Rachel Maddow on Jim Russell

/78 Comments/in , , , /by

Jim Russell, who is the Republican candidate for New York’s 18th Congressional District, is busy combating accusations about his association with The Occidental Quarterly. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s take is a classic example of the power of the media to create an alternate reality where facts don’t matter and where simply stating Russell’s opinions is enough to create mild amusement in her audience benumbed by decades of leftist propaganda. No need to note that Russell is a scholar who has a Ph. D. and has written a book published by Oxford University Press on how Christianity was influenced by German culture during the early Middle Ages. No need for any informed scholarly opinions on his statements in the article in question. If that well-informed anthropologist and psychologist Rachel Maddow thinks something is outlandish, then it must be outlandish. End of story.

Maddow starts by labeling TOQ a “White supremicist journal” —shorthand for not having to deal with the ideas presented there and not being sensitive to the obvious difference between White supremacy and White advocacy. Does she think that it is always illegitimate for any ethnic group to seek to advance its interests? If so, then she should come out publicly against the ADL, the NAACP, and La Raza.

She then puts up on the screen this quote from the article:

While liberals and universalists constantly yammer about “bringing us together” and “diversity is our strength,” it may be suggested that the biological function of human language and culture is just the opposite, that is, to keep discrete groups apart.

What an absolutely outrageous idea! Maddow, being Jewish by descent,* could not possibly be expected to grasp the concept of a culture that erects barriers between itself and the surrounding society—as Diaspora Judaism has done for its entire history and as Israel has now taken to the point of building walls between themselves and the Palestinians, providing separate roads and neighborhoods—in short, apartheid.

Contemporary mainstream evolutionary theories of culture highlight the  importance of badges of group membership, such as language and modes of dress that function to define ingroups and outgroups, and psychologists are well aware that there is a powerful evolutionary psychology of social identity that responds to these cues by making people in ingroups have exaggerated negative attitudes toward outgroups and exaggerated positive attitudes toward their ingroup.

She then highlights Russell’s quoting “old racist arguments” from T. S. Eliot:

The population should be homogeneous…. What is even more important is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and culture combine to make a large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.

As noted here repeatedly, multiculturalism has huge costs, especially for the majority ethnic group in terms of social cohesion, social isolation, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like government-sponsored health care— with no discernible benefits apart from ethnic restaurants. Yet if there has been one overriding goal of Jewish intellectual and political activism in the US and other Western societies over the last century, it has been to legitimize multiculturalism and pathologize any sense that the  traditional people of these societies have any interests in maintaining their demographic predominance and their culture.

Maddow then goes after Russell’s expressed concern about the effects of the media on imprinting children with images of other races because they may affect later mating preferences. Notice that Russell expresses himself quite tentatively: “One wonders how a child’s sexual imprinting is affected by forcible racial integration and near continual exposure to media stimuli promoting interracial contact.” But in fact, there is quite a bit of research that has come out since Russell wrote his article indicating just that. For example, this is a quote from an academic article of mine:

Research on human
infants indicates that preference for own race occurs by 3 months
of age but is not present at 1 month (Kelly et al., 2005). However,
racial ingroup preferences are weakened by exposure to outgroup
faces during infancy (Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy, & Hodes, 2006;
Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti, Ventureyra, & de Schonen, 2005).

Research on human infants indicates that preference for own race occurs by 3 months of age but is not present at 1 month (Kelly et al., 2005). However, racial ingroup preferences are weakened by exposure to outgroup faces during infancy (Bar-Haim, Ziv, Lamy, & Hodes, 2006; Sangrigoli, Pallier, Argenti, Ventureyra, & de Schonen, 2005). (p. 1022)

The reality is that social psychology provides strong support for the idea that exposure of babies to other races would make them favor their own race less. And Russell is certainly correct that the media is doing its best to aid this process. However, the good news is that the media does not really have access to infants, or at least much less access than it does to older children and adults. The research seems to indicate that babies learn who their people are by seeing family members–resulting in hysteria over “racist babies.” One can anticipate government programs that force White babies to be exposed to non-Whites (but exempt non-Whites from this process).

Maddow then goes off on Russell’s accusation that the media promotes miscegenation in films directed at adolescents and pre-adolescents and his claim that parents have “a natural obligation as essential as providing food and shelter to instill in their  children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.” Again, research supports the idea that media images could indeed overcome our natural liking for people like ourselves (programmed in infancy; see above) and lead people to be more open to miscegenation—especially in impressionable and conformist-minded children who are led to think that such behavior is “cool” and the sort of thing popular, attractive teenagers do. Several prominent social psychologists have argued that constant repetition by media images–especially if they are seen as coming from elite, mainstream sources–can overcome predispositions to be attracted to our own people.

One would think that Maddow would be well aware that her people have had very strong socialization pressures for marrying within the group which has led to very strong genetic commonality among long-separated Jewish groups. Urgings by Jewish religious and secular authorities (e.g., Alan Dershowitz, Elliott Abrams) to marry other Jews are commonplace. But when Russell makes similar suggestions, he is labeled a racist and a kook.

Her piece is a good example of how the media is focused on changing the behavior  of one group and one group only: White Christians.

*According to WikiAnswers, Maddow was raised Catholic, with an Irish mother and Russian father. She asserted she is “distantly Jewish.” See also here.

Jewish-Muslim Tensions

/41 Comments/in , /by

The current Marty Peretz uproar is one  of those many times when a White advocate can see nothing good on either side of a debate. It makes for depressing reading when all the sides heard in the mainstream media are corrupted.

Peretz is the famously fanatic pro-Israel nutcase who happens to own the New Republic. He is also rich, having married into enough money to buy his bully pulpit and make it into an excellent example of Jewish double standards: Liberal on pretty much all domestic issues, but gung-ho in favor of ethnic cleansing and apartheid in Israel. The recent controversy came about because he wrote, “frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.”

