Featured Articles

The Specter of Russian Nationalism

/in /by

A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848

The fallout from the Russian invasion of Georgia continues. The Daily Mailreports that “Across the region, newspapers, commentators and politicians drew parallels between Moscow’s operations in Georgia to Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 to crush their attempts to leave Moscow’s orbit.”

The LA Times did its bit, with a photo op-ed piece titled “All too familiar” juxtaposing photos from Czechoslovakia in 1968 with photos from Georgia, 2008.

But there’s a huge difference. As I pointed out in “Neocons versus Russia,” Russia under Putin is committed to Russian nationalism. There is no evidence whatever that Russia is committed to Communist internationalism and its ideology of world revolution. Those days are over (thankfully).

Russia stands out among the white-majority societies of the world because it is not dominated by elites bent on managing the dissolution of the peoples and culture that created them.

Russian nationalism is on display in a variety of ways. The LA Times reports on “a patriotic concert” in Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia: “In front of a badly damaged government building, a Russian orchestra performed pieces by Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich as 1,000 or so residents held up candles and the flags of Russia and South Ossetia, the catalyst in this month’s conflict between Russia and Georgia.”

Nationalism in a white country—a frightening prospect indeed for Western elites. For the neocons, not surprisingly, it conjures up images of National Socialist Germany: Neocon Robert Kagan lost no time in comparing the Russian invasion of Georgia to the German occupation of the Sudentenland in 1938. Neoconservative rhetoric on the Georgian crisis is steeped in the language of Munich, Neville Chamberlain, and the “lessons of appeasement.”

The good news is that Russian nationalism is real. Consider Putin’s appointment of Dmitry Rogozin, a Russian nationalist politician, as Ambassador to NATO. Rogozin is described as “one of the founders of the Congress of Russian Communities, a political movement dedicated to voicing the concerns of ethnic Russians and pushing nationalist causes.” In 2003 he became head of the nationalist Rodina [Motherland] coalition. After being forced out of that position, he became involved with the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, “championing the rights of ethnic Russians and organizing nationalist demonstrations.” While head of Rodina, the party put on a television ad starring Rogozin:

The video shows three surly Azerbaijanis eating watermelon and throwing the peels on the ground; to make their nationality clear, Azerbaijani music is playing in the background. A dignified Russian mother is walking by pushing her child in a pram, stepping on the peels. One of the Azerbaijanis insults the Russian lady. All this is witnessed by Rogozin and his vice president; this time Terminator music starts playing in the background. They ask the Azerbaijanis to “clean the space”, but the Azerbaijanis ignore them. Then Rogozin puts a firm hand on one of the Azerbaijanis, and demands of him: “Do you understand Russian?” That’s when the logo of Rodina appears, and the words below the logo say “We will clear Moscow of the dirt”. [Emphasis in text; See the video.]

The imagery of defending a Russian woman and her baby against foreign men is particularly striking. Imagine a similar ad aired by a US political party directed against immigrants being aired on the major television networks.

It goes without saying that if an American or European politician were associated with such a video, he or she would be condemned to the extremist fringe of political life, with no chance whatever of obtaining power or influence. The powers that be would make it difficult for him even to find employment. But in Russia, Rogozin has been elevated to an important, high-profile foreign policy position where he can express his nationalist views to NATO whose actions have been a sore point with Russian nationalists for years.

This point has not been lost on observers. Rogozin’s appointment “was seen as an extension of President Vladimir Putin’s combative tone with the West and NATO, specifically. As a strong voice for Russian interests and nationalism, his tenure has been marked by little shift in tone but a continuation of Putin’s rhetoric in principle.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Maybe, just maybe, Russia under Putin and Medvedev gets it. The Russian elite seem to understand that ethnic nationalism is healthy and natural, even for white people. They acted decisively against the Jewish oligarchs whose loyalties lay elsewhere and whose behavior threatened to produce a Russia subservient to the West. They have also failed to welcome non-Russian immigration—much to the chagrin of Jeff Mankoff, a Zionist writing in the international edition of the New York Times. (We won’t bother to dwell on the hypocrisy of those whose primary loyalty is to a country with a biological standard for immigration lecturing the West about the moral imperative of mass multi-ethnic immigration. And to think such ideas would appear in a publication of the New York Times. Shocking!)

