The term ‘racism’ has a generic meaning today, denoting social ostracism of outgroups, or in the worst case scenario, depicting an act of savagery meted out by some race or some warring party to another race or ethnic group. In the standard usage today the word ‘racism’ is not necessarily a referent for a different skin color, or a depiction of someone’s high or low cognitive ability. As a result of constant semantic shifts the word ‘racism’ is used to describe a form of barbarism, generally viewed as despicable and contrary to the most basic norms of human conduct.

German Endtimes

If one accepts this very general and generic definition of racism, then the German people, shortly after WWII, became a prime victim of the most massive form of racism and racial discrimination — unseen and unheard of at any time in the history of mankind. The scope of terror inflicted to the German people during the Allied firebombing of German cities, the degree of suffering experienced by millions of German civilians in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the war, goes beyond human imagination. By its scope and its sophistication this peculiar type of cruelty against Germans is hardly comparable to any earlier tragedy of any other race or ethnicity in Africa or Asia during colonial times. It had clear racial, linguistic and judicial overtones still awaiting an objective scholarly examination.

Images of Dresden after the fire bombing of February 13, 1945

Numerous books have been published by prominent authors, including the well- known American legal scholar Alfred de Zayas, the German historian Franz W. Seidler, and the Canadian historian James Bacque on the expulsion of Germans, the policy of starving of hundreds of thousands of surrendered German soldiers along the Rhine river that was carried out by the Allied commander Dwight Eisenhower, the grand theft of German property, mass rapes of over 2 million German women by Soviet soldiers, slave labor of captured young German children, etc. Yet most of these books, although based on solid forensic research and physical evidence, are barely accessible, and they are never mentioned in higher education in the USA and in Europe.

Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia

Germany’s European allies, such as Hungary, or the wartime France, dearly paid their collaboration with Germany too. Few French students, let alone American students, know that over 70,000 French civilians perished under American bombs from 1942 to 1944.  They cannot be blamed, as there are no sites of commemoration for the bombs’ victims in France. Tiny Croatia, which remained the loyal ally of Germany to the last day of WWII, paid a heavy price too, losing the best part of its gene pool, after its middle class had been wiped out by Yugoslav Communists. Although considered today the most beautiful country in Europe and a prime tourist destination, Croatia is essentially a huge graveyard. In 1945 it became the largest communist killing field of ethnic Germans and Croats in Europe (see here and here).

It is still common in the Karst area in the mountains of southern Croatia to stumble upon small ravines and pits with rusted German helmets, rosary beads and scattered bones.  Beyond the carnage of WWII and its immediate aftermath, the root causes of the recent interethnic war in the Balkans are the direct outcome of forcible Allied creation at Yalta and Potsdam of the artificial multicultural entity known as Yugoslavia.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The question that comes to mind is: Why is this unique form of racism against Germans not debated in public as is for instance the plight of Jews during WWII? While acknowledging that others suffered greatly during WWII and that Germany also committed large-scale atrocities against others, one still wonders: Why are the enormous crimes against the Germans simply not discussed?

The answer may not be hard to find. We are still living in the period where history has been written by the victors. The topic of the war and postwar German losses cannot be debated in academe or in public life because the gigantic scale of German suffering would automatically and immediately eclipse all other competing victimologies combined.

What is striking is that there is still no official tally as to the number of German civilians and soldiers who perished in the period from 1938 to 1950. Why has the German government never released the exact casualty figure? One can only read in some marginal revisionist journals or hear occasional rumours that 6 to 12 million Germans perished during that that time span — but there is no official document endorsing this allegation. And this silence is very, very telling, indeed.

Crying Wolf

Racism against Germans had been well thought out and was brought to its academic perfection before the war’s end. An influential American Jewish businessman, Theodore Kaufman, published in 1940 a small pamphlet titledGermany Must Perish! In 1942 pamphlet Kill, his counterpart, the high Soviet-Jewish official Ilya Ehrenburg, unabashedly urged Soviets solders to spare no mercy against the Germans:  “The Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word ‘German’ will trigger your rifle.”

