Jews as a Hostile Elite

Ben Stein’s Expelled: Was Darwinism a Necessary Condition for the Holocaust? And Was Boas an Honest Scientist?

/2 Comments/in , /by

In my previous column, I noted the Stalinist tendencies of the leftists that are so entrenched in the academic world. The fact is that the academic left has never been concerned about truth when truth is incompatible with their political objectives. This is the fundamental message of my book, The Culture of Critique where I trace the involvement of Jewish intellectual activists in producing a leftist academic culture that promoted specifically Jewish goals, including lessening the political power and cultural influence of European-derived peoples and the eradication of anti-Semitism.

Chief among the bogeymen of these Jewish intellectuals is Darwinism. The war against Darwinism is a major theme of The Culture of Critique, and it persists as a constant drumbeat in our culture—from the cultural Marxists who are in charge of socializing our college students to a great many examples in popular culture.

Consider Ben Stein’s film Expelled. Stein depicts Darwinism as a stifling orthodoxy that suppresses free inquiry into how things got this way. And in particular, the triumph of Darwinism has meant that the theory of intelligent design has been banished from the realm of reasonable discourse in the academic world.

Of course, intelligent design is not a reasonable alternative at all, but a highly motivated effort to legitimize a religious world view in the sciences. But why would Ben Stein produce a movie that panders to religious conservatives? It would doubtless be pretty hard to find anyone in the Jewish intelligentsia who in the privacy of their innermost thoughts believes in God.

Indeed, it’s fair to say that the mainstream Jewish community regards Christian religious sentiment with fear and loathing. For example, Elliott Abrams, whose title in the Bush Administration (Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy) sounds like a neocon wet dream, acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known.

The deep structure of Expelled can be inferred from another comment by Elliott Abrams.Abrams thinks that a strong role for Christianity in America is good for Jews:

In this century we have seen two gigantic experiments at postreligious societies where the traditional restraints of religion and morality were entirely removed: Communism and Nazism. In both cases Jews became the special targets, but there was evil enough even without the scourge of anti-Semitism. For when the transcendental inhibition against evil is removed, when society becomes so purely secular that the restraints imposed by God on man are truly eradicated, minorities are but the earliest victims.

I think Abrams and Stein are on the same page. I make this inference because in his film promoting intelligent design Stein argues that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. In making a movie that attempts to legitimize “Creation Science” in the academic world, Stein is thinking not so much about intellectual honesty or the relative adequacy of Darwinism and Creation Science in producing testable hypotheses and mountains of supporting evidence. He is asking an age-old question: “Is it good for the Jews?” If Darwinism is not good for the Jews, then so much the worse for Darwinism.

In mounting a war on Darwinism or at least attempting to control it, Stein is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion, at least for the last 100 years or so. The triumph of the Boasian school of anthropology over Darwinism in the early years of the 20th century was a watershed event in intellectual history of the West — in effect more or less obliterating what had been a thriving Darwinian intellectual milieu. This era of Darwinian domination of the social sciences included several well-known Jewish racial Zionists, such as Arthur Ruppin, who were motivated by the fear that Diaspora Judaism would lose its biological uniqueness as a result of pressures for intermarriage and assimilation.

Among the Zionists, the racialists won the day. Ruppin’s ideas on the necessity of preserving Jewish racial purity have had a prominent place in the Jabotinsky wing of Zionism, including especially the Likud party in Israel and its leaders—people like Ariel Sharon, Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir. (Here’s a photo of Sharon speaking to a Likud Party convention in 2004 under a looming photo of Jabotinsky.) Jabotinsky believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.” As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

But it was the Boasians who won the day in the academic establishment of the West. Whereas Jewish intellectuals played a bit part in the wider movement of racial Darwinism, the Boasian revolution which triumphed in academic anthropology in the West was overwhelmingly a Jewish intellectual movement.

