More on Dual Loyalty — Dr. Lani Kass and Gen. Norton Schwartz

/28 Comments/in , , , /by

Dual loyalty issues have once again arisen, this time in conjunction with Philip Giraldi’s astonishing essay on antiwar.com. Giraldi discusses the curious career of Dr. Lani Kass — formerly a senior military officer in the Israeli Defense Force, and now the  senior Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force General Norton A. Schwartz. “Kass appears to have close and continuing ties to her country of birth, frequently spicing her public statements with comments about life in Israel while parroting simplistic views of the nature of the Islamic threat that might have been scripted in Tel Aviv’s Foreign Ministry.”

Giraldi notes that her appointment raises a host of issues, including the possibility that she is an Israeli spy and exactly how she managed to get security clearance. Given that the official policy of the Israeli government is to advocate a war with Iran, it is more than interesting that she has an important influence on US policy and that she is involved in Project CHECKMATE responsible for drawing up war plans. She is quoted as having what Giraldi characterizes as a “dismissive” comment on a possible war with Iran, and has the views on the Islamic threat usually associated with neocons.

The role of Kass in the Defense Department is at least as questionable as the role of Dennis Ross in the State Department. In fact, it would seem to be an even more clear-cut case because Kass was actually born and raised in Israel and rose to the rank of major in the IDF. Although she is a naturalized US citizen, she has doubtless retained her Israeli citizenship. It would more than a bit surprising if she did not retain an allegiance to Israel. And is there any evidence at all that she has allegiance to the US? When asked about possible war with Iran, she responded, “We can defeat Iran, but are Americans willing to pay the price?” — as if she is not an American.

By Stephen Walt’s criteria, therefore, Kass should not have any policy-making role on any issue that relates to Israel. A more difficult case is that of her boss, Gen. Norton Schwartz. Schwartz is also Jewish, although does not have the close ties to Jewish activist organizations like Ross or the strong connections to Israel like Kass. As reported in the Forward,

Schwartz’s Jewish identity did not go unnoticed after his appointment, particularly given the current military tensions with Iran. Press TV, an Iranian English language media outlet, wrote an article last week, titled “U.S. Names Jewish [sic — presumably an intentionally awkward translation] as Air Force Chief.”

There have long been rumors that Schwartz’s predecessor, Michael Moseley, was opposed to a military attack on Iran. The appointment of Schwartz has prompted speculation in the Iranian press and on some blogs that the Bush administration is yet again seriously considering the military option to thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Unlike the vast majority of Americans, the Iranians assume that Schwartz’s ethnic identity would make a difference, and I must agree that it should raise red flags. The vast majority of American Jews have a very strong emotional commitment to Israel that may bias their judgment even if they are not consciously aware of their biases.

As I noted elsewhere,

In my ideal world, Jonah Goldberg’s op-eds and Paul Wolfowitz’s advice to presidents and defense secretaries should be accompanied by a disclaimer: “You should be cautious in following my advice or even believing what I say about Israel. Deception and manipulation are very common tactics in ethnic conflict, so that my pose as an American patriot should be taken with a grain of salt. And even if I am entirely sincere in what I say, the fact is that I have a deep psychological and ethnic commitment to Israel and Judaism. Psychologists have shown that this sort of deep commitment is likely to bias my perceptions of any policy that could possibly affect Israel even though I am not aware of it.”

We would certainly like to know the details of Schwartz’s ties with Jewish organizations and activist groups, as well as any ties that he has with Israel. (For example, Paul Wolfowitz has family members living in Israel.) The fact that Schwartz has hired Kass as his senior Special Assistant suggests that the taboo against discussing Jewish loyalty issues is so strong that they feel free to be entirely public about it. (There might be some sensitivity, however, since the Pentagon has removed Kass’s biography from its website.)

Nevertheless, a war with Iran would be very costly for the US and may well have huge long term implications for the region and the world. Surely if the government wanted to project the image that US policy was not being shaped by people with a strong personal ethnic attachment to Israel (as clearly happened in the war with Iraq), they would remove people like Ross, Kass, and Schwartz from any role in making policy.