The Morgenthau Plan, devised by two ethnic Jews — Secretary of the TreasuryHenry Morgenthau, Jr. and Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White— would have killed 10 million Germans by starvation and disease in the first two years after the war. (White has been named as a Soviet spy on the basis of the Venona documents.) This would have been in addition to the 1 million that had been killed in saturation bombing and 3 million in forced expulsions. As Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson wrote in his diary, “I found around me, particularly Morgenthau, a very bitter atmosphere of personal resentment against the entire German people without regard to individual guilt, of the Nazis.”

As recounted by Joseph Bendersky, American military officers commonly believed that there were many anti‑German Jews in the U.S. military government after World War II who were bent on de‑nazification and revenge.  “Feeling inhibited from speaking publicly by alleged Jewish power, a number of officers, as well as some government officials, complained incessantly in private that Jewish ‘refugees in American uniforms,’ together with Jews in the U.S. government, unduly affected American policy toward Germany in a variety of detrimental ways” (p. 364). Refugee officers (i.e., German Jews returning as members of the U.S.  military government) treated Germans brutally, including sadistic beatings and starvation (p. 365).  In general, these Jews advocated harsh treatment, the concept of collective guilt, and trials for general staff officers.The reputation of these refugee officers was so bad that the Army ended up firing personnel who had entered the U.S. after 1933.

Although modern mainstream historiography and the media downplay Kaufmann’s little booklet and Ehrenburg’s hectoring of Soviet soldiers, their words had a significant psychological impact on the behavior of Allied soldiers.

Anti-German hatred did not stop when the war was over.  It is still well alive and thriving, albeit by resorting to far more sophisticated methods. Over the last 70 years anti-German racism, under the guise of the fluid word ‘antifascism’ has been the pivot of the “negative legitimacy” of Western civilization in the eyes of intellectual elites. Anti-German hatred still represents the unavoidable pillar of the world order, including international law. Any dent in it would seriously harm the modern system and would possibly bring it down.

There is also a psychological dimension to a racist act. Usually the bigger the magnitude of a racist crime the more intellectual effort is needed by its perpetrator to hide it, or explain it away, either by propagandistic or by pedagogical tools. Perpetrators of huge racist crimes, such as those committed by the Allies against the German people, were subsequently obliged to project their own crimes on their German victims. By reversing the semantics of the word ‘racism,’ they were able to carry out their own racist policies, while at the same time naming the German victim as an exemplary role model of racism. Consequently, the victors of WWII had no other option but to trivialize or hush up their crimes, while simultaneously doctoring up the image of their own victimhoods while ascribing their own evildoing as a racially inborn trait of the defeated German side.  The postmodern liberal “antifascist” and  “antiracist” discourse of “crying wolf” —  blaming the Other for one’s own dark and criminal secrets, can be traced to good old fable teller Aesop and his allegories about human duplicity.

Freda Utley, a former communist intellectual, who very early learned the meta-language of the Allied propaganda and who later turned into an anticommunist writer, observed the psychology of the victors and their usage of semantic pyrotechnics. As early as 1948 she knew what would become of Germany:

A thoughtful American professor, whom I met in Heidelberg, expressed the opinion that the United States military authorities on entering Germany and seeing the ghastly destruction wrought by our obliteration bombing were fearful that knowledge of it would cause a revulsion of opinion in America and might prevent the carrying out of Washington’s policy for Germany by awakening sympathy for the defeated and realization of our war crimes. This, he believes, is the reason why a whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler’s starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt.  Certainly it worked out that way.” (Freda Utley,The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. 1949)  

Judicial Review or Racial Review?

There is also a judicial aspect of modern anti-German racism, well observed by the German legal scholar Carl Schmitt, who witnessed himself this unparalleled German drama. Wars declared “good” and specifically wars fought in the name of “democracy and human rights,” are the most barbaric ones. A democratic warrior is obliged to place his enemy below democratic standards, or simply set him outside the category of human beings. This was likely the image of Germans crossing the mind of American commanders when given orders to firebomb German cities. There were no longer “bad Krauts” residing in the crosshairs of the bombers, but monstrous beasts — a unique type of bacteria, a special form of disease that needed to be chemically removed in order to make the word safe for democracy.

