Kevin MacDonald

Tag Archive for: Kevin MacDonald

Kevin MacDonald: Dr. Lasha Darkmoon's latest

/392 Comments/in , /by

Kevin MacDonald: Whenever Lasha Darkmoon sends me something to post I get a bit of an anxiety attack. On one hand, I know that her articles draw huge interest from readers. Her articles on Jewish influence on art struck a real chord, leading to dozens of emails to her and two later articles that summarized some of the comments — many from artists grateful that someone had finally put a finger on the problem.

On the other hand, she seeks to have impact an an emotional level that is at times unsettling and may be seen by many as “over the top.” Her latest articles (see here and here) definitely push the envelope — beginning with the illustrations from Dees that appear at the top of each article. I cringed at both, especially the one that graces the top of the second article and only left it in after special pleading from Lasha. It’s not my style, certainly. But then I said to myself: Is it really wrong or inaccurate? Comparisons between Israel and Nazism are common these days, and this website has many examples (particularly by Edmund Connelly and me)  where the future is depicted as a brutal dystopia in which Whites are victimized by the emerging non-White coalition. Dees, who is a graphic genius, is simply depicting it in a very powerful way.

So as I went through the article, I tried to make sure that what she writes is accurate but to allow her to present her emotional appeal, toning it down and eliminating quite a bit of material that I thought was needlessly offensive.

One example that got the editorial ax: The famous quote from T.S. Eliot: The rats are underneath the piles./The Jew is underneath the lot. Maybe I should have left it in, but that’s the kind of anti-Jewish comment that I find unhelpful, even if it is comes from a great poet. In the absence of a real analysis, it just lends itself to being rejected out of hand as merely an expression of prejudice — as, of course, it has: Here’s a review of a recent book on Eliot titled: “‘Underneath the lot’: An incredible mind, for sure, though touched by blatant prejudice.”

But I left in the section where she depicts the horrific crimes against Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom — even though she thought I would remove them. Probably most TOO readers have heard this crime discussed, but Darkmoon’s treatment hits home emotionally in a way that I have never seen.

Will readers be upset? Perhaps. But the mainstream media does exactly the same thing in sensationalizing crimes by Whites against non-Whites — and particularly the crimes against Jews committed in WWII. And if one really has an image of this crime in your mind, the result will be a righteous anger that will motivate people to challenge what’s going on. This, of course, is exactly why such crimes against Whites are completely ignored by the media.

Darkmoon also did a photo essay interspersed with poetry that is a tribute to Rachel Corrie, martyr for the Palestinians (“She Died for Palestine”). Again, there was a huge positive response. I think that because the fate of the Palestinians has become a moral touchstone in the contemporary world to many across the entire political spectrum, the response was uniformly positive. (We don’t have many pro-Zionist readers.)

So I said to myself, why is this any different? TOO has posted numerous articles primarily directed at the left side of the brain — the facts and analysis that are entirely on our side. But facts and analysis only go so far in motivating people.  The fact is that we have to start screaming about what is happening, not only in Israel but in the West generally. We should have a righteous anger not only about the crimes of Israel, but about the crimes of Freud and the Frankfurt School. We have to have clear, emotionally compelling images in our memories — memories that motivate action. And Lasha Darkmoon is screaming.

Bookmark and Share

Lawrence Auster Gets Unhinged

/144 Comments/in , , , , , /by

I made a resolution to not to waste time and energy on Internet squabbles with people like Lawrence Auster. Auster’s agenda is pretty clear. As I said in some previous comments on him, “Auster’s comments, posted on his website, are first and foremost an attempt to place me beyond the realm of legitimate discourse. By titling the article ‘The idiocy of Kevin MacDonald,’ Auster is saying, “Don’t go near MacDonald—he is off limits.” Auster continues to draw lines, now trying to anathematize anyone who is remotely associated with me.

For awhile, it seemed that Auster had decided not to bother with any arguments at all. His complaints about my review of Norman Podhoretz’s Why are Jews Liberals? referred to “MacDonald-style Jew-hatred” and then had long quotes from the article. Not exactly an overwhelming argument.

