A recent LA Times article, “Supreme Court Nominee has admirers left and right,” by David G. Savage and James Oliphant, although masquerading as news, is a brief for the candidacy of Elena Kagan for the position on the Supreme Court vacated by David H. Souter. The article notes that she is well connected to top people in the Obama Administration, and there is effusive praise from two legal bigwigs, Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried, both of Harvard.
Kagan’s candidacy raises a number of issues. If nominated and confirmed, there would be three Jewish justices on the Supreme Court — all on the left. Jews are of course always overrepresented among elites — especially on the left, but 33% is high by any standard given that Jews constitute less than 3% of the US population. This is much higher than Jewish representationin the US Senate (13%) and the House of Representatives (~7%). The last time I checked, if there were three Jews on the Supreme Court, the percentage would be about the same as the percentage of Jews among the wealthiest Americans.
Jews as one-third of the Supreme Court seems sure to raise the eyebrows among people like me who think that Jewish identity often makes a big difference in attitudes and behavior. And if there is one area where mainstream Jewish political identity has had a huge effect (besides anything related to Israel), it’s in attitudes and behavior related to multiculturalism. This is true of the Jewish mainstream across the entire Jewish political spectrum, from the far left to the neoconservative right. A major theme of The Culture of Critiqueis that Jewish identities and interests were apparent in all the Jewish-dominated intellectual movements of the left that have rationalized multiculturalism, massive non-White immigration, and the general displacement of Europeans:
Viewed at its most abstract level, a fundamental agenda is thus to influence the European-derived peoples of the United States to view concern about their own demographic and cultural eclipse as irrational and as an indication of psychopathology. (Ch. 5 of The Culture of Critique; emphasis in original)
Kagan seems to have lived a charmed life, with perhaps a whiff (or even a stench) of ethnic networking. At least one of the journalists writing the LA Times panegyric is Jewish (David G. Savage), and the two legal scholars who are quoted in the article (Fried and Tribe) are both Jews. In addition, Kagan was appointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan coveredfor Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar’s book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal.
While Jewish activists are doing all they can to promote a Jew for this position, we don’t hear a peep from White Protestants — a group that dominated the Supreme Court for 150 years. With Souter’s departure, the only White Protestant left on the court is the superannuated Stephens, who is 89 and will doubtless be replaced by an ethnic minority if he retires during the Obama administration. (White males need not apply.) When it comes to playing help-my-tribe battles, White Protestants are completely inept — in fact, they don’t even play at all.
Tribe’s praise for Kagan is particularly interesting: “She has an excellent chance, and she would be terrific. … She has a masterful command of so many areas of law. And she’s been vetted and recently confirmed. Her writing is not voluminous, which is also a plus.”
Indeed, her writing is not voluminous at all. In her entire career at the University of Chicago and Harvard — the very apex of elite academic institutions — she has written a grand total of 9 articles. Actually, her scholarly output is even less than that because two of these publications are book reviews and one is a tribute to Thurgood Marshall. When she received tenure at the University of Chicago in 1995, she had exactly two scholarly articles published in law journals — a record that would ordinarily not get her tenure even at quite a few third tier universities much less an elite institution like the University of Chicago.
But on the basis of this record and later work in the Clinton Administration, in 2003 she became the dean of Harvard Law School, the most prestigious law school in the country. She has yet to publish any articles or books since becoming dean. But now her lack of scholarship is called a plus by Laurence Tribe, presumably because her positions on many issues are unknown. (Doubtless if Kagan had a stellar scholarly record, Tribe would have seen it as a major plus.)
Not only does she have a weak record as a scholar, she has yet to argue a case as Solicitor General even though she had the opportunity to do so. Her next opportunity to argue a case will not happen until after the Supreme Court nomination process is over, so we will have no information on how effective she would be in fending off the arguments of the conservative intellectual heavyweights on the Court before this weighty decision is made. On the basis of the arguments she endorsed in the Solomon Amendment case (see below), one must assume that she would not fare well.
Nor are there any other discernible positives. As Savage and Oliphant note, “Kagan does not have the ‘real world’ experience in politics. … It is not clear whether she has the “quality of empathy” Obama has said he wants in a nominee. But she has had an uncanny knack for winning important admirers and avoiding enemies in a series of top legal jobs.”
The only thing Kagan has going for her seems to be that important people admire her. She’s good at networking, and it would seem that many of her most prominent admirers are other Jews — liberal and conservative. (Tribe and Summers are liberals; Charles Fried is considered a conservative. Fried was Solicitor General in the Reagan Administration but voted for Obama.) Ethnic networking indeed!
This points to corruption in the Jewish sector of the American academic elite. Kagan’s path to the academic heights of the legal profession and perhaps to a position on the Supreme Court is not based on a solid record of scholarship or any other relevant experience, but on ethnic boosterism from other Jews. As Inoted elsewhere, Jews are represented in elite American academic institutions at levels far higher than can be explained by IQ.
Kagan is a poster girl for Jewish affirmative action. Not only does she have no discernible skills that would warrant her high position as dean of Harvard Law — much less an appointment to the Supreme Court, she is boosted by another Harvard professor (Laurence Tribe) who plagiarized another scholar’s work. (Plagiarism seems to run rampant at Harvard Law. Norman Finkelstein provides a credible casethat Alan Dershowitz plagiarized others’ work in writing The Case for Israel. Charles J. Ogletree Jr., an African American, was involved in double plagiarism: foisting off the plagiarized work of his assistants as his own.) And Kagan was appointed dean of Harvard Law by then-Harvard President Lawrence Summers who has massive ethical problems of his own related to shielding another Harvard professor, his friend and protégé Andrei Shleifer. Shleifer was found liable by a federal court in 2004 for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government for his activities during the transition to capitalism in Russia in the 1990s. Summers also accepted$2.7 million in speaking fees from companies that received government bailout money when he later became head of the National Economic Council.
What could we expect from Kagan on the Supreme Court? Kagan has beenflagged by conservatives because of an amicus brief she and other law professors wrote seeking to strike down a law that prohibited colleges and universities that ban military recruiting on campus from receiving federal funds. The motive behind the brief signed by Kagan was to protest the military’s policy on homosexuality. Their arguments were rejected 8-0 by the Supreme Court, indicating that even the Court liberals thought it was completely outside the mainstream.
This strongly suggests that Kagan would be quite willing to fashion her legal arguments to attain her liberal/left policy goals, and that is exactly what her other writings show. Her 1993 article “Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V,” (60 University of Chicago Law Review 873; available on Lexis/Nexis) indicates someone who is entirely on board with seeking ways to circumscribe free speech in the interests of multicultural virtue: “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” She acknowledges that the Supreme Court is unlikely to alter its stance that speech based on viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment, but she sees that as subject to change with a different majority: The Supreme Court “will not in the foreseeable future” adopt the view that “all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution.” But in her view there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts.
And until that day comes — doubtless speeded by her arrival on the court, she advocates finding ways to rationalize restrictions on free speech within the current guidelines of the court. Her article proposes a variety of ways that “hate speech” may be restricted without running afoul of current Supreme Court guidelines. For example, she supports the constitutionality of “hate crime” laws that enhance penalties for crimes motivated by racial bias — precisely the sort of law recently passed by the House and now being considered by the Senate. Such laws have been strongly promoted by the organized Jewish community and condemnedby conservative legal scholars as creating special victim categories and destroying federalism because they punish acts that are already illegal in the states.
Kagan’s conclusion shows where her heart is:
[Efforts to draft restrictions on speech] will not eradicate all pornography or all hate speech from our society, but they can achieve much worth achieving. They, and other new solutions, ought to be debated and tested in a continuing and multi-faceted effort to enhance the rights of minorities and women, while also respecting core principles of the First Amendment.
For Kagan, the crusade to restrict speech is motivated by her feminist and leftist political attitudes. Indeed, her 1993 paper was originally presented at a conference titled, “Speech, Equality, and Harm: Feminist Legal Perspectives on Pornography and Hate Propaganda.” She sees her job as a legal scholar to find a way to ensure that these goals are achieved while paying lip service to the legal tradition of the First Amendment. Indeed, she sees heavy-handed attempts to restrict free speech, such as the Stanford speech code, as counter-productive because they make “the forces of hatred into defenders of Constitutional liberty” and because they are so unreasonable they invite criticisms of the rest of Stanford’s race and gender policies.