Their own experience of being a victimized ethnic majority dominated by a hostile Jewish elite in the early decades of the Soviet Union (see Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century) may well have reinforced their own sense of ethnicity and made them immune to the ideologies of victimhood—and especially Jewish victimhood—that permeate the West.

Indeed, it is interesting that one of the first Russian responses in the wake of the invasion of Georgia has been to initiate talks with Syria about providing advanced anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. The Russians obviously have a grasp of the reality of American foreign policy as centered around the interests of Israel, and they seem bent on punishing Israel for its military and political ties to Georgia. Russia continues to provide Iran with nuclear material as well as weaponry designed to protect its nuclear installations.

Neoconservatives and other elements of Western elites will do all they can to destroy Russian nationalism. As noted above, we have already seen that neocons have compared the Russian actions in Georgia to the actions of Germany in the 1930s.

Such a comparison warrants the most extreme and violent response because National Socialism is the epitome of evil in the current Western lexicon. A nationalist, ethnically conscious white nation is the worst nightmare of these elites because it represents a shining counterexample to their managed destruction of white racial identity and the traditional culture of the West. We can expect that these elites will respond with all of the power they can muster.

A white, racially conscious Russia is dangerous to these elites because it may well become a shining city on the hill while other Western nations sink into multiculturalism and whites become minorities victimized by affirmative action, anti-white crime, and ever more hostile coalitions of the non-white majority.

Imagine a world in 20 years when whites in the US are on the verge of becoming a minority. (The Census Bureau recently moved the year of whites becoming a minority to 2042, and this landmark event will doubtless be ratcheted down as the pro-immigration forces gain yet more steam). But imagine also at this time a Russia that is prosperous and proud, technologically advanced, and energy independent; with a birthrate that has rebounded from its horrendous decline; that has remained ethnically Russian and has resisted the many pressures to open the floodgates to other peoples; and that has retained its culture and its sense of peoplehood.

No doubt the chattering classes in the West will continue to condemn it and continue to complain about its lack of democracy. But the glaring differences between the fate of whites in Russia and in the enlightened, multicultural West will become too obvious to ignore. This would indeed produce a crisis of epic proportions.

The Neocons Versus Russia

/8 Comments/in , /by

The Russian invasion of Georgia following Georgia’s attempt to reestablish its dominance over its secessionist province of South Ossetia has certainly infuriated the neocons. Max Boot and Charles Krauthammer have called for various moves to isolate Russia from the West and from the international economic community. The Weekly Standard has an article by Stuart Koehl urging Georgians to fight on with US aid, and an article by Charlie Szrom of the American Enterprise Institute (aka neocon central) advocating massive US aid and alliances among Eastern European countries.

We know that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement — the news having finally reached the mainstream media with books like Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. Now imagine for a moment that you are a typical Jewish neocon — that is, someone who sees the world fundamentally through Zionist  lenses and, for starters, cannot fathom any difference between the interests of the United States and Israel. Or, what amounts to the same thing, imagine that you are an Israeli geopolitical strategizer. How  would such a person think of the situation? 

Quite clearly, you would be very unhappy that Russia has managed to crush the Georgian military and threaten regime change in Georgia. Israel has strong connections to Georgia. It has provided weapons and training to the Georgian military (although it recently stopped providing weapons after Russian complaints). Israel also has over $1.5 billion invested in Georgia, and Israel is proposing that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline be extended to the  Israeli port of Ashkelon for transshipment to south and  east Asia. Two top ministers  of the Georgian government are Jews with strong ties to Israel, including Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili who is a former Israeli fluent in Hebrew.

The other side of the equation is that neocons have been hostile toward Russia. They supported the war that resulted in independence of Kosovo from Serbia, an ally of Russia. They also support Chechnyan independence from Russia, NATO membership for Eastern European countries formerly dominated by the USSR,  and the aggressive US policy of providing missiles to Poland and the Czech Republic.

Why the neocon hostility toward Russia? We could certainly imagine that if Russia was controlled by the Israel Lobby and Jewish interests in the same way that the United States is, this would not be happening. Indeed, a major neocon complaint is that Russia delayed sanctions against Israel’s arch-enemy Iran and has supplied Iran with nuclear material as well as weaponry designed to protect its nuclear installations.