And besides the Boasians, a great many Jewish social scientists of the period were also attracted to a thriving cult of Lamarckism — the view that evolution works via the inheritance of acquired characteristics rather than Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Indeed, Lamarckism became official ideology in the Soviet Union because of its easy compatibility with Marxist visions of utopia: Creating the socialist society would biologically alter its citizens.

Both theories combated racialist theories of Judaism that depicted it as having a biological uniqueness. (Actually, Boas’s approach is more an anti-theory because it cast doubt on general theories of human culture common among Darwinian anthropologists of the period, emphasizing instead the vast diversity and chaotic minutiae of human cultures, as well as the relativism of standards of cultural evaluation.) For example, based on skull measurements and IQ testing, racial scientists, including some racial Zionists, concluded that Jews had evolved to have higher IQ, but this was often linked with a tendency toward psychopathology—the “nervous Jew.”

The Boasians and the Lamarckians countered with the view that Jewish traits had resulted from historical conditions. As historian Mitchell B. Hart notes, “the positions taken by Jewish researchers [i.e., the Zionist racialists, the Lamarckians, and the Boasians] were driven in large measure by ideological commitments and political goals.” Three different groups of Jewish social scientists, three different ideological agendas stemming from their different views on how social science can best serve Jewish interests.

Boas’s famous study purporting to show that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was a very effective propaganda weapon in this cause of the anti-racialists. Indeed, it was intended as propaganda. Based on their reanalysis of Boas’s data, physical anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard Jantz do not accuse Boas of scientific fraud, but they do find (pdf) that his data do not show any significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration. They also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire to end racialist views in anthropology:

While Boas never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a personal agenda in the displacement of the eugenics movement in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point.

This view certainly dovetails with my research. Boas can now be officially grouped with his student and protégé Margaret Mead as using social science to further a leftist, anti-Darwinian political agenda.

Concerns about scientific fraud have also dogged Larmarckism. Lamarckism was a pillar of the intellectual left in the West during the 1920s but declined rapidly after its major scientific proponent, Paul Kammerer, committed suicide shortly after an article appearing in the prestigious British journal Nature accused him of scientific fraud. Kammerer, who was half Jewish on his mother’s side, was a staunch socialist. He wrote that Lamarckian inheritance offered hope for humanity through education, and he became a hero among committed Socialists and Communists. Despite Kammerer’s disgrace, Lamarckism lived on in theSoviet Union under Trofim Lysenko, with disastrous results on agricultural policy.

Interestingly, Boas, who was also a political radical, continued to accept Lamarckism up until his death in 1942 — long after it had been discredited by accusations of scientific fraud. The moral seems to be that people who use science to advance their political agendas are unlikely to reject politically attractive theories for trivial reasons like lack of evidence and a history of cooked data. Isn’t that how science is supposed to operate? Not surprisingly, that other pseudoscientific charlatan, Sigmund Freud, also continued believing in Lamarckism long after it had been scientifically discredited.

Ben Stein’s brief for intelligent design is therefore in the long line of movements, beginning with Boas and Lamarck, that have attempted to undercut Darwin as a pillar of Western science. Each of them is mistaken (to be generous) and each was highly motivated. Among Jewish participants, the motives can be quite straightforwardly related to their Jewish identity.

But we still must ask what to make of Ben Stein’s claim that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. John Derbyshire characterizes the charge as a “blood libel on our civilization” which indeed it is.  Nevertheless, such a claim should not be taken lightly. For example, it is common among historians to hold views similar to Michael Hart’s statement that “it is impossible to understand the Holocaust without comprehending the degree to which racial science and a medicalized racial ideology occupied central positions in Nazi thought and policy.”

By the same token, I suppose, one could argue that the Palestinian catastrophe is the result of the triumph of the racial Zionists and their Likudnik descendents in Israel. Or one could argue that Darwinism does not necessarily lead to the specific views attributed to the National Socialists.