In a revealing comment, she notes that those who want to restrict speech in heavy-handed and unconstitutional ways are motivated by the stubborn failure to close the racial gap:
The magnitude and duration of these inequalities may make them impervious to political (let alone to academic) efforts. We do not know how to solve these problems; we may not even know how to talk (or perhaps we are afraid to talk) about them. So some succumb to the allure of sideshows such as the one involving the Stanford Policy.
Given what many believe is the biological basis of these racial differencesand recent reports that the racial gap in education is not narrowing despite the No Child Left Behind law aimed at raising the scores of Blacks and Latinos, I suspect that this temptation to restrict speech will be increasingly irresistible in the future. And if Kagan is on the Supreme Court, we can certainly expect that she would vote for such restrictions. Her heart, as I am sure Obama must know, is definitely in the right place.
They say politics is the art of the possible. For Kagan, law is also the art of the possible. There are no principles. Only better or worse tactics for achieving her policy goals.
Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.
Facebook refuses to Ban All Holocaust-denial Sites
Social media expert Dr Andre Oboler. Photo: AJN file
SOCIAL-NETWORKING site Facebook is facing mounting criticism in Australia and overseas after refusing to ban Holocaust-denial groups from its site.
Despite international pressure calling for the popular website to block Holocaust-denial groups, Facebook said it does not take down groups that “speak out against countries, political entities, or ideas”.
The popular site, however, has recently begun to remove Holocaust-denial content in countries such as Israel and Germany, where Holocaust denial is illegal.
There are also reports that two other Holocaust-denial pages available in Australia were recently removed.
Facebook’s policy has outraged Australian Jewish groups, which argue that denying the Holocaust is racial vilification -– not legitimate speech -– and illegal under Australia’s current laws.
B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission chairperson Tony Levy said: “Facebook’s failure to take action over racism on its site was unacceptable.
“Unfortunately, we are seeing an increase in anti-Semitic attacks in Australia. We call on Facebook to remove racist and anti-Semitic material immediately.”
Facebook, however, has defended its policies.
“The goal of these policies is to strike a very delicate balance between giving Facebook users the freedom to express their opinions and beliefs -– even those that are controversial or that we may find repulsive – while also ensuring that individuals and groups of people do not feel threatened or endangered,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement to The AJN.
The spokeswoman said the popular site draws the line with groups that are sponsored by “recognised terrorist organisations” or threaten violence.
But social media expert Dr Andre Oboler, who specialises in anti-Semitism online, said Facebook does not have its “balance” right.
In his recently published paper titled The Rise and Fall of a Facebook Hate Group, Dr Oboler examined Facebook’s recent inaction over the controversial Facebook page of the group called “Israel is not a Country! Delist it from Facebook as a Country”.
Eventually, grassroots-activists, the Jewish Internet Defence Force took control of the site in late July 2008 and began to manually dismantle it from the inside.
“Facebook is looking for excuses not to take action,” said Dr Oboler.
“They don’t want to get on the bad side of their users and the people reading their content. They just want to sit there and watch the money pile up.”
Looking ahead, Dr Oboler said most likely it will take government legislation to block online hate in user-generated content.
“The clock is slowly ticking,” Dr Oboler said. “If it doesn’t come from within Facebook, it’s going to come through government and be taken out of their hands.”
No one really expects business to increase 60 percent in a worldwide economic crisis. Unless, of course, you own a firearms store, online ammo shop, or lease a booth at the regional gun show, in which case business is exploding.
Brad DeSaye’s family has been selling guns and ammo since 1946, when his father Joe opened J&G Rifle Ranch in Montana. The business moved in 1977 to Prescott, Arizona, renaming itself J&G Sales. Specializing in guns and ammo for “sportsmen, law enforcement and firearms enthusiasts,” J&G has thrived through multiple wars, recessions, and national panics. But sales have never been as high as they are at the moment, DeSaye says. “Business is probably triple more than normal,” he tells TAC. “It’s unprecedented.”
He’s hardly the exception. Boxes of ammunition of all calibers are reportedly flying off the shelves at double, even triple the normal price in neighborhood mom-and-pops, Wal-Marts, and at gun shows across the country. Big online dealers like Texas-based Cheaper Than Dirt are ordering millions of rounds at a time and slamming up against backorders of six to eight months.
Meanwhile, Dave Hardy, who blogs at armsandthelaw.com, reports that gun shows are becoming surreal. “The last gun show I went to, ammo prices were close to double what they were six months ago,” he says. “I saw three or four people enter with moving dollies, using them to haul out a load of ammo too heavy to carry. I have never seen that before, and I’ve been attending gun shows since the mid-1970s.”
Firearms, especially semi-automatics and handguns, are in high demand. Longtime gun owners are said to be “stockpiling,” while another demographic, the rookie, is beginning to make his mark. Ted Novin, spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, said the organization’s introductory gun-safety classes are seeing “an unprecedented level” of attendance. “One of our courses is called ‘First Shots’—it’s jam-packed,” he says.
From November through to March, the number of FBI background checks administered when someone purchases a gun jumped 29 percent to 3.8 million, compared to the same period last year. A survey by industry researcher SportsOneSource found that firearm sales by large retailers such as Wal-Mart are up 39 percent this year.
An unparalleled confluence of events seems to have triggered this run on firearms supplies. The hottest flashpoint by far was the November election, when a largely unknown liberal from Chicago won the presidency, and the Democratic Congress, led by gun-control advocates, emerged with an even more formidable, bulletproof majority.
“I think it’s a reasonable reaction,” Novin says of the sales spike. “This demonstrates that gun owners are determined to exercise their individual, constitutionally protected, Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, safely and responsibly.”
President Obama has said repeatedly that he supports the Second Amendment. But skeptical gun-rights activists point to his record in the Illinois State Senate as proof that he would much prefer a world in which only the government has guns. “Obama has a history of supporting a ban on handguns,” says Jeff Soyer, a pro-gun blogger who lives in Vermont. “The result has been a run on all types of firearms.”
Although the president denies supporting such a move, he did vote to impose strict gun laws as a state senator between 1997 and 2004, including a bill that would limit handgun sales to individuals to one per month and allow victims of handgun violence to sue gun manufacturers. He has also suggested that only police should have the right to carry concealed weapons and that the federal government should raise taxes on firearms and ammo by 500 percent.
In addition to the president, a number of Democrats, including Attorney General Eric Holder and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said that they support the reinstatement of the Clinton-era ban on so-called assault weapons. But these politicians recognize that the political winds for gun control aren’t blowing in their favor.
Still, gun advocates are not feeling comfortable. They warily read former president Jimmy Carter’s recent New York Times op-ed pleading that the White House and Congress “not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons.” They do not discount another Democratic rally against the “gun-show loophole,” through which some states still allow unlicensed dealers to sell firearms at shows. They see Obama’s pledge to work with Mexico on international gun-running as an ominous sign.
There are more than 20 firearms-related bills pending in the House and at least seven in the Senate. Not all of these measures should be construed as anti-gun, yet fear remains among gun enthusiasts that, when the time is right, the new administration will pounce.
“[Obama] has surrounded himself with people who are not only extreme gun-control supporters, but they have been key leaders in that movement,” says Dave Kopel, a gun-policy expert with the Colorado-based Independence Institute. “I think people are right to be concerned.”
Yet the Carter and Clinton administrations—the latter saw a “Million Mom March” against guns—and the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress also prompted nervous gun-buying sprees and no doubt generated profitable waves of political activity for the National Rifle Association and conservative grassroots.
Today is different, however, not only for the sheer volume of merchandise moving across the market but because the latest bout of gun buying is motivated by a larger uncertainty about the future. “There is a desperation to it,” says DeSaye, whose business experienced booms following the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (it expired in 2004), the millennium freak-out over Y2K, and what he gauges as a yearlong survivalist period after 9/11. “This is far bigger than any of the others,” he insists. “There is an unknown out there.”
That “unknown” is a sense that Washington and Wall Street are completely clueless about how to fix the derailed economy. No one has any idea how long this recession will last or, more darkly, whether government institutions will survive its nebulous passage.
