Edmund Connelly: Moral Panics and Anarcho-Tyranny

/18 Comments/in , /by

Edmund Connelly: No sooner did I get my column on Selective Moral Panics in Higher Education done than a perfect new example popped up in front of me. CNN is now spawning yet another moral panic: 

Police in New Jersey arrested a teenager in connection with a public-address-system announcement telling “all Blacks” to leave a Wal-Mart store, a police spokesman said. The 16-year-old boy is from Atlantic County, New Jersey. 

I remember when such a thing was merely called a prank. Now the national media has gone into overdrive to cover it. Let’s think a little more about why that is.

Here again I turn to James Edwards and his crew from The Political Cesspool, specifically his co-host Keith Alexander. Mr. Alexander was unknown to me a year ago when I was invited to appear on The Political Cesspool to talk about my Hollywood writing. My interview went very well thanks to the professionalism of both James and Mr. Alexander. In fact, I was flattered to discover that Mr. Alexander was very familiar with my writing for The Occidental Quarterly.

Since then, I’ve learned to download the weekly show and have become even more enamored of the show, especially the first-hour banter between James and Mr. Alexander. First, to this Northerner, it is an eye-opener to discover what great manners these Southern gentlemen have. Further, their facility with the English language leaves me embarrassed. It is a superior form of communication.

Last week (March 13) we were treated to two hours of James and Mr. Alexander talking, and Mr. Alexander perfectly placed what was happening with these anti-White moral panics. First, they presented a list of cases where minorities were given exaggerated attention for alleged offences against them.

For instance, as was recounted on the radio show, a black man driving through Georgia is now suing Georgia police for $10 million because he was stopped and arrested. Never mind, as Mr. Alexander pointed out, that the arresting officer was also black. White racism is at fault.

Then there was the case where police posted a sketch of a black serial rapist. When a White man called in a sighting of the rape suspect, he was investigated for a hate crime.

Finally, we were treated to the story of three White Los Angeles school teachers charged with racism and suspended for allegedly mocking Black History Month by giving students pictures of Dennis Rodman, RuPaul and O.J. Simpson. The kicker is that all three African Americans were on a list approved by the school district for inclusion in Black History Month.

As James Edwards summed it up: 

Got that? Is that incredible, or what? In other words, these three teachers have been fired for following the approved curriculum. The school had actually approved these three, including a tranny and a double murderer, as appropriate subject matter for Black History Month, but when “white males” follow the curriculum, they’re suspended and are probably facing termination.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Alexander was able to draw a larger lesson from these stories. He explained during the second hour (go to the 25 min. 40 sec. mark) that these developments constitute what the late Sam Francis identified as “anarcho-tyranny.” Let’s allow Wikipedia to describe it for us:

Anarcho-tyranny

Samuel Francis argued that the problems of the managerial state extend to issues of crime and justice. In 1992, he introduced the word “anarcho-tyranny” into the paleocon vocabulary. He once defined it this way: “We refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”

In one of his last essays, he explained the concept:

What we have in this country today, then, is both anarchy (the failure of the state to enforce the laws) and, at the same time, tyranny—the enforcement of laws by the state for oppressive purposes; the criminalization of the law-abiding and innocent through exorbitant taxation, bureaucratic regulation, the invasion of privacy, and the engineering of social institutions, such as the family and local schools; the imposition of thought control through “sensitivity training” and multiculturalist curricula, “hate crime” laws, gun-control laws that punish or disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens but have no impact on violent criminals who get guns illegally, and a vast labyrinth of other measures. In a word, anarcho-tyranny.

Francis argues that this situation extends across the U.S. and Europe. While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy). He says that “laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny.

The laws that are enforced are either those that extend or entrench the power of the state and its allies and internal elites … or else they are the laws that directly punish those recalcitrant and “pathological” elements in society who insist on behaving according to traditional norms—people who do not like to pay taxes, wear seat belts, or deliver their children to the mind-bending therapists who run the public schools; or the people who own and keep firearms, display or even wear the Confederate flag, put up Christmas trees, spank their children, and quote the Constitution or the Bible—not to mention dissident political figures who actually run for office and try to do something about mass immigration by Third World populations.

I have mixed feelings about all of this. Was the hard fist and truncheon of Soviet control more deadly to our race, or is this American form of White dispossession actually more effective?  Personally, as I’ve written time and again, I think what we Americans have seen thus far heralds a move to the far deadlier tactics of Soviet tyranny.