And one could certainly note that genocides occurred long before World War II and they have continued to occur without any specific Darwinian ideology. Indeed, as noted above, Elliott Abrams places Communism in the same category as Nazism when it comes to the ill effects of removing a religious world view. In April, 2008, the Ukrainian Prime MinisterYulia Tymoshenko petitioned the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to recognize the 1932–1933 Ukrainian famine as an act of genocide—a genocide carried out by an avowedly Marxist government at a time when Jews formed an elite within the Soviet Union. (See also Charles Dodgson’s lucid comments in TOO on Jewish involvement in the Ukrainian genocide as a blind spot in Jewish memory. Abrams is an example of a Jewish writer who deplores the discrimination against Jews that occurred after World War II in the USSR, but is silent on the pre-World War II period when Jews formeda hostile elite in the Soviet Union and served as Stalin’s willing executioners.) Indeed, it has been estimated that Communist governments murdered over 90,000,000 people in the 20th century, including 25,000,000 in theUSSR. These murders were certainly not carried out under a Darwinian ideology.

And genocides have been carried out under religious ideologies as well. Christiane Amanpour’s God’s Warriors series certainly shows that religious ideology can motivate the most extreme of fanaticisms, from Jihad to much of the West Bank settler movement (including both its Christian and Jewish supporters). (The Christian and Muslim segments are still on You Tube. But the Jewish segment has been removed, presumably by the same Jewish fanatics featured in the segment. But you can still see two rebuttals put out by the pro-Zionists: Part I and Part II.  My description and commentary on the Jewish segment ishere.)

Ben Stein is wrong. There is no reason at all to suppose that adopting a religious world view immunizes against genocide. Perhaps he and Elliott Abrams are simply expressing their belief that present forms of Christianity would not lead to a Holocaust even if they achieved a great deal more power over public policy. This was the view of neocon guru Leo Strauss who is quite possibly the inspiration for both Abrams and Stein. They could be right about that, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

But let’s not be naïve. Darwin did indeed have a dangerous idea. In the same way that the evolutionary theory of sex has illuminated the deep structure of the human mating game, evolutionary theory points to the deep structure of genocide as a particularly violent form of ethnic competition. But ethnic competition is ethnic competition whether its carried out in an orgy of violence, or by forcible removal of people from land on the West Bank by Jewish settlers or by forcible removal of Native Americans during the 19th century by white settlers, or by peaceful displacement of whites via current levels of immigration into Western societies.

From a Darwinian perspective, the end result is no different. The genetic structure of the population has changed. Darwin, of course, understood this. Notice, for example, the subtitle of his masterpiece: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

We all have an implicit understanding of human sexual politics. What Darwin did (with the help of Robert Trivers) is to produce an explicit theory which explains sexual politics. But sexual politics and genocide existed long before Darwin came along. And it is at least questionable whether the occurrence of future genocide would be more or less likely if most people had an explicitly Darwinian theory. Humans seem to be able to commit mass murder under multiple ideological umbrellas.

And it could be argued that adopting an explicitly Darwinian perspective would actually lead to less genocide. For example, by understanding that ethnonational aspirations are a normal consequence of our evolutionary psychology, we could at least build societies that, unlike theSoviet Union, are not likely to commit genocide on their own people. Nor would we be saddled with a multicultural cauldron of competing and distrustful ethnic groups. And, as noted in a previous article, societies based on ethnonationalism would have other benefits as well: Greater openness to redistributive policies; greater trust and political participation; and a greater likelihood of adopting democratic political systems based on the rule of law.

So three cheers for Darwin and for science. Long may they live. And please, no more Ben Steins trying to send us back to the Dark Ages.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

KevinMacDonald.net

The Sandra Bernhard monstrosity

/in , /by

I suppose we could just write off Sandra Bernhard as a nut case and leave it at that. But the thing is that her rant against Christianity and her threatened gang-rape of Sarah Palin occurred at Theater J—J as in Jewish.

Theater J is a project of the Jewish Community Center of Washington. At the bottom of the homepage there is the stamp of the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington DC. You can click on tabs for Jewish Living which direct you to material on classes and retreats. Another tab brings you to information on programs for infants, toddlers and school-age children. About what you would expect at a Jewish community center.

