We are beginning to grasp the ethnic fault lines involved in the credit meltdown. Steve Sailerwas the first to point out that the push for greater minority home ownership was an important ingredient in lowering standards for lending. The result was that non-Asian minorities were more likely to get sub-prime loans with higher costs and with less documentation, and they have been more likely to default on these loans. Pretty much everyone — Republicans and Democrats —were involved in this.

The second part of the ethnic fault line is evident in a recent column by James P. Pinkerton. Pinkerton notes a curious alliance between Democrats and Wall Street in backing the Bush Administration bailout plan originally developed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, formerly of Goldman-Sachs. One might suppose that the Democrats would be highly critical of a plan that would benefit  Wall Street — except that Wall street is solidly Democrat and a major source of money for the Democratic Party. Instead, it’s the Republicans who represent Main Street that are creating opposition for the plan.

The Democrats are emerging as the new party of the rich, the party of Wall Street, the party that champions financiers at the expense of producers. For years now, the most affluent precincts in the country—mostly on the two coasts—have been solidly Democratic. And in 2008, the polls show that upper-income voters mostly support Barack Obama. And Obama, of course, guided by the likes of Robert Rubin, has been quietly supportive of the deal.  …

So it’s understandable that the Democrats would want to take care of “their” people at the top. That’s the revised Democratic model: The same old socialism for the poor, of course, in the form of the bureaucratic welfare state, and a new kind of socialism for the rich, in the form of this bailout.

In addition, the Democrats have some sordid secrets to protect—and Paulson & Co. are helping them keep hidden. Much of the overall financial crisis can be traced back to bad mortgages made to unqualified buyers at the behest of Democratic poverty advocates; it was a neat arrangement, poor Democrats got houses, as rich Democrats got richer by manipulating the financial paper.

Pinkerton is too polite or too desirous to maintain his position in the mainstream media to note the obvious: Wall Street is heavily Jewish and Main Street is basically a code word for white Middle America. The most affluent precincts in the country are solidly Democratic and strongly Jewish. As is well known, they provide the lion’s share of the funding for the Democratic Party. Indeed in the mid-1990s, Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab estimated that Jews provide 50% of the funding for the Democratic Party and Benjamin Ginsberg noted that 50% of Wall Street executives were Jewish.

That percentage is doubtless greater now because of the large increase in Jewish wealth with the  expansion of the financial sector of the American economy (see below) and the lessening political and financial clout of unions. The precincts on the East and West coasts that are wealthy, pro-Obama, and strongly Jewish are two of the main centers of Jewish power: Wall Street and Hollywood. At this point, investment firms have given about 50% more to Obama than McCain, while entertainment firms have given over 5 times as much to Obama as McCain.

And that doesn’t include individual giving. A recent Hollywood bash that raised $9,000,000 for Obama included a $28,500 per plate dinner. Guests were serenaded by  (who else?) Barbra Streisand, an icon of the Jewish left.

These political fault lines will only become more starkly obvious as we move into the future. As noted in a previous column, the current election is shaping up to be a watershed event in the polarization of American politics. The Democratic Party is dominated by minority identity politics — not only among the blacks and Latinos who support it because of affirmative action and poverty programs, but also because the elite that is bankrolling it is predominantly Jewish with an ethnic agenda of its own.

The role of Jewish identity politics is particularly striking. This pattern of Jewish voting and Jewish financial support makes no sense except in terms of Jewish identity politics. As the old cliché has it, “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” Jews vote with blacks even though blacks are the most conspicuously anti-Jewish constituency in the US. If past elections are any guide, around 75% of Jewish voters will vote for Obama in this election.

Fundamentally, Jewish identity politics is based on hostility to the white Christian majority of the  United States. This hostility spans the Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right.

[adrotate group=”1″]

This alliance between non-white minorities with great and ever-increasing electoral clout and Jewish financial and media elites is a deadly combination to the white Christian majority of the United States, especially given that white Christians will no longer be the majority in a few years. The ultimate folly is to voluntarily cede political power to hostile groups with long-standing historical grudges.

Pinkerton’s other point should also be underlined: the Democrats are “the party of Wall Street, the party that champions financiers at the expense of producers.”

White Middle America has been steadily marginalized as they have watched their jobs shipped overseas combined with a massive invasion of non-whites that has destroyed the labor market for less educated whites while increasing ethnic competition in education with the arrival of large numbers of Asians.

As Kevin Phillips has pointed out, the economic expansions of the current Bush administration and to a lesser extent the Clinton administration have not benefited the middle class. Previous expansions have sometimes left out the poor, but they have always benefited the middle class.