In his apology, he disavowed the First Amendment comment. Let’s get real. Does anyone seriously think that Muslims believe in free speech as a principle (think Danish cartoons, Salman Rushdie, and Theo Van Gogh)? Or that Jews do?   Whites will learn soon enough that the people replacing them have no regard for things like constitutional government or the First Amendment. Harvard, with the left’s typical lack of concern with facts, condemns Peretz—claiming that his statement is “the diametric opposite of what we in the Committee on Degrees in Social Studies stand for.”

Nevertheless, Peretz will be allowed to speak at the event and will return to Harvard to give a longer talk at some later date. No indication that Harvard will return the money in a fund for undergraduate research named after Peretz — probably because the money will be used to support the sort of left-oriented research that is de rigueur at universities these days and doubtless approved by Peretz: “the study of intercultural understanding, inequality, and social justice.”

I suspect that this sort of problem will become more and more common for American Jews and especially the organized Jewish community. On one hand they provide Israel with unconditional support — even though Israel and the Israel Lobby are attempting to re-organize the entire Muslim world to be subservient to Israel and ignore what’s going on with the Palestinians. On the other hand, they see their main problem in the US to be any peep of opposition by the traditional majority of the country to the vast transformations engulfing the country. Peretz’s New Republic is completely on board with mass immigration, multiculturalism, and the moral obligation of White people to become a minority in the country they built.

Another interesting example is the ADL. Their opposition to the Ground-Zero Muslim triumphalism was much denounced by liberals. Like Peretz, the ADL backs Israel unconditionally. The ADL also has no doubts at all about the proper role of Muslims in American society: to be part of the multicultural coalition aimed squarely at lessening the power of the White majority. So it’s not surprising that the ADL recently announced an “Interfaith Coalition on Mosques”—an ADL-led initiative which will “monitor incidents of mosque discrimination around the country, gather facts and analyze the information, and speak out when appropriate to help Muslim communities who are encountering prejudice.” As noted in the article, a prominent Muslim activist is publicly supporting it.

So at least some Muslims are quite happy to see the ADL leading the charge against the discomfort of the White majority at having yet another aggressive Middle Eastern religious group have a major impact on our culture. In the ideal Jewish world, American Muslims would become part of the anti-White alliance while ignoring the role of the Israel Lobby in getting America to agree to the dispossession of the Palestinians and to wage wars against Islam in the Middle East. I don’t think this will work in the long run. It’s certainly not working in Europe.

Christopher Donovan: Mental Illness and White Resistance

/29 Comments/in /by
Blogger Mark Nestmann expresses skepticism about the newly-minted psychiatric diagnosis of “oppositional defiant disorder“, noting that resisting authority isn’t necessarily a sign of mental illness.
 
Indeed, it’s not.  Opposing authority can be a sign of robust mental health.  Especially if that “authority,” as Whites find it today, is openly antagonistic to Whites’ group concerns and goals.
 
The expansion of such diagnoses is bad for Whites on several levels.  I have noticed, anecdotally, that those taking a White advocacy position are often dismissed as suffering from mental illness—a major project of the Frankfurt School and widely disseminated by the organized Jewish community.  Beyond the usual tactic of calling your political opponent nuts, the notion of “racism” as mental illness does have professional support. From the Washington Post story:

“They are delusional,” said Alvin F. Poussaint, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who has long advocated such a diagnosis. “They imagine people are going to do all kinds of bad things and hurt them, and feel they have to do something to protect themselves.”

Of course, crime statistics tend to support a view that Blacks will commit crimes against Whites.  I don’t expect Poussaint, who is Black, to be happy about that, which is why he takes the tack he does.

But clearly, an effective way to dispatch your opponent is to simply label him “crazy”, and I am confident that as White advocacy grows stronger, those hostile to Whites will employ this tactic more often.  When racially conscious Whites seek elective office or other positions of power, note how they’re treated.

I also nuture a belief that young boys — often, White — are “diagnosed” as having attention deficit disorder or other mental problems, when the reality is that their behavior is pretty normal.  It just doesn’t fit the current politics, which dictate that boys should be calm, polite and obedient, like girls.  If they’re unruly, give them medication and calm them down.  Bigger picture:  if you want to neuter the fighting instincts of a people you seek to dominate, drug their males into submission. 

Much of the rest of the White race is drugged up with anti-depressants and other mood changers, and I am very skeptical that much of this is needed.  It may not be directly true that our racial enemies are pumping us full of these drugs to dispossess us, but a more appropriately paranoid race of people would at least be on the lookout for such things, and resist.

Barbara Lerner Spectre: Jews play a "leading role" in promoting multiculturalism in Europe

/167 Comments/in /by

In the video below, Barbara Lerner Spectre, who runs a government-funded Jewish study group in Sweden, makes the following remarkable statement—remarkable because she does not attribute anti-Jewish attitudes to irrational prejudices or even Muslims who hate Israel. Instead she says that it’s because of the “leading role” played by Jews in the  movement  toward multiculturalism:

I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.


Her comment is an example of the  age-old Jewish self-concept of a “Light Unto the Nations”: Jews saving Europe by leading it to multiculturalism. One wonders why she thinks Europe could not survive as a set of monocultural societies. Israel and many other societies function quite well with a recognized dominant culture and people and, as repeatedly emphasized here, multicultural societies have a hosts of costs and no visible benefits. The better question, of course,  is how Europe can survive multiculturalism. By definition, it can’t.

The interview is part of a longer set of interviews available here.

Self-Deception and Guruism among Jews

/71 Comments/in , /by

Life is really easy if you are in the business of refuting “anti-Semites” in the Mainstream Media. There is a ridiculously low standard for arguments and an easy confidence that contrary voices will not be heard.

Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal has a predictably vacuous column on the comments of Karel De Gucht–a topic previously discussed here. Mr. De Gucht stated, “Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill.” Stephens says that the comment dispenses with “the usual fine-grained, face-saving distinction about the difference between a ‘Jewish’ and an ‘Israel’ lobby.”

What makes it so easy for Stephens is that he doesn’t have to actually provide any data showing the relationship between Jews and the Israel Lobby. It’s enough to simply say that De Gucht failed to make the distinction to brand him an anti-Semite. Of course, it wouldn’t have mattered if he referred to the Israel Lobby when talking about “the grip [the Lobby] has on American politics—no matter whether it’s Republicans or Democrats.”  That too would doubtless cast him as an anti-Semite. Titling their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy certainly didn’t prevent John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt from being labeled anti-Semites.