Quite simply, we think that neocon hostility stems from the fact that Russia under Vladimir Putin proved to be far more nationalistic than is good for the Jews or for Israel. A landmark event was Putin’s crackdown on the oligarchs — that small, overwhelmingly Jewish group of tycoons that came to control the industrial base of the USSR during the shift to capitalism. The oligarchs pumped huge amounts of money into the campaign to keep Boris Yeltsin in office and enrich themselves. They also supported Putin at first, but Putin gradually cut into the  dominance of the oligarchs.

When in 1996 it appeared that Yeltsin might lose his reelection to the Communists, the oligarchs poured millions into Yeltsin’s campaign and began flooding the television airwaves (which they owned) with pro-Yeltsin “news” items while conspicuously failing to give any airtime to the opposition. With Yeltsin’s victory, the loans-for-shares deal was finalized, catapulting the oligarchs from a small group of millionaires to a small group of billionaires. A few years later the oligarchs “guaranteed” (to use Berezovsky’s term) that Vladimir Putin, like Yeltsin before him, would get elected in Russia’s 2000 Presidential elections.

A turning point was the arrest and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the head of Yukos, the oil giant. Arch-neocon Richard Perle led the charge against Putin, calling for the ouster of Russia from the G-8 — the  same sort of policy the neocons are proposing in the wake of the invasion of Georgia. Khodorkosky was viewed as without any feeling for Russian nationalism and far too friendly with the United States:

Khodorkovsky has spent years pursuing what is essentially a personal, pro-American foreign policy, cultivating contacts with the most influential politicians, diplomats, bankers and public relations specialists in Washington — actions the siloviki, a group of hawks in the Kremlin made up of former KGB men, consider reprehensible….

Compounding this perceived threat are Khodorkovsky’s efforts to endear himself to the White House. One only need look at the people who have rallied to Khodorkovsky’s defense [the article mentions Stuart Eizenstat, Richard Perle, George Soros, and John McCain (!)] to see how the siloviki could make a convincing case to cut Khodorkovsky down to size.

The crackdown against the oligarchs resulted in agonized complaints about the demise of democracy in Russia, and we are sure to see more such complaints in the wake of the invasion of Georgia. The neocons much preferred a democracy in which the Jewish oligarchs completely controlled the media and could buy large blocs of the Duma — in other words, a democracy that much more resembles our own.

The fact that Soros and Eizenstat — both associated with the left — also condemned Khodorkovsky’s arrest suggests a Jewish consensus on this issue. Soros was also deeply involved in the so-called Rose Revolution that vaulted Mikheil Saakashvili into the presidency of Georgia.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Moreover, the most recent ADL document on anti-Semitism in Russia notes that despite better relations between the Russian government and Jews within Russia, there have been no changes in Russia’s foreign policy toward Iran or its policy of engagement with the Palestinian group Hamas. This contrasts with the ADL’s stance early in Vladimir Putin’s presidency when the ADL complained that the Russian leadership did not immediately condemn what the ADL terms “Governor [of Kursk Alexander] Mikhailov’s blatantly anti-Semitic statement.”  Mikhailov had expressed his gratitude for the support Putin had given him in his struggle against “filth” — a reference to the previous governor of Kursk, Alexander Rutskoy, Boris Berezovsky, and the All-Russian Jewish Congress. Berezovsky is a former Russian-Jewish media tycoon who used his control of the main television channel to promote Boris Yeltsin for president in 1996 but fled Russia after the ascent of Putin after being charged with fraud. Rutskoy, who is Jewish, was seen as allied with Berezovsky. The ADL complained that the Russian leadership chastised Mikhailov only after a “storm of protest that Mikhailov’s conduct generated among Jews and the mainstream media in Russia and abroad.”

No wonder Pat Buchanan recently termed democracy a “flickering  star” because  democratic governments are so often out of touch with the people they rule, whereas governments like China and Russia enjoy overwhelming popular support. This is so on a wide range of issues in the US —  immigration policy being the most egregious example. In the area of foreign policy we have seen that a small cabal of neocons could successfully promote US involvement in a costly and disastrous war in Iraq — a war on behalf of Israel and certainly not in the interests of the United States.