Psychologically speaking American aircraft pilots or naïve GIs had perfect consciousness, being firmly convinced that some ugly telluric creatures from the Bible, some stray Gogs or Magogs, lived down under in the medieval cities of Cologne, Dresden, Bremen, and Munich. It is no accident that the largest Allied firebombing — of Hamburg in July 1943 — had a code name from the Old Testament: ‘Gomorrah.’

This pattern of demonization of the adversary was first used by the North against the South in legitimizing the Union aggression in 1863 and later on in brainwashing the Southerners. More recently it was used by George W. Bush and his neocon advisors in legitimizing military intervention in Iraq, notably by parroting the expression “Axis of Evil,” put together by his Canadian-American Jewish advisor David Frum in subliminal reference to Axis countries of WWII. In both historical instances, Deuteronomy, Chapter VII, with its prescriptions for genocide, was used as a handbook against unchosen ones. As Schmitt writes:

Hostility becomes so absolute that even the most ancient sacral differentiation between the enemy and the criminal disappears in the paroxysm of self-righteousness. To doubt one’s own justice appears as treason; to show interest in the opponent’s arguments is viewed as treacherousness, and the attempt to start discussion is considered as agreement with the enemy. (Ex Captivitate Salus, Erfahrungen der Zeit 1945/47 (Köln: Greven Verlag, 1950, p. 58).

After 1945, with the hindsight of the Allied terror bombing and fresh memories of immense suffering, the mimicry of political rectitude amidst the new German ruling class was comprehensible.  Hundreds of thousands of German intellectuals had to be purged from schools and universities and newspapers and also obliged to fill out the demeaning Questionnaires (“Fragebogen”), while renouncing over and over again their “authoritarian personality.” The high priests of the Frankfurt School, specialists in “laundering the German character,”accomplished their work meticulously. (See Caspar Schrenck von Notzing;also my Homo Americanus.) In the decades to come German politicians had to prove that they could perform their liberal democratic tasks better than their American tutors. Given that all signs of nationalism, let alone racialism, had to be erased, the only form of patriotism allowed to Germans was “constitutional patriotism”:  “The German people had to adapt itself to the constitution, instead of adapting the constitution to the German people,” writes the German legal scholar, Günther Maschke (Das bewaffnete Wort (“Die Verschwörung der Flakhelfer”) (Wien und Lepzig:  Karolinger Verlag, 1997) p. 74; my emphasis).

The word ‘German’ has become synonymous with evil. German studies in the US academe have been thoroughly neglected; any mentioning of “German culture” is still reminiscent of the time span stretching from 1933 to 1945. Today, the Germans are a thoroughly neurotic people, a case of the victor’s successful cultural (and genetic?) engineering — probably the most unique case in the history of mankind.

The peculiar hatred of German tormentors must be put into wider psychological perspective and possibly also described by an evolutionary psychologist. It was largely the subconscious knowledge of their low character in comparison to the Germans that tormentors of the German people acted in such a barbaric fashion.

The German people, as the synthesis of all European races and residing in the place where North and West meet South and East in Europe, are in many ways the most accomplished of all Indo-European peoples. Rising from the ashes of WWII, they have built the strongest, most productive economy in Europe.Germans have a special sense of space and order (Ordnung and Ortung), which other European peoples do not have to the same degree. There is a joke that even a German drug addict knows how to neatly dispose of his used needles.

In addition, the German language is the richest Indo-European language. It enables hundreds of thousands of neologisms and compound nouns; it is timeless and endless and ideal for philosophical speculation. Unlike the English language and even more so the highly contextual French language (which is full of antonyms and homonyms), the German language is a straight-forward and a very “earthbound” language, having in addition a solid normative grammar. Alas, unlike French, its major fault is that it does not give a speaker latitude for diplomatic weaselling.

The paradox of our postmodernity is that despite being the most demonized people on earth, Germans are the most welcome people anywhere. Unlike the French, the English, and let alone the Americans, who are resented, if not despised in foreign countries, German businessmen, tourists and even their politically correct elites, are welcome everywhere. From the Arabic casbahs to India’s bazaars, barefooted street kids yell in great respect when they spot Germans: “Alemani! Alemani!”  Officially, even Germany’s former archenemies in Russia and Israel reserve to German diplomats a far more lavish treatment than they do to other foreign diplomats.