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

Bookmark and Share

Review of Podhoretz, Part I

/15 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I have a rather longish review of Norman Podhoretz’s Why are Jews Liberals? posted at AlternativeRight.com. I thought I would post a summary here to encourage commentary. Part I is “Remaking the Right: Liberals, Jews, Conservatives” and deals with how Jews see their history in Europe — the lachrymose view of European history in which Jews have been the victims of irrational hostility ever since the origins of Christianity. The take home point is:  “It’s a very short jump from blaming the culture created and sustained by Europeans to the idea that Europeans as a people or group of peoples are the problem. Ultimately, this implicit sense that Europeans themselves are the problem is the crux of the issue.”

This then feeds into the Jews as a hostile elite theme that is so apparent today. What’s really scary is that the Jewish Republican branch of the hostile elite represents itself as conservative. A conservative elite hostile to the traditional people and culture of the US. Orwell would love it.

The other theme is how neocon Jews like Podhoretz displaced true conservatives from the Republican Party in the interests of aiding Israel. However, they have not shed any of their hostility toward Europeans and their culture. Indeed, they have been complicit in the movement for massive non-White immigration. As I note, “With conservatives like these, who needs liberals? ”

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Law School: White Advocates Might Just Apply

/11 Comments/in , /by

Christopher Donovan: The legal job market is awful.  Even when it’s not, the promise of fulfilling and plentiful $100K+ jobs is a lie.  Law school creates huge debts (often on top of college debt) that can’t be paid down easily by most lawyers, who sometimes earn less than the police officers they work with in criminal law or the accountants they work with in civil law.

By now — exacerbated by the economic slump — everyone’s on to this as you can see from this article in the Wall Street Journal.

On a personal note, I can vouch for all this.  I went to a modestly-ranked law school in New York City and graduated cum laude, but this was nowhere near enough to land an associate position at the likes of Sullivan & Cromwell — or even many lesser firms.  And it seems that no matter what you end up doing — transactional work at a big firm, insurance defense or Legal Aid — it’s going to be mind-numbing, repetitive, unglamorous work, with pay that’s better than journalism (my earlier career) but still not always so impressive.

But going to law school, for me, wasn’t all about the possibility of getting rich.  Part of my motivation was the anti-White discrimination I’d experienced in my life, and the dawning realization that Whites as a group were getting pretty unfair treatment.  Thus far, being a lawyer has paid some dividends, and I hope it pays more.  Even if you never take up the White cause as a lawyer, understanding the law gives one a great advantage in a society that’s become ripped apart by multiracialism and turns to lawyers for every little thing.  In simply blogging about the issues, I write from a stronger position than someone unfamiliar with the working of American law.

For college-age White advocates out there, consider law school.  Jews through the years have correctly recognized that the legal arena is a great place to advance your cause, and they have done so with undeniable success (and have caused undeniable harm to us).  Whites should take note.

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

Bookmark and Share

My Smackdown with Anti-White Crusader Tim Wise

/2 Comments/in , , /by

A TOO contributor recently brought to my attention to one of those hard Left, Jewish fanatics who wrap themselves in activist virtue as they roam the countryside in search of monsters to destroy.

The crusader’s name is Tim Wise. Tim Wise hates racists; but from what I discovered, only one kind of racist. The White kind.

To investigate, I decided to contact Timothy Jacob Wise and explore his sympathies and uncover his inconsistencies, which turned out to be extensive. First, here’s a bit about “Anti-White Privilege” activist Timothy Jacob Wise fromhis website:

Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S., and has been called, “One of the most brilliant, articulate and courageous critics of white privilege in the nation,” by best-selling author and professor Michael Eric Dyson, of Georgetown University. Wise has spoken in 48 states, and on over 400 college campuses, including Harvard, Stanford, and the Law Schools at Yale and Columbia, and has spoken to community groups around the nation.

Tim Wise has written at least four books on racism and “white privilege” and has perhaps appeared on as many talk shows as Joan Rivers. And he’s every bit as charming.

Wise claims to be an “anti-Zionist Jew” but he avoids the subject of Jewishness, of Israel and Palestine. And he definitely avoids the ethical shortcomings inherent in Zionism. One of Wise’s books is titled, White Like Me. Yes, Wise detests “white privilege” as well as “haters” like David Duke, and even televangelists like Pat Robertson. Wise’s list of hate objects constitutes a rather familiar pattern. Indeed, from what I could uncover, among Wise’s scores of articles on race, there was virtually nothing on America’s unconditional commitment to the Jewish people of Israel and their infamous assortment of racial extremists. I wanted to explore this.