But then there’s the video (posted at the Jewish Community Center website) of Bernhard saying about Sarah Palin, “Don’t you fucking reference the Old Testament, bitch. You stay with your goyish, crappy, shiksa-funky [or is it “shiksa-fucking”?] bullshit. Don’t you touch my Old Testament, you bitch. Because we have left it open to interpretation. It is no longer taken literally. You whore …”

So the moral high ground comes from having the correct interpretation of the Bible? I thought that was the sort of thing that people like Palin are accused of. How very quaint coming from this super edgy and ultra-chic Jewish-lesbian radical.

This sort of invective ruins careers if one substitutes, say, anti-black invective for Bernhard’s anti-goy rant. Heard from  Michael Richardslately? Bernhard can refer to the New Testament as “goyish, crappy, shiksa-funky bullshit” and it’s a great career move. She gets rave reviews in the mainstream media, including the Washington Post. The audience can be heard laughing and clapping appreciatively in the background while she says it, and Ari Roth, the artistic director, informs us that there are standing ovations after every performance.

Roth’s defense of the indefensible is a masterpiece of double-think: “There is a message of hope and ecumenical tolerance at the heart of what we’re trying to achieve here. Even in Sandra’s show. It’s complicated. It isn’t hate ful [sic]. There’s hope for all of us.”

Yeah, it’s complicated. Love is hate. Up is down. Black is white. Orwell would love it. You can just see the ecumenical tolerance and love in her face in this photo taken during her performance. Feel the love.

The first take-home message, then, is that Jews don’t have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. In an era when talking disparagingly about other groups is a sure way to career oblivion, it’s still possible for a Jewish performer to denigrate  the goyim and the Christian religion and to advocate physical violence and sexual degradation against someone merely because they believe what most white people believe. And she can do it at a Jewish community center.

Whites should think about what this really implies about America of the future when whites are a minority and Jews remain as a hostile elite. As I notedelsewhere  in commenting on a previous situation where a hostile Jewish elite ruled over a society that they loathed — that is, the Jewish Communists who acted as mass murderers of Christians during a period when Jews were a hostile elite in the Soviet Union:

The situation prompts reflection on what might have happened in the United States had American Communists and their sympathizers assumed power. The “red diaper babies” came from Jewish families which “around the breakfast table, day after day, in Scarsdale, Newton, Great Neck, and Beverly Hills have discussed what an awful, corrupt, immoral, undemocratic, racist society the United States is.” Indeed, hatred toward the peoples and cultures of non-Jews … has been the Jewish norm throughout history—much commented on, from Tacitus to the present.

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union…. These [white Christians]  now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections.

Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” … In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture [held by the Jewish elite in the USSR] is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

Sandra Bernhard is Exhibit A for this type of contemporary American Jew. And the target of her wrath is Sarah Palin, the personification of red-state America.

One can  imagine the horror that would greet someone who made analogous comments about Judaism or the Holocaust. We doubt that people like Ari Roth would attempt to find nuances and subtleties in such art. There would be no talk of artistic license.  No attempts to find deep meanings of tolerance and hope despite the surface message of hatred and the facial expressions of seething rage and sneering contempt.

The second take-home message is that this sort of hostility to whites and to Christianity is a mainstream Jewish phenomenon. Whatever else one might say about Bernhard, she is part of a very large and vibrant Jewish subculture in America and throughout the West. In this case, it is performed by a Jewish comedienne at a Jewish community center, with an appreciative audience, many of whom are doubtless Jewish. And this is no insular culture far removed from the American mainstream. Rather, her work is reviewed respectfully and even enthusiastically in the prestigious media.

The hostility of the mainstream Jewish community, and especially the organized Jewish community, to white Europeans and the culture of the West can be seen across the entire Jewish political spectrum, from leftists like Sandra Bernhard to the neoconservative right.