Subconsciously everybody knows that something terrible and unspeakable happened to Germans. But it’s not deserving loud and open discourse — at least not for now.

In April 1988, several weeks before I was awarded a PhD degree in political science at the University of California–Santa Barbara, I had a private and casual dinner with a famous author of human ecology, professor emeritus Garrett Hardin. After a beer or two, he told me, if I recall his words well: “Look, Tom, I have been lecturing in biology; I can get away with saying things to my students about race that you will never ever be able to in humanities.”

Being young and living in the allegedly freest country in the world, I did not exactly understand what he meant.  Years later I grasped the meaning of his words. I realized that there are academic fields in humanities that are subject to strict inquisitorial control and to undisputed canons of political rectitude. This sacred triangle consists of three subjects: a) modern historiography; b) Jewish power and influence; and c) the race question. Lecturing in an open an honest way on these topics means receiving a kiss of academic death.

Intellectual terror in American colleges is well-hidden behind the garb of feigned academic conviviality and the “have-a-wonderful-day” rhetoric of superficially friendly peers. Yet it has far more insidious effects than the naked terror I experienced in a drab ex-Communist Europe.

Apart from being a derogatory, value-laden word that immediately lends itself to an array of catastrophic fantasies and judgment day scenarios, the word “Nazi” also gives birth to a schizoid behavior among a number of White nationalists, particularly in America. Many of them seriously project in their minds National Socialist Germany as a country populated by Albino-like Nordic-Übermenschen)  possessing a hidden force that could be resuscitated any day either in Patagonia or on astral UFO’s.   As noted previously in TOO (see hereand here), the false reenactment of political events leads to their farcical repetition — with dangerous political consequences. In our postmodernity, the overkill of false images leads to the real kill. The often rowdy and infantile behavior of such “proud Aryan internet warriors” scares off serious White people who could otherwise be of some help in these decisive days of struggle for Western civilization. We must ask ourselves: Cui bono? Who benefits?

Indeed, the surreal image of National Socialism as exclusively Nordic has been promoted by the left — antifascist scholars, environmentalists, Freudo-Boasians, various Jewish and pro-Jewish academic think tanks, the caviar-left, the gated community White liberals, etc. How? For decades they have been cranking out an overkill of one-sided books and movies on National Socialism and racism, and this for two simple reasons. First, it pays well and provides lush media and academic sinecures. Secondly, there has been a well-conceived pedagogical project ever since 1945 to prevent a critical reexamination of race and racism.

A Hollywood image of a German officer (the “Jew Hunter”) played by Christof Waltz in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, a fantasy of Jewish revenge

Diane Kruger and Christof Waltz who played major roles as Germans in Inglourious Basterds

The Many Faces of National Socialism

For starters, the second most powerful National Socialist man in the Third Reich was a dark-haired “shrunken German” (“nachgedunkelter Schrumpfgermane”), the proverbial Joseph Goebbels, a thin man, little over 5 feet tall, whose stature and face resembled more an ancient Roman quaestor than a blond  fighting machine.  His thin lips, a round protruding back head (occiput), sad, yet very sharp eyes, testified to a man who under different historical circumstances would have made an excellent professor in comparative literature.  Goebbels was born in the German province of Westphalia, close to France. In the 1st century ad, this area was an important Roman military outpost and a region in which many Germans today still show distinct Mediterranean facial traits.

Joseph Goebbels

The much discussed German anti-Slavic policies, which were based on the alleged racial inferiority of Slavs, are nonsense — all the more so since at least one out of three Germans carries the name of Slavic origin. Prior to 1945, well over 15 million Germans were born and lived in the Slavic speaking areas of East Europe, including the third-ranking man in the National Socialist command, the Russian-Baltic born German Alfred Rosenberg.  Rosenberg’s face shows Nordic features with a slight Alpine Slavic streak.

Alfred Rosenberg

The linguistic approach to the study of races should not be neglected because it was common for many Slavs all over Europe to change their names to German names (“Weber,” ” Bauer,” “Schmitt”), just as it was  common for many Germans to change their names to Slavic ones. One needs to open up the white pages in Vienna, or in the once heavily Polish-populated Rhine basin, or in Berlin, to realize that one in every three German names ends with the Slavic syllable, such as  ‘ski,’ ‘tschc,’ or ‘c.’