Stephens uses the same tactic in dismissing De Gucht’s statement that “There is indeed a belief—it’s difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right. And it’s not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East.”

Stephens comments:

Here, then, was a case not of “criticism of Israel” or “anti-Zionism,” the usual sheets under which this sort of mentality hides. Mr. De Gucht’s target was Jews, the objects of his opprobrium their malign political influence and crippled mental reflexes. If this isn’t anti-Semitism, the term has no meaning.

Again, Stephens feels no need to actually discuss whether Jews tend to behave this way. The subject is out of bounds—automatically; nothing more than “anti-Semitism.”

Since Mr. De Gucht will not attempt to defend his comments (he has already profusely apologized for his indiscretion—rejected, of course, by Stephens), I’ll give it a try. Part of the issue is self-deception, as per my previous comments on De Gucht. We are all prone to self-serving biases. But in particular, people who are highly ethnocentric are prone to not seeing how their own ethnocentrism blinds them to rational discussion of anything related to their ethnic interests. One of the more laughable mainstays of neoconservative rhetoric is the assertion that, despite their easily-documented strong Jewish identification and their close ties to Israel, they really believe that their policy recommendations are in the interests of the United States—including the disastrous war in Iraq and the impending war with Iran. Anyone who has taken a course in Social Psychology 101 would be aware of how naive that is. But of course, that doesn’t prevent it from being asserted with absolute self-confidence by writers like Jacob Heilbrunn (see here, p. 16).

The title of Heilbrunn’s book is relevant to De Gucht’s comments: They Knew They Were Right. The other part of this syndrome is absolute confidence in their ideas–what one  might term ‘guruism’. Heilbrunn calls attention to the neocons’ penchant for “sweeping assertions and grandiose ideas” (p. 26). There is a towering self-confidence that is doubtless exaggerated by being within an echo chamber of like-minded others. I remember talking to an academic psychiatrist long before psychoanalysis became a chapter in Culture of Critique. As a biologically oriented psychiatrist, he was not a believer in psychoanalysis, but he said what struck him about psychoanalysts in their heyday was their absolute self-confidence and sense of superiority. They were completely immune to empirically-minded naysayers–of which there were plenty, even at the height of their power. Keep in mind that psychoanalysis is perhaps the greatest intellectual fraud of the 20th century–a set of beliefs that explained everything but had only the most tenuous connection to reality and an ideology that empirical research was for bean counters.

The same thought crossed my mind while reading Thirteen Bankers, by Simon Johnson and James Kwak. Near the heart of the financial meltdown was the towering self-confidence of Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan in opposing any regulation on the derivatives market. Summers seems to be pivotal. When Brooksley Born, head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, proposed that some thought should be given to regulation,  Summers reportedly said “I have thirteen bankers in my office, and they say if you go forward with this you will cause the worst financial crisis since World War II.” As Johnson and Kwak note (p. 9), we don’t actually know if there were any bankers in Summers’ office; “more likely he came to his own conclusion.” The point is that Summers had an unshakable faith that what he was saying was correct—a faith that was ominously unrelated to empirical reality. Nevertheless, Ms. Born was successfully pushed aside and ultimately a law was enacted  preventing any regulation of the derivatives market. It’s quite analogous to Freud’s total confidence in the Oedipal Complex as a core doctrine of psychoanalysis and expelling anyone who disagrees.

Self-deception is not the entire story here. More likely, it relates to the centrality of charismatic leadership among Jews—a theme of Culture of Critique and very apparent in the Bernie Madoff scandal: The rabbi guru surrounded by worshipful disciples. Madoff was “like a God” People around him “regarded Bernie like a messiah. He was spoken of as if godlike.” “He was received like visiting royalty, mysterious and unapproachable” (see John Graham and Kevin MacDonald, “Is the Madoff Scandal Paradigmatic?”) He was brilliant; a genius. Because of his financial wisdom, everything turned to gold. Naysayers were ignored, and Jewish naysayers were labeled anti-Semites for not believing in the wisdom of Bernie.

Of course, Madoff exploited this tendency toward hero worship  among Jews to his own advantage and defrauded others in the process. In the case of the imperial wars so confidently trumpeted by the neocons and in the case of the financial meltdown, the victims are the entire country. And the scary thing is that Summers is still running the economy.

Solzhenitsyn’s “During the Civil War” — Chapter 16 of 200 Years Together

/1 Comment/in , /by

Chapter 16 of 200 Years Together covers the pivotal period of the civil war (1918–1921)—pivotal because the Bolshevik victory was a disaster for the Russian people and for Europe generally. (The translation is available here; donations are of critical importance for finishing this important project.) Once again, Solzhenitsyn highlights the role of Jews as instruments of state terror, particularly their role in the Cheka and in the Red Army. The perception that this was a “Jewish terror” was widespread: “Why was the perception that Chekists and Jews were all but the same so widespread among both the Reds and the Whites alike and among the people in general?”

At least part of the reason is because of the Jews’ “ardent service on the highest posts in Cheka.” Jewish Chekists “at that time were supreme, by status and rank, representatives of Russian Jewry.” He quotes a Jewish observer (also quoted by Yuri Slezkine; see here, p. 85):  “we were astonished to find among the Jews what we never expected from them — cruelty, sadism, unbridled violence — everything that seemed so alien to a people so detached from physical activity; those who yesterday couldn’t handle a rifle, today were among the vicious cutthroats.” Slezkine quotes another Jewish observer: 

The formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of “unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness”…. The convinced and unconditional opponent of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been transformed outwardly into a leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness (pp. 183–184).

