Controlling Historical Memory

/22 Comments/in , , /by

Dovid Katz’s article in The Guardian “Halting Holocaust Obfuscation” is yet another example of Jewish intellectual activists with access to the media attempting to control historical memory in a way that highlights Jewish suffering and presents Jewish behavior as nothing more than innocent victimhood. Katz is determined to disallow any equivalence between the horrors inflicted on the populations of Eastern Europe by the Germans and by the Soviets. He condemns Polish MEP Michal Kaminski, linking to this article, for bringing up Jewish behavior in the Jedwabne incident in which Jews were murdered during the German occupation of Poland during WWII:

One of the participants in the 2001 meeting, Maria Mazurczyk, told us: “I think that Mr Kaminski, like us, wanted everything to be revealed: the times before the war when things were good – and the time of the Soviet occupation when the Jews didn’t respect their Polish neighbours – and later the effect of all this.”

At the time Kaminski condemned Poles who’d killed Jews – though he suggested the massacre was principally carried out by Germans. But it appears his principal concern was with alleged Jewish guilt. Anna Bikont of the liberal Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, who spent much time in Jedwabne in 2001 while researching a book, says: “Mr Kaminski came to the place where an incredible crime was committed – and he told not about the women, children, old people who died in this horrible manner, but he told about Jews who collaborated with Soviets and who killed Poles.”

Would a British politician who’d behaved in a similar way survive in the mainstream of British politics?

Probably not. But that’s only because mentioning Jewish behavior as contributing in even the slightest way to anti-Jewish attitudes is off limits, even if they collaborated with the Soviets against the Poles or against the Baltic peoples. The following is from a review of Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together (italicized quotes are translations of Solzhenitsyn):

“Everyone was listening intently to determine if the Germans were already on the way.”

In June and July of 1941 those living in the regions of eastern Poland occupied by the Red Army – Polish farmers, the bourgeoisie, the clergy, ex-soldiers, and intellectuals – all awaited the invasion of German troops. This quote is from the Polish Jewish historian J. Gross, author of the book Neighbors: The Murder of the Jews of Jedwabne.Solzhenitsyn explains why Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians, Ukrainians, Estonians, Belorussians, Bukowina-, and Moldava-Romanians could hardly wait for the Germans to invade.

Pursuant to his central thesis, Solzhenitsyn writes that without the high Jewish presence among the leaders and executioners of the Bolshevik dictatorship, Lenin’s newly born Soviet state would have been at an end, at the latest, by the time of the Kronstadt Sailors Rebellion in 1921. Solzhenitsyn examines specific decisive questions, as for example: Why, in the period 1939-41, did such a large percentage of Jewry in eastern Poland, Galicia, and in the Baltic States collaborate with the Red Army, Stalin’s secret police, and Bolshevism in general? And why did the pogroms in these regions take place under the slogan “Revenge for the Soviet Occupation”? Solzhenitsyn:

“In eastern Poland, which had been incorporated in the Soviet Union in September 1939, the Jews, especially the younger generation, welcomed the invading Red Army with frenetic jubilation. Whether in Poland, Bessarabia, Lithuania, or Bukowina, the Jews were the main support of Soviet power. The newspapers report that the Jews are enthusiastically supporting the establishment of Communist rule.” (p. 329)

In that fateful year a Polish Jew who had emigrated to France prophesized that the non-Jews who had been subjugated to Bolshevism would one day exact a fearful war of vengeance. In 1939 Stanislav Ivanowich, a left socialist sympathetic to the Soviet Union, warned:

“Should the dictatorship of the Bolsheviks end one day, the collapse will be accompanied by the atavistic, barbaric passions of Jew hate and violence. The collapse of Soviet power would be a terrible catastrophe for Jewry; today Soviet rule equates to Judeophilia.” (p. 310)

See here for a comment on the distortions of Jan Gross’s Neighbors which attempts to blame the massacre solely on the irrational anti-Semitism of Poles. This compilation notes, among other things, that “There was significant collaboration on the part of some Jedwabne Jews with the Soviet invaders from 1939 to June 1941; the victims were primarily the town’s Polish population, several hundred of whom were deported to the Gulag.”

When a significant percentage of people from an alien ethnic group support an invader and collaborate in the deportation of people from one’s own ethnic group, it is not at all surprising that there would be reprisals when there is a shift of power; nor would be be surprising if the reprisals were directed all Jews, not just the ones known to collaborate or sympathize. That’s how our evolved psychology of ethnic competition works.

I notice in my notes that Checinski (1982, 9) writes that “even then [in 1943] there was an attempt to rationalize this blind hatred [of Jews] by recalling the ‘improper’ attitude of the Jewish population in eastern Poland towards the Bolsheviks in September 1939 when the Soviet army, in connivance with the Nazis, occupied their territories.” Checinski also notes that immediately after WWII Jews welcomed the Soviet army and the new regime “with favor if not with outright enthusiasm” and that “the small Jewish community was seen by friends and foes alike as one of the mainstays of the Soviet sponsored regime. This only further alienated it from the great majority of the Polish population” (p. 8). This comment  is highly compatible with Jaff Schatz’s (1991) treatment which I discuss extensively in Ch. 3 of Culture of Critique. It is interesting that American Jewish representatives visiting Poland after the war presented the new Polish regime as “a paragon of liberalism and tolerance, unequaled in Eastern Europe” (Checinski, p. 11).

To conclude, anti-Jewish attitudes in Eastern Europe had a basis in the real behavior of Jews. No doubt the events of 1939 and thereafter were influenced by traditional grievances between Poles and Jews, but actual Jewish behavior during this period is also relevant. Jews were correctly perceived as more welcoming to the Soviets after the 1939 invasion and as more loyal to the Communist regime and as willing executioners of the remnants of Polish nationalism after 1945. (As I and others have noted, the common denominator of the behavior of Diaspora Jews in European countries has been to oppose nationalist movements; further, during this period, Jews throughout Europe and in America saw communism as good for the Jews at least partly because Jews had become an elite in the USSR and the USSR had outlawed anti-Semitism.)