In former Prussia — which is today under Russian  and Polish jurisdiction — lived a significant number of Germans of French ancestry with names like “Fontane,” “de Maizière”, or “Lafontaine,” bearing witness to a significant group of expelled 16th-century French Protestant Huguenots, many of whom became prominent German leaders and scholars. Unlike all other European kingdoms, 18th-century Prussia under Frederick the Great was the first country to endorse, the American Declaration of Independence. Prussia was then the most tolerant place on earth, attracting Enlightenment philosophers from France and from other parts of Europe.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Some of the highest ranking German generals in the Wehrmacht were of Slavic-German origin. Their family names are clearly Slavic and their skull morphology points to a large variety of all European subracial types, from  the  Alpine(“ostisch”), the Mediterranean (“westisch”) to the Nordic: Hans Hellmich, Curt Badinski, Bruno Chrobeck, Emil Dedek, Heinrich Domansky, Walter Dybilasz, Erich Glodkowski, Kurt Mierzinsky, Adalbert Mikulicz, Bronislaw Pawel, Georg Radziej, Hans Radisch, Franz Zednicek, Walter von Brauchitsch. So were the other high German officers such as the master of panzer warfare, the round-headed Heinz Guderian, who was of distant Armenian origin, or the tall and big-nosed  Wilhelm Canaris, who was of Italian/Greek origin. (See the important book by Christopher Dolbeau — practically unknown in France — Face au Bolchevisme: Petit dictionnaire des résistances nationales à  l’Est de l’Europe: 1917–1989. (Against Bolshevism: A Little Dictionary of National Resistances  in East Europe: 1917–1989).

The Beautiful Beast?

To assume, therefore, that the Institute for Racial Hygiene in Germany or the Gestapo were checking the names or the cranial index of high German officials, before admitting them to high military positions is academic lunacy. Yet a type of deliberate lunacy is still alive in some influential anti-German conspiratorial circles in the West and in America. The alleged racism of Germans against Slavs was part and parcel of the Allied propaganda and later of the Frankfurt School, whose goal was to whip up Slavs during and after WWII into anti-German frenzy. By accepting more than one million volunteers from Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Slovakia, etc. in the Wehrmacht and by allowing half a million non-German European volunteers in the Waffen SS,  the German high military command thought it could create its own version of united Europe and successfully fight the war on two fronts.

Even the very bad guys — the men most feared by Communists and Jews all over Europe and only trusted by Adolf  Hitler in the last year of the war — were not quite the paradigms of the “Nazi Nordic” supermen. Or were they? Those haunting five were: the SS Gestapo and Interpol chief, the Austrian-born Ernst Kaltenbrunner; the Czech-Moravian  born SS Reichskommissar and Foreign Minister hopeful, Arthur Seyss Inquart (real name Arthur Zajtich); the Austrian- born SS Chief of Special Forces, whose name appears to be of Hungarian origin, Otto Skorzeny; the Italian, Trieste-born SS police chief of Slovenian origin, Odilo Globocnik, who put down the Warsaw Jewish ghetto uprising in late April 1943; and finally the Croat-born Wehrmacht general, Lothar von Rendulic, who, even long after the war, was considered an expert on  terrorist communist guerilla warfare. Many of their fellow travelers — the ones who escaped suicide or the Allied gallows — played a crucial role in the development of the US strategy for Cold War Communist  containment.

Otto Skorzeny, whose face had a prominent Schmiss (German for “gash”) from academic fencing in his youth

Physically, all these men could be described as of the Dinaro-Nordic mixture, with prominent long heads and, to top it off,  they are well over 6 foot tall, with Kaltenbrunner measuring  6′ 7″ (201 cm) feet and  Skorzeny 6′ 4″ (194 cm). It is striking that all five were born in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, an area of Europe where Hitler himself was born and which he knew best.