Now Auster has taken to calling me an “exterminationist anti-Semite,” again with the aim of drawing boundaries for acceptable discourse and again without much of an argument:

Since Kevin MacDonald sees the Jews as a group that are genetically determined by Darwinian evolution to subvert and destroy white gentile societies wherever they encounter them, in the same way that rattlesnakes are genetically determined to sink their venomous fangs into the flesh of mammals wherever they encounter them, we must conclude that he doesn’t want Jews to exist in America and Europe. Further, as I explain here with regard to MacDonald’s recent article at Alternative Right, it is clear that he doesn’t want Jews to exist in Israel either. So MacDonald doesn’t want Jews to exist anywhere.

If anyone has a reasonable interpretation of MacDonald other than that he is an exterminationist anti-Semite, I’d like to hear it.

There is a whole lot wrong with this, starting with interpreting me as saying that “Jews as a group … are genetically determined by Darwinian evolution to subvert and destroy white gentile societies wherever they encounter them.”

I certainly do think I have shown that Jews have a powerful sense of groupness. This is apparent throughout history and can be seen today in pretty much any statement put out by organizations like the ADL. And I do think that there are conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in a wide range of areas — my writing has focused on immigration policy, policy toward Israel, and the construction of culture generally.  Whenever I discuss these issues I always qualify my remarks by noting that not all Jews hold the same opinions. Making a case for Jewish influence is a matter of looking at where the great mass of Jewish money and influence is being brought to bear and trying to determine if their efforts are effective. For example, in the case of immigration policy, it matters little if Auster and Stephen Steinlight oppose our anti-White immigration policy when the organized Jewish community and the vast majority of Jews (including a great number of Jews with influential positions in the media and in politics) are in favor of it. (Here‘s a recent example: the ADL condemning the Arizona law that attempts to rid the state of illegal immigrants.) My argument is that Jewish influence was a critically necessary condition for the passage of the disastrous 1965 immigration law.

But this is a far cry from saying that Jews are “genetically determined by Darwinian evolution to subvert and destroy white gentile societies wherever they encounter them.” Even a casual reading of my work would show that it’s all about culture–why else write a book titled The Culture of Critique. (This is a recent academic version of my theory of culture.) Genetic determinism plays no role in my theory.

When it comes to why the organized Jewish community and most Jews have supported policies that oppose the interests of people of  European descent, I implicate Jewish ethnocentrism combined with their lachrymose view of their own history among Europeans — summarized in my review of Podhoretz. Briefly stated, Jews have a historical grudge against Europeans and their culture.

Besides the historical grudge that has fueled so much Jewish hostility toward European-descended peoples and their culture, the rise of a Jewish elite in 20th-century America is a story of ethnic displacement. No evolutionist is surprised at the desire to achieve elite status and displace previously dominant elites, and Jews are certainly no exception. Jews are doing what pretty much any ethnic group would do if they could. In today’s column, Pat Buchanan writes, “The Chinese of 2010 call to mind 19th-century Americans who shoved aside Mexicans, Indians and Spanish to populate a continent, build a mighty nation, challenge the British Empire — superpower of the day — and swiftly move past her in manufacturing to become first nation on earth.”

Yeah, we shoved aside other peoples. And now it’s happening to us — mainly, in my opinion, because of the  power of the new Jewish elite. The Indians didn’t like it when  it happened to them. I don’t like it as it’s happening to me and people like me. The Palestinians don’t like it either.

The only thing is that I suspect that everyone would have assumed that a 19th-century American Indian complaining about what was happening was being entirely rational. But now someone like me is treated as a raving lunatic and moral reprobate — ignored by the  elite media and vilified by the lavishly funded Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and the SPLC. We are not supposed to put up a fight. We are supposed to simply accept our displacement and pledge fealty to our new elite.

But I am not an exterminationist. Since when is someone who calls attention to conflicts of interest between groups necessarily advocating the extermination of one of the groups? By that logic, a historian documenting the influence of, say, Christian Zionists  and noting how their interests conflict with those of others would necessarily be advocating their extermination. By that logic Mearsheimer and Walt are exterminationists. Auster’s comment is nothing but an attempt to have any discussion of Jewish interests and Jewish influence be completely off the table–unlike the interests and influence of any other group.

I am perfectly happy for Jews to live where they want. I just wish they would not continue to oppose the interests of people like me.  Obviously, in saying this, I am implying that  I don’t believe in genetic determinism in the area of political choices. It is within the power of Jews to change their political behavior. In fact, rather than behaving like mindless robots acting out of a genetic imperative, Jews have always been flexibly responsive to historical contingencies, and this agrees with everything we know about human psychology.