The situation was exacerbated by the fact that Jews were also highly placed in the government and in the security forces. Under these circumstances, social identity theory predicts that Poles would develop the well-attested stereotype of “zydokomuna” (Judeo-Communism) and exaggerate the differences between themselves and all Jews in Poland. It simply reflects typical ethnic conflict that has gone on throughout the ages — nothing more than a reflection of our evolved psychology.

In the West, Jewish activists have had a relatively easy time erecting the image of innocent Jews and evil Nazis as a complete explanation of the events of World War II. This message is much more difficult in Eastern Europe where there is a collective memory of collaboration of Jews with the horrors of communism and in the extermination of nationalist elements of the non-Jewish population.

Bookmark and Share

Baltasar Nordstrom: Tiger Woods' matrimonial betrayal and its relevance for Whites

/15 Comments/in /by

Baltasar Nordstrom: As the new year gets underway and the Tiger Woods affair begins to wind up, Tiger may be about to be given a late Christmas gift that he probably did not want. With the number of his paramours peaking (at least for now) at 14, his badly betrayed wife Elin has reportedly hired a high-caliber attorney for the purposes of divorce. The mass media portray his story, of course, as nothing more than that of a highly talented and tremendously well-compensated American athlete who goes wrong and indulges widely in extramarital affairs with willing, amoral tarts over his five years of marriage. What Tiger did to Nordic Elin is symbolic of a much larger, ongoing phenomenon that goes to the heart of multi-racial, multicultural America. 

Tiger had been marketed by the media and his corporate sponsors as, to quote Lisa Schiffren, “an all-purpose icon: a man of personal rectitude, a lovely smile, apparent openness; a family man, with a lovely wife and two adorable babies.” The Woods image was “constructed for corporate consumption” for business reasons. Though the talent was real, the image was a “fraud,” “an act,” manufactured for corporate profits. He was also, because of the marriage of the dark-skinned Tiger to the pure Nordic (blond, blue-eyed, very White-skinned) Elin, packaged, or at least understood by some to be, to quote Schiffren again, “our first living embodiment of the collective hope for racial reconciliation.” It all went very well for a while until this particular deck of cards came crashing down on November 27th. 

Citing corporate profits as the underlying motive for the construction and maintenance of this false idol only begins to tell the story, however. It is undeniable that large enterprises like Nike, Gillette, AT&T, and Gatorade did have a stake in portraying Tiger as a clean-cut all-American, and, according to Shiffren, some of his philandering, as well as his “personal nastiness, arrogance, and general non-cuddly nature”, may have been known to at least a couple of his corporate sponsors and media outlets. He is rumored to be the most-fined player on the Professional Golfers Association Tour, throwing his clubs and having a dirty mouth (frequent “audible obscenities”), among other things, something that could not have escaped the attention of all his corporate benefactors. Other dynamics are in play, however. 

First, to state the obvious, Tiger himself is a member of the corporate class that has showered him with wealth. His wealth lies somewhere in the $500 million to $1 billion dollar range. The cover-ups of his character flaws, to the extent these cover-ups existed, were done in collusion with him, for his personal profit. He knew he was not the clean-cut, all-American male he was presented as, yet raked in his sponsorship fees nevertheless. 

Second, his philandering could not have happened were it not for his wealth and fame. It is highly unlikely that he would have been the target of so many attractive women if he were a handyman or office clerk, for example. His infidelities were enabled by his membership in his class and are a result of the way wealth and fame are distributed in the United States. 

It would be too much to say that the wealth-infidelity connection is causal, however. Presumably, most wealthy people do not engage in extramarital affairs to the extent Tiger did. Though wealth made it possible, the causality must lie elsewhere. 

This brings us back to the mass media’s portrayal of Tiger’s affairs as the result of the weaknesses of a single man — a man who perhaps let his talent and success go to his head — but his transgressions are the problems of an individual man nevertheless. Other professional athletes like Kobe Bryant, Alex Rodriguez, Michael Jordan, Wade Boggs, and Babe Ruth have had the same problem, though none except for Ruth to the same or greater degree, and there is no reason to suspect infidelity is significantly more typical of professional athletes than of other males. (Joe Namath and Wilt Chamberlain are often included in lists like this, but they frequented women only as bachelors.) The rambunctiousness of professional golfers in particular remains to be documented. Nevertheless, professional athletics does bring with it money and fame, facilitating the sexual and relational appropriation of women. The question is whether this provides a full explanation of Tiger’s proclivities. The answer is that his profession most likely does not, since most professional athletes, at least married ones, abstain from such extensive philandering as Tiger’s. 

Class and profession provide dynamic semi-causal social forces that, as suggested, are insufficient in cases like Tiger’s to explain all forms of behavior. Society comprises other social groupings besides class and profession, however, so for a full analysis of Tiger’s behavior we are scientifically and rationally obliged to look at other social groupings to see if they might explain, or at least add to the explanation of, what Tiger did. This includes racial/cultural heritage. 

Race differences in sexuality are basic to Prof. J. P. Rushton’s life history theoryof race. Rushton finds a general racial ordering from Blacks, to Whites, to Asians such that Blacks show less paternal involvement in children, less pair bonding between partners, and greater attraction to short-term sexual relationships. The theory and data compiled by Rushton suggest that Tiger Woods’ Black racial heritage would be part of the explanation for his behavior. 

For example, according to Treas and Geiden (2000), “There is racial variation in the proportion of families headed by a single parent: 22 percent for white, 57 percent for black, and 33 percent for Hispanic families.” Even though single-parent, the great majority of these “families” were headed by women: 90.1 percent of Black single-parent households and 79.3 percent of White single-parent households. Most Black children under age 18 (58.27 percent) lived with one parent, compared to 23 percent of all White children under age 18 that same year. 