And speaking of democracy, the fact that John McCain came to the defense of Khodorkovsky is yet another indication that he is completely tied into the neocon foreign policy establishment. Just recently it became  known that Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s foreign policy adviser, was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of Georgia. Scheunemann was also President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, sponsored by Bill Kristols’ Project for a New American Century. Kristol, like the other neocons, is eager for the US to stand up to Russia over Georgia: “Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?” Ah, the old argumentum ad Hitlerum.

There can be no greater condemnation of American democracy than that John McCain will be the candidate of  one of the  major parties, while the other party will nominate Barack Obama.

Finally, we should remember that from 1881 until the fall of the Czar, in addition to dominating the revolutionary movement in Russia, there was a Jewish consensus to use their influence in Europe and America to oppose Russia. This had an effect on a wide range of issues, including the financing of Japan in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, the abrogation of the American-Russian trade agreement in 1908, and the financing of revolutionaries within Russia by wealthy Jews such as Jacob Schiff.

The triumph  of Bolshevism resulted in a period of Jewish dominance in the Soviet  Union and unimaginable horrors for the Russian people. This period of Jewish dominance and its disastrous effects on the Russian people are doubtless not far from the minds of Russia’s current leaders.

We can expect a similarly long and persistent Jewish campaign against Russia, waged with all the intensity of the 1881–1917 campaign. In an age of nuclear weapons the stakes are very high for the entire planet.

The Order of Canada to an Abortionist?

/1 Comment/in /by

Dr. Henry Morgentaler has been named to the Order of Canada for his efforts in promoting and legalizing abortion.  The event provoked controversy. Not a surprise. But it got me thinking about it more seriously in two respects. First, how do I feel about it? And, second, what are the implications for our people?

My gut reaction is negative. I don’t like the whole idea of it being done to any woman, especially those I love. My god, what would it mean if my daughter became pregnant and considered an abortion? It would mean that something had gone very badly, no?

Of course if the fetus were obviously defective, e.g., with a genetic disease like Downs syndrome, there would seem to be no rational (as opposed to religious, aesthetic or emotional) argument against aborting such a fetus. Abortion in all such cases (6% of all abortions) is surely eugenic and is performed for precisely that reason even if the term “eugenic” is rarely used. Even if the “defective” individual were sterile, the parental and societal investment would, from a strictly biological and economic standpoint, constitute a waste of resources. True, even if the politically correct don’t want to think about it.

It’s the same in cases of rape (less than 1% of abortions). Abortion is rational, over and above the psychological trauma of rape (hatred, fear, alienation, sadness), since the pregnancy would not have been the result of the woman’s choice of mate. Women’s choice prevents parasitism by violence-prone males who will not invest in the child’s future. It can be thought of as a minimal selection mechanism for good genes — as well as an element (among many) for promoting a healthy psychological environment for a child.  

But what if there is no evidence of defect in the fetus nor of rape (absence of female choice) (93% of all abortions)? Here it depends on whether you’ve bought an “individualistic” view of humanity or one which assumes an inherent and inevitable interconnectedness and interdependence of people within a society (especially family, extended family and ethny/nation).1 According to the former view, a woman should be able to do anything she wants with herself and her unborn child since no one else is presumed to be directly affected. However, the interdependence position assumes that no one is an island and that we all have some responsibilities toward others in our family and our race.

While people obviously will disagree on the nature and degree of such responsibilities, other members of a woman’s family and extended family do have a legitimate interest in her reproduction. Parents of a woman will typically place great hope in their daughter having children. Ideally, they want their daughter to have a successful marriage (meaning first choosing and then getting a man with good genes, character and capacity to be a good, supportive father to her children). But if things are not ideal (e.g., marriage is not a possibility), the parents may still want the daughter to give birth and at the very least give it up for adoption if they are unable to care for the baby themselves. The strong demand for healthy white babies as adoptees is well known.

Such concerns are not a matter of a (negotiated) “social contract” between the woman and her parents any more than there was a “social contract” governing the parental care of that same woman when she was a child: Her parents simply feel instinctively that they don’t want to lose a grandchild, and obviously there are good evolutionary grounds for such feelings. One could even speculate that such instinctive feelings are the basis for “moral” judgments in such matters which for many are manifested as religious convictions.