It really doesn’t matter if groups with little power and influence oppose the interests of White Americans. But it matters greatly if a substantial component of the elite in terms of wealth as well as political power and media influence opposes our interests and brings to economic ruin and political oblivion anyone (Jew or non-Jew) who comes to our defense.

Nor do I have any conceptual problem with Jews living in Israel. As I wrote in my previous comments on Auster, I would be willing to make a quid pro quo with the organized Jewish community: If you support white ethno-nationalism in the US and provide intensive, effective support for ending and reversing the immigration policy of recent decades (i.e., something approaching the support you presently provide Israel), I would be willing to go to the wall to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, even at substantial cost for the US. The fact that a minuscule number of Jews — none of them part of the main Jewish activist organizations that have been so destructive to White ethno-nationalism — are immigration patriots and see value in America as ethnically and culturally European is certainly not a reason for someone like me to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel.

But I don’t see the organized Jewish community getting behind a White America any time soon — from which I infer that they continue to believe that it is their self-interest to oppose the interests of White Americans (not that they are the victims of some phantasmagorical genetic imperative). The fact is that Israel is costing the US dearly in terms of blood and treasure at the same time that the Jewish community in the US opposes the interests of White Americans. I really don’t see why I should support it.

However, that’s not the same as wishing Israel would be wiped off the map — only that they should fend for themselves. I do not believe that it is in my ethnic interests nor is in the interests of the United States to antagonize the Arab and Muslim world in the interests of an expansionist, apartheid, ethno-nationalist Israel. It’s simply not our fight.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Emerging White Identity

/51 Comments/in , , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: Kalefa Sanneh’s New Yorker review of several books on “Whiteness” (“Beyond the Pale: Is white the new black?”) opens with a quote from an academic labor historian that shows how far we have to go to develop a proud sense of being White and having interests as Whites:

In 1994, the white labor historian David R. Roediger published an incendiary volume, “Towards the Abolition of Whiteness.” Paying special attention to unions and strikes, he traced the unsteady growth of American whiteness, a category that eventually included many previous identities that had once been considered marginal: Irish, Italian, Polish, Jewish. “It is not merely that whiteness is oppressive and false; it is that whiteness is nothing but oppressive and false,” he wrote. “Whiteness describes, from Little Big Horn to Simi Valley, not a culture but precisely the absence of culture. It is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one can hold back.”

That’s the kind of stuff that passes for academic wisdom these days — a combination of biological ignorance combined with self-hating moral outrage against Whites. The fact is that there is an undeniable biological reality to races as descent groups and as a vast storehouse of genetic interests. But that is not the whole story. There is also a strong cultural component: “To a large extent cultural influences result from conflicts of perceived interest and political infighting, and multiculturalists … [and anti-White fanatics like Roedinger] are experts at this game.  Indeed, the #1 way that culture influences our concept of race is the denial by the political left that there is any biological basis for race at all.”

Sanneh’s carries on this tradition that the White race is nothing but a social construction, agreeing that “whiteness was built over centuries on a foundation of deceit and confusion and disguised political imperatives.” Historically, it is doubtless the case that Whites have utilized the concept of Whiteness to their advantage in certain times and places — just as other groups have always done. But the main disguised political imperative in the contemporary world involving race is that the people who insist on the unreality of the White race typically have strong racial and ethnic identities of their own, and they use this ideology to advance their anti-White agenda.

But Sanneh’s view is more subtle. He proposes that this social construction of Whiteness is becoming a reality:

It’s getting easier to imagine an American whiteness that is less exceptional, less dominant, less imperial, and more conspicuous, an ethnicity more like the others. …  The history of human culture is the history of forgeries that become genuine, categories that people make and cannot simply unmake. So we should probably stop thinking of whiteness as an error, and start thinking of it, instead, as a work in progress. Historians have sometimes framed the treacherous history of whiteness as the slow death of an idea. Perhaps it’s time we start viewing it, instead, as the slow birth of a people.

In commenting on Sennah, Pat Buchanan stops short of seeing the emerging White consciousness in racial terms: “The coming conflict is not so much racial as it is cultural, political and tribal.”