It is a cautionary tale on what kinds of behavior we can expect from current multi-cultural elites when Whites become a minority: Present-day platitudes about the future world of multicultural harmony and the moral imperative of Whites giving up power may be replaced very quickly by a quite different set of attitudes of revenge and hatred — the image of the kindly, tolerant Jewish professional quickly replaced by the image of a brutal perpetrator of torture and mass murder motivated by revenge against the old order. Images of hatred and estrangement from the White, Christian majority are commonplace among Jewish leaders — the Jews as a hostile elite theme of much of my writing (see, e.g., here andhere).

Indeed, Solzhenitsyn suggests that Jewish revenge against the Cossacks was a motive for “the genocide on the river Don, when hundreds of thousands of the flower of Don Cossacks were murdered …. What should we expect from the Cossack memories when we take into consideration all those unsettled accounts between a revolutionary Jew and a Don Cossack?”

Indeed, the Cossacks were strongly identified with state power during the 19thcentury, and for Jews they were hated because of their role in assaults on Jews (for example, during the Khmelnytsky Uprising in the 17th century) andpopularized in stories by Jewish writer Sholem Aleichem. As I noted elsewhere:

The Cossacks served the Czar as a military police force, and they used their power against Jewish communities during the conflicts between the government and the Jews. After the Revolution, the Cossacks were deported to Siberia for refusing to join the collective farms. During the 1930s, the person in charge of the deportations was an ethnic Jew, Lazar Kaganovich, nicknamed the “wolf of the Kremlin’ because of his penchant for violence. In his drive against the peasants, Kaganovich took “an almost perverse joy in being able to dictate to the Cossacks. He recalled too vividly what he and his family had experienced at the hands of these people…. Now they would all pay — men, women, children. It didn’t matter who. They became one and the same. That was the key to [Kaganovich’s] being. He would never forgive and he would never forget” (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the  Kremlin, 1987, 164). Similarly, Jews were placed in charge of security in the Ukraine, which had a long history of anti-Semitism (Albert Lindemann, Esau’s Tears, 1997, 443) and became a scene of mass murder in the 1930s. (See here, pp. xxiv–xxv.)

It was payback time for ethnic hostilities that long preceded the Bolshevik Revolution. While Jews were vastly overrepresented among the perpetrators of mass murder, Solzhenitsyn “can’t help noticing that almost all names [of the victims] were Slavic – it was the ‘chosen Russians’ who were shot. In Kiev, a key area because of its long history of tensions between Jews and Slavs, 75% of the staff of the Cheka were Jews, including 70% of the top officials.

His account of the murders is particularly chilling:

An executioner (and sometimes “amateur” Chekists) escorted a completely naked victim into a shed and ordered the victim to fall facedown on the ground. Then he finished the victim with a shot in the back of the head. Executions were performed using revolvers (typically Colts). Usually because of the short distance, the skull of the executed person exploded into fragments…. The next victim was similarly escorted inside and laid down nearby…. When number of victims was exceeding … the capacity of the shed, new victims were laid down right upon the dead or were shot at the entrance of the shed…. Usually the victims went to their execution without resistance.

It’s not surprising therefore that the opposition to the Bolshevik regime often had strong anti-Jewish overtones. Examples from 1921 are the Kronstadt Uprising, where photos of prominent Jewish Bolsheviks were destroyed, and labor strikes, whose slogan was “Down with Communists and Jews!”

Solzhenitsyn wrestles with the question of whether the Jewish community as a whole supported the Bolsheviks: “Thus it looked as though not only Bolshevik Jews, but all of Jewry had decided to take the Red side in the Civil War. Could we claim that their choice was completely reactive? No. Could we claim that they didn’t have any other choice? Again, no.”

As evidence on Jewish attitudes toward the Bolsheviks he cites a writer who noted that as Kiev was about to surrender to the Bolsheviks, the Jews remained, while “it was an entirely Russian exodus, people were leaving on foot with knapsacks, across the bridges over the Dnepr river. … And all of those rich and very rich Jews – they didn’t leave, they chose to stay and wait for arrival of Bolsheviks. ‘The Jews decided not to share their fate with us. And with that they carved a new and possibly the deepest divide between us.’” Throughout Russia and in Poland during the Soviet invasion of 1920, Jewish communities greeted the Bolsheviks with celebration, while the Slavic population was terrified of its future.

The special role of Jews in the Soviet government was common knowledge, to the point that some Jews pleaded for Jews to fight Bolshevism because Jewish behavior was leading to intense anti-Jewish attitudes; however, this was not the view of the organized Jewish community:

And yes, there were Jews then who appealed to their compatriots looking back on the tragedy that had befallen both Russia and Russian Jewry. In their proclamation To the Jews of all countries!, this group wrote in 1923 that “overly zealous participation of Jewish Bolsheviks in the oppression and destruction of Russia … is blamed upon all of us … the Soviet rule is identified with Jewish rule, and fierce hatred of Bolsheviks turns into the equally fierce hatred of Jews…. [We] firmly believe that Bolshevism is the worst of all evils possible for the Jews and all other peoples of Russia, and that to fight tooth and nail against the rule of that international rabble over Russia is our sacred duty before humankind, culture, before our Motherland and the Jewish people.” Yet the Jewish community “reacted to these declarations with great indignation.”

Solzhenitsyn spends a great deal of time on the anti-Jewish pogroms of the period and the role of the White army and Symon Petiliura’s Ukrainian nationalist forces. In general, he denies that Jews sided with the Bolsheviks because of the pogroms. For example, the Jewish dominance of the Cheka in the Ukraine happened in 1918, before the pogroms of 1919.

Interestingly, he foregrounds his discussion by noting that wars and revolutions are nasty affairs, and, quoting a Jewish writer, they are “especially gruesome and dangerous for a minority, which in many ways is alien to the bulk of population.” This is especially so when there is a long history of mistrust and hostility toward the minority because of traditional economic relationships and Jewish hostility toward the culture of the outgroup.