Further, almost 70 percent of Black children are born to single mothers, compared to 24 percent of White children born to single mothers, nearly three times as many. This is a kind of infidelity, a familial and not only marital infidelity, to expand the meaning a bit, that rejects obligations to the woman, marriage, family, and fatherhood even prior to a child’s birth. And, according to Treas and Giesen, being a Black male is associated with an increased risk of infidelity even within marriage. Given Rushton’s theory, it is safe to assume that Black males are more inclined to sexual irresponsibility and opportunism. 

When it comes to infidelity, racial heritage makes a difference and is a likely contributing factor to Tiger Woods’ behavior. But you won’t read about it in the media. 

The author is a freelance writer and uses a nom de plume. 

Reference 

Treas, J & Gieden, D. “Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), pp. 48-60, 2000, cited at The Kinsey Institute, “Frequently Asked Sexuality Questions to the Kinsey Institute”: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html#Treas.

Bookmark and Share

Jews and immigration policy — Again

/35 Comments/in , , , , , /by

A friend sent along Steve Sailer’s review of historian Otis L. Graham’s  Immigration Reform and America’s Unchosen Future. Misleading title. American immigration policy was chosen. It just wasn’t chosen by the vast majority of the American people, and this is Graham’s point. As I have tried to show, it was chosen by the organized Jewish community and put into action as a result of Jewish political pressure and financial wherewithal. Graham notes that the successful immigration restriction of 1924 was seen by historians as one of the reforms of the Progressive Era’s campaign against the excesses of capitalism, since immigration lowered wages.

It’s fair to say, however, that Jews never saw it that way and there’s at least a fair amount of truth in the idea that the 1924 law was enacted to achieve an ethnic status quo that Jews saw as unfair to them. (Jewish immigrants were correctly seen by restrictionists as disproportionately involved in political radicalism, and it was generally a period of ethnic defense of White America.)

As Sailer’s review shows, Jews have not ceased seeing the 1924 law as exclusion of Jews. Graham points out that Jews live in the past when it comes to thinking about immigration: “the “filiopietistic” urge (“of or relating to an often excessive veneration of ancestors …”) is particularly strong among Jewish media figures. Italian-Americans, in contrast, tend to approach the immigration policy question by thinking about the future rather than by obsessing over the past. This anti-rational emotional reflex about immigration contributes to the kitschy quality of MSM discourse on the topic.”

In other words, Jews see the 1924 immigration law as part of their lachrymose history among Europeans, It’s just another example of irrational anti-Semitism — an example that warrants the evil nature of  the people and culture who created it. Since, as Sailer notes, Jews constitute half of the most influential media figures, and since the other half are rigorously vetted to exclude anyone who opposes what amounts to the Jewish consensus on immigration, there really isn’t much real debate in the above-ground media.

Of course, there is a lot of self-censorship. Graham recounts the example of Theodore White, then the most influential journalist in America (and a Jew), refusing to publish his views on immigration. “‘My New York friends would never forgive me. No, you guys are right [on immigration], but I can’t go public on this.’ ” Sailer quotes Graham:

Hearing White’s agitated response, I had my first glimpse of the especially intense emotional Jewish version of that taboo [against immigration skepticism]. His whole heritage, and his standing with all his Jewish friends, was imperiled (he was certain) if he went public with his worries about the state of immigration. …

I did not suspect it then, but this would become an important subtheme of our experience as immigration reformers. American Jews were exceptionally irrational about immigration for well-known reasons. They were also formidable opponents, or allies, in any issue of public policy in America.

In a nutshell, that’s the problem with Jews: They get what they want and what they want is not necessarily what others want (leading to conflicts of interest) or what is good for the country as a whole. It really wouldn’t matter if the only group that wanted open borders was African Americans. But it matters greatly that Jews do.

Incidentally, Otis Graham’s brother Hugh Davis Graham, agrees with me on the forces behind the 1965 law. He wrote in his 2002 book Collision Course (pp. 56-57):

Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.

Bookmark and Share

Goyland: Where the Wild Things Are

/in /by

“Living so long in exile and so often in danger, we have cultivated a defensive and apologetic account, a censored story, of Jewish religion and culture.”

Michael Walzer, quoted in Kevin MacDonald. Separation and Its Discontents, p. 217

The $100 million-dollar film Where the Wild Things Are was released last October. Older readers might remember the 1963 children’s book on which the film is based. The original book was penned by Jewish American writer Maurice Sendak, who grew up in Brooklyn. Today I will consider whether or not the writer’s Jewish background played a role in the book’s creation.

Many accounts of the book (and film) ignore the Jewish angle. For example, right around the time of the release of the film, The New York Times carried Bruce Handy’s review of the book. No mention at all was made of Jewishness.

Just to bring the reader up to speed, let me share Handy’s summary of the story:

Max, a young boy in a wolf costume, makes mischief of one kind and another, is called “wild thing” by his unseen mother, and is sent to bed without supper. As he stews, his room transforms into a jungle. He finds a boat and sets sail across the sea to discover a land full of real wild things — big monsters with “terrible teeth” and “terrible roars.” Max tames them, plays with them, sends them to bed without their suppers and then returns home, where he finds dinner waiting for him. “And it was still hot,” the book concludes — a lovely and reassuring grace note.

Handy relates how he only came to appreciate the book upon rereading it as an adult, perhaps because Sendak himself was revealing his adult anxieties in the book. As Sendak said in 1966, “It’s only after the act of writing the book that, as an adult, I can see what has happened, and talk about fantasy as catharsis, about Max acting out his anger as he fights to grow. . . . For me, the book was a personal exorcism. It went deeper into my own childhood than anything I’ve done before.”

I suspect Sendak is being honest when he says it goes deep into his childhood. But one angle I think he is describing is his urban Jewish view of the non-Jews around him. And his book — which he also illustrated — likely represents his view of the world outside the Polish shtetl of his parents and relatives. That unknown world, malevolent and dangerous, was, in Sendak’s mind, full of lurking creatures. Brandeis professor Stephen J. Whitfield, a specialist in American Studies, realizes the extent to which Jewishness animates Sendak’s work. Sendak, Whitfield notes, “wrote out of personal obsessions rather than formulas.”