Bookmark and Share

Bishop Richard Williamson: Holocaust Denial and Jewish Influence on the Catholic Church

/1 Comment/in /by

Bishop Richard Williamson

On April 16th, 2010, Bishop Richard Williamson, is scheduled to go on trial in Regensburg, Germany for the hate crime of Holocaust denial. While Bishop Williamson had expressed doubts about the Holocaust since the late 1980’s it was not until November, 2008, during comments he made on a Swedish television interview that he was charged with the crime of Holocaust denial. Because he refused to pay the fine of $16,000 he has been ordered to stand trial. If he decides to go to Germany, he can be convicted for the crime of “Volksverhetzung,” (incitement of hatred for a people), as was Ernst Zündel.

Bishop Williamson is a member of the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist order founded in 1970 in protest to the liberalizing effects of Vatican II. The SSPX has sought to preserve the timeless beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church amidst the alterations to belief and ritual that were introduced in the middle of the last century by Vatican II.  The Society has 510 priests working in 31 countries, and 2 million members. Bishop Williamson, British born and Cambridge educated, is one of four bishops consecrated in 1988 by SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. He is an academic, fluent in French, German, and Spanish. Until he was appointed rector of the South American seminary in La Reja, Argentina, in 2003, he was rector of the North American seminary in Winona, Minnesota for many years. Because of his statements on the Holocaust, he has been relieved of his position and silenced by the Church.

If you are non-Jewish and are of European descent, then you are affiliated with the Catholic Church. No matter what your current beliefs, your family, at least for a thousand years, until the Reformation, was Catholic. The Catholic Church unified, and civilized your ancestors and permitted the art, science, economy, and morality of Europe to flourish.  In addition to protecting their souls, the Catholic Church defended your ancestors from non-European aliens:  from invading Moslems, and from Jewish influence on culture. In the U.S., Catholicism is still the largest single religious denomination with 70 million believers. In Western Europe the number is 211,466 million, 55% of the population. However, instead of guarding its members, as it did in the past, the Church has now joined their historic adversary.

In his book, Separation and its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Kevin MacDonald devotes considerable space(short version) to an analysis of the Catholic Church’s relationship with the Jews, beginning in Roman times and continuing to the National Socialist era. He shows that early anti-Semitism by the Church Fathers was a defensive response to Jewish economic domination and enslavement of non-Jews in the 4th century.

Catholic institutional anti-Semitism, he implies, grew out of both theology and ethnic conflict. The Church asserted as doctrine that by rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, the Jews had rejected God and had forfeited their status as God’s Chosen People. The official Church doctrine was that Jews should be tolerated in a subservient, powerless role because of their usefulness as testimony to the truth of Christianity.

By adopting this theology, the Church had erected a powerful theological rationale for protecting and civilizing the European peoples. The traditionalist view is that these definitive beliefs about Jews cannot be altered. They are forever part of Church dogma. It would therefore not be surprising to find that traditionalist Catholics like Bishop Williamson may have negative attitudes about Jews or about Jewish influence on the Catholic Church since World War II.

Wearing a dog collar and flanked by police, Bishop Williamson was escorted out of Heathrow Airport following his flight from Argentina in February, 2009.

The reason that the fundamental, dogmatic teachings of the Church did not change over time is because the Catholic Church believed them to be Divine Revelation. However, directives and writings of the Council of Vatican II (1962–65) often contradict the eternal teachings of the Church. Especially problematic are those publications re-defining the Church’s position toward the Jews.

Before Vatican II, the Catholic doctrine was that the Scriptures were infallible because they were dictated by the Holy Ghost  Beginning in the 19th Century,however, the interpretive method of “historicism” began to apply new criteria to the study of the sacred texts. In interpreting Scripture, historicism took into account archeology, the natural sciences, and contemporary social and psychological theories that proposed to explain the behavior of society and individuals.  One of the theologians who defended the relativistic method of istoricism at Vatican II was Josef Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC), an official part of the Congregation for the Faith in the Vatican, published the book, The Hebrew People and its Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. The book succinctly describes the radical changes in the Church’s position toward the Jews during and after Vatican II.  Cardinal Ratzinger was the president of the PBC. Everything in the book, therefore, was written under his personal direction. His Prefacerepresents an extra seal of endorsement and support.