During this period, Jews suffered far more than they did under the Czar, with estimates of Jewish dead ranging to 200,000. The main force was the Ukrainian separatist movement. Rather than seeing the hostility of the separatists toward Jews as irrational anti-Semitism, Solzhenitsyn shows that Jews did not support Ukrainian nationalism—a familiar theme in modern anti-Jewish attitudes, present also in Germany, were Jews were often seen as insufficiently enthusiastic about German nationalism. For example, the prominent 19th-century intellectual Heinrich von Treitschke strongly opposed what he perceived as “alien” Jewish cultural influence on German life, because of Jewish tendencies to mock and belittle German nationalistic aspirations (see here, p. 140). Similarly, Solzhnenitsyn describes “Jewish philistines … making fun of the Ukrainian language and shop-signs.” They were “afraid of Ukrainian nationalism, and believed in the Russian state and Russian culture.”

The opposition to Ukrainian nationalism had a Jewish face. When the Soviet government moved against the Ukrainian nationalists,

There was no shortage of Jewish names among the top Bolsheviks … in such centers as Odessa and Ekaterinoslav. That was sufficient to fuel talks about “Bolshevik Jews” and “Jewish Bolsheviks” among the troops loyal to the [Ukrainian parliament]. Verbal cursing about “traitorous Jews” became almost commonplace.

When a nationalist government led by Petliura came to power, his newspaper wrote, “The birth of the Ukrainian State was not expected by the Jews. The Jews did not anticipate it despite having an extraordinary ability of getting the wind of any news. They … emphasize their knowledge of Russian language and ignore the fact of Ukrainian statehood … Jewry again has joined the side of our enemy.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Solzhenitsyn juxtaposes Jews being blamed for Bolshevik military successes in the Ukraine with accounts of pillaging and pogroms directed against Jews — the implication being that Jews were being repaid in kind.  Nevertheless, the pogroms were not official policy. Even commanders who were sympathetic to the Jews, such as Nestor Mahkno, were unable to control the anti-Jewish actions of their troops. A result was that Jewish parties quickly began to radicalize toward the Left, thus inevitably turning their sympathies to Bolshevism.

Pogroms occurred despite the best intentions of the leaders of the White army, such as General Anton I. Denikin. The misbehavior of the troops cannot be completely explained by resentment about the Jewish role in Bolshevism or traditional anti-Jewish attitudes. There was also the raping and pillaging that has always been part of the culture of undisciplined armies. Solzhenitsyn provides several sources corroborating this perspective. For example:

A top White general, A. von Lampe, claims that rumors about Jewishpogroms by the Whites are “tendentiously exaggerated”, that these pillaging “requisitions” were unavoidable actions of an army without quartermaster services or regular supplies from the rear areas. He says that Jews were not targeted deliberately but that all citizens suffered and that Jews “suffered more” because they were “numerous and rich.” “I am absolutely confident that in the operational theaters of the White armies there were no Jewishpogroms, i.e., no organized extermination and pillaging of Jews. There were robberies and even murders … which were purposefully overblown and misrepresented as anti-Jewish pogroms by the special press…. Because of these accidents, the Second Kuban Infantry Brigade and the Ossetian Cavalry Regiment were disbanded…. All peoples, be they Christian or Jewish, suffered in disorderly areas.” [The exception was that] there were executions (on tip offs by locals) of those unfortunate commissars andChekists who did not manage to escape and there were quite a few Jews among them.

One way that Jews aided the Bolsheviks was financially. Jews contributed little to the White cause, “yet whenever the Bolsheviks showed up and demanded money and valuables, the population obediently handed over millions of rubles and whole stores of goods.” The Whites even rejected some Jewish support because of “the prominent involvement of other Jews on the Red side.” While the White army was originally free of anti-Jewish attitudes, “the situation dramatically changed by 1919” when Jews were seen as the main base of support for Bolshevism, exaggerated by the intense local anti-Jewish attitudes in areas like the Ukraine with a long history of hostility between Jews and Slavs, now exacerbated by the prominence of Jewish support for the Bolsheviks. “The Whites perceived Russia as occupied by Jewish commissars — and they marched to liberate her.”

The fate of the White cause also was sealed because of failure to obtain Jewish support in the West. Solzhenitsyn states unequivocally that “the White Movement was in desperate need of the support by the Western public opinion, which in turn largely depended on the fate of Russian Jewry.” Churchill appealed to Denikin to stop the pogroms, but he also quotes a historian who notes that Churchill feared the reactions of “powerful Jewish circles within the elite.” Jewish elites throughout the West threw their support to the Bolsheviks, aided by idealistic perceptions of “grandiose plans” for a New World under communism.

Solzhenitsyn is scathing in his condemnation of the Western powers: “And yet, the behavior of the former Entente of Western nations during the entire Civil War is striking by its greed and blind indifference toward the White Movement — the successor of their wartime ally, Imperial Russia.” This inaction and indifference led to an incalculable tragedy for Russia.

Both the general sympathy of Russian Jews toward the Bolsheviks and the developed attitude of the White forces toward Jews eclipsed and erased the most important benefit of a possible White victory — the sane evolution of the Russian state.

And because of its long term reverberations in the history of the 20th century, the result was a disaster for all European peoples. The prominent role of Jews in the Soviet government dovetailed not only with the warm welcome by Jews for the Soviet invasion of Poland of 1921, but also with Jewish involvement in revolutionary movements in Hungary and Germany. The result was a deepening of anti-Jewish attitudes, especially in Eastern and Central Europe. A historian comments, “the intensity and tenacity of anti-Semitic prejudice in both the east and the center of Europe was significantly influenced by Jewish participation in the revolutionary movement.” “The fact that the leaders of the suppressed Communist revolts were Jews was one of the most important reasons for the resurrection of political anti-Semitism in contemporary Germany.”

And in Hungary, “While Jews played a ‘quite conspicuous’ role in the Russian and German communist revolutions, their role in Hungary became central…. Out of 49 People’s Commissars there, 31 were Jews.” “Granted, the prime-minister was a gentile, Sandor Garbai, but [Mátyás] Rákosi later joked that Garbai was elected because someone had to sign execution orders on Sabbath days.” As was typical wherever communists gained power, the traditional culture was eradicated: “Statues of Hungarian kings and heroes were knocked off their pedestals, the national anthem outlawed, and wearing the national colors criminalized.”