To be sure, we all have various aspects to our personalities, so Sendak may indeed be mixing various memories and such. For instance, according to his Wikipedia bio, he admitted in an interview that he is homosexual, which may or may not influence his individual stories. (In the Night Kitchen is a 1970 story about a naked boy — roughly three years old — who is almost baked into a cake. Sendak’s drawings depict the boy’s penis and testicles, which caused many parents to object to libraries stocking the book.)

To further challenge my thesis that Jewishness played a role in Where the Wild Things Are, we must also consider this: “The monsters in the book were actually based on [Sendak’s] relatives who would come to weekly dinners. Because of their broken English and odd mannerisms, they were the perfect basis for the monsters in Sendak’s book.”

I believe his relatives may have provided a rough frame on which to hang the fleshed-out monsters, but I still think Sendak’s primary inspiration for the book was his conscious and unconscious views of the wider non-Jewish world. I think this because it jibes so well with other accounts by contemporary Jewish Americans, thus revealing a shared Jewish mindset.

Let me start with this account of what West Coast Jews think of their non-Jewish fellow countrymen, as related by social scientists Martin Lipset and Earl Raab:

In 1985 about a third of those affiliated with the Jewish community in the San Francisco area said, in response to a questionnaire, that Jewish candidates could not be elected to Congress from San Francisco. Yet three out of the four congressional representatives from that area — as well as the two state senators and the mayor of San Francisco — were, in fact, well-identified Jews at the time the poll was conducted. And they had been elected by a population that was about 95 percent non-Jewish.

In 1981 nine out of ten respondents in the same regional Jewish population said that they felt “comfortable” in America. But seven out of eight also believed that anti-Semitism is a serious problem in this country. Nationally, about eight out of ten affiliated Jews voiced serious concerns in 1990 about anti-Semitism, while the same overwhelming proportion replied that they felt “close” or “very close” to the American people.

Clearly, many American Jews are battling with cognitive dissonance when it comes to assessing their safety and welfare in America. Objectively, there is very, very little that has threatened American Jews financially, socially or physically. Yet deeper inside their psyches, there is something telling them that all non-Jews are potentially dangerous and unfriendly anti-Semites. (As the old saw goes, “Scratch a goy, find an anti-Semite.”)

This fear and defensiveness may stem from what Professor Salo Baron, a prominent Jewish historian, has called the “lachrymose view of Jewish history.” Or, as Barbara Fuerlicht writes, “The diaspora is often presented as 2,000 years of uninterrupted martyrdom.” Again, however, we find that paradox spawned by the incongruity between reality and perception. Consider, for example, that one scholar wrote, “Most medieval Jews in most places in most years were not the targets of pogroms. Most lived lives that, protected by geniz charters [i.e., charters specifying Jewish rights] and privileges, were far more secure and prosperous than the overwhelming percentage of non-Jews around them.”

For example, this charter for the Duchy of Austria from 1244 is summarized as follows:

This document is important because it was soon adopted, with some changes, by most East European countries to which the masses of Jews finally drifted: Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Silesia, and Lithuania. This charter — a very favorable one — was issued to encourage money-lending among the Austrian Jews and probably also to attract moneyed Jews to migrate to this outlying German state which was in need of ready credit. Every effort is therefore made in this Latin constitution to grant the Jews ample opportunity to sell their wares and, above all, to lend money. They were given adequate protection: they were subject to the direct jurisdiction of the Duke who guaranteed them safety of life and limb. The right of the Jews to govern themselves in communal and religious matters was not specified by the Duke, but this was taken for granted. We may assume, indeed, that the Jews of Austria enjoyed extensive political autonomy under this pact.

In any serious study of Jewish history, one is surprised to see how true this is for accounts of many different times and places. As we’ve seen, however, this sense of defensiveness continues to haunt Jews in America, as social historian David Gerber details in his insightful 1997 essay “Ill at Ease: The Insecurities of American Jewry”:

The almost universal feeling of anxiety American Jews have about intergroup relations raises many complex questions. Do Jews feel threatened because they really are threatened? Does objective evidence indicate a resurgence of the anti-Semitism that is widely acknowledged to have declined in the decades immediately following World War II? Or, is it the case that little objective evidence is needed to make a people whose conditions of life have historically been so insecure feel threatened, even in the apparently benign American diaspora? [p.95]

Philip Weiss, writing in New York magazine (January 29, 1996), suggests psychological reasons for this defensiveness:

Jews cherish feelings of exclusion not just because there is wisdom in foreboding but because these feelings are useful. They preserve our position as outsiders, a status that has certain moral and practical advantages. As an outsider, you have motivation: to get in. And you get to be demanding without any particular sense of reciprocity . . . Perhaps most important, these feelings solidify Jewish identity.

A personal account that got my attention was one by New Yorker Karen Brodkin, who spent summers in Vermont with her friends and family in a bungalow colony of Jewish families:

Late one summer night, a group of us tied up all the rowboats that belonged to our group of families out in the middle of the lake. We looked forward to parental surprise when they woke up, but we weren’t prepared for their genuine alarm: This could only be an anti-Semitic act by angry Yankees. What did it portend for our group? We were surprised on two counts: that the adults didn’t assume we had done it, since we were always playing practical jokes, and that they thought our Jewishness mattered to Vermont Yankees.

There is no shortage of similar accounts. For instance, American Israeli journalist Ze’ev Chafets relates how his maternal grandmother, born in Sterling, Illinois, maintained a mental map of Jewish and non-Jewish America:

Pontiac [Michigan] never had enough Jews for a Jewish neighborhood, but from the time I was a small boy I was aware that it had a special Jewish geography, and my grandmother was its da Gama. She would point out an unremarkable brick home on a leafy street and confide, “That’s a Jewish house.” Downtown she would pause near a certain store and say, “This is a Jewish business.” Occasionally, when we passed a parking lot, she would point out a Chevrolet or Plymouth and say, “There’s a Jewish car.” None of these cars, shops, or houses impressed me as being especially Jewish, but I was prepared to take her word for it.

