wait for further comment on that.

Still, the ADL has yet to issue a condemnation of the skit, something one would expect had non-Jews created a blatantly anti-Semitic image. Or maybe Nathan Rabin had a hand in it. He’s the head writer at the A.V. Club, the entertainment-oriented sister publication to The Onion. Again, I’d like to hear more about this from readers.

In any case, the title of the parody in question is “Overcome Stress By Visualizing It As A Greedy, Hook-Nosed Race Of Creatures.” Now to someone of my generation, “hook nosed” is an unambiguously negative reference to Jews. We know this because Jewish groups are constantly telling us NOT to think of Jews in this way. To an older generation, such images are right out of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda magazine:

Have a look now at the image, first a frame from the video, then watch the short video itself.

Overcome Stress By Visualizing It As A Greedy, Hook-Nosed Race Of Creatures

I must say, the set is professional looking and faux-hosts “Jim Haggerty” and “Tracy Gill” are indistinguishable from the real thing.  Under the banner “STRESS RELIEF NOW!” we read about today’s guest: Expert Christine Eckard Shares Stress-Relief Exercises.

On a surface level, the humor succeeds because the hosts and guest are so typical of today’s superficial TV personalities and therapy experts. They’re also very goyish (the name Christine, for example, amplifies this).

As we go deeper, however, it gets more difficult to read. For starters, what they are showing is quite accurate. So how does using the truth perform as part of the humor? I don’t think the skit is making fun of Jews for their appearance or behavior. Rather, I think the writers are making fun, first, of their goy audience. “Look, we’re showing you explicitly what Jews are, yet you’re still too stupid to see it. What can’t we do and not get away with? There is no limit to your goyische kopf stupidity.”

More pointedly, however, I think the Jews behind the skit (again, I have to assume this because I can’t imagine non-Jews ever daring to create images such as these) are getting a thrill out of scaring and offending older Jews. It’s a very adolescent thing — to scandalize your parents. For a young Jew in America today, where physical safety has also been guaranteed and financial or job prospects never a true worry, what can beat the frisson of excitement associated with tweaking the noses of the goyim with some secrets about the tribe and in the process really upsetting mom, dad and uncle Bernie down at the country club in Miami?

For instance, our goyische “expert” tells her audience to

Imagine my money-related stress as the most disgusting terrifying creature I can think of. I’d like to imagine an ugly, greasy little creature with a hooked nose and oily black hair. I call him the Grabbler because he’s a greedy little monster who wants to grabble up all your money. Now think of all the problems. He invented interest rates like the ones on your credit card. He’s taking the jobs because Grabblers only hire their own kind.”

That’s hitting a little too close to home, isn’t it, messieurs Madoff, Blankfein and Soros?

Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs

The next part clearly mocks goyim for our penchant of sticking our heads in the sand rather than face up to real problems. Better, it mocks us because rather than face our problems and deal with them, we resort to puerile tactics such as shifting our focus to happy, sappy things. Like, say, rather than dealing with the fact that a gang of Black punks has just knifed your neighbor’s 16-year-old, you light candles, hug each other and visualize a world filled with nothing but love. Goyim can be really, really stupid.

In the case of this video, our expert beseeches us to imagine yourself in a peaceful field full of lilies. Meanwhile, the banner at the bottom of the screen reinforces this: “Picture Yourself In A Quiet Space Free Of Grabblers, Such As A Field Or A Church.”

Get it?  A church is where goyim go.

The expert than asks us to expunge idea that grabblers are scheming or trying to rob you. The power of positive thinking. How utterly stupid. But of course a grabbler by nature schemes and tries to rob people. You’ve just imagined away any defense from these grabblers. I guess that’s funny to some people.

Therapist Christine moves next to “Blabblers,” “people who love to argue and complain in a nasal voices. They’re always lurking like rats.” Here’s the image:

The first thing that came to my mind when hearing the world “blabbler” was an image of Barbra Streisand who is affectionately known as “Babs.”

The mock interview ends with host Haggerty plugging guest Christine Eckard’s latest book. We then get a close-up of the title: The Solution: Kill all the Grabblers.

So our expert with the German-American sounding name, Christine Eckard, has genocide in her eyes, quite appropriate for anyone with German blood. Ha ha ha.

As I’ve said, there is a lot going on in this short video, and I’m far from reaching any conclusions.

A Google search turns up a few hints. A site called Subverted Nation, for one, argues that

to your conscious mind, it all sounds just as silly as it’s presented. The problem is that your subconscious mind only sees things in a literal sense. It does not have the ability to reason, and it is completely unable to use any logic whatsoever. So, when you are told to visualize these problems simply fading away, and replacing the imagery with something soft and sweet, this is exactly what your subconscious mind does.

It’s very subtle, but this kind of neuro-linguistic programming works extremely well, and your enemy is seasoned in this practice in ways many of you are unable to imagine. These are the kinds of techniques taught in the secret mystery schools to all of their kind. This is the stuff you often miss, that is playing a vital role in their battle for your mind, bodies, and souls.