I decided to contact Mr. Wise and initiate a conversation about his deep concerns over “white privilege”. Below is our unexpurgated correspondence. Mr. Wise finally stopped talking to me. To find out why, read on. The email messages remain as in the original, with minor editing and added links.

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 22, 2010]:

Dear Tim,

I’m bothered by racism in all its expressions. But history creates challenges for those of us who wish to counter injustice as well as advance equal treatment for everyone under the rule of law. Allow me to ask you then: are you Jewish? (Please forgive me for being so bold). 

This is an important question however. There is no Caucasian group in the US that operates with such privilege (and enjoys such political double-standard) as American Jews and, especially, the state of Israel. Indeed, if white racism is deplorable, isn’t Jewish racism? For all of us devoted to combating racism, the Zionist movement poses pressing moral dilemmas. This cannot be ignored. 

By any objective measure, Jews in America are very successful, influential and free to travel anywhere. This is good. But it can be argued that there is an underlying racial element to ‘global Jewry’. Many organized Jews groups denounce racism but work tirelessly to prevent Jews from marrying individuals without a Jewish mother. This is not only hard to justify, but it suggests an overriding Jewish concern with DNA (race). This raises difficult issues. 

Many Jews operate in countless (and exclusive) groups that are designed to enhance Jewish cohesion, solidarity and influence. But there’s clearly a downside to this. Not everyone’s in the club.  

American Jews, I’ve noticed, tend to support multi-culturalism (and high levels of immigration) here in the US as they champion Jewish purity in Israel/Palestine. Isn’t this double-standard a challenge to our anti-racist agenda? This level of Jewish privilege demands scrutiny. Public scrutiny. We cannot ignore it. 

Many Jews are proudly atheistic. (I’m something of an atheist myself.) But interestingly, these atheistic Jews are as Jewish as any rabbi. Why? It is their ethnic identity that makes them Jews. Religious ideology, it seems, is a sidelight to modern Jewishness. Indeed, racial identity is what motivates Israeli Jews (and their supporters here) to try to ethnically-cleanse Palestine. As an anti-racist, isn’t this hard to support? Should people in Palestine be penalized to the point of exile for not having a Jewish pedigree? This is a difficult issue. 

As you doubtless realize, Jews also have extraordinary influence in Hollywood and Washington. If political/cultural underrepresentation is problematic, why not political/cultural overrepresentation? After all, power is a zero-sum game. 

Today, many Jews in America have attained privileged status. At the highest levels, many organized Jewish groups seem willing to inflict damage upon numerous Mideast peoples in order to enhance security for their ethno-state in Israel. This campaign is hugely expensive to the US taxpayer and, at times, undermines our reputation abroad. Favoring one ‘religion’ over others is also incompatible with settled American law. What (if anything) should we do about this?  

There are exclusive Jewish fraternities, Jewish neighborhoods, Jewish country clubs, Jewish political action committees (by the score) and even a Congressional Jewish caucus in Washington DC. These organizations actively discriminate against non-Jews and, since Jewishness is a birthright among Jews, the question of racism inevitably arises. It cannot be ignored. 

Most Jewish Americans seem comfortable with Israel’s harsh treatment of native non-Jews in Palestine. What’s the proper course of action for America now? Today, we Americans of all races are taxed to subsidize the Zionist battle against non-Jews in Palestine. Is this compatible with fighting racism? On a related subject, should America invade Iran to make Israel safer? These are challenging questions. But I think that it’s time that you spoke out against the most virulent forms of Jewish racism, particularly since it’s so intimately connected to the imperial doings of Washington DC.  

If possible, please take the time to explore these concerns, Tim. I as well as many of your supporters will surely appreciate it. Thank you for your consideration.  Sincerely, Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 22]

I am an anti-Zionist jew and always have been. I have written about it and spoken out about it for years. If you did your homework you would know that. Although I do not think American Jews have nearly the power you think, I am certainly opposed to our special relationship with Israel. I think we should spend all military aid to Israel (and everywhere else for that matter), and that the proper solution in Palestine is a one-state, bi-national state, where all have equal rights, entirely.  tim wise

[Mark Green to Tim Wise on Feburary 24, 2010]:

Hi Tim. Thank you for your comments. I’ve done some reading by you and about you. Your anti-racist positions are indeed selective. I discovered little in your writings that critically explore Israeli racism. Nothing about ‘Jewish supremacism’. As far as I can tell, you’ve even managed to ignore the sorry condition of black Jews in Israel. Are you an Israeli mole? 