At first I thought that mastering Pontiac’s Jewish geography was some sort of Sunday school lesson, like memorizing the Hebrew alphabet or the kings of Judea. But as I grew older, I realized that my grandmother mapped out the town reflexively, more for her benefit than mine. Jewish houses, stores, and offices were safe havens, places she could count on if, for example, she needed to use a bathroom, or was being chased through the streets by a sex-crazed Cossack rapist.

Jewish historian Peter Novick describes the “the fortress-like mentality” of many American Jews, where the institutional imperative was to promote “a wary suspicion of gentiles.” Consider three examples he provides from three “otherwise apparently sensible American Jews” to show how they had internalized these Jewish “collective memories — memories that suffuse group consciousness.” First, a university teacher writes, “When I move to a new town, I give great thought to whom, among my gentile friends, I might entrust my children, should that ever become necessary.” Next, a prominent Jewish feminist shares this thought: “Every conscious Jew longs to ask her or his non-Jewish friends, ‘Would you hide me?’ — and suppresses the question for fear of hearing sounds of silence.” Finally, a professor of psychology reports:

Many Jews report that the unspoken question they ask themselves when interacting with a non-Jew is, “Would she or he have saved me from the Nazis?” I have asked myself this question innumerable times: sometimes I surprise myself by answering, “I don’t know,” when asking this question of a non-Jewish friend I had otherwise assumed was close to me. The answer is the ultimate standard by which to measure trust in a non-Jewish person.

Honestly, do you want to live with such irrationally suspicious people? Worse, do you want to live under such “fellow” Americans now that so many of them dominate the controlling heights of this country?

Take Harvard, for instance. A leading law professorship there is a powerful position. And that’s precisely what Orthodox Jew Alan Dershowitz has held for years. Never mind that this fourth-generation American can write: “It was at Yale that I met and befriended my first Wasps, blacks, and even non-Orthodox Jews.” Are we really living in the same universe?

Dershowitz admits he is so highly invested in the “Holocaust mentality” that the world in which he sometimes lives borders on the horrifically imaginary. Witness his feelings as he sat watching the accused concentration camp guard Ivan Demjanjuk on trial in Israel:

I kept looking at Demjanjuk for another reason. I imagined him as my killer. At the time he was murdering babies, I was five years old. . . . I could have been one of the thousands of nameless and faceless babies he grabbed out of the hands of screaming mothers and shoved into gas chambers. I imagine him laughing with sadistic joy as he killed entire families, ending their seed forever, after taunting and torturing them gratuitously.

This vicarious sense of suffering is intense for Dershowitz and haunts not only his future but the future of Jewish children: “Every time I attend a gathering of Jewish children — at a family event, at a Bar Mitzvah, at Simchath Torah — I imagine SS guards lining up these children for the gas chambers.” Isn’t this evidence enough that Dershowitz needs, at a minimum, counseling?

How might such a mentality be constructed in a place where daily life never offers the chance to experience real persecution? Try this: Jewish American journalist Marjorie Miller relates a childhood story regarding her religious school. In addition to learning the Hebrew alphabet, she also learned about the Holocaust. One Sunday her teacher, “in a scared voice,” called the students to attention and told them to listen carefully: “Had we heard the radio? The government was telling the Jews that we had to convert or leave the country.” This, the teacher explained, “was the first step . . . maybe the beginning of another Holocaust.” Not surprisingly, “Many children in the class began to cry.”

This mentality is reminiscent of interviews done in the 1970s with noted Jewish men, where the question “Do you think it could happen here?” never needed “it” defined.  Nearly unanimously, the reply was the same: “If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,” or “It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when” [quoted in MacDonald, The Culture of Critique, p.245].

Reader, think about it: If you’re an average American, you quietly pay your federal taxes, likely knowing that some goes to aid Israel. (On top of that, many of you Christian Zionists support Israel further through donations and political support.) Further, it’s highly improbable that you’ve ever committed a crime against a Jew, let alone actually harmed one. The thought has probably never even crossed your mind.

Yet a good percentage of American-born Jews still consider you a lethal threat simply because you are not a Jew. At this stage in history, is there any excuse for that? Worse, such Jews are often able to translate their fantasy-based fears about goyim into cultural products such as films and TV shows—and books like Where the Wild Things Are. Through the activism of groups like the ADL, they are also able to affect legislation such as the new Hate Crimes Law that may well target people like you for potentially thinking the wrong thing. This is not good.

In any case, it will be interesting to see how the film has been adapted from Sendak’s book. My guess is that the live action animation will not have a theme about dangerous non-Jews, but I should wait until I see it before saying more. Still, it’s got the typical Jewish background of a Hollywood production. For instance, Spike Jonze, born Adam Spiegel in 1969, is the film’s director, replacing earlier director Eric Goldberg. Let’s just hope Jonze is not one of those paranoid Jewish Americans always wondering if “it” could happen here.

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

Edmund Connelly’s "Goyland"

/19 Comments/in , /by

Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article “Goyland: Where the Wild Things Are” gets at an important aspect of Jewish psychology — the bunker mentality of imminent threat. The next Holocaust is always just around the corner. They see their own history in the West as one long vale of tears, beginning with the Romans sacking Jerusalem and destroying the temple, then suffering at the hands of Christian fanatics in the Middle Ages, then being accused of acting as a state within a state in emerging European nations, then the evil Czar, and then Hitler. (A good recent example of this mindset is Norman Podhoretz’s Why are Jews Liberals?) As Connelly notes, Jewish life in the Middle Ages was far better than the great majority of people, and this has generally been true throughout Jewish history. And they never consider the possibility that their own behavior has anything to do with whatever bad things happen to them.