Pope Benedict II under shadow of menorah at the Cologne Synagogue, Aug 18, 2005

The introduction to The Hebrew People and its Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible defends the idea that because of the imprisonment and death of so many Jews in the Nazi concentration camps in WW II, it is essential to re-examine the spiritual relations between Christians and Jews.  The book’s aim is to “advance the dialogue between Christians and Jews” by interpreting the Bible in a relativistic manner pleasing to Jewish sensibilities.

The result is a new conception for relations of the Church with the Jews. Actually, with respect to the Jews, a new perspective had already been suggested by the Austrian Catholic theologian, Johann Baptist Metz. (Incidentally, Father Metz was considered a “Catholic spokesman” for the Frankfurt School.) Not only did he assume the relativism and the deconstructive methods of the Frankfurt School, he also placed the Holocaust, using the synonym “Auschwitz,” into the center of history. According to Metz, Scripture required reinterpretation and revitalization after the Holocaust. This coincides with the thinking of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Benedict XVI receives a framed scroll for Israel chief rabbis on May, 12, 2009 at the center for the Jewish Heritage in Jerusalem

The Pontifical Biblical Commission denies both the Old and New Testament as sources of Revelation. “The change caused by the extermination of the Jews has stimulated all the Churches to completely re-think their relations with Judaism and, as a consequence, to reconsider their interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. Some have asked themselves whether Christians should repent for their appropriation of the Hebrew Bible and a (Christian) interpretation that no Jew could accept. Should Christians, then, read the Bible with the Hebrews in order to respect its Jewish origin?” (pp 54-5) Should the events of World War II change the bi-millennial interpretation of the Church about Revelation? One would think that what was true before the catastrophe would remain true afterward.  But the answer of the PBC is implicitly in the affirmative: Jews are to be the final authority in Biblical interpretation.

Not only do the authors of, The Hebrew People and its Holy Scriptures In The Christian Church, give Jews the final authority on Biblical interpretation, they make a number of assertions totally at odds with traditional Catholic teaching. They allege that the present-day Jewish religion is the true heir of the divine promise of the Old Testament. For example, the Pontifical Biblical Commission states, “Far from replacing Israel, the [Catholic] Church remains in solidarity with it.” (p. 152).

The Catholic Church has always taught that according to Revelation, the Old Covenant was revoked with the coming of Christ, and that the true heir of the Old Covenant is the Catholic Church.

Elio Toaff, chief Rabbi of Rome, welcoming Pope John Paul II to a service at the Roman Synagogue, 1986

In advancing this thesis, the PBC does not distinguish between what is religion and what is race in Judaism. Instead it tries to make the Hebrew people, in the racial sense, coincide with the elect people, in the religious sense. If the Old Covenant is still valid, then it is a small step to the conclusion that the Holocaust was a heinous crime against God’s Chosen.

In addition to corrupting the Catholic teaching about the Old and New Covenant, the PBC has perverted Catholic teaching regarding the crime of Deicide.  It is perennial Catholic teaching that the guilt and the penalty of certain crimes against God are, by their very nature, transferred to future generations — for example, Original Sin and the sin of the Tower if Babel. Such also was the sin of Deicide. The traditional teaching of the Church was that the guilt and the punishment demanded by justice for the murder of Jesus were assumed voluntarily by the Jews and were laid upon their future generations. This was the constant interpretation of the Catholic Church until Vatican Council II.

The PBC, however, offers an opinion which is the very opposite of this Catholic teaching. That is, it alleges that the Gospels were not written objectively and cannot be considered a part of Divine Revelation. Accordingly there was no crime of Deicide, no such crime was committed by the Jews as a people, and the guilt and punishment of that crime did not fall upon the future generations of the Jews. So keen are they to seek the pardon and approval of Jews that relativist Catholic theologians seem ready to accept the notion of Deicide not by, but of the Jews.  The religion of the Holocaust is spreading from the Synagogue to the Cathedral.  And Holocaust denial is its gravest sin.