“I grew up in a liberal Democratic family from New York City and never thought I’d ever own a gun,” says David, a white middle-aged man from Northern Virginia working on contract for the U.S Army, who asked that his full name not be used. A dedicated Republican, he eschewed gun ownership until the November election. Now he owns a Ruger .357 Magnum revolver and a Mossberg 500 shotgun. In late 2008, his concerns about the new president, the economy, and a fear of crime led him to his first gun show. “I wanted to be able to defend myself and my home,” he says. He felt that the new administration would later restrict his rights.
“There are a lot of people who think this house of cards is going to collapse,” explains DeSaye. “A growing sense that the end is coming and I’d better be prepared.”
Combined with right-wing fears of a socialist wealth grab and the apocalyptic bombast delivered by emerging media icons like Glenn Beck—who told his Fox audience in February that “depression and revolution” were coming—you have what some are already calling a panic. It’s the infamous Toilet Paper Effect, which refers, of course, to the hysterical reaction to the late Johnny Carson’s gag about a looming toilet paper shortage on Dec. 19, 1973. A day later, not a roll was left on the shelves.
Great comedic fare, but it’s not so funny when weapons are the punchline. Carson might have had 20 million television viewers, but today the blogosphere can set off a run on a specific brand of ammo overnight with a few well-placed chat room posts about backorders—what DeSaye calls “a real feeding frenzy.”
There are sounder, less sexy reasons for the short supply. Some say growing consumption of raw materials like brass, copper, and lead by India and China over the last four years has driven up the price of producing ammo. Others point out that new Homeland Security rules requiring 100 percent inspection of all aircraft cargo have delayed shipments and increased costs.
Add to this the huge demands of the U.S military since 2003. In 2007, the Associated Press reported that troops training for and fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan were consuming more than 1 billion bullets a year, “contributing to ammunition shortages hitting police departments nationwide and preventing some officers from training with the weapons they carry on patrol.”
Yet activists like Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America insist that shortages have more to do with a “getting it while you can” ethos, a reflection of the political climate and a heightened fear for safety. “Folks are getting the message. They are literally waiting for the ammo to come into a store, and when it comes in—whack—they leave with their arms full.”
While easily dismissed by many Americans as paranoid and partisan, such frenzied consumption betrays a broader, more pernicious anxiety—a realization that within a generation individuals have ceded too much control of their lives to the state. The 9/11 attacks stimulated the enactment of sweeping new law-enforcement powers, while the White House was given carte blanche to push its prerogatives to the limit.
Gun restrictions may not be politically expedient now, but just one major violent event in the U.S.—perhaps another case of a man shooting his entire family because he’s mired in debt—could set in motion a raft of even tighter controls on the constitutional right to bear arms.
Under the Bush administration, the Left bristled about the onset of a tyrannical government. Now gun owners on the Right are awaking to the same fear.
Last August, I wrote about CNN’s predictably biased coverage of the beating death of Luís Ramírez, an illegal alien in the small Pennsylvania town of Shenandoah.
The young White men prosecuted beat some of the charges, leading to yet another round of predictable media coverage. Most stories I read began with that most ominous of phrases: “An all-White jury…”
Of course, to a media that considers itself Atticus Finch, nothing good can ever issue from “an all-White jury.” A Google News search reveals endless hits for “all-White jury”; none for “all-black jury” or “all-Hispanic jury.” Really, you needn’t read the rest of the story. I’ll finish off the paragraph for your convenience: “An all-White jury today ignored all evidence presented at trial and handed down an utterly racist verdict that totally affirms the incurably backward, bigoted nature of American society.”
If an “all-White jury” decided to award slavery reparations to all living blacks, it wouldn’t be “an all-White jury” — it would simply be “a jury.” And a sensible, fair-minded one at that.
The media telegraphs a lot by using “all-White jury.” If a few blacks or Hispanics had been on it, the media is saying, they naturally would have been able to appeal to the Whites’ better angels, and thus come back with the correct decision.
The media is barely interested in such trivialities as the burden of proof or the evidence presented at trial — otherwise, it would announce a shocking verdict by saying “despite overwhelming evidence of innocence, Tom Robinson was convicted of rape.” Whites are presumed to be defective jurors. And anything “all-White,” whether a barbershop quartet or local school, is of course illegitimate. An “all-White jury” may be the most illegitimate thing going.
These presumptions guided the coverage by Ian Urbina, the New York Times reporter sent to sniff out and send up for mockery the White reaction to the verdict in Shenandoah.
Urbina goes at his task with gusto, starting off with a claim by a Hispanic student that Whites threatened him with the next beating. It would be easy for a Hispanic student to falsify such a claim, and I wonder whether Urbina followed up with a request for the names of those White students. Probably not — minority claims of victimization usually go unchallenged by reporters. The claim might be true, but the New York Times would never allow a similar claim by a White to serve as the lead sentence of a story, even if it were confirmed by multiple sources. (Later on in the story, we see that the student himself was suspended after being given “permission” by his father to respond to the Whites with violence, a scenario description that cries out for deeper questioning.)
Good Guys: The Bermejo family. The boy in the background claimed that White students told him he would be beaten next.
Naturally, Urbina quotes Hispanic advocacy groups, but does not bother reaching out to a White advocacy group like the National Policy Institute. He quotes a Hispanic advocacy attorney as saying that “this case is not just about what happened to Luis; it’s about what Latinos nationally are facing.” Needless to say, Mr. Urbina is not interested in what Whites nationally are facing, nor does he question the sense of shared racial fate felt by Hispanics.
Urbina quotes Hispanics — by name, of course (see my earlier column for a discussion of this) — trumpeting that the Whites only dislike them because they represent “change” and are “different.” They thus channel back to the reporter exactly what he believes about White attitudes toward Hispanics or illegal immigrants — kind of like a Mobius strip message circuit. White advocates, take note: When speaking to a reporter, it’s best to frame your message in terms of things the reporter already believes.
Urbina winds up with a sucker punch. He quotes a White man, Ed Rolko, on his reaction to the verdict as follows:
“‘This is a tight-knit place, and everyone knows each other,’ said Mr. Rolko, adding that he, like everyone else in town, knows the defendants personally.
Asked whether he knew Mr. Ramírez, Mr. Rolko said no.”
Bad Guy: Ed Rolko at his styling salon
It’s doubtful that any of the happy-to-talk Hispanics knew any of the White defendants, but Mr. Urbina doesn’t pose this question to them. He’s only interested in setting up Whites like Ed Rolko as close-minded bigots. We can safely assume this: If Mr. Urbina had information that the Hispanics in town knew the White defendants, he would have happily put it out there — further proof of White wickedness in comparison to Hispanic friendliness. So he either asked the question and got the same answer, or didn’t ask the question at all.
Such is the power of a reporter to shape a story. Ian Urbina instinctively feels that small towns, football and close-knit Whites are bad things, and he narrates accordingly. Having moved from one much-hated career to another (journalism to law), I can testify to the dirty tricks of both.
But the law, at least, has accounted for the tendency of a particular party to shape the story to advance his interests: the trial, with objections, cross-examinations and separate opportunities to present evidence.
Sadly for Whites, they sit in the defendant’s chair with the media as prosecutor — and no defense counsel in sight.
Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist. Email him.
I have been very pleased with the progress of my legislation, HR 1207, which calls for a complete audit of the Federal Reserve and removes many significant barriers towards transparency of our monetary system. This bill now has nearly 170 cosponsors, with support from both Republicans and Democrats. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate S 604, which will hopefully begin to gain momentum as well. I am very encouraged to see so many of my colleagues in Congress stand with me for greater transparency in government.
Some have begun to push back against this bill, and I am very happy to address their concerns.
The main argument seems to be that Congressional oversight over the Fed is government interference in the free market. This argument shows a misunderstanding of what a free market really is. Fundamentally, you cannot defend the Federal Reserve and the free market at the same time. The Fed negates the very foundation of a free market by artificially manipulating the price and supply of money – the lifeblood of the economy. In a free market, interest rates, like the price of any other consumer good, are decentralized and set by the market. The only legitimate, Constitutional role of government in monetary policy is to protect the integrity of the monetary unit and defend against counterfeiters.