The Jewish role in Bolshevism and in the abortive revolutions in Hungary and Germany cast a long shadow on later events:

For long after the Revolution, conservatives throughout Europe and the United States believed that Jews were responsible for Communism and for the Bolshevik Revolution. The Jewish role in leftist political movements was a common source of anti-Jewish attitudes among a great many intellectuals and political figures. In Germany, the identification of Jews and Bolshevism was widespread in the middle classes and was a critical part of the National Socialist view of the world. As historian Ernst Nolte has noted, for middle-class Germans, “the experience of the Bolshevik revolution in Germany was so immediate, so close to home, and so disquieting, and statistics seemed to prove the overwhelming participation of Jewish ringleaders so irrefutably,” that even many liberals believed in Jewish responsibility (Ernst Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism [1965, 331]). Jewish involvement in the horrors of Communism was also an important sentiment in Hitler’s desire to destroy the USSR and in the anti-Jewish actions of the German National Socialist government. Jews and Jewish organizations were also important forces in inducing the Western democracies to side with Stalin rather than Hitler in World War II.

The victory over National Socialism set the stage for the tremendous increase in Jewish power in the post-World War II Western world, in the end more than compensating for the decline of Jews in the Soviet Union. As [Yuri] Slezkine shows, the children of Jewish immigrants assumed an elite position in the United States, just as they had in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern Europe and Germany prior to World War II. This new-found power facilitated the establishment of Israel, the transformation of the United States and other Western nations in the direction of multiracial, multicultural societies via large-scale non-white immigration, and the consequent decline in European demographic and cultural preeminence. The critical Jewish role in Communism has been sanitized, while Jewish victimization by the Nazis has achieved the status of a moral touchstone and is a prime weapon in the push for massive non-European immigration, multiculturalism, and advancing other Jewish causes.

The Jewish involvement in Bolshevism has therefore had an enormous effect on recent European and American history. It is certainly true that Jews would have attained elite status in the United States with or without their prominence in the Soviet Union. However, without the Soviet Union as a shining beacon of a land freed of official anti-Semitism where Jews had attained elite status in a stunningly short period, the history of the United States would have been very different. The persistence of Jewish radicalism influenced the general political sensibility of the Jewish community and had a destabilizing effect on American society, ranging from the paranoia of the McCarthy era, to the triumph of the 1960s countercultural revolution, to the conflicts over immigration and multiculturalism that are so much a part of the contemporary political landscape. (See here, pp. 95–96 and references therein; see also here, pp. xxx–xxxii)

Solzhenitsyn’s treatment once again hits all the right notes. While staying squarely within mainstream scholarship, he succeeds in laying bare the ethnic conflict that is at the heart of the fraught relationship of Jews and Europeans.

Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

9/11: Burning Bibles, Burning Qurans and the Victory Monuments at Ground Zero

/58 Comments/in , /by

September 11 has become a milestone in modern America and is both the symbol of the War on Terrorism, the symbol of America attacked, and of the Cordoba Mosque, a symbol of the Muslim triumph over both Spain and the United States. September 11 is a monument to the comprehensive defeat of the Euroepan-American people, the founding people of the United States, a people now dispossessed of every measure of political, cultural, religious, and economic power.

September 11 has become an occasion for Muslims to express their hatred of us in the name of preventing their victimization by “islamophobia”.  Friday night (September 10), on KIRO-TV in Seattle, half a dozen Muslim leaders and Muslim women were interviewed and the main word they had was hate. They were victims of hate, hate, hate. They are liars.

Seattle schools have prayer rooms for Muslims, allow Jewish religious organizations to operate in high schools, and ban Christian groups from meeting after school even in the playing fields. New York schools celebrate Jewish and Muslim holidays and ignore Christian holidays.

Like the manufactured controversy over the Cordoba Mosque, which celebrates both the Muslim conquest of Spain and of… Manhattan, manufactured by oligarchs like Michael Bloomberg (who has backed both the Cordoba Mosque in Manhattan and the burning of Qurans in Florida), the oligarch-controlled mass media gives us Pres. Obama honoring the service of Muslims in American uniforms fighting in Afghanistan: He pointedly honors no one else. (No wonder some Pakistanis are demanding he reveal himself to be a Muslim and declare the World Caliphate.)

Of course, the European-American Christian majority has no right to oppose the building of the Cordoba Mosque, has no right to defend its borders, has no rights to control its neighborhoods, its schools, or its cities; it simply has no rights at all.

There is a very real Clash of Civilizations going on, despite the hopeful Alliance of Civilizations advanced by Spain and Turkey, and Russia and Iran, and shunned by the United States and Israel. The Clash of Civilizations is not just between Christians and Muslims, since the war in Iraq was an Israeli war, fought for Israel by American mercenary armies (in the tradition of the Middle East): With Jewish militants shouting about the rise of Jewish Civilization on the ruins of Christian and Muslim civilizations it seems as if people would realize that at least three civilizations are involved: Christian, Muslim and (still inchoate) Jewish. Of course, in Huntington’s terms (and I do not fully agree with all of his parsing of the world), certainly Iran’s Shiite civilization (which Jews seek to destroy) and India’s Hindu civilization are involved in this Clash…. but the inchoate Tamil civilization has just been defeated and will not rise again for at least a generation.

In Seattle, a Christian priest who works in a foolish interfaith effort with a Jew and a Muslim made a true observation: He said that Islam may not be a religion of peace, but it is no more violent than Christianity or Judaism. This is basically true, since no successful religion refuses to defend itself. But his comment certainly doesn’t apply to contemporary Christianity. For generations Christians have unilaterally disarmed. In the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and western Europe this has coincided with the rise of an intolerant (the term is “zero tolerance”) oligarchic, substantially Jewish ruling class and a class of political syncophants who obey them. That’s why 70% plus of Americans oppose illegal immigration while the Attorney General, in one federal lawsuit after another, is outlawing anything that creates obstacles for the invasion of illegal aliens.

Any democracy in which supermajorities are routinely ignored is no longer a democracy: It is an Oligarchy. The Oligarchs have ruled the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and western Europe for generations to centuries and their control of the mass media ensures that no one even knows their name.