Perhaps you’ve described yourself as “anti-Zionist Jew” once or twice (though I missed it) but the sweep of your articles ignores Israeli violence and systemic Israeli racism altogether. Wikipedia has nothing to say about your being an “anti-Zionist Jew”. In fact, even your list of recommended books hasn’t one title devoted to the destruction of Palestine or the inordinate influence enjoyed by the Israel Lobby in Washington. Did you forget? 

Your obsession with “white privilege” is conveniently narrow. Is it the white privilege we find throughout our country at integrated, white-created institutions that hire and recruit African-Americans over more qualified white applicants because of their race? — or is this the kind of ‘white privilege’ that allows a nation of European Jews to colonize an already-populated area in the Middle East and then exile or subjugate the native people there because they lack a Jewish pedigree? Oddly, your writings obsess over the former and ignore the latter. Your sympathies lack moral balance.  

You say you want to suspend “military aid” to Israel. Big deal. The Israelis already have a nuclear arsenal and they’re threatening to use it. Doesn’t the threat of genocide concern you? Then say so. Or should thousands of Iranians die because their President doubts the Holocaust or intends to enrich uranium? 

Do you support the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement(BDS) against Israel? You did so aggressively in the case of Apartheid South Africa. If you do support these broad sanctions against the Zionist Israel, then why not say so loudly and endorse BDS?  

Your mining the same territory that Jewish liberals have been prospecting for the past 60 years: integration for blacks and whites, separate but equal for Israelis. This is a moral charade.  

The greatest racial violence and extremist danger today comes from Jewish zealots and their fundamentalist Christian allies. These people are threatening nuclear war against Iran and pushing our government towards continued aggression in Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Yeman, Lebanon, and Iraq. Meanwhile, the slow motion annihilation of Palestine grinds on. As one who claims to be committed to the struggle against racism, doesn’t this bother you? Then say something about it that’s loud and clear. And keep saying it. 

Desmond Tutu famously said conditions in Palestine are “far worse” than anything he witnessed in Apartheid South Africa. Do you not believe him? Why then are you so accommodating towards the ‘special relationship’ (besides private claims to the contrary)? Your writings evidence more contempt for pro-lifers in America’s Bible Belt than an Israeli garrison dropping white phosphorous on Palestinian civilians. Why? 

You are you frothy over a problem that is rapidly improving (race relations in the US) but indifferent to a crisis that is growing worse (Zionist extremism). This smacks of intellectual dishonesty, Tim.  

Since you’re keen on human rights, how is the Arab minority doing in Israel? Any hiring quotas that you know of? What about ‘the problem’ of discrimination in housing? Terrible, right? Are these not expressions of institutionalized racism?  

Here’s my theory: you’re obsession with (past) white (Christian) sins is a deliberate cover for ongoing, government-subsidized, worldwide Zionist criminality. The shoe fits, Tim. 

To cover up for your work as an Israeli asset, you occasionally make noises about “hard line” or “right wing” Israelis, but never about the whole stinking racist society there. 

Also, please explain how Israel can become “one state” but also be “bi-national”. Are you serious? A bi-national state is what many Apartheid-era white South Africans sought so they could avoid racial integration and black rule. Are you blowing smoke again for Jewish segregationists? Indeed, recent polling indicates that the vast majority of Israeli Jews want the Jewish State ethnically cleansed of all gentiles in the event of a ‘peace deal’. That whole country is chock full of racist, supremacist Jews, Tim. But it doesn’t seem to bother you. 

You are surely aware that Jews may not marry non-Jews in Israel. Why have you not explored this as an expression of systemic Israeli racism? Is DNA mixing a bad thing for the Jews? Many Israelis think so.

Finally, which past or present Israeli leaders should be held criminally responsible for the multitude of crimes committed by the Zionist state? Please name names.  

Those horrid white American racists that you make a living ranting about couldn’t get elected to deputy sheriff in Amarillo, but those privileged whites from Israel get a private meeting with our President. Which problem is more urgent, Tim? Moral and political corruption on a massive scale is subverting justice and damaging our civilization. And you’re looking the other way. -Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 23, 2010]:

Mark, You don’t get it. I am opposed to Zionism, entirely. I do not believe in a Jewish state, or any ethno-religious states.  