John Paul II at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, March, 2000

The reflections and actions of John Paul II and Benedict XVI concerning the Jews are condemned by the binding words of the Third Ecumenical Lateran Council, (1179), which pronounced an anathema on those who, preferring the Jews to the Christians, would receive the testimony of Jews against Christians and not that of Christians against Jews.

Speaking about Bishop Richard Williamson, His Holiness, Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Pope Benedict XVI stated in U.S. News and World Report, February 12, 2009:

“The hatred and contempt for men, women and children that was manifested in the Shoah was a crime against God and against humanity,” Benedict told the visiting leaders, using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust. “This should be clear to everyone, especially to those standing in the tradition of the Holy Scriptures.”

“It is beyond question that any denial or minimization of this terrible crime is intolerable and altogether unacceptable,” he said during the meeting in the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace.

Jewish leaders applauded his comments, saying the crisis with the church that had been sparked by Bishop Richard Williamson’s comments was over.

Abraham Foxman, a Holocaust survivor and the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the Vatican should excommunicate Williamson again because of his remarks.

Further reading:

By Atila Sinke Guimaraes:

In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, 1997

Animus Delendi I, 2000

Animus Delendi, II, 2002

Will He Find the Faith, 2007?

The Biblical Commission on the Jews: Changes in Doctrine and the New Anathema, 2003

By Bro. Michael Dimond and Bro. Peter Dimond:

The Truth about What Really Happened to the Catholic Church after Vatican II, undated)

Trudie Pert is a pen name.  Email her.

The Monstrous Winston Churchill

/159 Comments/in , /by

In his book Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, Pat Buchanan places particular emphasis on the role of Winston Churchill for his role in promoting both World War I and World War II.  Buchanan is scathing in his criticism of Churchill, correctly pointing his bellicosity, his vanity, and his desire for personal power. There are also strong hints of his corruption as a result of being rescued by wealthy Jews from near bankruptcy after the stock market crash of 1929.

Buchanan carries on this theme in a recent column on the Katyn executions, Pat Buchanan once again comments on Winston Churchill’s treachery.

When Polish patriots, whose sons had flown with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, went to … Churchill to demand that he get answers from Stalin about the atrocity, he brushed them off.

“There is no sense prowling around the three-year-old graves of Smolensk,” said the Great Man.

At Stalin’s request, Churchill bullied the Poles into acceding to Soviet annexation of all the Polish land Stalin had been awarded for signing his pact with Hitler.

Michael Colhaze’s current TOO article, To Be a German, Part II, credits Buchanan with shedding light on the truly horrifying spectacle of Churchill. Ever the artist, Colhaze expresses it beautifully:

[It boils down] to one single, terrible truth, namely that this man and his paymasters were the instigators not only of the death of Britain’s and America’s finest young men, but also of the greatest carnage, the worst fratricide committed in Mankind’s entire history. It is really here, in the inordinate hate for Germany as the old heartland of our incomparable Christian-European civilisation, that the roots can be found for the ever intensifying assault on the White Man’s right to exist.

I wonder sometimes how this man must have felt during the twilight years of his life. Terrible, most likely. Fiddling with some pitiful canvas utterly devoid of human warmth, let alone artistic gratification. Abandoned by his old paymasters because that’s what they inevitably do once you’ve lost your expediency. Deserted by his political cronies who knew damn well what mess he had landed them in. Prowling the casinos of Monte Carlo where a greasy Onassis dropped an occasional chip into his pocket since he had blown his pension already at the tables. Bored to death by all the glorifications and laurels and distinctions which honoured, as he himself knew perfectly well, only the one great lie that was his life.