This writer also argues that “90% of the people on planet Earth do not know who this enemy really is, they do not recognize the “grabbler” as the Jew, and they are utterly clueless as to how serious of an issue this really is.” I simply can’t agree with that. I refuse to believe that anything close to such a majority of fellow Americans are clueless about such stereotypes about Jews. Could it be possible?  Again, I’d like to hear from readers.

An acquaintance seemed to think it possible, though. He told me that “Most people watching the ‘Grabbler’ sketch don’t see it with our [Jew-wise] eyes. Indeed, one could come up with a PC, philo-Semitic reading of the spoof: it reveals that all gentiles have anti-Semitic fantasies and thus are in need of sensitivity re-education.” If he’s right about this reading, then we’re in deeper trouble than I had realized.

In closing, let me proffer one last hypothesis for the Jewish medium known as television for offering negative but fairly accurate depictions of Jews: Could these Jews be crying out to get caught? Naaaaawwww.

The leftist Mommy State now growing like a cancer in the U.S. wants to force all the boys and girls to share and get along. That may sort of work with five-year-olds, although not very well as any parent will attest, but it doesn’t work at all with adults.

These days, forcing the boys and girls to “share” and “get along” is called “multiculturalism.” It has never worked in the past, anywhere. It doesn’t work now, anywhere, and it won’t in the future, ever. There are many reasons why it doesn’t work, but I think the simplest is what I call the Tribe, the Outsider and the Scapegoat.

Human nature is such that people instinctively gather into tribes. Every living creature, from ants to elephants, does it; why should people be any different?

This tribalism will never go away, so there is no way around accepting it, although many try not to. People want community, and that community involves being with people like them, or who they like. This has to be dealt with, which is something libertarians rarely do because of their obsession with “the individual.”

“Tribes” may be a primitive term, but it was applicable not only in the past but also certainly today. You might want to call them “ethnic groups” or “nations” instead. It doesn’t matter. They’re still tribes, whether they’re big or little, powerful or weak.

Problems arise because every tribe in the past has, with monotonous regularity, because of our inborn narcissism, grandiosely called itself “the People” or “the Humans.” Anyone outside the tribe was, obviously, devalued into being non-People and non-Human. That gives a foot in the door to murdering them.

All tribes today still consider themselves “the Humans,” even though they use different words. No country today is going to call itself “the United States of All Humans” or “The Union of All People, and Everyone Outside Isn’t,” but all countries will say God has chosen them and is on their side, which logically means the Other Guy is on the other tribe’s side. That’s saying the same thing as “We’re human, and you ain’t.”

During World War II, for example, the Russians spoke of “Holy Mother Russia,” which implied that God had chosen Russia. Their opponents, necessarily, had to have the Devil on theirs. We’re the People; you’re the Unpeople!

Their opponents, the Germans, did the same thing the Russians did, when they talked of the “Fatherland” (and today, for us, ominously, it’s the “Homeland”).

German soldiers used to march into battle with “Gott mit uns” on their belt buckles, I suppose as a magic talisman to stop bullets. The question is: on whose side was God during the battle of Stalingrad, where both sides lost, combined, more soldiers than America has lost in all of its wars? The answer: neither.

It’s painfully obvious that a grandiose certainty that God is on your side does not equal God being on your side, even if Jerry Falwell believes it. Neither does it mean your tribe is human and the other is not, even if you think God told you that. A movie example that comes to mind: I remember watching a Japanese officer, in The Last Emperor, exclaim, “The Japanese are the only divine race!” Later, when Russian soldiers closed in on him, he scrambled his brains with a pistol bullet. Self-proclaimed divinity always has a price, never a good one.

People in the U.S., cultural differences aside, are in some essential ways no different than people anywhere else. All people have a shared human nature, and in some ways it’s not such a good one.

People say, “God bless America.” It’s never, God bless another country; it’s always, God bless America. God should keep America’s soldiers safe, but never any other country’s. Our soldiers should be saved by God; their soldiers should die. Is that any different than those German soldiers with their talismans? Why should God bless America if America does not follow God’s laws? It should be so simply because we, in our magical thinking, believe it should be so?

It’s all pretty grandiose. It’s assuming Americans are the Chosen, just as every tribe in the past has thought it was the Chosen. They weren’t, and neither are we. Other tribes are full of humans, even if we pretend they aren’t and act as if their deaths mean nothing and are just the “collateral damage” that always happens in war.

The biggest problem, though, is that every tribe projects its problems onto the outsider. There are, not surprisingly, two archetypes in literature called the Scapegoat and the Outsider. Often — maybe always — they are the one and the same.

The most famous, or maybe infamous, story about the Outsider and the Scapegoat is Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery, which everyone in the recent past had to read in middle school. Every year, someone was chosen as a scapegoat, which made them an outsider to be stoned to death. It was an example of scapegoating always leading to human sacrifice, of projecting “badness” on someone and then killing them, in order to “save” the tribe.