I spend my time focusing mostly on U.S. white racism because I am an American. I believe I can have the greatest influence where I live, and believe in cleaning up my backyard first. I receive white privilege in the U.S. as someone who is seen as white (whether you and your type believe Jews are white or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether we receive white advantage). I do not accept that as a Jew I have some special obligation to focus on Israel, per se, because I do not believe in Israel and have said so repeatedly. I would never live there, have no desire to go there, and even quit my own religious instruction as a youth because of my views re: Israel among other things.  

i agree with Tutu and have said so. 

I support the boycott and divestment from israel. 

When I say bi-national state, I merely mean that Jews should be able to live in palestine with Arabs (Christian and Muslim), with equal rights, but no special rights or privileges. 

I’m not sure what would satisfy you. Perhaps you think we should simply nuke Israel, or round up Jews and kill them, and only those who are willing to go along with such bigoted bullshit are legit in your view. Whatever. people like you who believe in worldwide Jewish conspiracies tend to be beyond reason, so I doubt there is much reason in discussing it with you further.  

I am critical of Jewish racism. You are not critical of traditional white racism. And therein lies the difference. You are the hypocrite my friend. Not me. 

Fuck you very much. Tim

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 24, 2010]:

Tim- No need for profanity or hatred. Your attack upon my character is a familiar canard. Stop changing the subject.  

Your written record is clear. Your public “criticisms” of Jewish racism are a basically non-existent. This is no accident. You have a forum but you’d rather denounce redneck hillbillies instead of billionaire Zionists. As for being an American, this didn’t prevent you from tirelessly pursuing sanctions against Apartheid South Africa, did it? It’s ‘white’ (Christian) racism that you detest. Nothing more. This is a familiar pattern among Jews. 

Israel is allowed to kill because US-based Jews such as yourself would prefer to blow smoke about less urgent issues. In case you haven’t noticed, racist Israel relies on American aid, American arms and American cover provide by Jewish activists like yourself to commit their everyday atrocities. Because of the highly effective efforts of Zionists, America and Israel are virtually one political entity. This arrangement damages America and undermines international law. Your deceptive behavior make you complicit, that’s all. -Mark Green

[Tim Wise to Mark Green, February 24, 2010]:

… and I support cutting off that assistance, just like I did with South Africa. But actually, one thing I learned while doing the S. Africa work was that it was inappropriate to focus only on injustice elsewhere when there is substantial racism and injustice here (this is documented in my books, by the way, whether you believe it or not). I did not make the connections to the local context that I needed to when I was a student in the antiapartheid movement, and I resolved not to ever again focus mostly on what was going on elsewhere, over what was going on here.

To the extent the US is complicit, I call that out and am on record as supporting a) an end of all support for Israel (military and economic), b) an end to Israel as a “Jewish state,” and a one-state, democratic solution for all, c) an end to the special relationship with Israel in the U.S. I’m not sure what more I’m supposed to do. fact is, I receive white privilege in the U.S. and feel that it is ethically necessary to take responsibility for that, first, because that is the system of injustice from which I most directly benefit. I do not receive Jewish privilege in this country (I would in Israel, but don’t have any desire to even visit, let alone live there). In this country, I have never been favored in anything because of my Jewishness, while, on the other hand, I was often marginalized as a Jew growing up, told by Christian assholes that I was going to hell etc.

So, because I believe our first responsibility is to address injustice from which we benefit, I think dealing with white racism/privilege in the U.S. has to be my priority. But that has not kept me from writing about Israel, openly proclaiming my anti-Zionist views at hundreds of speeches, and ending up on the shit list of every Zionist and pro-Israel group in the country as a result. You may not be familiar with my public stance, but Zionists are. I have had them attempt to get me fired from jobs, they have forced places to cancel my speeches, I get death threats from them on occasion, etc. So frankly, your own ignorance about my views says little about the reality: I have attacked Zionism. Not just the hard right in Israel, but Zionism. The fact that this upsets your simplistic worldview, which says that all Jews are Zionists and support Israel, is your problem, not mine… tim 

[Mark Green to Tim Wise, February 25, 2010]:

Hello Tim. I’ve got to give you credit, you’re a lot better on the Zionist problem than most of your co-ethnics. I am also sorry to hear that you were “marginalized as a Jew growing up…by Christian assholes”. This is unfortunate, and revealing. Unfortunately, you’ve still got a chip on your shoulder the size of Brooklyn.  

You are wrong to allege that I believe that “all Jews are Zionists and therefore support Israel” (though polling data proves that the vast majority of the world’s Jews are committed Zionists and do support Israel with little reservation). But I never floated this facile, straw man generalization about “all Jews” so kindly stop claiming so. 