Instead, Congress has abdicated this responsibility to a cabal of elite, quasi-governmental banks who, instead of stabilizing the economy, have destabilized it. It took less than two decades for the Federal Reserve to bring on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. It has also inflated away the value of our currency by over 96 percent since its inception. It has invisibly stolen from the poor and given to the rich through this controlled inflation, and now openly stolen through recent bank bailouts. It has predictably exacerbated the very problems it was meant to solve.
Detractors have also argued that the Fed must remain immune from the political process, and that that more congressional oversight would distort their very important decisions. On the contrary, the Federal Reserve is already heavily entrenched in the political process, as the Fed chairman is a political appointee. High level officials routinely make the rounds between positions at the Fed, member banks, Treasury and back again, taking care of friends and each other along the way.
As far as the foolishness of placing complex monetary policy decisions in the hands of politicians – I couldn’t agree more. No politician or central banker, no matter how brilliant, is smart enough to know more than the market itself. The failure of central economic planning has been witnessed over and over. It is frankly beyond me why we ever agreed to try it again.
To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have. They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability. Thus the loudest arguments against greater transparency are likely to come from those friends, and understandably so.
However, it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to represent the interests of the people that sent them to Washington and find out what has been happening with our money. As the branch of government with the power of the purse, we really have no other reasonable choice when the economy is in the shape it is in.
The United States and Israel fundamentally disagree about the need to establish a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. President Obama is committed to a two-state solution, while Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu is opposed and has been for many years. To avoid a direct confrontation with Washington, Netanyahu will probably change his rhetoric and talk favorably about two states. But that will not affect Israel’s actions. The never-ending peace process will go on, Israel will continue building settlements, and the Palestinians will remain locked up in a handful of impoverished enclaves in the West Bank and Gaza. Anticipating this outcome, Obama has told Congress to expect a clash with Israel.
This is not a fight Obama is likely to win, even though the United States is more powerful than Israel and most Americans favor creating a Palestinian state and bringing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a close.
Look at the historical record. Since 1967, every American president has opposed settlement-building in the Occupied Territories. Yet no president has been able to put meaningful pressure on Israel to stop building settlements, much less dismantle them. Perhaps the best evidence of American impotence is what happened during the Oslo peace process in the 1990s. Israel confiscated 40,000 acres of Palestinian land, constructed 250 miles of connector and bypass roads, doubled the number of settlers, and built 30 new settlements. President Clinton did hardly anything to halt this expansion.
The main reason no president has been able to stop Israel from colonizing the Occupied Territories is the Israel lobby. It is an especially powerful interest group that has pushed the American government to establish a “special relationship” with Israel, which is, as Yitzhak Rabin once said, “beyond compare in modern history.”
The special relationship means Washington gives Israel consistent, almost unconditional diplomatic backing and more foreign aid than any other country. In other words, Israel gets this aid even when it does things that the United States opposes, like building settlements. Furthermore, Israel is rarely criticized by American officials and certainly not by anyone who aspires to high office. Recall what happened earlier this year to Charles Freeman, who was forced to withdraw as head of the National Intelligence Council because he had criticized certain Israeli policies and questioned the merits of the special relationship.
Many hope that Obama will be different from his predecessors and stand up to the lobby. The indications thus far are not encouraging. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama responded to charges that he was “soft” on Israel by pandering to the lobby and publicly praising the special relationship. He was silent during the recent Gaza War—when Israel was being criticized around the world for its brutal assault on that densely populated enclave—and he said nothing when Freeman was forced to quit his administration. Like his predecessors, Obama appears to be no match for the lobby.
Israel’s supporters in the United States often claim that the special relationship is not due to the lobby’s influence. The American people, they argue, identify closely with Israel and put significant pressure on their leaders to support it generously and unconditionally. But there is abundant evidence showing that this is not true. Recent polls indicate that over 70 percent of Americans think that the U.S. should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and only 47 percent of Americans think that Israel’s influence in the world is “mainly positive.” Moreover, 60 percent of Americans have said that the United States should withhold aid to Israel if it resists pressure to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
In short, a clear majority of Americans do not favor the special relationship and would back Obama if he leaned on Israel to accept a Palestinian state. The lobby, however, would surely side with Israel and pressure the White House to back off. Given the lobby’s track record—as well as Obama’s—it is difficult to imagine him not caving.
Israel’s supporters defend the special relationship because they believe it is an unalloyed good for both countries. In essence, they think that the two countries’ interests are synonymous, and whatever Israel deems good for Israel is good for the United States. From their perspective, there is no need for Israel to change its behavior on any major policy issue, especially on matters relating to the Palestinians.
But they are wrong. Israel’s interests, like any other country’s interests, are not always the same as America’s. Thus it makes little sense for Washington to back Israel no matter what it does because sometimes there will be circumstances in which the two countries’ interests clash. For example, it probably made good sense for Israel to acquire nuclear weapons in the 1960s, since it lives in a dangerous neighborhood and a nuclear arsenal is the ultimate deterrent. But a nuclear-armed Israel was not in the American national interest.
Both countries would be much better off if the Obama administration treated Israel the way it treats other democracies, such as Britain, France, Germany, and India. In practice, this would mean backing Israel when its actions are consistent with American interests. But when they are not, Washington would distance itself from Jerusalem and use its considerable leverage to change Israeli behavior.
The United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East and has a serious terrorism problem in good part because of its unconditional support for Israel’s policies in the Occupied Territories. Backing Israel at almost every turn also makes it harder for Washington to get open support from moderate Arab states, even when dealing with common threats like Iran.
Israel’s backers often maintain that American support for Israel had nothing to do with 9/11, but this claim is simply not true. Consider the motivations of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, whom the 9/11 Commission describes as the “principle architect of the attacks.” According to the commission, “KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.” Numerous independent accounts have also documented that Osama bin Laden has been deeply concerned about the Palestinian situation since he was young, and the 9/11 Commission reports that he wanted the attackers to strike Congress, which he saw as the most important source of support for Israel in the United States. The commission also tells us that bin Laden twice wanted to move the date of the attacks forward because of events involving Israel—even though doing so would have increased the risk of failure.
In short, there is little hope of ending America’s terrorism problem and improving its standing in the Middle East if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not resolved. That will only happen if there is a two-state solution, and that will only occur if the United States puts pressure on Israel.
The special relationship has become a liability for Israel as well. No country has ever pursued a flawless foreign policy, yet the lobby makes it impossible for American leaders to criticize Israel when it does something foolish. Think of the 2006 Lebanon War, when Washington backed Israel to the hilt while it employed a strategy that was, as most Israelis now recognize, boneheaded. The United States would have been a better friend had it pressured Israel to come up with a smarter response or pressed for a quick ceasefire. But that is not how the special relationship works. It is hard to see how this situation makes good sense for Israel.
So how should the Obama administration react to Netanyahu’s opposition to a Palestinian state? The key to understanding this vital issue is to consider two questions. First, what does Israel’s future look like in the absence of a two-state solution? In other words, where is Israel headed if Netanyahu gets his way? Second, what are the likely consequences for America, Israel, and the Palestinians?
Given present circumstances, there are three possible alternatives if the Palestinians do not get their own state, all of which involve creating a “greater Israel”—an Israel that effectively controls the West Bank and Gaza, or all of what was once called Mandatory Palestine.
In the first scenario, greater Israel would become a democratic binational state in which Palestinians and Jews enjoy equal political rights. This solution has been suggested by a handful of Jews and a growing number of Palestinians. It means abandoning the original Zionist vision of a Jewish state, however, since the Palestinians would eventually outnumber the Jews in greater Israel. Uri Avnery, a prominent Israeli journalist and peace activist, is surely correct when he says, “There is no chance at all that the Jewish public will agree, in this generation or the next, to live as a minority in a state dominated by an Arab majority.” Israel’s supporters in America would also have virtually no interest in this outcome.
Second, Israel could expel most of the Palestinians from greater Israel, thereby preserving its Jewish character through an overt act of ethnic cleansing. This seems unlikely, not just because it would be a crime against humanity, but also because there are about 5.5 million Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and they would put up fierce resistance if Israel tried to expel them from their homes.