The human sacrifice in Jackson’s story is also a fertility rite, which scapegoating and sacrifice always are: once we kill them, our culture will be renewed and reborn, since the “evil ones” will have been eradicated. This is why to the Greeks Dionysius was a fertility god, and why the Aztecs ripped the hearts out of hundreds of thousands of people. They thought it made their crops grow.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The well-known novel that best illustrates the Tribe, the Outsider and the Scapegoat (and fertility rites) is that psychopathology textbook known as Atlas Shrugged. Rand’s grandiose and god-like heroes withdraw into their retreat and, being perfect, have to project their unacknowledged flaws onto the Outsiders and Scapegoats — her “looters” and “parasites.”

These Outsiders/Scapegoats then collapse into a Dionysian frenzy of self-destruction, and after it’s over, Rand’s heroes come out into a plowed-under world where they can plant their seeds of reason, selfishness and capitalism.

Since every tribe grandiosely considers itself “good,” all “evil” must be projected elsewhere. If one tribe considers itself human and good and chosen by God, then the other tribe, the outsider, must necessarily be evil, sub-human, and of the Devil.

Maybe we don’t consciously believe it, but emotionally we do. It’s why many people don’t care — indeed sometimes even cheer — if foreigners die in wars. Then we act shocked when foreigners cheer when we die, the way some cheered about 9-11. How dare they act like us! Since we are good, they must be evil!

It was horrible that nearly 3000 innocent people were murdered on 9-11, but was it was a good thing the federal government murdered all those people in Vietnam, Panama, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq? But since they were outside our tribe, they don’t really count, and sacrificing and killing them doesn’t matter because it was to “liberate” them.

Today in the U.S. you can see our tribe projecting certain of its problems on the outsider. The U.S. attacked Iraq twice when it didn’t attack us, then blockaded the country and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. It then placed troops in Saudi Arabia, and supported Israel uncritically no matter what it did. We did this because we are “good,” at least in our tribe’s collective groupthink mind, if not in the mind of other tribes.

And since scapegoating and human sacrifice are always fertility rites, bombing and destroying other countries is of course supposed to make them be reborn and “grow” right — usually by trying to seed them with democracy and feminism.

When resentment, envy, anger and hate sent blowback our way on 9-11, we denied the bad things we had done to others, and instead claimed our attackers had to be “evil,” and attacked us because we are “good.” Maybe things are that simple in the childish, Black-and-White fantasy of Bizarro World, but certainly not in reality.

It’s bad enough to have different tribes in different countries get into wars, but when tribes in the same country fight, that is a prescription for national suicide. And multiculturalism, if it is anything, is several ethnically-different tribes warring over the same land and for political power, which is power over others. It is therefore an attempt at national suicide.

Each tribe is going to grandiosely call itself “the Humans” in some form, then deny its flaws and instead project them onto the devalued other, which it will want to remove or murder. Each tribe will also try to use other tribes as fertilizer, to make their own tribe and its culture grow and prosper.

Every empire in the past has fallen not because of attacks from the outside, but because of attacks from the inside. Once the barbarians are inside the gate it’s harder to remove them. They may claim they’re not barbarians, but apparently the Greek story of the Trojan Horse isn’t taught to Americans in school anymore.

Some examples of tribal warfare? How about “Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan,” whose motto is “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” It translates as, “Everything for the race. Everything outside the race, nothing.” That’s clearly grandiose, and fits exactly the idea of one tribe denying its flaws and projecting them onto a devalued other. It is projection/scapegoating leading to human sacrifice. They’re the cause of our problems, not us. Remove them or rub them out!

Another example in the U.S.? In the original teachings of the Nation of Islam (related to Islam in name only) Blacks are gods, the original men, and Whites are devils. Guess who’s completely to blame for the problems of the former? You’ve got it. It’s just another example of “Since we are good, you must be evil and the cause of our problems, so we must eradicate you.” Denial and projection. Lies (to oneself and to others) followed by scapegoating and human sacrifice.

People will always define themselves not just as individuals but as part of family, nation, religion. If large enough different groups of people try to share the same land and vie for political power, each is going to define itself as good, the others as bad, then deny its own flaws and instead project their problems on those defined as outsiders. Leftists who support multiculturalism don’t merely misunderstand human nature but instead don’t understand it at all, not when they believe several large tribes can co-exist peacefully on the same land.

The only way that different tribes can occupy the same land is if one is tribe is 95% of the population, and the other tribe is five percent. But four tribes that are each one-fourth of the population – say, Black, White, Yellow and Brown? There has never been a society in the history of the world that has survived such an attempt.

The problem is made far worse when the State gets involved, because each group will fight for political power to protect itself and hurt the other. Each group will try to capture the State to use for its own purposes, which involves removing the others, or, ultimately, killing them.

State-sponsored “multiculturalism,” a misguided attempt to force different tribes to get along on the same land, will, as it always does when the State gets involved, have the exact opposite effect: it will make them fight even more, to the detriment of those involved, and, ultimately, the nation. Not only are the boys and girls not going to share and get along, they’re going to get into constant vicious, bloody, murderous brawls.

Bob Wallace (email him) has a degree in Mass Communications and is a former newspaper reporter and editor. He writes occasionally about economics and cultural issues.