Churchill’s philosemitism is legendary. This review of three books on Churchill’s relations with Jews indicates that indeed, he was “among the greatest friends the Jewish people have had.” The record shows that Churchill repeatedly stood up for Jewish interests throughout his entire very long career in politics — often in opposition to those around him. Churchill’s family was philo-Semitic and socialized with Jews; he received expensive gifts as a young man from Jewish friends of his father. In Parliament, Churchill was an eloquent spokesman for Jewish immigration, and later he had a long career in support of Zionism.

He left a long record of activism for Jewish causes and was rarely deterred from these, even when he found himself in a distinct minority. When overruled by his own Cabinet, he often sought ways around the problem to help Jews and Zionism. The personal and official papers consulted in these studies confirm the picture of a man who rejected anti-Semitism in public and private, something that can be said of very few of his colleagues.

Churchill may have been the greatest friend the Jews ever had. But he certainly was not a friend for his own people.

Bookmark and Share

Thank You Sir, May I Have Another?

/33 Comments/in , /by

Another White male — the list is endless — has been fired for poltically incorrect speech.  Allen Zaruba, an adjunct art professor at Towson University in Maryland, quickly dropped to his knees to beg for forgiveness, and even welcomed his own firing.

It’s not even clear from the story what, exactly, Zaruba said, reminding me of Sam Francis’ writing in Race and the American Prospect that racial issues today are what sexual issues were during the Victorian age.  You might well have seen “Governess Fired for Mentioning Unmentionables” in the English press a century ago.

“I will never use that term again,” Zaruba told the Baltimore Sun. “It is absolutely transgressive.”  Transgressive?  Is that the opposite of Barack Obama’s “transformative”?

But was there a spark of resistance in his mind?  The story ended this way:  “Despite taking responsibility for his error, Zaruba said his firing
raises troubling questions about the power of political correctness in modern society.  Are we in for another state of McCarthyism?’ he said. ‘We have to have compassion and realize that people are not perfect.'”

The problem, Allen, is that there is no “compassion” for Whites.  You — and so many like you — are under the impression that non-Whites, once in power, will extend compassion to Whites.  Let me correct this misimpression:  they won’t.

Liberal Whites like Amy Biehl assume that their halos will distinguish them in the eyes of Blacks from “bad” characters like Eugene Terreblanche, but they won’t.  They don’t care if you’re a full-fledged Klansman in Alabama or a hippie-dippie art teacher in Maryland.  If you’re White, you’re going under the multicultural steamroller.

That is racial reality, and more whites need to check into it.

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

Bookmark and Share

Robert Satloff and the Jewish Culture of Deceit

/32 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Stephen Walt had the audacity to suggest, given Dennis Ross’s close ties to WINEP, that Ross should not have a policy-making position on Middle East issues in the Obama Administration. Neocon Robert Satloff responded with outrage, claiming that Ross has been doing nothing but promoting “U.S. interests in peace and security for the past quarter-century.” And he disingenuously asks, “To which country do we allegedly have a ‘strong attachment’?  Our foreign-born scholars hail from virtually every country in the Middle East — Turkey, Iran, Israel, and at least a dozen different Arab countries.”

The best response is by MJ Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, an organization that advocates a two-state solution to the conflict:

Steve Rosen [who was acquited on charges of spying for Israel in 2009] … cleverly came up with the idea for an AIPAC controlled think-tank that would put forth the AIPAC line but in a way that would disguise its connections.

There was no question that WINEP was to be AIPAC’s cutout. It was funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC employees, and located one door away, down the hall, from AIPAC Headquarters (no more. It has its own digs). It would also hire all kinds of people not identified with Israel as a cover and would encourage them to write whatever they liked on matters not related to Israel. “Say what you want on Morocco, kid.” But on Israel, never deviate more than a degree or two.

In other words, Satloff’s claims that WINEP is not tied to any particular lobby or country are part of an ongoing subterfuge that fools no one except the mainstream media: “It matters because the media has totally fallen for this sleight of hand and WINEP spokespersons appear (especially on PBS) as if WINEP was not part of the Israel lobby. Some truth-in-labeling is warranted.”