Traditionally, tall stature has been a matter of pride and a trademark of ethnic groups in this part of southeast Mitteleuropa. From Bavaria to Austria, along the German-speaking northern Italian province of South Tyrol and stretching further along the Croatian coast down to Montenegro, this part of Europe had been literally the military highway of different European and non-European armies since time immemorial. It is a convergence point of all European ethnicities: Goths, Celts, Latins, Illyrians and Slavs, with some inescapable Asiatic, Turkic recessive genes still to be detected, particularly further inland in the eastern Balkans.  The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the 3rd century brought hundreds of thousands Roman legionaries to defend the limes on the Danube against Barbarians.  The same can be said of the Goths who settled there in the 4th century and of Napoleon’s Grande Armée, which went on foot all the way from Paris to Vienna, then further north to Moscow and then further south to the Croatian coastal and medieval town of Dubrovnik.  There was a brief Mongol incursion in the 13th century, followed later, from the late 15th to the early 18th century by lengthy and painful Turkish invasions, which the populace in this region holds in very bitter memory. The German derivative of the noun ‘Türke,’ the past participle verb ‘getürkt’ (‘faked,’ ‘screwed up’)  has a very derogatory meaning today. So does the noun ‘Turčin’ among Croats, or ‘Turco’ in Italian — words still used to depict gross and violent behavior.

It is a common sight in the capital city of Bolzano, in South Tyrol and in the Croat coastal town of Split, to see lank long-limbed women who are 6 feet tall. Incidentally, the tallest man in Europe was a Croat, Grgo Kusic (1892–1918), who was 7’9” tall (2.37m) and who served in the Royal Guard of the late Austrian emperor Franz Joseph II.   His contemporary, the Montenegrin Princess Helenameasured 6 feet  and was married to the late Italian King Vicror Emmanuel III, who measured a modest 5 feet.

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also comes from this region. Born in the small village of Thal, right on the Slovenian-Styrian Austrian border, his physique and facial traits are not quite common for this region. He is a typical Nordic specimen — highly intelligent, although his square jaw is reminiscent of old Cro-Magnon chromosomes. Although born as a provincial “hillbilly” (“Bergtrottel” in colloquial German), after being successfully coached by his wife Maria (a member of the Kennedy dynasty), he learned the ropes of political survival in America. A few Californian pep talks about multiracial conviviality, coupled with his generous donations to Jewish organizations, made him a success story that his lookalikes in Austria could only dream of. Otherwise, under different historical circumstances, he would have ended up like his father, singing a different political tune — albeit with another heavy accent.

Go to Part 4.

Tom Sunic (www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/) is an author, former political science professor in the USA, translator and former Croat diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age ( 2007). Email him.

Two weeks ago, I showed that deceiving non-Jews was normative behavior for the Jewish community historically. As I wrote, “illegal activities involving deception and deceit are tolerated within the Jewish community. . . . The only ethical principle involved here is the age old ‘Is it good for the Jews?’”

I focused on financial crimes because they have been in the news for so long now and have involved Jews to a degree that most astute people can’t miss. Of course no human group is entirely free of deception or financial misdeeds but, as I argued, there seems to be a greater likelihood of financial crime among Jews (again, see here for an academic treatment that tiptoes around the issue). More importantly, I continued, Jewish white collar criminals do not face censure within their own communities.” For instance Moshe Rosenberg, an Orthodox rabbi, lamented that “Unfortunately, unethical and even illegal behavior too often does not face serious censure in our communities.”

From financial fraud and manipulation, I moved on to literary deceit, pointing to specific instances of Jewish deception by some of the most esteemed authors of our time. I did this because I hoped to show that it is not merely the desire for money that motivates Jewish deception. Rather, as I seek to illustrate, deceit is a normative aspect of Jewish culture. That is, it is not censured as it commonly is among, say, Christians. Instead, it is sanctioned as long as it is directed toward outgroups.

Today I would like to focus on another area in which American Jews have attempted to hoodwink their fellow Americans into believing that Jews have made more sacrifices than in fact they have — military bravery and sacrifice.

Valor on the battlefield and recognition of that valor are central to many cultures, including most Western cultures. As our last “Good War,” World War II occupies an important place not only in American history but in American mythology as well. In that war, the story goes, we reluctantly set out to smite forces of pure evil that threatened the entire world, from the Pacific theater to Europe.