But, unlike Sannah, Buchanan correctly sees that the birth of a White tribe will result in conflict. It’s not going to be pretty, especially given the deep historical grudges, economic envy, and desire for social dominance that characterize the emerging non-White minority coalition and apparent in some of the books Sannah reviews. Sanneh’s idea of the emerging White ethnicity as “less exceptional, less dominant, less imperial” implicitly envisions White people happily heading into the political sunset and accepting their lowered status in a utopian world of ethnic and racial harmony. As noted repeatedly on this website, this is wishful thinking with a vengeance. Whenever Whites have ceded power, they have been physically endangered.

But as we head into a new era of difficult times for White people as they are increasingly pushed aside while heading for minority status, we can take solace in Buchanan’s point that “Adversity and abuse increase the awareness of separate identity and accelerate the secession of peoples from each other.” Quite right.

The anger of the Tea Partiers is just the beginning.

Bookmark and Share

A Tale of Two Rich Guys, Haim Saban and Charles T. Munger

/36 Comments/in , , , /by

A Sacramento Bee op-ed by Dan Morain points out that the motives for all the money going into a California ballot proposition on redistricting are hidden from the public. The two men couldn’t be more different. Haim Saban, the billionaire media tycoon, wants the politicians to redraw boundaries so that the Congressional seat of Howard Berman, a Jewish politician who is strongly pro-Israel  is protected from the ever expanding Latino population. As Morain notes, Saban’s only motivation in life is to advance the cause of the Jewish state, famously telling the New York Times “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.”

It’s interesting that activist Jews are now worried that there will be fewer Jewish politicians with the rise of the same minorities that Jewish activist organizations have been so eager to populate the country with. Organizations like the ADL have expressed concerned that new ethnic blocs will not be appropriately sympathetic to Jewish causes such as Israel. Their solution is not to try to stem the tide of non-White immigration but to make political alliances with the new arrivals and, as indicated by Saban’s actions, skew the political process in a way where Jewish political assets (particularly money) will still be effective.

Charles T. Munger is a completely different story. Munger, a Stanford physicist,  is also very wealthy, his wealth stemming from his father’s partnership with Warren Buffet. Munger wants a citizen’s panel to draw the redistricting lines in the hopes that politics will be less partisan — a position that sounds like high-minded idealism. As a Republican, he may well want more  Republicans, but as Morain notes, he is almost certainly wrong about that. If he really wanted to have more Republicans elected, he should have invested his money in anti-immigration efforts. No matter how California is redistricted, Latinos and other minorities are going to continue to increase in political power while Whites are increasingly dispossessed.

So Munger is tilting at windmills while Saban is helping his people. There is a great deal of wealth controlled by people like Munger, but in general its wasted on things like this. As I noted in an earlier blog:

One of the biggest problems for European-Americans is that wealthy non-Jews seem far more interested in funding the opera or getting their name on a building at the local university than in helping their people. A good example is the Chandler family who formerly owned the L. A. Times. They had no interest in the media, and the company is now controlled by Sam Zell, who is Jewish. The family remains wealthy but in general seems to be involved in finding fun and interesting ways to spend their time (one of them flies around the world to attend the opera; another is into building outsize model trains) rather than influencing the world.

Munger is more politically involved than the Chandlers, but his efforts are absolutely useless in really achieving anything remotely beneficial to Republicans — or, more importantly, White Californians.

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: The Violent Anti-White Left Puts On a Show

/26 Comments/in , /by

Kevin MacDonald: You really have to wonder what’s going on when a bunch of White guys from Detroit decide to hold a protest on the lawn of the LA City Hall carrying Nazi banners. The LA Times article mentions  “a bare-chested middle-aged man with Nazi insignias tattooed on his chest and back.” The counter-protesters beat the hell out of him:

Surrounded, the man mockingly bobbed his head to the rhythm of demonstrators chanting “Nazi scum.” About a dozen protesters suddenly began pelting the man with punches and kicks. He fell and was struck on the back with the wooden handle of a protester’s sign, which snapped in two. Police eventually reached the man and pulled him from the melee, as blood poured from the back of his neck.

Another man was rushed by a mob on Spring Street. He was punched in the face and kicked for about 20 seconds before police made it to the scene. After that beating was broken up, the man began running south on Spring Street, only to be chased down by a protester and slugged in the face. He collapsed and his face slammed to the curb as protesters began pummeling him again.

The bloodied man was then escorted away by police. Both victims were treated and released, police said.