There are several clear indications of the powerlessness of Christian supermajorities in all of our homelands. (The only exceptions are certain states of the former Soviet Union; others, like Georgia, have simply become colonies of Israel.)

  • The failure to rebuild the only place of worship destroyed on 9/11: an Orthodox Church;
  • Oligarch Bloomberg setting Christians and Muslims at each other’s throats by backing both the Cordoba Mosque in New York and the Quran burning in Florida (echoing George Soros’ support for Bosnia and Kosovo, aimed at making conflict between Christians and Muslims in Europe permanent);
  • The burning of Bibles by the US Army to please Muslims in Afghanistan (see Military Burns Unsolicited Bibles Sent to Afghanistan);
  • Routine Bible burning in Israel which has been going on for decades but is ignored in the Christian world because of Zionist influence on the media (see below: Bibliography of Bible Burning in Israel). Neo-cons never mention Israelis burning Bibles, but focus on episodes of Bible burning by Muslims (see below: Muslim Burn Bibles Routinely and Often).

9/11 is an appropriate kind of “Holy Day” for the European-Christian people who built America because the fall of the two towers is a major defeat. Ten years later they remain confused and manipulated, stumbling towards mass graves, through a cloud of smoke from the burning of Bibles by Muslims and Jews. In a brutal three way war, they are leaderless and disarmed. A people whose monuments celebrate only their victories are a childish people.

Like Southern Whites whose history began again with defeat, European-Americans are destined to know defeat. 9/11 has not resulted in most European-Americans realizing the nature of the game that is afoot, and their lack of awareness will allow their rulers to inflict new defeats on them. The defeats will come until we as a people are able to stand up and explicitly advance our own interests: Smashing a country like Iraq as ordered by Israel is no victory for us. It is simply a measure of our slavery.

Burning Qurans in Gainesville, Florida does not help the cause of European Christians.  (I noticed on CBS News today that the sign for the Dove World Outreach Center was smashed by terrorists last night, but no one is concerned by terrorist attacks on Christians.) However, building the Cordoba Mosque at Ground Zero is a lot like the mass colonization of the United States by Somali illegal aliens after the military defeat of the United States by Al-Itihadd Al-Islamiyah in Somalia (the precursor of today’s Al-Shabaab). It is planting the flag of Somali conquest in our cities and of the Arabs at the site of the great Muslim victory in Manhattan.

And we are powerless to do anything to oppose it, so far, even as a multitude of Muslims in the United States seemingly spending every waking hour seeking an excuse to scream: Racist! Islamophobe!

I have often said that the War on Terrorism has two parts: The fun part, where the United States has infinite Chinese money to do anything it wants to do with impunity—smash their cities, slaughter their wedding parties, machine-gun their children, even as Affirmative Action Sub-Prime Mortgages gave millions of houses to minorities and illegal aliens.

And then there is the unfun part, when we lose interest in the war, have no more Chinese money to fight it, are paying $500 million in interest a day to China, and the Muslims begin the same kind of conquest the Somalis have waged against our cities and communities for 15 years.  (Here in Seattle, the Mayor is planning to lay off city workers to meet increased welfare demands by the myriad Somali illegal aliens living free in vast new blocks of public housing.)

My Spanish ancestors fought for 700 years to free Spain of Muslim (and Jewish) rule. In that struggle, the first great Holocaust in history, the mass murder of Mozarabs (Spanish Catholics culturally assimilated by Islam) in Spain was undertaken by Muslims: One third of the Spanish nation was exterminated. (In the last thousand years, only the Qing extermination of the Dzhugarians was more complete.) The reconquest of Spain for Christendom secured it for half a millennium, a period of security that has ended with the collapse of Christendom and the triumph of the ideology of Cultural Marxism known as Multiculturalism, everywhere in the West.

Time is running out for European-Americans, even as their Afrikaner kin in Black South Africa are starving to death in virtual concentration camps in South Africa.

So 9/11, with its planned Israel victory monument at Ground Zero, and the Cordoba Mosque, both to celebrate their respective victories over European-America, are just symbols for a defeated people. The real question is whether European-Americans even want to have a future—even when the alternative offered to European-Americans by the Cultural Marxists is slavery.  Slavery, even with drugs, video games and cable television, will not live up to the hopes of  the many degenerate people craving it. Voluntary Extinction, as advocated by Asian-American terrorist James Lee who attacked the Discovery Channel a few days ago, does not have to be our fate.

Our future lies in what made our ancestors great. Live your life as if you believe in the future and bring your family and friends with you. We only have to be willing to fight for the future of our children.

Bibliography

Acharya S. Orthodox Jews a Classy Lot – NOT! Free Thought Nation (www.freedthoughtnation.com), November 28, 2009.

AmiOrtiz.com [An amazing website on Ami Ortiz, the son of a Messianic Jewish minister; Ami was targeted in a Jewish terrorist bombing. The website deals with the incessant Jewish terrorist attacks and Bible burnings targeting Messianic Jews in Israel.]

Answers Yahoo. Why Are They Burning the Bible in Israel? Answers Yahoo (www.answers.yahoo.com), N.D. [August 2008].

Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Press Release: ADL Condemns Bible Burning in Or Yehuda. New York: Anti-Defamation League (ADL) (www.adl.org), May 22, 2008.

Atzmon, Gilad. The Complete Guide to Killing Non-Jews. Information Clearing House (www.informationclearinghouse.info), November 18, 2009.

Bannoura, Saed. Chief Rabbinate In Israel Demands Not Displaying Christian Symbols; As The Christian World Celebrates Christmas, And As Christians In Palestine And In Israel Celebrate The Birth Of Jesus Christ In Bethlehem, The Chief Rabbinate In Israel Recommended That Hotels And Restaurants In The Country Should Refrain From Displaying Christian Symbols. Palestine: IMEMC News (International Middle East Media Center) (www.imemc.org), December 25, 2009.