Suppose there has been no rape or incest and no obvious defect in the fetus. Could abortion in such cases ever be considered biologically adaptive, meaning promoting the long-term genetic interests of the mother and her family members, their survival and continued reproduction? Well, yes. (Historically, so has infanticide, e.g., when a family’s survival was at stake). All sorts of variables, both genetic and environmental, can have an “adaptive” influence: the quality of the father, the economic circumstances and current health of the mother as compared to what she could anticipate later on, were she to postpone having a child. But having an abortion because of “unfortunate circumstances” has to be weighed against the health hazards of abortion, including risk to future fertility, and against the psychological damage abortion can cause in many if not all women. Incidentally, what sort of women find themselves in such a pickle? If memory serves, in the old days having had an abortion was not a “good sign” of a quality candidate for marriage, although there were sometimes extenuating circumstances. Perhaps today, given the environment that girls are brought up in, it may not signify all that much.

A striking element in this whole business is that many of the most talented people — across all races — are not replacing themselves and abortion would seem to have played at least some role in this trend. E.g., more than half of abortions are for women with family incomes over $30,000, and about twenty percent are for married women. Such patterns are surely dysgenic for an ethny. Reducing the planet’s human population is all well and good, but the place to begin is with those members of an ethny who are least able to provide for a family — as was once the case in N. Europe in the centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution. That revolution may in fact have been facilitated by the preceding differences in reproduction.

Interestingly, Afro-Americans and Hispanics have by far the highest abortion rates in the USA. It has been claimed that such abortions have lowered the crime rate thanks to potential criminals being aborted. If true, that would be eugenic for those groups (and good for the rest of the world), but the hypothesis remains controversial.

Now then, what about Dr. Morgentaler? He was honored for promoting abortion not for cases of defective fetuses or rape and incest (since such abortions were already available in hospitals) but essentially for healthy women and their fetuses when the women simply didn’t want a child at that moment.

[adrotate group=”1″]

It is sometimes said that such abortions are encouraged by Jewish doctors (e.g., Morgentaler) primarily for non-Jewish women as one of several strategies for reducing the dominance of non-Jewish ethnies. Given the influence of Jews in promoting non-white immigration and the anti-white (and anti-Arab) themes of so many Jewish controlled Hollywood films, this is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

Jewish views on abortion are quite varied. Orthodox or highly religious Jews have almost none at all, obeying the Talmudic dictum to “be fruitful and multiply”; they might well get an abortion if the mother’s life were at stake, but even when the fetus is defective quite often they refuse an abortion. Indeed, Orthodox Jews have eagerly embraced reproductive technology, and Israel has strong pro-natalist policies aimed at producing Jewish babies.

Jewish researchers have been largely responsible for screening for Tay Sachs, a genetic disease common among Ashkenazi Jews, and drastically reducing its incidence in part through abortion (but there are other strategies that avoid abortion).  Since Jews make up only a small percentage of the population of N. America, the sample sizes in statistical studies may be too small for very refined analysis of Jewish abortion rates, but their reported portion of abortions overall (1-2%) seems to be proportional to and not far removed from their reported portion of the general population (2-3%). But that still would mean that in absolute numbers, gentiles are having a vastly higher number of abortions.

It is also said that most abortionists are Jewish and that that is evidence of an ethnic conflict factor. This is possible. The case of Felix Theilhaber, a racial Zionist working in Germany in the early twentieth century, certainly suggests ethnic conflict. Like all racial Zionists, Thielhaber wanted to end Jewish intermarriage, increase Jewish fertility, and preserve Jewish racial purity. Theilhaber was very concerned about the declining Jewish birth rate and was politically active in attempting to increase Jewish fertility (going so far as to propose to tax “child-poor” families to support “child-rich” families). At the same time, he was also instrumental in creation of the Gesellschaft für Sexualreform, whose aims were to legalize abortion and make contraceptives available to the German public.

It would be worthwhile documenting the ethny (not just religion) of both abortion providers and recipients (and not just the present racial categories of black, Hispanic and white). If it turns out that abortion on demand really is almost entirely provided by Jewish doctors for gentile women, then that aspect should be highly publicized in the context of a general discussion of how our people can make healthier life choices within a healthier life style. Those who are responsible for interfering in this quest should be held accountable.