The neocons do not express their contempt with the apoplectic rage of Sandra Bernhard — at least in public. But it’s there nonetheless. As Jacob Heilbrunn notes, the neocons had “a lifelong antipathy toward the patrician class.” The result, as Norman Podhoretz phrased it, was to proclaim a war against the “WASP patriciate.”

And, like Sandra Bernhard, the neocons aren’t very fond of Middle America either. But of course, they aren’t in competition with Middle America in their crusade to dominate American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel.

This anti-white hostility affects a wide range of phenomena, from Jewish involvement in the media—as exemplified by Bernhard, to Jewish involvement in immigration policy.

But it goes even beyond that. Bernhard is quite frank about being a lesbian and typically draws a large number of the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendercrowd to her performances. The audience laughing about “big black brothers” gang-raping a female Republican vice-presidential candidate and trashing the New Testament is part and parcel of the culture of the left. It is the sort of humor that would work well among professors at elite universities or op-ed writers at theNew York Times.

This culture of the left therefore includes a lot of non-Jews. Destroying this culture is an enormously uphill battle. It is a culture that is now decades old and entrenched in all the  elite power centers of society. The task will not be easy. But, considering what happened in the Soviet Union when a hostile Jewish elite obtained political power and was unleashed on the people and culture they  hated, there is an obvious moral imperative in doing so.

The Washington Post’s Willing Executioner?

/in , /by

Last week, an editorial on this site made reference to a Washington Post column in which a Jewish writer contended that “the Republicans now more than ever are the white folks’ party . . . the party of the American past. Republican conventions have long been bastions of de facto Caucasian exclusivity, but coming right after the diversity of Denver, this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white. Long term, this whiteness is a huge problem.”

There was a picture of the writer, Harold Meyerson, at the top of his column:

An acquaintance of mine put the anti-white sentiment together with the photo and concluded:

It is the policy of Jews [that is, White-Jews] that White people [that is, White Christians] have no place in America or the American future. Anyone who says it is labeled an anti-Semite. Yet Meyerson’s is an unambiguous exterminationist position. Whites have as much place in America as Palestinians in Israel.

(His face is, BTW, like that of the NKVD killers who murdered 40 million Christians in the Soviet Union.)

It is as blatant as that.

At first blush such words come across as overly harsh, but upon reflection they make sense. This struck home for me because earlier this year I had a long essay published in which I used Yuri Slezkine’s descriptions of seemingly normal Jews turning into blood-thirsty killers during the Bolshevik Revolution.

Titled “Israel’s Willing Executioners,” the essay included long considerations of two recent books, The Power of Israel in the United States and Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants, by retired professor James Petras. (The essay can be found in the Winter issue [7,4] of The Occidental Quarterly. Unfortunately, it is not available online.)

Petras was unique among academic writers in that he expanded upon the identities of Zionist American Jews to include the “sayanim” — “Those who cooperate directly with Israeli intelligence agencies”; the sayanim comprise “a huge worldwide network of Jews in strategic or useful places.” What’s interesting for my purposes is they include “doctors, dentists, philanthropists, real estate magnates, financiers, journalists, media moguls, and academics.”

In my essay, I wanted to use the common image of the “Jewish dentist” to show the transformation from a familiar and harmless member of the American community to a potential killer. Perhaps it was because I found a passage where Slezkine described the highly visible cadre of Jews charged with executing the Russian Tsar and his family. One of the murderers, Shaia Goloshchekin, was a dentist.

In any case, my editor did not think the dentist trope would fly, so my line “Is it so unthinkable that today’s typical Jewish American, say a dentist, might become an executioner?” was axed.

Still, the general message of peril came through. I noted that during the Red Terror in Russia, some expressed shock that seemingly pacifistic Jews changed almost overnight: “We were amazed by what we had least expected to encounter among the Jews: cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so far removed from physical, warlike activity; those who yesterday did not know how to use a gun are now found among the executioners and cutthroats.”