This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas. Because they are a small minority in the US and other Western societies, Jews must recruit support from the wider community. Their positions cannot be phrased as benefiting Jews, but as benefiting the interests of the society as a whole. As a result, these movements cannot tell their name.

A great example is the $PLC, an organization that we now know is funded by Jews and, apart from the sociopathic Morris Dees, is also largely staffed by Jews. Yet whenever there is a story about “immigrant rights” or angry White people, the SPLC is called on by the mainstream media as a “respected civil rights organization” rather than for what it is: A Jewish activist organization actively attempting to further the ethnic  interests of Jews, typically at the expense of White Americans.

This sort of subterfuge was true of all the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique. As I noted in Ch. 6:

It is thus not surprising that although these theories were directed at achieving specific Jewish interests in the manipulation of culture, they “could not tell their name”; that is, they were forced to minimize any overt indication that Jewish group identity or that Jewish group interests were involved …. Because of the need for invisibility, the theories and movements discussed here were forced to deemphasize Judaism as a social category—a form of crypsis discussed extensively in SAID (Ch. 6) as a common Jewish technique in combating anti-Semitism. In the case of the Frankfurt School, “What strikes the current observer is the intensity with which many of the Institute’s members denied, and in some cases still deny, any meaning at all to their Jewish identities” (Jay 1973, 32). The originators and practitioners of these theories attempted to conceal their Jewish identities, as in the case of Freud, and to engage in massive self-deception, as appears to have been common among many Jewish political radicals. Recall the Jewish radicals who believed in their own invisibility as Jews while nevertheless appearing as the quintessential ethnics to outside observers and at the same time taking steps to ensure that [non-Jews] would have highly visible positions in the movement (pp. 91–93). The technique of having non-Jews] as highly visible exemplars of Jewish-dominated movements has been commonly used by Jewish groups attempting to appeal to gentiles on a wide range of Jewish issues (SAID, Ch. 6) and is apparent in the discussion of Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy. …  [Chap. 7]: Beginning in the late nineteenth century, anti-restrictionist arguments [on immigration]  developed by Jews were typically couched in terms of universalist humanitarian ideals; as part of this universalizing effort, [non-Jews] from old-line Protestant families were recruited to act as window dressing for their efforts, and Jewish groups such as the AJCommittee funded pro-immigration groups composed of non-Jews (Neuringer 1971, 92).

It’s an old technique, arguably present (see also here)  from the origins of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. The sad thing is that people who should know better continue to be deceived.

Bookmark and Share

Hype for Elena Kagan—Round Two

/25 Comments/in , /by

The last time we went through the Supreme Court nomination process, there was a veritable groundswell of hyperbole for Elena Kagan — so much so that I couldn’t resist writing about it  here. The theme is ethnic networking. How else explain the fact that someone with a completely undistinguished scholarly record not only got tenure at the University of Chicago but was appointed dean of Harvard Law School?

She had exactly two publications in law review journals when she got tenure and has done very little since. A record like that would be a tough sell for tenure even in the nether regions of academia, never mind the most elite schools in the land. But now her lack of publications is seen by her supporters as an asset: She has no embarrassing paper trail on controversial issues.

Once again, the same people are hyping Kagan as absolutely brilliant. In a recent Huffington Post article (“Elena Kagan Emerging As Supreme Court Front-Runner“), Charles Fried says, “She is a supremely intelligent person, really one of the most intelligent people I have encountered, and I have met a lot of them, as one does in this business. She is very adroit politically. … She has quite a strong personality and a winning personality. I think she’s an effective, powerful person and a very, very intelligent person, and a very hardworking and serious person.” Presumably she can also walk on water.

Fried also praised Kagan effusively in the earlier round, along with Laurence Tribe, another Jewish Harvard Law professor. As I noted, “Kagan was appointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan covered for Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar’s book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal.

The religion/ethnicity issue rears its head only slightly: “There has been some superficial concern over Kagan’s religion — not because she’s Jewish but because without Stevens there will be no Protestants on the court.” And Kagan would be the first open homosexual on the court.  (Actually, it’s surprising we aren’t hearing more about this, given how controversial sexual orientation and issues like homosexual marriage are these days.)  But not to worry: “These are distractions not speed bumps, strategists predict, if Obama chooses to go with Kagan.”