Still, there are good reasons to worry that Israel might adopt this solution as the demographic balance shifts and concerns about the survival of the Jewish state intensifiy. It is apparent from public-opinion surveys and everyday discourse that many Israelis hold racist views about Palestinians, and the recent Gaza War made clear that they have few qualms about killing Palestinian civilians. A century of conflict and four decades of occupation will do that to a people. Furthermore, a substantial number of Israeli Jews—40 percent or more—believe that the Arab citizens of Israel should be “encouraged” to leave by the government. Indeed, former foreign minister Tzipi Livni recently said that if there were a two-state solution, she expected Israel’s Palestinian citizens to leave and settle in the new Palestinian state.
The final and most likely alternative is some form of apartheid, whereby Israel increases its control over the Occupied Territories, but allows the Palestinians limited autonomy in a set of disconnected and economically crippled enclaves. Israelis and their American supporters invariably bristle at the comparison to white rule in South Africa, but that is their future if they create a greater Israel while denying full political rights to an Arab population that will soon outnumber the Jewish population in the entirety of the land. Former prime minister Ehud Olmert said as much when he proclaimed that if “the two-state solution collapses,” Israel will “face a South-African-style struggle.” He went so far as to argue, “as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished.” Other Israelis, as well as Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu, have warned that continuing the occupation will turn Israel into an apartheid state.
These three outcomes are the only alternatives to a two-state solution, and each would be disastrous for the Jewish state. Apartheid is not a viable long-term solution because the Palestinians will continue to resist until they achieve independence. Their resistance will force Israel to escalate the same repressive policies that have already cost significant blood and treasure, encouraged political corruption, and badly tarnished the nation’s global image. More importantly, there would be little support and much opposition to an apartheid state in the West, especially in the United States, where democracy is venerated and segregation is condemned. This is why Olmert said that going down the apartheid road would be suicidal for Israel.
But bringing democracy to greater Israel would also mean the end of the Jewish state because the more numerous Palestinians would dominate its politics. That leaves ethnic cleansing, which would certainly keep Israel Jewish. That murderous strategy, however, would do enormous damage to Israel’s moral fabric, its relationship with Jews in the diaspora, and its international standing. Israel and its supporters would be treated harshly by history. No genuine friend of Israel could support such a heinous course of action.
Given this grim situation, it is not surprising that a significant number of Israelis have moved abroad and many others would leave if they could. There are somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million Israeli Jews living outside the country, many of whom are unlikely to return. Since 2007, emigration has been outpacing immigration in Israel. According to scholars John Mueller and Ian Lustick, “a recent survey indicates that only 69 percent of Jewish Israelis say they want to stay in the country, and a 2007 poll finds that one-quarter of Israelis are considering leaving, including almost half of all young people.” They report, “in another survey, 44 percent of Israelis say they would be ready to leave if they could find a better standard of living elsewhere,” and “over 100,000 Israelis have acquired European passports.” These figures are a bad omen for Israel.
This discussion of where Israel is heading raises the obvious question: would it not be in Israel’s best interests for President Obama to put significant pressure on both Israel and the Palestinians to agree to a two-state solution? In fact, would it not have been better for Israel if the United States had long ago stopped it from building settlements and instead helped create a Palestinian state? One wonders what future the opponents of a two-state solution envision for greater Israel, for it is hard to see a favorable outcome if the Palestinians do not get their own state. This is not to say that two states living side by side represents an ideal outcome for either side; it is simply better than the alternatives.
Finally, denying the Palestinians their own state is not in the lobby’s interest, and not just because of the consequences for Israel. Over the past two decades, the case for backing Israel—no matter what it does—has become a tough sell in the United States, especially on college campuses. Younger Jews appear to be more willing to criticize Israel than their elders. Americans of all persuasions are becoming increasingly aware of what Israel did to the Palestinians in 1948 and what it has been doing in the Occupied Territories since 1967. Consequently, Israel no longer looks like the victim; it looks like the victimizer, and a ruthless one at that. This situation is sure to get worse if Israel turns itself into an apartheid state in full view of the world.
Because Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians will be increasingly hard to defend, the lobby will have to rely more than ever on threats and intimidation. Facts and reason are not effective weapons when trying to justify an apartheid state. Given the growing awareness of the lobby’s activities—thanks mainly to the Internet—its actions are already being scrutinized in ways they were not in the past. In other words, it has become difficult for the lobby to wield its influence without leaving fingerprints, and greater recognition of its role is likely to trigger greater resentment. Its torpedoing of the Freeman appointment, which was widely discussed in the blogosphere and eventually by the mainstream media, is a case in point. The lobby’s behavior will become more heavy-handed and transparent, which runs the risk of angering large numbers of Americans, including many Jews. It would be much easier for the lobby to defend Israel if it lived alongside a Palestinian state.
President Obama would like to change the situation because he understands that a two-state solution would be good for America, good for Israel, and good for the Palestinians. But Netanyahu seems determined to thwart his efforts. Who is likely to win this fight?
As things stand, Obama has little chance of prevailing, mainly because the lobby’s key institutions will side with Israel, and the American president shows little sign of being willing to take on the lobby. Other factors also weigh against him. There are about 480,000 settlers and a huge infrastructure of roads and settlements in the West Bank. Given that the political center of gravity in Israel has shifted sharply to the right over time, it is hard to imagine any Israeli government having the political will, much less the ability, to dismantle a substantial portion of that enormous enterprise. Consider that a February 2009 poll found that 59 percent of Israelis opposed a Palestinian state; only 32 percent supported it.
Nor is there much sympathy for the two-state solution in the American Jewish community. A 2007 survey found that only 46 percent of Jews in this county favored the establishment of a Palestinian state, probably because 82 percent of those surveyed believed that “the goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.” A 2008 J Street poll showed more support for the two-state solution (78 percent) but also revealed substantial opposition to dismantling Israeli settlements and making East Jerusalem part of Palestine. Those reservations, coupled with deep-seated fears of Palestinian motives, will help the lobby’s hardliners make their case. Of course, Christian Zionists will adamantly oppose the two-state solution: they want Israel to control every square millimeter of Palestine because they believe that will facilitate Christ’s Second Coming.
Obama’s only hope—and it is a slim one—is that a substantial part of the American Jewish community will come to understand Olmert’s warning that Israel will become like white-ruled South Africa if there is no two-state solution. More American Jews need to understand that Israel is in serious peril and that the situation is likely to get worse, not better. Obama would be acting as Israel’s friend if he put pressure on both sides to reach a settlement. If there is no agreement, Israel faces a grim future, and it will become very difficult to defend Israel. In short, more Jewish-Americans need to recognize that it is in their interest to champion the two-state solution.
If that does not happen, Obama will be unable to get tough with Israel. There will be even more trouble ahead for Israel, the United States, and especially the Palestinians.
Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced. Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests … Civilization is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical as a modern factory.
Christopher Dawson. Enquiries into Religion and Culture, p. 259.
Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently. The first, a short article in the Association of Catholic Women’s ACW Review; the second, a remark (which at first surprised me) from a priest in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist society. These shafts of light help, especially, to explain the onslaught of officialdom which in many countries worldwide has so successfully been removing the rights of parents to be the primary educators and protectors of their children.
The ACW Review examined the corrosive work of the ‘Frankfurt School’ – a group of German-American scholars who developed highly provocative and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Not that their idea of a ‘cultural revolution’ was particularly new. ‘Until now’, wrote Joseph, Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason, ‘nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.’
What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern) began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.
The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ – sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.’
Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look on Munzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as ‘revisionists’. In June 1940, Münzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.
In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the 5th Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.
This ‘School’ (designed to put flesh on their revolutionary programme) was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für Sozialforschung. To begin with school and institute were indistinguishable. In 1923 the Institute was officially established, and funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil was born in Argentina and at the age of nine was sent to attend school in Germany. He attended the universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral degree in political science. While at these universities he became increasingly interested in socialism and Marxism. According to the intellectual historian Martin Jay, the topic of his dissertation was ‘the practical problems of implementing socialism.’
Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations. But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.
The School included among its members the 1960s guru of the New Left Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and Jurgen Habermas – possibly the School’s most influential representative.
Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’
The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.