Slezkine also describes a “formerly oppressed lover of liberty [who] had turned into a tyrant of ‘unheard-of despotic arbitrariness.’” He had been “transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness.” He could now be pictured as “standing in a Cheka basement doing ‘bloody but honorable revolutionary work.’”

Petras makes a similar claim with respect to Jews today, at least “those who claim to be a divinely chosen people, a people with ‘righteous’ claims of supreme victimhood.” We must, he admonishes us, expose the fact that “many descendants of victims have now become brutal executioners.”

Left to his own devices, I initially wrote, our American Jewish dentist may well remain nonviolent and lead a life of industry and contentment. But too often Judaism and Jewish groups have worked on such ethnic Jews to radicalize them, with or without their consent. As Kevin MacDonald has emphasized, “At all the turning points, it is the more ethnocentric elements—one might term them the radicals—who have determined the direction of the Jewish community and eventually won the day.”

Petras makes the same point, noting that “Judeocentrism is the perspective which guides the organized, active minority driving the major Zionist organizations and their billionaire camp followers. And it is always the organized, zealous and well-financed minority, which assumes ‘legitimate’ claim to speak ‘for the community.’”

Getting back to Harold Meyerson’s mug at the top of this page, the point is that when someone like him writes that “whiteness is a huge problem,” we whites have reason to worry. We have seen the radical turn in Russia, which resulted in rivers of gentile blood. Now Jews have risen in America. Ominously, as MacDonald has noted, “If there is any lesson to be learned, it is that Jews not only became an elite in all these areas, they became a hostile elite—hostile to the traditional people and cultures of all three areas they came to dominate.”

MacDonald expanded on this theme in the foreword to Tomislav Sunic’s Homo Americanus, arguing that the current American regime is “maintained less by brute force than by an unrelenting, enormously sophisticated, and massively effective campaign to constrain political and cultural activity within very narrow boundaries.” A violent communist death is not yet necessary because dissenters “are not yet trundled off to jail or beaten with truncheons, but are quietly ignored and marginalized. Or they are held up to public disgrace, and, wherever possible, removed from their livelihood.”

I suppose that is a relatively happy state of affairs, at least when compared to the potential bloody future such as the one Petras envisions. Already the “Zionist Power Configuration” has “effectively colonized the  White House and Legislative Branches,” and “ultra-Zionist” Attorney General Michael Mukasey and “Israel-First” Head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff man critical posts. To be sure, they may in fact be honorable men, but the point is to recognize the parallel to the rise of Jews to power in Soviet Russia and their role in the deaths of millions of perceived ethnic enemies (disguised as “class” enemies).

MacDonald, Petras and Slezkine have all shown in their own ways how talent, high intelligence and above all ethnic networking have allowed Jews to exercise great power despite low numbers. Jews operating in other Jewish movements in America have already succeeded in disestablishing the tradition European-derived majority, whether through Boasian anthropology with its scientifically unsupported claims that race is an illusion; whether through the arguments of Horace Kallen and others that America is merely a “propositional nation” without a founding people; or whether through activists like those in the Frankfurt School who combined psychoanalysis and Marxism into a “devastating weapon against the ethnic consciousness of white Americans.”

Sunic also sees dark clouds on the horizon for any group in America that might be targeted: “Thus, in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” MacDonald identifies what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.” They are the European-derived whites populating vast areas of the American nation, particularly in the so-called “red states.”

In fact, Jewish sources have long been openly admitting that a less white America is in their interests. Activist Ben Wattenberg, for example, has said that “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.”

Another Jewish activist, Earl Raab, explained why Jews have led “immigration reform” movements that favor non-whites, one factor being the belief that a less homogeneously white America will be less anti-Semitic. In an oft-cited passage, he wrote:

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

This is the sentiment that the unhandsome Meyerson expressed in the above Washington Post column, the view that “this year’s GOP convention is almost shockingly — un-Americanly — white.”

Ultimately, is it so unthinkable that today’s typical Jewish American, say a Washington Post columnist, might become an enthusiastic executioner?

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