Psychologically, these traits show that Jews are on the extreme high end of ethnocentrism — what I have termed Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism. We all have this trait, but there are individual differences in ethnocentrism, and Jews are at the extreme high end. Ethnocentric people see the world in terms of ingroups (morally upright, possessed of positive traits; always the innocent victim, never the perpetrator) and outgroups (evil, merciless, sub-human, always the aggressor). Every affront to the group is exaggerated. There is a sense of imminent danger from the evil outgroup. In the words of a Jewish writer, “Wherever we look, we see nothing but impending Jewish destruction. ”

This hyper-ethnocentrism is the most important aspect of Jewish psychology, leading them to be aggressive against their perceived enemies. As discussed in the above-referrenced article, in their minds, any criticism of Jews becomes a warrant for genocide. “Criticism of Jews indicates dislike of Jews; this leads to hostility toward Jews, which leads to Hitler and eventually to mass murder. Therefore all criticism of Jews must be suppressed. With this sort of logic, it is easy to dismiss arguments about Palestinian rights on the West Bank and Gaza because ‘the survival of Israel  is at stake.'”   Any sort of exclusionary thinking [such as opposing immigration of non-Whites] leads inexorably to a Holocaust. Recently several New York State legislators favoring same-sex marriage argued on the basis of their relatives being murdered in the Holocaust.

This hyper-ethnocentrism is a large part of why Jews are such formidable opponents. And it also implies that rational arguments are not going to be effective in swaying Jewish opinion. From their point of view, it’s a matter of survival.

Bookmark and Share

Lasha Darkmoon: Germany Then — America Now!

/83 Comments/in , , , , /by

Lasha Darkmoon:  Kevin MacDonald’s recent review of William Marr’s 1870s pamphlet, The Victory of Judaism over Germanism,  raises many interesting questions. “Marr sees himself as a soldier fighting a lost cause,” MacDonald notes at one point, without making it clear if he agrees with Marr that it is indeed a lost cause.  

Since the parallels between Germany then and America now are too glaringly obvious to ignore, one is tempted to ask MacDonald: “And what about you, Kevin? Do you consider yourself a soldier fighting a lost cause?” 

MacDonald’s article ends with Marr’s chilling two-word prediction: FINIS GERMANIAE. (The end of Germany) 

We have seen it happen. Germany’s cadaver lies rotting. Exactly a year ago the state of Israel demanded from Germany a further 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) in Holocaust reparations for its endlessly traumatized Jewish survivors. Sixty-five years after World War Two, the grim extortion racket continues unabated. 

Forget that. The thing we need to consider now is the parallel situation with America. Is it time to write America’s obituary? Or is it too early to say, FINIS AMERICAE — the end of America? 

*   *   *  

A confession of ignorance: I had no idea things were so bad in Germany in the 1870s when Marr wrote his prophetic treatise, only recently translated from German into English and now available in pdf format. I had been under the false impression that the notion of Jewish world domination came much later — after the publication of the Protocols (1903) and the Russian Revolution (1917). 

Here is a pertinent, relatively modern quotation which will serve as a useful coda to the doomladen citations from Marr that MacDonald presented. Read it carefully. It will not only hammer home the points made by Marr several decades earlier, it will also provide the reader with a sharp reminder of the parallel situation in which America finds itself today. 

With one significant difference: America is in a far worse condition.

Under the Jewish heel in pre-Hitler Germany :

 It was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such opportunities…They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of the real property in the Reich [my emphasis]. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation… But to those who had lost their all, this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions…

The Jews obtained a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions [in spite of constituting] less than one percent of the population [my emphasis]… The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press — all the normal means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed… The largest newspaper combine in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly…

Every year it became harder and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation [my emphasis]. … At this time it was not the ‘Aryans’ who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. … It was the contrast between the wealth enjoyed — and lavishly displayed — by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans, that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular, least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle.

—   Sir Arthur Bryant, Unfinished Victory, 1940, (slightly edited for brevity).

*   *   * 

MacDonald notes elsewhere in his thought-provoking review of Marr’s pamphlet: “Marr correctly believed that societies centered around a strong collectivist religious core (e.g., medieval Christianity) or a strong sense of ethnic nationalism are more able to defend themselves against Jews.” 

We cannot help asking at this point: So how does America hope to protect itself against the Jews? (Or “organized Jewry”, to be more precise). Is there any hope for the beleaguered majority whose traditional values are now being destroyed by an alien elite who view their new subjects with hostility and contempt?   

Consider the two factors that are seen as an antidote to the Jewish poison: “a strong collectivist religious core” (i.e., Catholicism in some historical eras) and “ethnic nationalism” (e.g., the sense of being an American of European heritage). 

Ethnic nationalism in America, assuming it ever existed to the same degree as British or French nationalism existed, is now clearly in its death throes — thanks to multiculturalism and malignant immigration policies enacted as a result of Jewish activism — an activism that has helped to produce a polyglot mélange of multicolored folk forever at each other’s throats.

So what about Christianity as a cohesive countervailing force?  Why has Christianity failed so abysmally to counteract this spiritual virus? 

This is a question I am unable to answer.  Others, I am sure, will have their theories — and I wish them good luck. 

Despite its history as the only Western institution that has been able at times to stand up to Jewish power, the Catholic Church, of which I am a hopelessly dysfunctional practising member, has proved to be an acute disappointment. It has been thoroughly subverted from within and without. It offers neither guidance nor leadership.

So forget the Catholics—a spent force—many of them, I regret to say, almost as daft and deluded as their competitors in folly, the evangelical Christians.  

I am also forced to conclude, with a heavy heart, that there is little hope that American Protestants could come to the rescue. Its infatuated legions — namely, the 50-70 million Christian Zionists who constitute the most influential group of American Protestants — are as rabid in every way as the fanatical Jews who have infected them with their zealotry, egging them on to find solace in eschatological ecstasies and millenarian mumbojumbo. 

Life is indeed so empty and sterile for these wretched lumpengoyim that the only thing that excites their sluggish sensitivities is the prospect of Armageddon and the thought of universal and catastrophic death — the quicker the better.  

Whipped into a frenzy of religious fervor by the Grahams and the Robertsons, the Falwells and the Hagees, the Lindseys and the La Hayes, these Christian Zionists have become imitation Jews almost indistinguishable from Jabotinski and Baruch Goldstein. They believe in a Greater Israel — entailing further conquests of Arab Land — and in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. They have “adopted” illegal settlements and directly finance with their donations the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the uprooting of olive trees, and the daily oppression of the rightful owners of the Holy Land. They pray every Sunday in their vast soulless churches for the destruction of Iran. And if push came to shove, they would gladly give their blessings to genocide — and call it “the will of God.”     