My conclusion concerning Dr. Morgentaler:

It seems quite possible that the promotion of abortions as a routine method of birth control has contributed to the devaluation in Western cultures of the sentiment of “sacredness” surrounding pregnancy and birth of a child. For that reason I’m dismayed by the celebration of Dr. Morgentaler’s “achievements” with an Order of Canada. To the contrary, aborting healthy babies ought to be re-stigmatized. Of course girls would have to be raised to appreciate the nature of abortion rather than left to their own devices in this world of pro-abortion propaganda. That should be part of a major “consciousness raising” for our women — and men — in a campaign to encourage the healthiest and most talented (and not only the best educated) to have plenty of children, while encouraging those who are not healthy or who are unable to be productive citizens to exercise responsible restraint when it comes to reproducing and thereby avoid saddling the rest of society with the cost of their children’s upbringing. (How to put into practice such a policy requires another essay.)

Condemning abortion is only part of the matter, however. Other birth control methods seem likely to have been much more important in promoting non-reproductive sex both inside and outside of marriage. Fortunately, the abortion rate is gradually declining in the West (down 13% over 9 years in Canada). Unfortunately, the population of Western ethnies, relative to the rest of the world, is also decreasing.

Note also that the success of a country like Iran in reducing its birth rate and avoiding catastrophic overpopulation has depended much more on methods other than abortion — which is available there only for extreme cases (including defective fetuses or threat to the physical or psychological health of the mother) and not as a routine birth control method. I would favor such a policy for my own family and people, but with the added stipulation of encouraging reproduction in those responsible enough to raise a healthy, smart and honorable next generation — within their ethny.

Anthony Hilton is Assoc. Prof. (retired) in the Psychology Department, Concordia University, Montreal. He thanks the editor for valuable suggestions.

[1] See Alain de Benoist: Critique of Liberal Ideology, The Occidental Quarterly, Winter 2007-2008, vol. 7, No. 4, 9-30.

Media Watch – 21st Century White Men and the Slave Mentality

/in /by

The hair-curling humiliation of a Department of Justice official for ‘racially insensitive’ remarks demonstrates the reaches of anti-majority power in the United States

John Tanner’s 15 minutes of fame, like that of so many white men, came about for stating a plain truth about race.

Tanner, chief of the Department of Justice’s voting rights division, was invited to speak at a gathering of the “National Latino Congreso” in Los Angeles in early October.  On the topic of ID requirements, Mr. Tanner said they did not affect minorities to the extent they affected whites because minorities have shorter life spans.  “They die first,” he said.

Never mind, of course, that this is true.  Never mind, as well, the context:  Mr. Tanner was speaking to an explicitly racially-conscious Hispanic group primarily interested in advancing its own ethnic interest — at the expense of whites, his own race — and blamed the earlier deaths of blacks and other minorities also on his own race, via “disparaties in health care.”

Mr. Tanner’s punishment was to be called before the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 30, 2007, for what can only be described as a modern-day whipping by whites’ new masters, such as Jewish Rep. Jerold Nadler of New York, black representatives Bobby Scott of Virginia and John Conyers of Michigan, and black Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota.  The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank captured some of the more grisly exchanges.

Ellison, the black Muslim, exacted unique torture by demanding that Tanner describe in his own terms his sins against blacks (from Milbank’s article):

“Exactly what are you apologizing for?” Ellison demanded.

“I hurt people,” Tanner confessed.

“How did you hurt them?”

“The reaction of people to my statement —”

Ellison pounced. “So you are apologizing because of the reaction?”

Tanner retreated. “I caused that reaction, certainly not intentionally. I made a clumsy statement.”

“So the problem is the tone?” Ellison pressed.

“I certainly had a bad tone and clumsiness.”

This also failed to satisfy Ellison. “Are you just trying to curry favor?” he demanded.

“I feel that if I make remarks that people misinterpret —”

Uh-oh. “So people misinterpreted what you said?” a triumphant Ellison asked.

Tanner retreated. “I apologize for that,” he said.

Ellison’s technique is designed for maximum psychological dominance.  One level of control is to simply inflict pain for actions or words that are disfavored — for instance, if Mr. Tanner were simply yelled at for his remarks.  Another, much higher, level involves requiring the subject to self-torture, or self-submit, to the dominant power, by mouthing in his or her own words.  One is reminded of dissenters kidnapped by totalitarian governments who are forced to appear on television and recite for the camera that they have been disloyal to the regime.