I don’t know whether or not you actually believe that you have “never been favored in anything because of [your] Jewishness”, but allow me to inform you that, as an American Jew, you are supremely privileged in our society. Supremely.  

Just consider your occupation. You go around scolding white (overwhelmingly non-Jewish) Americans for their ethnocentrism in what’s become the most integrated, tolerant and multi-racial nation in human history. Racism (and expressions of racial preference) have become truly taboo for ordinary, white Americans. If white Americans were half as racist as you believe, they’d be following Israel’s example and enacting laws to manage their ethnic future. Only it’s not happening. US borders remain open as Israel builds a “security fence” bigger than the Berlin Wall. What’s worse, the very discussion of these perplexing double-standards is severely limited. 

For instance, do you think that a gentile with my views (highly critical of organized Jewry) would be allowed to promulgate these concerns on any major campus (without violent interruption) or on any major media outlet? It just doesn’t happen. It’s not allowed to.  

Do you think this level of censorship or these political double standards has taken root by accident? Authoritarianism and conformity of this kind protects activists like you, Tim. Your opponents are delegitimized and marginalized. These double-standards are in place by design. This is privilege. It is Jewish privilege. 

Each and every day, white Christians pay tribute to the nuclear-ready Zionist State via taxation and unwavering diplomatic and military assistance. These subsidies have been going on without interruption for generations. And no level of Israeli cruelty causes their cessation. Yet you make a living out of scolding these witless, hapless gentiles for their racist tendencies! You’re so Jewish you can’t even see straight. 

And while American pay tribute to Israel, fully 98% of American taxpayers would be denied citizenship in Israel because of their non-Jewish genealogy. This grotesque problem isn’t about “another country”, Tim. This is happening in Washington, in Palestine, and on your TV right here and now.  

Israel’s extraordinary exemption from everyday rules (and law) is an expression of Jewish privilege. This is doing genuine and irreversible damage to our nation and the world.  

Being Jewish in America today means never having to say you’re sorry (except to other Jews). It must be nice. And when criticizing Jews, we gentiles must be very, very careful, since the charge of ‘anti-Semitism can be ruinous. Jews suffer no similar opprobrium for any display of ‘anti-gentilism’. (Does such a thing even exist?) These double-standards are a cancer. In today’s multi-cultural America, there’s a galaxy of federations, alliances and organizations devoted strictly to ‘minority’ special interests. The vanishing white majority has been totally disarmed. This extraordinary double-standard represents the triumph of ‘political correctness, Tim, and it’s got Jewish fingerprints all over it. 

American Jews are blessed with top tier victim status today, in no small part due to the omnipresent Holocaust narrative. … In this universe, no other genocides matter. Perhaps no other genocide ever even happened. Today, the Holocaust parable symbolizes the eternal white (Christian) propensity for evil-doing (anti-Semitism) against a backdrop of Jewish exceptionalism and Jewish innocence. Those who doubt the veracity of any essential element (or meaning) of this Truth are to be shunned. In many democratic countries, repeated violators may suffer job loss or imprisonment.  

On the other hand, expressions of Jewish xenophobia — no matter how racist or extreme — suffer from no comparable sanction. Even Israel’s push for the annihilation of Iran achieves considerable US approval.

Jewish privilege is real and it is doing genuine harm. 

Thus ended our correspondence. I conclude with a quote from Wise’s website:

After all, acknowledging unfairness then calls decent people forth to correct those injustices. And since most persons are at their core, decent folks, the need to ignore evidence of injustice is powerful: To do otherwise would force whites to either push for change (which they would perceive as against their interests) or live consciously as hypocrites who speak of freedom and opportunity but perpetuate a system of inequality.

Who’s the hypocrite?

Mark Green is the editor of Persecution, Privilege and Power. He can be reached at: PersecutionPrivilegeAndPower.com

Frank Rich’s Triumphalism

/129 Comments/in , /by

Frank Rich, writing in the NYTimes, thinks the battle is over and his people won. (Not for the first time. See here.) The basic idea is that it’s a bit too late for all those middle and working class White folks all up in arms (some literally) and saying that they want to take back their country. Rich is happy to report that in 2008 Whites represented only 52% of the births, and by 2012 they will be a minority. And that means that the Republicans can decide to be an all-White minority party — “That’s their  right.” (Thanks!)  But, according to Rich, what they can’t do is encourage the “mass hysteria” among Whites who see themselves being dispossessed.