There are now 80,000 fundamentalist pastors and clergy preaching their message of madness to these ill-educated Christian masses — in many ways as gullible and gormless as medieval peasants.  The pernicious views of their “pastors” are disseminated by 1000 local Christian radio stations as well as 100 Christian TV stations. See here. 

*   *   * 

Consider the unimaginable war crimes committed by the state of Israel exactly a year ago in Gaza. The world saw it happen. Judge Goldstone saw it happen. His meticulously documented report makes it abundantly clear that Israel is a criminal nation and that its politicians and generals are as steeped in criminality as their Nazi persecutors and recent role models in racism ever were. 

Yet here is Christian Zionist Grace Halsell, like a character straight out of Alice in Wonderland, preaching to the starry-eyed Christians who offer incense to Israel: “Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.” 

The American government appears to agree with this demonic drivel.   

Enthralled by organized Jewry, mercenary and corrupt to the core, this shambolic apology for a government — this psychopathocracy masquerading as a democracy — recently came out in overwhelming condemnation of the Goldstone Report. 

America is dead.  

Behold the New Zion!

Bookmark and Share

Race and Religion: Awkward Friends of the White Man, Part I

/in /by

There is a widespread idea among White nationalists worldwide that Whites need to resurrect their Christian heritage in order to be better able to retrieve their racial, religious and cultural identity. Another proposal common among White nationalists is that the liberal system needs to put an end to non-White, non-Christian immigration, which would then pave the way for polishing up the vanishing White gene pool. Another far-flung idea is that the influence of Jews must be curtailed if not stopped altogether, so that all social ills can be cured. Last but not least, the liberal system needs to be replaced by a nationalist, nativist, populist, “right wing”, White government.

However credible these proposals sound, they are naive in their formulations, superficial in scope, and dangerous in their possible implementation. They deal with the political consequences of the problem rather than probing into its philosophical and historical causes. Even if miraculously all non-White, non-Christian residents were to disappear from America and the European Union and even if all liberal policies were to be abandoned, it is unlikely that the White man would solve deep-rooted problems of his own racial and religious identity.

Science and Quackery

Before even attempting to offer some salutary suggestions, one must be aware of the oppressive weight of the dominant ideas and their “scientific” — aka “politically correct” — ambience in the modern liberal system. Our postmodern epoch is profoundly saturated by egalitarian and economistic dogmas. Regardless how much empirical artillery one can muster in defence of the uniqueness of the White gene pool, and regardless of how many facts one can enumerate that point to diverse intellectual achievements of different races, no such evidence will elicit social or academic approval. In fact, if loudly uttered, the evidence may be considered a felony in some Western countries. In our so-called free and secular society, new religions, such as the religion of racial promiscuity and the theology of the free market have replaced the old Christian belief system. Only when these new secular dogmas or political theologies start crumbling down — which may soon be the case — alternative views about race and the meaning of the sacred may appear.

The historical irony is that it was not the Other, i.e. the non-White, who invented the arsenal of bashing the White man. It was the White man himself — both with his Christian atonement and now with his liberal expiation of the feelings of guilt.Therefore, any arguments offered in defence of racial separation will inevitably be perceived by the Other, i.e. by a non-White (and his guilt-ridden White masters) as racist. Not wanting to contravene the moral imperatives that they invented, Western man must once again posture as an example of global justice that needs to be copied by all races — albeit this time around as a negative role model.

Alain de Benoist writes that liberalism has been a racist system par excellence. In the late 19th century, it preached exclusive racism. Now, in the 21th century it preaches inclusive racism.  By herding non European races from all over the world into a rootless a-racial and a-historical agnostic consumer society and by preaching ecumenical miscegenation, the West nonetheless holds its undisputed role of a truth maker — of course, this time around under the auspices of the self-hating, self-flagellating White male.

It must be stated that it was not the Colored, but the White man who had crafted the ideology of self-denial and the concomitant ideology of universal human rights, as well as the ideas of interracial promiscuity. Therefore, any modest scholarly argument suggesting proofs of racial inequality is untenable today. How can one persuasively argue about the existence of different races if the modern system lexically, conceptually, scientifically, ideologically, theologically, and last, but not least, judicially, forbids the slightest idea of race segregation — except when it evokes skin-deep exotic escapades into musical and culinary prowess of non-European races?

Most American White nationalists use Thomas Jefferson as their patron saint, frequently associating his name with “good old times” of the American Declaration of Independence. Those were the times when the White man was indeed in command of his destiny. The White founding fathers stated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet the abstract words “all men” combined with the invocation of a deistic and distant “creator” had a specific significance in the mind of Enlightenment-groomed Jefferson. Two hundred years later, however, his words ring a different bell in the ears of a real Muslim Somali or a Catholic Cholo planning to move to the United States.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Who can, therefore deny to masses of non-European non-Christian immigrants from all parts of the world to freely extrapolate, for their own racial benefit, Jefferson’s words that “all men are created equal”? The self-perception of Jefferson and his Enlightenment-influenced compatriots of 18th-century Europe and America were light miles away from the perception of his words by today’s non-Whites in search of “the American dream.” Wailing and whining that “Jefferson did not mean this; he meant that” — is a waste of time. Similar to many historical documents claiming  “scientific “ or “self-evident” nature, be they of the religious, historical or judicial provenance, the American Declaration bears witness to the classical cleavage between the former signifier and the modern signified which has become the subject of its own semantic sliding — with ominous consequences for Whites worldwide.

A witty Southern antebellum lawyer, a racialist writer, with a good sense of the language, John Fitzhugh, calls Jefferson’s words “abstractions”.