Perhaps more remarkable is the fact that the question of Jewish valor in that war still makes the headlines. For instance, during the Clinton Administration, Larry Lawrence, U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland, died and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

One of America’s richest men, Lawrence owned the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego, where his friend President Bill Clinton vacationed. Lawrence’s claim to the right to be buried in Arlington hinged on his assertion that he had had served in the Merchant Marine during WWII and had been injured. In fact, he had avoided the draft and never served.

The U.S. Army is in charge of Arlington Cemetery, so Army personnel carefully checked Lawrence’s story but found nothing to support it. Richard Holbrooke, who also happens to be Jewish, was Assistant Secretary of State at the time and appealed to the White House on Lawrence’s behalf. His request was granted, and Clinton presided over the 1996 burial.

As the New York Times reported, however, “Confronted with mounting evidence that M. Larry Lawrence, the late Ambassador to Switzerland, had fabricated a heroic World War II record, his widow decided today to have his remains exhumed from Arlington National Cemetery, where he was granted burial under an unusual waiver.”

Another Jewish WWII soldier, Sgt. David Rubitsky, claims to have accomplished superhuman feats. He was serving in New Guinea in 1942 when the Japanese attacked. As Joseph Farah reported in 2001:

Rubitsky watched the Japanese soldiers move small artillery pieces, heavy machine guns, mortars and anti-aircraft armaments into the area. He watched as more and more soldiers gathered. Anticipating a surprise attack by the Japanese on his 2nd Battalion, Rubitsky decided to lead his own surprise attack.

He opened fire. As Japanese soldiers advanced toward his bunker, Rubitsky used every weapon in his arsenal for nine grueling hours of intense fighting. He alternated between firing his .30-caliber water-cooled machine gun with 3,000 rounds of ammunition, a Browning automatic rifle with close to 600 rounds, his M-1 rifle, a pistol and tossing some of his 35 hand grenades.

Rubitsky spent a total of 21 hours in the bunker — including nine under heavy siege. The Japanese army attacked from three different directions – the north, south and west. . . . When Lt. Col. Herbert Smith came up to the bunker the next day, he estimated that Rubitsky had single-handedly killed 500 to 600 Japanese soldiers, thereby saving his own battalion from being decimated in a surprise attack.

Rubitsky made strenuous efforts to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor but insists it was denied because of anti-Semitism. The Anti-Defamation League initially aided Rubitsky’s campaign, as did the media generally. For example, as one researcher noted, “Newspaper and magazine articles, with references to ‘anti-Semitism’ [related to the Rubitsky campaign], appeared in such prestige publications as TIME and the New York Times.”

This researcher then added that “Because of the lobbying efforts of the ADL, including a resolution signed by 92 members of Congress, in 1987 the U.S. Army undertook a two-year review of David Rubitsky’s story. On December 8, 1989, after obtaining evidence from forensic specialists and taking statements from Rubitsky and 20 others who served alongside him, the U.S. Army concluded that Rubitsky’s claim was unfounded.”

To date, it is not known if Hollywood plans a bio-pic of Sgt. David Rubitsky.

As you can see, there are varying levels of spin used in these accounts. Of note is the support given by the (heavily Jewish) media and by Jewish activist organizations to validate these accounts. They create a narrative where Jews have allegedly performed valiantly, yet anti-Semitism, blatant or otherwise, has once again dogged these deserving Jews.

Steven Spielberg has contributed to this perception. In his film Saving Private Ryan, for instance, from the very beginning he visually insinuates that Jewish G.I.s made sacrifices comparable to that of their non-Jewish fellow soldiers. As the now-aged Mr. Ryan walks into the American cemetery in Normandy, his all-White family trailing him, director Spielberg fills the screen with a white cross, followed immediately by a grave with a Star of David (see the 1:50 mark on this YouTube outtake). That is a rather transparent bias when we next observe Ryan walking among a sea of Crosses over the graves of dead non-Jews. Spielberg repeats the scene at the film’s close (0:25 and 1:37 from this clip).

A Spielbergian View of the American Cemetery at Coleville-sur-Mer, Normandy

This brings to mind the story of former Congressman and now White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Unlike, say, Larry Lawrence, who did not serve during WWII, Emanuel did serve his country during the first Gulf War — as an Israeli soldier in Israel. In his book Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants, scholar James Petras notes 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.” Of course this recalls Pat Buchanan’s 1990 claim that should America prosecute the first war on Iraq in favor of Israeli interests, the fighting would be done by kids “with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.”