The School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family – an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the “Communist Manifesto”, about the radical notion of a ‘community of women’ and in The German Ideology of 1845, written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the ‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.’
Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.
They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television programme.
The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.
Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: ‘Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development.’ The importance of mass psychology ‘has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.”
Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, [The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness] Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their debt to the Frankfurt School. The witchhunt on today’s campuses is merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’-‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements from the right’-enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.
Dr. Timothy Leary gave us another glimpse into the mind of the Frankfurt School in his account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project, ‘Flashback.’ He quoted a conversation that he had with Aldous Huxley: “These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Timothy, is the Bible’. Leary then went on: “We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”
One of the directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt Sanford, played a pivotal role in the usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965, he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock Institute:‘The nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The leading propagandists of today’s drug lobby base their argument for legalization on the same scientific quackery spelled out all those years ago by Dr. Sanford.
Such propagandists include the multi-billionaire atheist George Soros who chose, as one of his first domestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge the efficacy of America’s $37-billion-a-year war on drugs. The Soros-backed Lindesmith Center serves as a leading voice for Americans who want to decriminalize drug use. ‘Soros is the ‘Daddy Warbucks of drug legalization,’ claimed Joseph Califano Jr. of Columbia University’s National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse’ (The Nation, Sep 2, 1999).
Music, Television and Popular Culture
Adorno was to become head of a ‘music studies’ unit, where in his Theory of Modern Music he promoted the prospect of unleashing atonal and other popular music as a weapon to destroy society, degenerate forms of music to promote mental illness. He said the US could be brought to its knees by the use of radio and television to promote a culture of pessimism and despair – by the late 1930s he (together with Horkheimer) had migrated to Hollywood.
The expansion of violent video-games also well supported the School’s aims.
In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Alan Bloom observed how Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a combination of Marx and Freud. In Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism and its false consciousness will result in a society where the greatest satisfactions are sexual. Rock music touches the same chord in the young. Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious and giving it free rein are what they have in common.’
The modern media – not least Arthur ‘Punch’ Sulzberger Jnr., who took charge of the New York Times in 1992 – drew greatly on the Frankfurt School’s study The Authoritarian Personality. (New York: Harper, 1950). In his book Arrogance, (Warner Books, 1993) former CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg noted of Sulzberger that he ‘still believes in all those old sixties notions about ‘liberation’ and ‘changing the world man’ . . . In fact, the Punch years have been a steady march down PC Boulevard, with a newsroom fiercely dedicated to every brand of diversity except the intellectual kind.’
In 1953 the Institute moved back to the University of Frankfurt. Adorno died in 1955 and Horkheimer in 1973. The Institute of Social Research continued, but what was known as the Frankfurt School did not. The ‘cultural Marxism’ that has since taken hold of our schools and universities – that ‘political correctness’, which has been destroying our family bonds, our religious tradition and our entire culture -sprang from the Frankfurt School.
It was these intellectual Marxists who, later, during the anti-Vietnam demonstrations, coined the phrase, ‘make love, not war’; it was these intellectuals who promoted the dialectic of ‘negative’ criticism; it was these theoreticians who dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed. It was their concept that led to the current fad for the rewriting of history, and to the vogue for ‘deconstruction’. Their mantras: ‘sexual differences are a contract; if it feels good, do it; do your own thing.’
In an address at the US Naval Academy in August 1999, Dr Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret), gave a background briefing on the Frankfurt School, reminding his audience that it was the ‘foot soldiers’ of the Frankfurt School who introduced the ‘sensitivity training’ techniques used in public schools over the past 30 years (and now employed by the US military to educate the troops about ‘sexual harassment’). During ‘sensitivity’ training teachers were told not to teach but to ‘facilitate.’ Classrooms became centres of self-examination where children talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.
Atkinson continued: ‘The Authoritarian personality,’ studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, ‘… the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.’
On April 17th, 1962, Maslow gave a lecture to a group of nuns at Sacred Heart, a Catholic women’s college in Massachusetts. He noted in a diary entry how the talk had been very ‘successful,’ but he found that very fact troubling. ‘They shouldn’t applaud me,’ he wrote, ‘they should attack. If they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would [attack]’ (Journals, p. 157).
In her booklet Sex & Social Engineering (Family Education Trust 1994) Valerie Riches observed how in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a number of organisations in the field of birth control (i.e., contraception, abortion, sterilisation). ‘From an analysis of their annual reports, it became apparent that a comparatively small number of people were involved to a surprising degree in an array of pressure groups. This network was not only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology and sometimes addresses: it was also backed by vested interests and supported by grants in some cases by government departments. At the heart of the network was the Family Planning Association (FPA) with its own collection of offshoots. What we unearthed was a power structure with enormous influence.
‘Deeper investigation revealed that the network, in fact extended further afield, into eugenics, population control, birth control, sexual and family law reforms, sex and health education. Its tentacles reached out to publishing houses, medical, educational and research establishments, women’s organisations and marriage guidance—anywhere where influence could be exerted. It appeared to have great influence over the media, and over permanent officials in relevant government departments, out of all proportion to the numbers involved.
‘During our investigations, a speaker at a Sex Education Symposium in Liverpool outlined tactics of sex education saying: ‘if we do not get into sex education, children will simply follow the mores of their parents’. The fact that sex education was to be the vehicle for peddlers of secular humanism soon became apparent.
‘However, at that time the power of the network and the full implications of its activities were not fully understood. It was thought that the situation was confined to Britain. The international implications had not been grasped.
‘Soon after, a little book was published with the intriguing title The Men Behind Hitler—A German Warning to the World. Its thesis was that the eugenics movement, which had gained popularity early in the twentieth century, had gone underground following the holocaust in Nazi Germany, but was still active and functioning through organizations promoting abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, mental health, etc. The author urged the reader to look at his home country and neighbouring countries, for he would surely find that members and committees of these organizations would cross-check to a remarkable extent.
‘Other books and papers from independent sources later confirmed this situation. . . . A remarkable book was also published in America which documented the activities of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). It was entitled The SIECUS Circle A Humanist Revolution. SIECUS was set up in 1964 and lost no time in engaging in a programme of social engineering by means of sex education in the schools. Its first executive director was Mary Calderone, who was also closely linked to Planned Parenthood, the American equivalent of the British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone supported sentiments and theories put forward by Rudolph Dreikus, a humanist, such as:
· merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles;
· liberating children from their families;
· abolishing the family as we know it’
In their book Mind Siege, (Thomas Nelson, 2000) Tim LaHaye and David A. Noebel confirmed Riches’s findings of an international network. ‘The leading authorities of Secular Humanism may be pictured as the starting lineup of a baseball team: pitching is John Dewey; catching is Isaac Asimov; first base is Paul Kurtz; second base is Corliss Lamont; third base is Bertrand Russell; shortstop is Julian Huxley; left fielder is Richard Dawkins; center fielder is Margaret Sanger; right fielder is Carl Rogers; manager is ‘Christianity is for losers’ Ted Turner; designated hitter is Mary Calderone; utility players include the hundreds listed in the back of Humanist Manifesto I and II, including Eugenia C. Scott, Alfred Kinsey, Abraham Maslow, Erich Fromm, Rollo May, and Betty Friedan.
‘In the grandstands sit the sponsoring or sustaining organizations, such as the . . . the Frankfurt School; the left wing of the Democratic Party; the Democratic Socialists of America; Harvard University; Yale University; University of Minnesota; University of California (Berkeley); and two thousand other colleges and universities.’
A practical example of how the tidal wave of Maslow-think is engulfing English schools was revealed in an article in the British Nat assoc. of Catholic Families’ (NACF) Catholic Family newspaper (August 2000), where James Caffrey warned about the Citizenship (PSHE) programme which was shortly to be drafted into the National Curriculum. ‘We need to look carefully at the vocabulary used in this new subject’, he wrote, ‘and, more importantly, discover the philosophical basis on which it is founded. The clues to this can be found in the word ‘choice’ which occurs frequently in the Citizenship documentation and the great emphasis placed on pupils’ discussing and ‘clarifying’ their own views, values and choices about any given issue. This is nothing other than the concept known as ‘Values Clarification’ – a concept anathema to Catholicism, or indeed, to Judaism and Islam.