Instead,  since the 1990s, economic expansions have benefited the financial elite — the heart and soul of the Democratic Party and a major source of Jewish financial power. Financial services and complex financial products have assumed an ever larger percentage of the American economy, while manufacturing has steadily declined to the point where their relative percentages of the American economy have reversed.

And the entire pyramid is erected on a house of cards. Phillips writes:

My summation is that American financial capitalism, at a pivotal period in the nation’s history, cavalierly ventured a multiple gamble: first, financializing a hitherto more diversified U.S. economy; second, using massive quantities of debt and leverage to do so; third, following up a stock market bubble with an even larger housing and mortgage credit bubble; fourth, roughly quadrupling U.S. credit-market debt between 1987 and 2007, a scale of excess that historically unwinds; and fifth, consummating these events with a mixed fireworks of dishonesty, incompetence and quantitative negligence.

Phillips concludes with a quotation from British colonial secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, made in 1904 to a gathering of his country’s financiers: “Granted that you are the clearinghouse of the world, [but] are you entirely beyond anxiety as to the permanence of your great position? . . . Banking is not the creator of our prosperity but is the creation of it. It is not the cause of our wealth, but it is the consequence of our wealth.”

Excellent points. White Americans are now being asked to bail out Wall Street at a time when the divisions between Wall Street and Main Street have never been greater.

There has been a renewed interest recently in a 2002 article by Paul Craig Roberts, actually the first of two (here is the second), drawing attention to a rather frightening phenomenon at Harvard University: the effort by a professor, Noel Ignatiev, and his journal, Race Traitor, to promote the “cultural and psychological genocide of whites.”

Now that’s an odd choice of words—guaranteed to draw attention to himself and his ideas. Was he in any way also promoting the slaughter or liquidation of whites, as some of his adversaries have suggested? Ignatiev says no. In his words,

We frequently get letters accusing us of being “racists,” just like the KKK, and have even been called a “hate group.” …

Our standard response is to draw an analogy with anti-royalism: to oppose monarchy does not mean killing the king; it means getting rid of crowns, thrones, royal titles, etc….

Ignatiev et al. have developed a story that goes as follows: A bunch of very bad people got together and created a category called “white” to which they belong but people with different colored skin can’t belong. Then they made laws that favored people in the white category, they colluded with other whites to dominate the economic and political process, and they invented baseless scientific theories in which whiteness had its roots in real biological differences.  

All Ignatiev’s written material that we’ve seen carries the same odd message with the same extreme wording. He talks about the supposed privileges white people have just because they are in the white category, even though we all know that the only racial privileges in the US are affirmative action laws and various subterfuges that favor non-whites at the expense of whites. These practices result in blacks being overrepresented in high status jobs if one controls for IQ and test scores. And it even results in people like Ward Churchill exaggerating their non-whiteness in order to become beneficiaries of this largesse.

Ignative writes darkly and dramatically of “abolishing the white race,” “genocide of whites,” etc. When pressed, he emphasizes that that he doesn’t really mean killing people who call themselves white. He only wants to destroy the concept of whiteness.

So he’s off the hook, right?

I don’t think so. Try this analogy. We all know that blacks and Jews have a far stronger sense of their racial/ethnic identity and interests than whites. Consider voting: Around 90% of blacks and 80% of Jews vote Democrat. So does that mean that we can say we are in favor of abolishing the black race? Does that mean that we can say we are in favor of the genocide of Jews? And when the forces of political correctness descend upon us for making such statements, can we make everyone happy just by saying that all we meant is that blacks and Jews shouldn’t identify so strongly with their group that they do things like vote the same way. I think not.

Perhaps even Harvard, that bastion of anti-white political correctness, was bothered by Ignatiev’s rhetoric. Ignatiev left Harvard and is now peddling his poison at Massachusetts College of Art. Ignatiev must have felt right at home at Harvard since Harvard is notorious for discriminating against non-Jewish whites: While giving special preferences to blacks and Latinos, only 35% of Harvard students are non-Jewish whites — around half their representation in the population.

Beyond his outrageous rhetoric designed to call attention to himself, it seems to us that Ignatiev is engaging in a clever subterfuge, worthy of the best Talmudic slight-of-hand. The trick involves first adhering to the PC notion that “races” are only “social constructs” as opposed to being creatures whose biology, psychology and culture are inextricably entangled. Coupled with this notion is the other thread running through the ideology of this son of Russian Jewish immigrants, a legacy of his communist days, is an extreme egalitarianism that brooks no social hierarchy, at least one in which “whites” are at the top.