No White Protestants on the Supreme Court in a country that in living memory thought of itself as WASP at its very core. But, with Kagan, there would be three Jews and no White Protestants. Who exactly are these “strategists” and what is the goal of their strategizing?

The really amazing thing is that Kagan is being framed as a conservative. But on the issues that really count — issues related to multiculturalism, executive power, and free speech, there is every reason to suppose that Kagan is on the left: Her record

strongly suggests that Kagan would be quite willing to fashion her legal arguments to attain her liberal/left policy goals, and that is exactly what her other writings show. Her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” (60 University of Chicago Law Review 873; available on Lexis/Nexis) indicates someone who is entirely on board with seeking ways to circumscribe free speech in the interests of multicultural virtue: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.”

She acknowledges that the Supreme Court is unlikely to alter its stance that speech based on viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment, but she sees that as subject to change with a different majority: The Supreme Court “will not in the foreseeable future” adopt the view that “all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution.” But in her view there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts.

It’s noteworthy that the organized Jewish community has a long record of opposing free speech related to multicultural issues not only in the US, but in a wide range of other countries. Kagan’s views fit well with the views of the organized Jewish community: Every effort should be made to restrict “hate speech” within the current legal context, but to do whatever possible to change the context so that such speech is outlawed.

Further, as the HuffPo article notes,  “the praise from conservatives may sound damning to those who worry that the court is … too willing to accommodate the radical expansion of executive power. Kagan has been criticized by civil libertarians for her expansive stance on detainee policy.”

The promotion of a strong executive branch and lack of concern for civil liberties is exactly the problem: The worst excesses of government power in the last century have come from the left. Knowing that Kagan advocates a powerful central government is hardly reassuring.

The picture that emerges is that of someone who would have no hesitation to expand the power of the federal government to end First Amendment freedoms and squelch any hope that a White racialist movement could achieve real power. Those ideas are entirely within the Jewish mainstream.

In summary, Kagan “sees her job as a legal scholar to find a way to ensure that these goals are achieved while paying lip service to the legal tradition of the First Amendment.” And in the long run, she would just love it if the First Amendment would be jettisoned entirely.

So the hype for Kagan is dishonest on two counts: First, there is no evidence whatever that she is brilliant; all the evidence is that she has achieved far more in the academic world and in government than she deserves  based on her actual performance. Second, she is inaccurately presented as a conservative. Her meager paper trail of academic writing  clearly indicates that she would be a staunch warrior on the side of the multicultural left on critical issues like free speech.

And despite all the hyperbole from “conservatives” like Charles Fried, I suspect the people who are promoting her are well aware of that fact.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Who's Worse: Anti-Whites, or Race-Denying Confederate Sympathizers?

/6 Comments/in , /by

Christopher Donovan: It’s a question in my mind.  It’s a well-established kabuki dance:  anti-whites call conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Confederate sympathizers “racists” who are hiding their true feelings.  The conservatives respond with indignation, insisting that “Southern heritage” and the free market are their real concerns.

In the New York Times this morning, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham denounces the Virginia governor’s declaration of Confederate heritage month.  It’s a typical yawner about how bad Whites are, and I’m sure someone will complain that “we’re not racists, we just want to honor the South” or some such.

There is a third position, however:  White advocacy.  It admits the anti-White critique that Confederate flags mask more direct racial concerns, but rejects the anti-White conclusion that the concerns aren’t legitimate.  Why can’t this position get a hearing in the New York Times?  Believe me, I’ve tried.  But the New York Times is like a thick, high gray wall, allowing only the perspectives that advance its anti-white agenda.  Its gatekeepers are always liberal and often Jewish, and they probably know full well that if an institution as grand and respected as itself lends credence to White advocacy, the universe as they’ve constructed it would start to crumble.

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

Bookmark and Share