His sign, unclear in its intended meaning, read “Christianity=Paganism=Heathen$” with an arrow pointing at a swastika.

The protest was carried out by the  National Socialist Movement, a group that has been credibly said to be controlled by the FBI. (“Prefabricated Fascists: The FBI’s Assembly-Line Provocateurs” by William Norman Grigg). As Grigg notes, “the FBI has no problem staging white supremacist rallies and protest marches that help ‘local’ police departments rack up overtime.” If these guys are FBI agents, I assume they are getting combat pay — addition to travel costs from Detroit. It strikes me as incredible that 50 working class White guys have enough excess money to fly out to LA for the weekend to complain about immigration. But if the FBI  is funding it, it makes a lot of sense and is exactly what the country needs:  At last, a federal  jobs program for working class White males.

Actually, the NSM is “all show, no go” – it’s more of a federally controlled traveling roadshow, sort of a Third Reich tribute band. Its cadres exude all of the raw menace of the hapless Illinois Nazis from The Blues Brothers, and possess all of the street-fighting chops of the bumbling Black Widow biker gang from Clinton Eastwood’s Philo Beddoe films.

The real point is that the anti-White left feels no compunctions about perpetrating violence against such people. (The counter-protesters, who outnumbered the NSM folks by at least 10 to 1,  are described as “a wide assortment of African American, Jewish, Latino, immigrants-rights and anarchist groups.”) Not only were the NSM people beaten up, “dozens of [the counter-protesters]  hurled rocks and glass bottles at the neo-Nazis and their police escorts.” Despite all of this very public violence directed at the NSM, the police arrested no one — further lending credibility that the whole thing was a stage show.

Being anti-White means there are no consequences for your illegal actions — another example of Sam Francis’s concept of anarcho-tyranny. The LAPD spokesman said “”We allowed both sides to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.” Apparently violence perpetrated against people who are at least performing as racially conscious Whites is a free speech right. You can bet that violence directed against non-Whites would lead to long prison sentences.

But this stage show has real world consequences. This type of demonstration is exactly how the media wants to portray opposition to immigration. It will definitely produce big bucks in donations for the $PLC and similar organizations. LA TImes readers (who have been treated to harrowing articles and editorials on the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law every day since it passed) will be predictably outraged. And it energizes the very large anti-White community of LA in advance of the coming battle on immigration amnesty. Indeed, on May 1 the counter-protesters will have their day: A rally to promote immigration, both legal and especially illegal. You can bet there will be no violent counter-demonstrations.

Presumably, the NSM will take their traveling road show to other cities to inflame public opinion there as well.


Bookmark and Share

Edmund Connelly on Faux Conservatives

/27 Comments/in , /by

Edmund Connelly’s current TOO article explores the topic of faux conservatives. Particularly interesting is Michael Savage’s question “Who assaulted the White race? Who set out to destroy the White people?” This is a huge improvement on other MSM conservatives. I have never heard anything like that from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, or your average neocon. Even if his analysis of why this happened is puerile (although it does finger some prominent Jewish names in the 1960s counterculture), just having his audience think in those terms is a breakthrough. Listeners inevitably get the message that the White race is under attack and likely to go extinct in the foreseeable future. He inserts a gloomy report on White birthrates in Europe that concludes that it would take decades for Whites to get back on track demographically.

Certainly White listeners are going to feel threatened and under attack — quite a different message from the harmonious future envisioned by the current media and intellectual elites and on the verge of being enforced by the impending multicultural police state. It necessarily implies that  White people identify as White and start looking for ways to reverse their decline — the nightmare of the current regime. And it doesn’t take much imagination to plug into a really powerful analysis of what went wrong in the 1960s and how the events of that decade continue to reverberate in our culture.

The other thing that struck me is the complex character of Andrew Breitbart, whose picture lounging in a bathtub graces the TOO front page. One can only imagine the mixed messages he must have had growing up as an ethnically Irish boy being raised with his Hispanic sister by a Jewish man and his formerly Protestant wife. Then he goes to Tulane for college — a bastion of White southern culture. The $64 question is, what did Breitbart mean when he said, “You’ve gone to Hebrew school, you’ve gone to Auschwitz, you go, Never again, Never again. Then you go to Tulane and you go, Maybe never again”? Suggestions appreciated.

Bookmark and Share

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

/28 Comments/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I noted elsewhere,

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

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

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

Bookmark and Share