All this has allowed him and his protégés to vent their hatred for whites without being accused of doing so. Their hatred assumes a surface legitimacy because the hated “whites” are just a “social construct.” It’s not really about killing people, so where’s the beef? The “genocide” of whites is not about homicide or suicide; it’s only about getting white people to stop thinking that they are white.

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide. And like so many  strongly identified Jews, his hatred for the people and culture of the West comes shining through.

Notice that if Ignatiev were sincerely opposed to ethnic competition, he would have criticized all sorts of peoples and individuals around the world for thinking of themselves as belonging to a racial/ethnic category. After all, what’s left when there is no more category of whiteness? There will still be people with white skin who can trace their genetic ancestry to Europe but who have lost all sense of belonging to a racial category. And there will still be people who categorize themselves as Jews and blacks and Asians and various subdivisions of Asians. These people will continue to have a sense of racial/ethnic identity and they will continue to act on the basis of this identity. Only whites will be left without an identity and hence without weapons in the racial/ethnic struggle. Why doesn’t he campaign to get rid of these other categories?

And when only whites are left without an identity and hence without weapons in the racial/ethnic struggle, it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of whites is the next step.

And yes, there is a hard biological reality to racial and ethnic differences. The theory that these are nothing but a social construct is itself a social construct — a social construct in the service of ethnic competition of people like Ignatiev who advance them.

What is so striking in the recent intellectual history of the West is that people like Ignatiev, who doubtless have a strong sense of their own ethnic identity and interests, have managed to pathologize any sense of ethnic identity and interests among Europeans and European-derived peoples — and no one else.

Ignatiev is just another Jewish intellectual in a long line that stretches back to Franz Boas, the Frankfurt School, and myriad others who now dominate the culture of Western suicide. He may call himself a race traitor, but there is every reason to believe that he has a sense of allegiance to his own people and the long history of hostility to the people and culture of the West that is so typical of highly committed Jews. For him, being a race traitor comes easily and naturally; it’s the mother’s milk of socialization as a Jew.

So do read Paul Craig Roberts first essay beginning below, and his second, and ask yourself where cultural critique leaves off and de facto support for, say, blacks murdering whites begins?

Harvard Hates the White Race?

By Paul Craig Roberts

vdare.com, September 4, 2002

Is the multicultural campaign really about diversity? Or is it about stamping out Western civilization and the “white race” itself?

College students will tell you that a university education today is a guilt trip for whites. The purpose is to prevent whites from appreciating and absorbing their own culture and to make it difficult for whites to resist the unreasonable demands (quotas, reparations, etc.) from “people of color.”

To the questions, “who am I, what am I,” the white university graduate answers: “a racist, sexist, homophobic oppressor.”

Neither parents, trustees, alumni, nor the public are aware of the anti-white propaganda that masquerades as education. When someone who is aware tells them, they think the person is exaggerating in order to make a point.

Now comes Harvard educated Noel Ignatiev, an academic at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African-American Research. Dr. Ignatiev is the founder of a journal, Race Traitor, which has as its motto, “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”

The journal’s purpose is ‘to abolish the white race.’

At the least, Dr. Ignatiev intends cultural and psychological genocide for whites. It is unclear whether physical extermination is part of the program. A statement by the editors on the web site says that the new abolitionists

“do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal.” [more]

[Part II, titled “Mugabe Or Harvard: Who Hates Whites More?”, is here.]

The Sarah Palin phenomenon continues unabated. Journalists are poring over Alaska to find out everything about her beliefs and anything else they can use as ammunition. So far the results are not particularly encouraging. Despite her possible support for Pat Buchanan, her comments on immigration do not suggest strong convictions one way or the other — this at a time when nothing will be accomplished without strong convictions. And her dispensationalist theology is worrisome because the neocons have been adept in exploiting such sympathies to harness US military power on behalf of Israel. Indeed, her recent statements on Iran and Israel sound like they were written by Richard Perle.

Another issue that has been aired a bit in the media is whether she supports Alaskan separatism. As governor, Palin gave a videotaped message welcoming the convention of the Alaska Independence Party—not the sort of thing a governor would do if the AIP was out of the mainstream of Alaskan politics, but not exactly an endorsement either. Her husband Todd was an AIP member for 7 years but doesn’t seem to have been active in the party.  

Secession is certainly an option that has occurred to whites intent on preserving the traditional people and culture of the US. At least on the surface, this is not the focus of the AIP. The AIP seems far more libertarian. On this audiotape, AIP founder Joe Vogler vents his grievances on overregulation, states’ rights, and federal ownership of Alaska’s land and mineral rights. At one point, he says “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won’t be buried under their damn flag.”