—–. Messianic Jews In Israel Demand Inquiry Into Burning Of Bibles By Orthodox Jews; After A Massive ‘Bible Burning’ By The Deputy Mayor And Orthodox Jewish Students In The Town Of Or Yehuda, In Israel, A Group Of Messianic Jews, Have Called For An Inquiry Into The Incident. Palestine: IMEMC News (International Middle East Media Center) (www.imemc.org), May 25, 2008.

BBC News. Israel Hit By Bible Burning Row; Proselytizing To Ethiopian Jews Is An Historically Sensitive Issue. London: BBC News, May 21, 2008.

Bixler, Mark. Hundreds Of New Testaments Torched In Israel; Israeli Police To Probe Recent Burning Of New Testaments In Or-Yehuda; Deputy Mayor Admits Collecting ‘Messianic Propaganda,’ But Did Not Support Burning; Anti-Defamation League, Other Groups Criticize Burning. CNN News (www.cnn.com), May 28, 2008.

Book Of Mormon Found Burning Outside Littleton Church. Rocky Mountain News, November 13, 2008.

Bos, Stefan J. Outrage Over US Military Bible Burnings In Afghanistan. Worthy Christian News (www.worthynews.com), May 22, 2009.

Chayas. The Seven Point Plan To Eliminate Christian Missionary Activity An Ancient Solution? Israel: Chayas (ww.chayas.com), N.D. [2010].

Cline, Austin. Religious Extremists Burn Bibles in Middle East. Atheism.about.com, June 4, 2008. [Jewish atheist]

CWN.org. Bible Burning Targeted at Messianic Jews. CWN.org, June 2008.

Derek4Messiah. Ultra-Orthodox Jews Burning New Testaments in Israel. Derek4Messiah.wordpress.com, May 21, 2008.

El-Sherif, Heba. Christian Supremacists Promote Quran-Burning on 9/11. Daily News Egypt (www.thedailynewsegypt.com), July 21, 2010.

Ezzedeen Al-Qassem Brigade. Orthodox Jews Set Fire To Hundreds Of Copies Of The New Testament In The Latest Act Of Violence Against Christian Missionaries In The Holy Land. Al-Qassem English Forum; Ezzedeen Al-Qassem Brigade (www.almoltaqa.ps), May 20, 2008.

Fox News. Orthodox Jews Burn New Testaments Given by Christian Missionaries in Israel. Fox News (www.foxnews.com), May 20, 2008.

Gad, Emad. Editorial: Bible Thumping To Bible Burning; Israel’s Religious Right May Not Mind The Zealous Support Of The Religious Right In America. They Certainly Have No Liking For Their Religion, However. Emad Gad Surfs The Israeli Web. Al-Ahram, August 5, 2008.

Gee, Robert W. Missionaries Draw Fire In Israel; Burning Of 200 New Testament Bibles Underscores Growing Tensions In The Jewish State Between The Mainstream Religion And Christian Zionists. Austin Statesman, June 15, 2008.

Glenn, Mark. Book Burnings in the Holy Land are Considered ‘Kosher’ Provided the Books are Christian. Peoples Voice (www.thepeoplesvoice,org), June 7, 2008.

Government of Israel. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel). Press Release: Foreign Ministry condemns burning of New Testament in Or Yehuda. Jerusalem, May 29, 2008.

Government of United States. Federal Government. Department of State. 2008 Human Rights Report: 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Israel and the Occupied Territories. District of Columbia: Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (www.state.gov), February 25, 2009.

Irish Nationalism. Orthodox Jewish Youths Burn New Testaments in Or Yehuda. Irish Nationalism (www.irish-nationalism.net), May 24, 2008.

Jewish Israel. Halacha Discussion: Is It Permissible to Burn Missionary Bibles? Jewish Israel (www.jewishisrael.ning.com), December 31, 2008.

Koren, Yehuda; Shahak, Israel [trans.]. Burning the New Testament by Orthodox Jews in Israel. [Reprinted: Radio Islam (www.radioislam.org)] Yediot Ahronot, March 30, 1997.

Lieberman, Mark. Book Patrol: A Haven for Book Culture: Violence Against Books: Is There an Acceptable Form? Seattle, Wash.: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (www.blog.seattlepi.com), May 30, 2008.

One Jerusalem. ‘Where They Burn Books, They Will Ultimately Also Burn People’. One Jerusalem (www.onejerusalem.com), June 2008.

Pike, Ted, Rev. Israel: A History of Hate Crimes. National Prayer Network, May 27, 2010.

—–. United States Government, Talmud Mock New Testament. National Prayer Network, April 17, 2008.

Press TV. Iran Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro Urges Jews To Burn Controversial Book. Tehran: Press TV (www.presstv.ir), November 17, 2009.

Rosh Pina Project: (www.roshpinaproject.wordpress.com)

Rosh Pina Project. Love is a Burning Thing. Rosh Pina Project January 5, 2010.

—–. Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak Oversees Burning of a New Testament. December 4, 2009.

—–. Shiloh Musings: Rabbi Shlomo Riskin is a Bible-Burner. December 31, 2009.

Sero, Zev. Bookburning. [Burning Bibles] Mail.Jewish (www.ottmall.com), April 10, 2000.

Shahak, Israel [trans.].

Stricherz, Mark. Jews Burned Books. Interested? Tough. Get Religion (www.getreligion.org), May 27, 2008. [Jewish support for burning Bibles]

Taylor, Penina. Harrassed By Christian Missionaries, Israelis Take Out The Trash. [Bible burning in Israel] Israel Insider (www.israelinsider.com), May 21, 2008.

True Torah Jews. Ultra-Zionist Settler Rabbi Publishes Controversial Book. Jews Against Zionism (www.jewsagainstzionism.com), December 20, 2009.

Truth Hugger. Violent Clash of Dogma In Israel – Messianic Jews Targeted. Truth Hugger (www.truthhugger.com), June 8, 2008.

Wikipedia. Bookburning: Burning of New Testaments By Orthodox Jews in Israel (1984). Wikipedia, August 27, 2010.

—–. Bookburning: New Testaments in City of Or Yehuda, Israel. Wikipedia, August 27, 2010.

—–. Religion in Israel: Anti-Christian Discrimination. August 27, 2010.