Rich presumably sees this as a moral imperative that is so obviously true there is no need to explain why White people have no right to be extremely angry about what is going on and to try to change things as they see fit.

According to Rich, Republicans have every right to be the party of the White folks as they peacefully head off into the political sunset. The main role for Republican elites should be to quell the rage and prevent things from getting out of hand. Republicans should strive to make their members into a new model minority that accepts their minority status and rejects any claim to having a right to hold onto the country as their ethnic possession as it was only a few short decades ago — until people like Rich, who dominate the most prestigious and powerful positions of our media, academic, and political culture, prevailed in their long campaign to displace the traditional people and culture of the US.

Sadly, I have no doubt that the Republican elites will do their best to comply with Rich’s marching orders. After all, they wouldn’t want to be called racists by people like Rich.

Rich:

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory [of White rage]. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

If Congressional Republicans want to maintain a politburo-like homogeneity in opposition to the Democrats, that’s their right. If they want to replay the petulant Gingrich government shutdown of 1995 by boycotting hearings and, as John McCain has vowed, refusing to cooperate on any legislation, that’s their right too (and a political gift to the Democrats). But they can’t emulate the 1995 G.O.P. by remaining silent as mass hysteria, some of it encompassing armed militias, runs amok in their own precincts. We know the end of that story. And they can’t pretend that we’re talking about “isolated incidents” or a “fringe” utterly divorced from the G.O.P. A Quinnipiac poll last week found that 74 percent of Tea Party members identify themselves as Republicans or Republican-leaning independents, while only 16 percent are aligned with Democrats.


Bookmark and Share

The Netanyahu-Obama Flap

/28 Comments/in , , , /by

Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the US, says that the US-Israel relationship is at its lowest ebb in 35 years. Well, maybe.  But the Israel Lobby is far from dead. Half of Congress turned out at the recent AIPAC convention in Washington, and there were  pledges of eternal support by Hilary Clinton, followed up by a host of politicians. In the conflict between the Obama administration and Netanyahu, the media was solidly lined up on the side of a foreign country.  Indeed, as Philip Giraldi notes, “The Washington Post led the charge, calling on ‘expert’ analysis of the situation from Elliot Abrams, Danielle Pletka, David Makovsky, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Curter, Martin Indyk, and Charles Krauthammer while excoriating the White House with its own lead editorials.”

Dominating the mainstream media definitely has its advantages.

Meanwhile, more than 3/4 of the House of Representatives signed on to a statement asserting “unbreakable bonds” between the US and Israel and ludicrously asserting that “A strong Israel is an asset to the national security of the United States and brings stability to the Middle East.”

We are reassured that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s commitment to put in place new procedures will ensure that such surprises [a municipal Jerusalem announcement on approval of another step towards the construction of 1,600 apartments in a post-1967 Jerusalem neighborhood during U.S. Vice President Biden’s recent visit to Israel], however unintended, will not recur.

In other words, the House is satisfied that Israel will not to make any surprise announcements that coincide with a visit of a US dignitary. But the House does not expect Israel to stop confiscating Palestinian land and building housing for Jews. Business as usual. Don’t ask. Don’t tell.

There is a long history in which Congress is far more susceptible to pressure from the Israel Lobby than the administration. Congress understands that opposition to the lobby means that their opponents will suddenly have a great deal of money donated by Jews who live outside their districts and they will have far less positive media coverage.

On the other hand, American presidents must at least make a show of promoting peace in the region, and that means putting up a credible facade to other countries. All American administrations since Carter have officially opposed the colonization of the West Bank, and this has at times led to well-publicized conflict. For example, in 1992 the first Bush administration attempted to withhold loan guarantees for Israeli housing. It backed down, with Bush famously saying “I’m one lonely little guy” up against “some powerful political forces” made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” Bush seems to believe that his defeat in the 1992 election stemmed from this action, and I can vividly remember the sudden shift in media coverage of Bush at the time. George W. Bush’s awareness of the power of the Israel Lobby from conversations with his father may well have been a primary force in making him the most pliable president  in history to the pleadings of the Israel Lobby.