Christopher Ketcham’s recent LA Times op-ed on the issue (“America’s secessionist streak” points out that a recent Zogby poll showed that over 20% of American adults agreed with the proposition that  “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.” Slightly less stated that they “would support a secessionist effort in my state.” In the same poll 44% agreed that “the United States’ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.” In a 2006 poll released by CNN, 71% of Americans agreed that “our system of government is broken and cannot be fixed.”

We at The Occidental Observer are in complete agreement that the system is broken. If things continue as they are, white people will soon be a minority in the US. Ceding political and cultural power to others is extremely dangerous, especially when many US minorities have deep historical grudges against white people.

Indeed, we can already see the writing on the wall. In a vdare blog posting, Patrick Cleburne explains the sentence given to Jeremiah Munsen in the Jena race case as a result of a black affirmative action US Attorney and an AsianActing Assistant Attorney General:  “Welcome to Multicultural America: A black and an Asian use a perverted legal process to rob a white American of his political birthright and promote the interests of minorities. The effect will be to intimidate the entire white community from resisting another Black Scam: in other words, to prevent them acting politically to defend themselves.”

This sort of thing will only get worse as whites lose political power. The theme of a broken system can already be seen in some manifestations of white culture. Country music has been described as “implicit white culture” — implicit in the sense that it represents white people and white culture without explicitly making claims for white identity and interests. Implicit white culture “cannot tell its name” because of the prevailing hegemony of political correctness. But virtually all the artists and the people represented in country music videos are white, and a major theme is the culture of small town America. These are the type of people that Sarah Palin appeals to, and the unifying thing about these people is that they are white.

[adrotate group=”1″]

An excellent recent example is the video “A Country Boy Can Survive”  by Hank Williams Jr. All the people in the video are working class whites from “little towns all around this land” far from the city: “You only get mugged if you go downtown.” And there is the confederate flag—a remnant of traditional Southern culture.  The theme is that country people can survive because of their ability to live off the land. The US political system is broken and can’t be fixed within the present political structure. But they will survive.

Secession then becomes one possibility for whites to act in an effort to carve out at least some political and cultural space for themselves. A 2007 secessionist convention described by Ketcham is notable for the presence not only of libertarians, but also “Southern nationalists” and paleoconservatives more likely to be in tune, at least implicitly, with the views of The Occidental Observer.

But a secessionist movement that is explicitly aimed at preserving white people and their culture is probably much more difficult to get off the ground than a movement aimed at small government and getting back to America’s republican past. Any secessionist movement is sure to be resisted by the Leviathan state, but the intellectual legitimacy of such ideas is certainly likely to attract more people and have a greater chance of success.

Consider the case of Vermont. Vermont is 96.9% white as of 2005, and is one of the three whitest states in the union. The Vermont separatist movement is a mainstream endeavor aimed at reclaiming republican roots. The Second Republic of Vermont is “a nonviolent citizens’ network and think tank opposed to the tyranny of Corporate America and the U.S. government, and committed to the peaceful return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic and more broadly the dissolution of the Union.” It claims that “America desperately needs a new metaphor, an alternative to empire. Vermont stands ready to provide such a metaphor, the Vermont village green. Village greens are small communities devoted to life, liberty, land, and locality rather than death, doom, and destruction of the planet earth.”

Without saying so explicitly, their vision of Vermont is a vision of the white past created by their English ancestors. Their website includes a nice article advocating a declaration of independence from the Israel Lobby and a review of a book critical of Einstein. (Einstein, who was an ardent Zionist and a Jewish racial chauvinist, has become a central cultural icon of the American empire.) Is it too much to suppose that the author, Thomas H. Naylor, has a negative attitude toward the group responsible for so many of the trends the Vermont secessionists abhor?

Their website contains links to a wide range of secessionist movement in the US (e.g., the Southern National Conference) and Canada (e.g., the Parti Québécois).  Non-white and anti-white separatist movements in Hawaii and theAztlan movement to reclaim the American southwest for Mexico are also part of the separatist scene. The Middlebury Institute for the Study of Separatism, Secession, and Self-Determination also has a wide range of separatist literature, including this movie trailer on separatism in the western US.

Obviously, separatism and secession are not ideal solutions to the problems of whites in the US. Ideally, we would reclaim the federal government with an explicit ideology of white interests and identity and attempt to return to the situation as it was before the immigration law of 1965 when the US was 90% white.

But with 100 million non-whites in the country, the chances for such a movement seem remote. Secession, perhaps under an implicitly white ideology of libertarian republicanism, then looms as another alternative that should be supported by racially conscious whites, especially if reconquest after secession remains as a possibility. It would be a fitting end to the utopian dream of multiculturalism.