Under American enslavement of African blacks, the whipping of a slave by a master likely served two functions:  One, to punish an individual slave for a transgression, and two, to remind the slave, as well as the others, who is in charge.  It was clear from this hearing who is in charge.  Mr. Tanner, though having ascended to a position of some power, holds a job for which the very purpose — enforcement of voting rights — is to advance the interests of minorities.  He needed to be reminded of this, apparently.

[adrotate group=”1″]

For racially conscious whites, what is most disheartening is to watch the utter humiliation of a white man before this group.  It is somewhat like a child watching his father be physically beaten by a larger, more powerful man.  Not only are you helpless, but you suffer deeply in the knowledge that the very one charged with your defense is also helpless.

This is the state of whites today.  They must watch in horrified silence as their own men are cut down — and fail to put up any sort of resistance themselves, thus compounding the shame.

Anti-majority activists like Rep. Ellison should be careful here.  Groups can withstand much abuse, but gleeful humiliations and wanton exercises in cruelty are the sort of thing that create the slow burn of a reigniting resistance.

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

Media Watch Bob Herbert Knows Who the New Massa Is

/in /by

Bob Herbert is a black liberal columnist for the New York Times.  There’s nothing remarkable about his writing or much original about his ideas:  America is racist white country, Republicans are bad people, and so on.  (He could be on to something about the Republicans, though.)  His haughtiness during television appearances is off-putting.

In what might seem to be an unusual twist, this Saturday he took on Nikki Tinker, a black woman who recently unsuccessfully challenged Steve Cohen, a Democrat who represents a majority black district in Tennessee.

Tinker’s sins:  an ad linking Cohen to the Ku Klux Klan, and another suggesting that he’s a hypocrite to visit “our” (i.e., black) churches.

Herbert actually waded in to defend Cohen’s vote against renaming a park in Memphis currently named for the Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Ku Klux Klan founder. Why the sudden burst of Klan-defense from Manhattan?

Well, as the surname “Cohen” suggests, Cohen is Jewish.  Herbert delights in quoting him:  “It’s not like Nathan Bedford Forrest was inviting Jews over to celebrate Seder.”

For Herbert, this was an easy racial power equation to solve:  Black and white may squabble down below, but the most sacred of the cows is the Jews.  They are, as I have documented, Herbert’s bosses, both at the Times and as a political and cultural matter generally.  So, explaining the spectacle of a black man denouncing a black woman and defending a “white” politician is really fairly easy.

[adrotate group=”1″]

I have not plumbed all Herbert’s columns, but it’s a safe bet none defend a white gentile politician in even remotely the same way.

Down below Herbert’s office in Times Square, there’s the occasional band of odd black nationalists who hector passers-by, both white and Jewish (rough video —  in it, a man sparring with the black nationalists screams “I’m Jewish!  I’m on your side!”, to which the lead speaker responds by belittling the Holocaust, causing the Jewish man to cry.)

I certainly don’t endorse this bizarre band, but as the comments about Jews show, its speakers have not learned the lesson of ascending to power:  You may — and should — denounce white gentiles, but must always defend Jews.  Even if they voted in support of a Klansman.  For having learned this lesson, Bob Herbert keeps his elevated station, far above the craziness of the street.

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

Joe Klein and the Loyalties of the Neocons

/in /by

In a post to his blog for Time Magazine, Joe Klein made a point that has been obvious to many for quite some time: “The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives—people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over atCommentary—plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.”

Needless to say, he was lambasted for this indiscretion. John Podhoretz, writing in the Commentary blog, labeled him “manifestly intellectually unstable”; others labeled him an anti-Semite and called for his firing from Time.

And the ADL went into its usual hysteria whenever such comments surface:

The notion that Jews with “divided loyalties” were behind the decision to go to war is reminiscent of age-old anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government, which has unfortunately gained new currency of late with public figures such as Jimmy Carter and professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt suggesting that American Jews are disloyal and that pro-Israel groups have undue influence over American foreign policy.