The clincher from the House statement is: “Above all, we must remain focused on the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program to Middle East peace and stability.” And therein lies the rub for AIPAC. For all its influence on Congress, it will be much more difficult to get an angry Obama and his administration fully on board with the Israel Lobby’s project of destroying Iran. The reality of the Lobby’s power even in presidential politics, as indicated by what happened to George H. W. Bush,  is doubtless sobering to the Obama administration. But it’s one thing to effectively turn a blind eye to Israeli colonization and apartheid (as, in the end, all US administrations have done). It’s quite another ball of wax to get the US to lead the charge in a confrontation with Iran after 5000 deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and a $3 trillion price tag just for the war in Iraq. This in an era where the federal deficit is already through the roof. Doing the Israel Lobby’s bidding on Iran requires a great deal of pro-active effort in getting international cooperation in the teeth of Israeli intransigence on settlement issues and the spectacle of Israel as an expansionist apartheid state for all the world to see.

Indeed, in her speech to AIPAC Hilary Clinton pointedly noted that “We cannot escape the impact of mass communications” — perhaps a comment that the reality of Israel’s brutal program of expansion is a very hard sell to the rest of the world, especially in the age of the Internet when there is more and more leakage in Jewish control of the media in the US and elsewhere. The statement by General David Petraeus that Israeli policies oppose US vital interests in the Middle East is all over the Internet — much to the chagrin of the ADL.  Petraeus himself has done his best to limit the damage by disputing this account.

It’s the same for Joe Biden’s statement that Israeli policy is dangerous for the US. It’s also all over the Internet,  quoted, for example, by John Mearsheimer in his blog — despite denials by Biden that he ever said it. As Mearsheimer notes, “it is now commonplace to talk about the lobby in the mainstream media and almost everyone who pays serious attention to American foreign policy understands – thanks mainly to the internet – that the lobby is an especially powerful interest group.”

With information about Israel more available than ever, with the costs of doing Israel’s bidding ever more prohibitive, and with Israel getting ever uglier with the passage of time, the job ahead for the Israel Lobby is going to be increasingly difficult. And Israel can’t escape its ugliness. The slow motion ethnic cleansing and land grabbing, the apartheid, the vast open air prisons for 3.8 million Palestinians simply can’t be stopped by any force within Israeli society. And it certainly won’t be stopped by the Jewish Diaspora no matter how much hypocrisy that entails given its commitment to multiculturalism and its opposition to White ethnonational interests. The racialist and religiously fundamentalist right is firmly in charge in Israel, and all the Jewish demographics are on their side. The extremists, as always, will win the day. That forecasts a very bloody future in the Middle East and beyond. And here in the US, AIPAC and the ADL have a long, tough road ahead.

Bookmark and Share

Mark Potok and Terry Gross: Two Well-Funded Jewish Supremacists Discuss ‘Extremism’

/19 Comments/in , , /by

“Fresh Air”, the NPR program hosted by Terry Gross (see past criticism here), last week gave its platform to one of America’s foremost haters of whites, the SPLC’s Mark Potok.  (Listen to the show here.  Note that in the copious comments, not everyone’s a blind worshipper of the SPLC.)  Needless to say, Gross, a liberal Jewish woman, never once disagreed with Potok, or even asked a semi-skeptical question (Potok apparently had a Jewish father and leads a life perfectly consistent with Jewish aims).  The entire program was a love-fest between two powerful figures who act in mutually reinforcing ways:  The SPLC provides “news” for NPR to report, and NPR, by quoting the SPLC, confers upon it the status of “respected civil rights group.”

A hundred points could be made:  Gross and Potok ignore the evidence of violence and threats of violence from the left (including the cancellation of American Renaissance), they paint with a broad brush everything to the right of Mao as “extremism”, and of course never delve into whether any particular frustrations are justified.  Toweringly, the same reduction of a movement or people to nasty names is exactly what the SPLC is practicing itself.  If it’s “extreme” to say Obama is a “socialist”, isn’t it just as “extreme” to say that tea partiers are “racist”?  But any conservative might make such observations.

An equally important point is that Gross and Potok are strongly identified with secular Jewish lifestyles and political aims.  Both NPR and the SPLC are as important to Jews as the Temple Mount. When they both report for work in the morning, their desks are essentially cockpits of jet fighters that rain down hostile fire on Whites, and Jews are as happy to fund NPR and the SPLC as they are Birthright Israel.

Potok is right on one point:  the “rage on the right” is indeed largely driven by White frustration, something the “tea party” set won’t admit.  But here’s a suggestion for the tea partiers:  Frustration is in fact the source of your anger, and there’s nothing wrong with that anger.  You, as a White person, have every right to be angry about a Black president who wants a health care program that forces you to subsidize non-whites.  They’re going to call you a racist anyway — so you might as well be honest, right?

Bookmark and Share

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