‘This concept was pioneered in California in the 1960’s by psychologists William Coulson, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. It was based on ‘humanistic’ psychology, in which patients were regarded as the sole judge of their actions and moral behaviour. Having pioneered the technique of Values Clarification the psychologists introduced it into schools and other institutions such as convents and seminaries – with disastrous results. Convents emptied, religious lost their vocations and there was wholesale loss of belief in God. Why? Because Catholic institutions are founded on absolute beliefs in, for example, the Creed and the Ten Commandments. Values Clarification supposes a moral relativism in which there is no absolute right or wrong and no dependence on God.
‘This same system is to be introduced to the vulnerable minds of infants, juniors and adolescents in the years 2000+. The underlying philosophy of Values Clarification holds that for teachers to promote virtues such as honesty, justice or chastity constitutes indoctrination of children and ‘violates’ their moral freedom. It is urged that children should be free to choose their own values; the teacher must merely ‘facilitate’ and must avoid all moralising or criticising. As a barrister commented recently on worrying trends in Australian education, ‘The core theme of values clarification is that there are no right or wrong values. Values education does not seek to identify and transmit ‘right’ values, teaching of the Church, especially the papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae.
‘In the absence of clear moral guidance, children naturally make choices based on feelings. Powerful peer pressure, freed from the values which stem from a divine source, ensure that ‘shared values’ sink to the lowest common denominator. References to environmental sustainability lead to a mindset where anti-life arguments for population control are present ed as being both responsible and desirable. Similarly, ‘informed choices’ about health and lifestyles are euphemisms for attitudes antithetical to Christian views on motherhood, fatherhood, the sacrament of marriage and family life. Values Clarification is covert and dangerous. It underpins the entire rationale of Citizenship (PSHE) and is to be introduced by statute into the UK soon. It will give young people secular values and imbue them with the attitude that they alone hold ultimate authority and judgement about their lives. No Catholic school can include this new subject as formulated in the Curriculum 2000 document within its current curriculum provision. Dr. William Coulson recognised the psychological damage Rogers’ technique inflicted on youngsters and rejected it, devoting his life to exposing its dangers.
Should those in authority in Catholic education not do likewise, as ‘Citizenship’ makes its deadly approach’?
If we allow their subversion of values and interests to continue, we will, in future generations, lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned, says Atkinson. A reading of history (it is all in mainstream historical accounts) tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have—our individual freedoms.
‘What we are at present experiencing,’ writes Philip Trower in a letter to the author, ‘is a blend of two schools of thought; the Frankfurt School and the liberal tradition going back to the 18th century Enlightenment. The Frankfurt School has of course its remote origins in the 18th century Enlightenment. But like Lenin’s Marxism it is a breakaway movement. The immediate aims of both classical liberalism and the Frankfurt School have been in the main the same (vide your eleven points above) but the final end is different. For liberals they lead to ‘improving’ and ‘perfecting’ western culture, for the Frankfurt School they bring about its destruction.
‘Unlike hard-line Marxists, the Frankfurt School do not make any plans for the future. (But) the Frankfurt School seems to be more far-sighted that our classical liberals and secularists. At least they see the moral deviations they promote will in the end make social life impossible or intolerable. But this leaves a big question mark over what a future conducted by them would be like.’
Israeli government ministers and Knesset members who will help make the decision about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities do not have to wait any longer for a preparatory briefing by the Israel Air Force.
They can read about all the possible scenarios for a strike on Iran, and about the potential risks and chances of success, in a study by Abdullah Toukan and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Never before has such an open, detailed and thorough study of Israel’s offensive options been published. The authors of the 114-page study meticulously gathered all available data on Israel’s military capabilities and its nuclear program, and on Iran’s nuclear developments and aerial defenses, as well as both countries’ missile inventory.
After analyzing all the possibilities for an attack on Iran, Toukan and Cordesman conclude: “A military strike by Israel against Iranian nuclear facilities is possible … [but] would be complex and high-risk and would lack any assurances that the overall mission will have a high success rate.”
The first problem the authors point to is intelligence, or more precisely, the lack of it. “It is not known whether Iran has some secret facilities where it is conducting uranium enrichment,” they write. If facilities unknown to Western intelligence agencies do exist, Iran’s uranium-enrichment program could continue to develop in secret there, while Israel attacks the known sites – and the strike’s gains would thus be lost. In general, the authors state, attacking Iran is justified only if it will put an end to Iran’s nuclear program or halt it for several years. That objective is very difficult to attain.
Intelligence agencies are also divided on the critical question of when Iran will deliver a nuclear weapon. Whereas Israeli intelligence maintains it will have the bomb between 2009 and 2012, the U.S. intelligence community estimates it will not happen before 2013. If the Israeli intelligence assessment is accurate, the window for a military strike is rapidly closing. It is clear to everyone that no one will dare attack Iran once it possesses nuclear weapons.
Since Iran has dozens of nuclear facilities dispersed throughout its large territory, and since it is impossible to attack all of them, Toukan and Cordesman investigated the option of hitting only three, which “constitute the core of the nuclear fuel cycle that Iran needs to produce nuclear weapons grade fissile material.”
Destroying these three sites ought to stall the Iranian nuclear program for several years. The three are: the nuclear research center in Isfahan, the uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz, and the heavy water plant, intended for future plutonium production, in Arak. It is doubtful whether Israel would embark on an offensive with such major ramifications just to strike a small number of facilities, when it is not at all clear that this will stop Iran’s nuclearization for a significant length of time.
The study analyzes three possible flight routes and concludes that the optimal and most likely one is the northern one that passes along the Syria-Turkey border, cuts across the northeastern edge of Iraq and leads into Iran. The central route passes over Jordan and is shorter, but would not be chosen for fear of political trouble with the Jordanians. Using the southern route, which passes over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, might likewise lead to political entanglements.
To prevent the aircraft being detected en route to Iran, the IAF would use advanced technology to invade and scramble communication networks and radar devices in the countries over which the F-15s and F-16s fly, so even though dozens of planes would pass through the countries’ airspace, they will not be detected. According to the authors, the IAF used this technology in the raid on the Syrian nuclear reactor in Dayr az-Zawr, in September 2007. A hacker system was installed on two Gulfstream G550 aircraft that the IAF bought in recent years.
A strike mission on the three nuclear facilities would require no fewer than 90 combat aircraft, including all 25 F-15Es in the IAF inventory and another 65 F-16I/Cs. On top of that, all the IAF’s refueling planes will have to be airborne: 5 KC-130Hs and 4 B-707s. The combat aircraft will have to be refueled both en route to and on the way back from Iran. The IAF will have a hard time locating an area above which the tankers can cruise without being detected by the Syrians or the Turks.
One of the toughest operational problems to resolve is the fact that the facility at Natanz is buried deep underground. Part of it, the fuel-enrichment plant, reaches a depth of 8 meters, and is protected by a 2.5-meter-thick concrete wall, which is in turn protected by another concrete wall. By mid-2004 the Iranians had fortified their defense of the other part of the facility, where the centrifuges are housed. They buried it 25 meters underground and built a roof over it made of reinforced concrete several meters thick.
The Iranians use the centrifuges to enrich uranium, which is required in order to produce a nuclear bomb. There are already 6,000 centrifuges at the Natanz facility; the Iranians plan to install a total of 50,000, which could be used to produce 500 kilos of weapons-grade uranium annually. Building a nuclear bomb takes 15-20 kilograms of enriched uranium. That means that the Natanz facility will be able to supply enough fissile material for 25-30 nuclear weapons per year.
Because the Natanz facility is so important, the Iranians have gone to great lengths to protect it. To contend with the serious defensive measures they have taken, the IAF will use two types of U.S.-made smart bombs. According to reports in the foreign media, 600 of these bombs – nicknamed “bunker busters” – have been sold to Israel. One is called GBU-27, it weighs about 900 kilos and it can penetrate a 2.4-meter layer of concrete. The other is called GBU-28 and weighs 2,268 kilos; this monster can penetrate 6 meters of concrete and another layer of earth 30 meters deep. But for these bombs to penetrate ultra-protected Iranian facilities, IAF pilots will have to strike the targets with absolute accuracy and at an optimal angle.