As Klein has noted, these attempts at silencing, character assassination, and intimidation are “happening because I said something that is palpably true, but unspoken in polite society.”

It is not in the least surprising that there are conflicts between Jewish interests and the  interests of the wider society. The theme of Jewish disloyalty has a very long history and there are great many plausible examples where indeed Jews have been disloyal to the societies in which they reside. Nor should this be surprising given what we know about evolutionary psychology.

It seems only yesterday that Jacob Heilbrunn’s book They Knew They Were Right announced in the mainstream media that yes indeed neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. However, Heilbrunn took pains to deny that the neocons were disloyal.

The good news, then, is that even though Heilbrunn pushed the envelope a bit, he is already well behind the curve in terms of frank discussion of Jewish identities and influence in the mainstream media.

Issues that were formerly only discussed in places like The Occidental Quarterlyor The Occidental Observer are now discussed in Time Magazine,Commentary, and the Huffington Post.

The times they are indeed a-changin.

Media Watch – Vox Populi, Verboten

/in /by

The New York Times is allowing select reader commentary on its Web pages.  Guess which types of comments won’t make the cut.

New York Times’ “Public Editor” Clark Hoyt announced in his most recent column that our paper of record will soon begin allowing reader comments to be posted on its Web pages. See  Civil Discourse, Meet the Internet, Nov. 4, 2007.

Before delving in, I knew exactly The Times’ concern:  racially conscious whites.  Midway through the column, Hoyt confirms this by telling us who won’t be allowed to appear:  “Take, for example, ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’, who recently managed to get a comment posted on one blog, The Lede, suggesting that The Times ‘have all the displaced ILLEGALS form the FIRES Move into the TIMES NYC HQ Builiding… and let them urinate in the halls like they do infront (sic) of most every Home Depot in all the rest of the USA.”

Hoyt proudly tells readers that he personally directed that the comment be removed.  Needless to say, he does not ask whether Hispanics are indeed urinating outside.  Hoyt also informs us that to ensure future censorship of racially conscious comments, the Times has hired a four-person Memory Hole team to seek out and destroy any blips of white racial consciousness.

Editors have no doubt that the bounds of legitimate comment do not include racial realism. Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus, the Times’ political blog, objects to “intolerance” and “vitriol,” wishing that “we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.”  It is easy to imagine what Ms. Phillips considers “vitriol” and what she considers fair comment.

This is indeed a serious problem for a mainstream media controlled by elements hostile to America’s white majority.  The Internet has drawn back the curtain between the media producers and media consumers, and as it turns out, the white consumers don’t share the values of the often Jewish, minority, or liberal white producers.

What’s amazing is that The Times is actually admitting that it needs to be protected from the public, and describing what steps it will take to do so.

One might think the sentiments revealed by the Internet would cause the media to do some self-evaluation.  If it really cares about fair and insightful coverage of American society, as well as reporting to its audience, it might ask whether its coverage is geared toward that.  If white Americans are angry about what has happened to their country, why not cover that, even you as the journalist disagree?  They might just find that their (mostly white) readers appreciate seeing their side of the story for once, instead of the incessant coverage of any and all minority complaints.

But this assumes, of course, that the mainstream media is interested in either fair coverage or maintaining readers.  In fact, it is not interested in either.  On racial issues, the media does not waver from a steady course of denying inherited racial differences, denying Jewish influence, extolling the supposed virtues of “diversity” and denigrating whites.  The biggest story of the past 50 years is this:  America had a white majority approaching 90 percent for several hundred years, and now finds itself headed toward a white minority.  But that story gets no coverage.  Whites are not asked how they feel about this.  It prompts the question:  if an entire race died in the forest and the media didn’t cover it, would it make a noise?

This trend has continued, despite a steady drop in circulation at most major papers over the years.  The illegal immigrants so beloved by The New York Times are not, I am guessing, reading The New York Times.

[adrotate group=”1″]

The proper journalistic reaction to ‘Ray in Mexican Colony of LA’ is to find out why he believes as he does, not shut him up.  That an organization ostensibly dedicated to gathering information, viewpoints and trends would announce itself to be working against that very mission by censoring whites is remarkable.

The irony is lost on The Times.  But we now at least have proof of how dead-set against whites it is.  And with the Internet, we know that our death will make a noise — and perhaps be postponed.

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