In any case, let me return to my central argument that deception is central to Jewish behavior — and it is not something they are ashamed of. As evidence of this, look at one of the founding myths Jews have of themselves, the biblical story of Jacob and Esau:

And the Lord said unto Rebecca, “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.”  And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled…the first came out all red, all over like a hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.  And after that came his brother out, and his hand took ahold of Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob. (Gen. 25:23-26)

Historian Albert Lindemann unpacks the meaning of this story in Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews:

Indeed, the division between Jew and Gentile goes to the very origins and structures of western civilization. It predates the advent of Christianity and may be found in the earliest texts of the Old Testament . . . In those texts of the Hebrew Bible the mythical origins of the division between Jews and others are described, and a thought-provoking explanation for the antagonism of the two groups is offered. The account in Genesis of Esau and Jacob, twin brothers born to Rebecca and Isaac, has evoked a seemingly endless cycle of interpretations. Already in the earliest Jewish commentaries on the text in Genesis one encounters not only the rich layers of meaning but also the elusiveness, the profound ambiguity in the relationship between Jew (in archetype, Jacob) and Gentile (in archetype, Esau).

What is the archetype of the Jew in the Jews’ own founding myth? It is that of the liar or trickster. Recall what happened in Genesis 27:5-45. Nearing death, the elderly Isaac sent Esau out to trap game in order to prepare a meal appropriate to the blessing Isaac was to bestow upon his first son. With Rebecca’s participation, Jacob deceived his father into believing that he was in fact Esau. Numerous times Isaac suspected a ruse, finally asking, “Are you really my son Esau?” “I am,” Jacob lied. Jacob was ultimately successful in deceiving his father and received his blessing.

This passage is a stark instance in which we see one origin for the still-common Jewish belief that others (goyim) are to serve them. “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers.”

Also of note is Isaac’s ambivalent blessing to his deceived son Esau: “Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be, and away from the dew of heaven on high. By your sword you shall live, but your brother you shall serve.” About the only hopeful note comes when Isaac concludes: “But when you break loose you shall break his [Jacob’s] yoke from your neck.”

If one prefers to put a positive spin on the value of deceit, turn to Yuri Slezkine’s exposition of the Mercurian archetype in his book The Jewish Century. He explains that the Mercurians, including Jews, “possess a quality that the Greeks called metis, or ‘cunning intelligence.’” Thus Jews, as descendants of “tricksters,” are proud to possess such a trait, one that non-Jews (“Apollonians” in Slezkine’s dualism) deplore. Host cultures see Jews and other Mercurians as “devious, acquisitive, greedy, crafty, pushy, and crude.” Sounds familiar.

The bottom line is that non-Jews need to be realistic about this Jewish trait and not entertain notions that Jews can be shamed out of such belief and behavior. For example, the biblical story of Esther, which I related last week, captures Jewish pride in defeating their non-Jewish enemies by using deception. As with other Jewish biblical stories, Esther begins with deception and ends with the Israelites slaughtering their enemies and achieving high status and power.

Again, these messages appear repeatedly in the Old Testament. In the Book of Genesis, for example, God promises his Chosen People: “May God give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine. Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you.” Later, in Deuteronomy 6:10–11, God promises to give great and goodly cities “which you did not build, and houses full of all good things, which you did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which you did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which you did not plant.“

In Joshua 24:12–13, God tells the Jews: “I gave you a land on which you had not labored, and cities which you had not built, and you dwell therein; you eat the fruit of vineyards and oliveyards which you did not plant.”

How do you think they accomplished this? People do not simply hand over their cities to invaders. If in fact God did intervene and perform a miracle, well, that’s one thing. Still, it suggests something we keep seeing throughout history — Jews becoming a dominant elite over native populations.

I hope readers will accept that part of this success indeed stems from Jewish use of deception, a practice that is not going to go away. In closing, I’ll turn to Canadian poet David Solway, who mockingly wrote recently, “We Jews are a sly and surreptitious people. It pains me to admit this, but candor compels.” But here, of course, Solway is using deception, for in fact he is simply telling the truth. Do not be fooled by the trickster’s resort to mockery to veil the truth.

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