The verbal tricks such as “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created  equal”, are bottomless pits out of which torrents of modern new demands keep arising:  It is, we believe, conceded on all hands, that men are not born physically, morally or intellectually equal — some are males, some females, some from birth large, strong, and healthy, others weak, small and sickly — some are naturally amiable, others prone to all kinds of wickedness — some brave others timid. (George Fitzhugh, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society 1854, pp.177-178).

Contemporary geneticists and biologists are no less vulnerable than philosophers and sociologists to dominant political theologies. What was considered scientific during the first part of the 20th century in Europe and the United States by many prominent scholars writing about race is viewed today as preposterous and criminal. The dominant dogma idea of egalitarianism must give its final blessing in explaining or explaining away any scientific discovery.

This is particularly true regarding the endless debate about “nature vs. nurture” (heredity vs. environment). If one accepts the dominant idea that the factor of environment (“nurture”) is crucial in shaping the destiny of different races — then it is useless to talk about differences among races. If all individuals, all races, are equal, they are expandable and replaceable at will!   

The dogma of the inheritance of acquired characteristics is a matter of life or death for Marxism.  This was recognized with precision by the Soviet rulers…. As [Fritz] Lenz, one of the most important eugenicists [“racial hygienists”] pointed out, the Soviet rulers must for one obvious reason cling on to the doctrine of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. They need this doctrine for calming their conscience. If everything really depends on the environment, this means that the slaughtering carried out by Bolshevism of so many carriers of valuable hereditary endowment, is not an irreparable loss, but rather a state-regulated change of the environment. (Gustav Franke, Vererbung und Rasse [Heredity and Race], 1938, 1943, pp. 113-114; my trans.)

Needless to say, Franke, Lenz and thousands of German and other European anthropologists, geneticians and biologists disappeared from the reading list, after being denounced either as “bad Nazis” or “atheists”. Although the field of the former Soviet social sciences is considered today as quackery, its egalitarian, Marxist residue of omnipotent inheritance of acquired characteristics isreligiously pursued by the post-Christian, neoliberal capitalist West. In layman’s terms, this means that the floodgates for mass immigration of non-Europeans must be kept wide open. Racial promiscuity and miscegenation must be enforced. It is science! It is the law!

Racial Promiscuity in the Age of High IQ Morons 

“Dorks”, “idiots”, “morons”, “halfwits”, “dimwits”, are words used daily in the portrayal of our pesky interlocutors. But what if some of our intelligent interlocutors are indeed stupid? It is a historical truism that most world explorers, famous statesmen, most scientists, most Nobel prize winners, have been White people with predominantly Nordic stature and dolichocephalic skull.  It is a truism that most prisoners in America and Europe are crossbreeds of non-European out-groups, with the remnants of Whites, whose criminal record can be traced to inborn genetic disorders in their family tree. A long time ago William Sadler, a forgotten eugenicist from the Chicago Medical School, wrote a book about “the aristocracy of the unfit” that cannot be improved by any amount of do-good sermonizing: “Mental defectiveness (moronism) is hereditary and constitutional, and consequently not amenable to our preachings, asylums, hospitals, reformatories, penitentiaries, etc. We must ever bear in mind that each year a new quota of defectives is born with statistical regularity.” (Race Decadence, 1922, p. 254).

The modern media-induced dumbing down process, combined with inborn mental deficiencies of an ever growing number of White people is being accelerated by massive inflow of low IQ immigrants, already conditioned to capitalize on post-Christian and liberal guilt feelings of the White man. As in the ex-Soviet Union, the dominant theology of egalitarianism and TV shows incessantly role-modeling interracial sex only accelerate the culture of mediocrity and the culture of death.

People get arrested for financial fraud or homicide. Yet professors in humanities in America and Europe, when propagating Lamarckian science fiction and egalitarian pipe dreams get promoted. A physiologist and a Nobel Prize winner, the late French racialist Charles Richet, in his book “The Stupid Man” (L’homme stupide, 1919), understood that high IQ is not a trademark of intellectual disinterestedness or a sign of value free judgments. Stupid, abnormal decisions are often made by high IQ people, who are driven by utopian belief systems.

High IQ among Whites, if not accompanied but good character, psychological introspection, nobility of spirit and a sense of honor — is worthless. The architects of the largest serial genocides in the history of mankind, writes Rudolf Kommos (Juden hinter Stalin, 1938, 1944), were intelligent Bolsheviks, mostly of Jewish origin, whose inborn millenarian, eschatological and chiliastic mindset, had led them to believe that dozens of millions of Russian civilians needed be wiped out.

Stupidity does not mean that a person has not understood something; rather it means that he behaves as if he did not understand anything.  When a person moves headlong toward disaster in order to satisfy his prejudices, his errors, his defective and false reasoning — this is inexcusable. It is far better to be deprived of intelligence than to make poor use of it…. Judging by our acts we become more stupid as we become less ignorant.(Charles Richet, L’homme stupide, 1919), p 15.( my trans.)

European and American history has been full of highly intelligent individuals endorsing abnormal religious and political beliefs. This is in particularly true for many temporary White European and American left-leaning academics who, although showing high IQ, are narrow-minded, spineless individuals of no integrity, or race traitors of dubious character. Low IQ Cholos or affirmative action Blacks are just happy pawns in their conspiratorial and suicidal game. The father of European racialism and a man whose work left an important impact on the study of race in the early 20th century, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, summarized how cultivated men, when driven by theological or ideological passions, commit deadly mistakes:

It is virtually impossible to change by means of education the intellectual type of an individual, however intelligent he may be. Any education will be impotent to provide him with audacity and initiative. It is heredity that decides on his gifts. I was often surprised by the intensity of gregarious spirit amidst the most instructed men. … Each minor manifestation of an independent idea hurts them; they reject a priori everything as pernicious errors that has not been taught to them by their masters. (Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Les sélections sociales, 1896, p.104; my trans.)

Is this not a proof that the worst enemy of the White man can often be his fellow White man?

To be continued.

Tom Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com) is author, translator, former US professor in political science and a former Croatian diplomat. He is the author of Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007). His new book of essays, Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity, prefaced by Kevin MacDonald, will soon be released. Email him.