But the challenges facing the IAF do not end there. Iran has built a dense aerial-defense system that will make it hard for Israeli planes to reach their targets unscathed. Among other things, the Iranians have deployed batteries of Hawk, SA-5 and SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, plus they have SA-7, SA-15, Rapier, Crotale and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Furthermore, 1,700 anti-aircraft guns protect the nuclear facilities – not to mention the 158 combat aircraft that might take part in defending Iran’s skies. Most of those planes are outdated, but they may be scrambled to intercept the IAF, which will thus have to use part of its strike force to deal with the situation.
However, all these obstacles are nothing compared to the S-300V (SA-12 Giant) anti-aircraft defense system, which various reports say Russia may have secretly supplied to Iran recently. If the Iranians indeed have this defense system, all of the IAF’s calculations, and all of the considerations for and against a strike, will have to be overhauled. The Russian system is so sophisticated and tamper-proof that the aircraft attrition rates could reach 20-30 percent: In other words, out of a strike force of 90 aircraft, 20 to 25 would be downed. This, the authors say, is “a loss Israel would hardly accept in paying.”
If Israel also decides to attack the famous reactor in Bushehr, an ecological disaster and mass deaths will result. The contamination released into the air in the form of radionuclides would spread over a large area, and thousands of Iranians who live nearby would be killed immediately; in addition, possibly hundreds of thousands would subsequently die of cancer. Because northerly winds blow in the area throughout most of the year, the authors conclude that, “most definitely Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE will be heavily affected by the radionuclides.”
The difficulty involved in an IAF strike would become a moot point if ballistic missiles wind up being used instead of combat aircraft. The Iranians cannot defend against ballistic missiles. The study lays bare Israel’s missile program and points to three missile versions it has developed: Jericho I, II and III. The Jericho I has a 500-kilometer range, a 450-kilogram warhead, and can carry a 20-kiloton nuclear weapon. Jericho II has a 1,500-kilometer range, and entered service in 1990. It can carry a 1-megaton nuclear warhead. Jericho III is an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 4,800-6,500 kilometers, and can carry a multi-megaton nuclear warhead. The study says the latter was expected to enter service in 2008.
The authors apparently do not insinuate that Israel will launch missiles carrying nuclear warheads, but rather conventional warheads. By their calculation it will take 42 Jericho III missiles to destroy the three Iranian facilities, assuming that they all hit their marks, which is extremely difficult. It is not enough to hit the target area: To destroy the facilities it is necessary to hit certain points of only a few meters in size. It is doubtful the Jerichos’ accuracy can be relied on, and that all of them will hit those critical spots with precision.
The study also analyzes the possible Iranian response to an Israeli strike. In all likelihood the result would be to spur Iranians to continue and even accelerate their nuclear program, to create reliable deterrence in the face of an aggressive Israel. Iran would also withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which until now has enabled its nuclear program to be monitored, to a certain degree, through inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. An Israeli strike would immediately put a stop to the international community’s attempts to pressure Iran into suspending development of nuclear weapons.
No Syrian response
Iran would also, almost certainly, retaliate against Israel directly. It might attack targets here with Shahab-3 ballistic missiles, whose range covers all of Israel. A few might even be equipped with chemical warheads. In addition, the Iranians would use Hezbollah and Hamas to dispatch waves of suicide bombers into Israel. The Second Lebanon War showed us Hezbollah’s rocket capability, and the experience of the past eight years has been instructive regarding Hamas’ ability to fire Qassams from the Gaza Strip.
Hezbollah launched 4,000 rockets from South Lebanon during the Second Lebanon War, and their effect on northern Israel has not been forgotten: Life was nearly paralyzed for a whole month. Since then the Lebanese organization’s stockpile was replenished and enhanced, and it now has some 40,000 rockets. Israel does not have a response to those rockets. The rocket defense systems now being developed (Iron Dome and Magic Wand) are still far from completion, and even after they become operational, it is doubtful they will prove effective against thousands of rockets launched at Israel.
An Israeli strike on Iran would also sow instability in the Middle East. The Iranians would make use of the Shi’ites in Iraq, support Taliban fighters and improve their combat capabilities in Afghanistan. They also might attack American interests in the region, especially in countries that host U.S. military forces, such as Qatar and Bahrain. The Iranians would probably also attempt to disrupt the flow of oil to the West from the Persian Gulf region. Since the United States would be perceived as having given Israel a green light to attack Iran, American relations with allies in the Arab world could suffer greatly. Toukan and Cordesman believe, however, that Iran’s ally Syria would refrain from intervening if Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Regarding a possible time frame for an Israeli strike, the authors cited factors that could speed up the decision in this matter. By 2010 Iran could pose a serious threat to its neighbors and Israel, because it would have enough nuclear weapons to deter the latter and the United States from attacking it. Iran’s inventory of effective ballistic missiles capable of carrying nonconventional warheads could also be an incentive. The fear that the country will procure the Russian S-300V aerial-defense system (if it has not done so already) might also serve as an incentive for a preemptive strike.
So what should Israeli policy makers conclude from this American study? That an IAF strike on Iran would be complicated and problematic, and that the chance of it succeeding is not great. That they must weigh all of the far-reaching ramifications that an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities would have, and that they must not be fooled by promises, should any be made, by Israel Defense Forces officers who present the attack plan as having good odds for success.
One of the conclusions from Toukan and Cordesman’s study is that it is questionable whether Israel has the military capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, or even to delay it for several years. Therefore, if the diplomatic contacts the Obama administration is initiating with Iran prove useless, and if in the wake of their expected failure the American president does not decide to attack Iran, it is likely that Iran will possess nuclear weapons in a relatively short time. It seems, therefore, that policy makers in Jerusalem should begin preparing, mentally and operationally, for a situation in which Iran is a nuclear power with a strike capability against Israel.
This is the place to emphasize Israel’s mistake in hyping the Iranian threat. The regime in Tehran is certainly a bitter and inflexible rival, but from there it’s a long way to presenting it as a truly existential threat to Israel. Iran’s involvement in terror in our region is troubling, but a distinction must be made between a willingness to bankroll terrorists, and an intention to launch nuclear missiles against Israel. Even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Israel’s power of deterrence will suffice to dissuade any Iranian ruler from even contemplating launching nuclear weapons against it.
It is time to stop waving around the scarecrow of an existential threat and refrain from making belligerent statements, which sometimes create a dangerous dynamic of escalation. And if the statements are superfluous and harmful – then this is doubly true for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Of course, none of this contradicts the possibility of taking covert action to hamper the Iranians’ program and supply routes. When the IAF destroyed the Osirak reactor in Baghdad in 1981, the “Begin doctrine” came into being, which holds that Israel will not let any hostile country in the region acquire nuclear weapons. The problem is that what could be accomplished in Iraq more than two decades ago is no longer possible today under the present circumstances in Iran.
The continual harping on the Iranian threat stems from domestic Israeli politics and a desire to increase investment in the security realm, but the ramifications of this are dangerous when you analyze expected developments in Iran’s ballistics: It is impossible for Israel to ignore Iran’s capacity to hit it, and Jerusalem must shape a policy that will neutralize that threat.
In another year, or three years from now, when the Iranians possess nuclear weapons, the rules of the strategic game in the region will be completely altered. Israel must reach that moment with a fully formulated and clear policy in hand, enabling it to successfully confront a potential nuclear threat, even when it is likely that the other side has no intention of carrying it out. The key, of course, is deterrence. Only a clear and credible signal to the Iranians, indicating the terrible price they will pay for attempting a nuclear strike against Israel, will prevent them from using their missiles. The Iranians have no logical reason to bring about the total destruction of their big cities, as could happen if Israel uses the means of deterrence at its disposal. Neither the satisfaction of killing Zionist infidels, nor, certainly, the promotion of Palestinian interests would justify that price. Israeli deterrence in the face of an Iranian nuclear threat has a good chance of succeeding precisely because the Iranians have no incentive to deal a mortal blow to Israel.
Therefore, all the declarations about developing the operational capability of IAF aircraft so they can attack the nuclear facilities in Iran, and the empty promises about the ability of the Arrow missile defense system to contend effectively with the Shahab-3, not only do not help bolster Israel’s power of deterrence, but actually undermine the process of building it and making it credible in Iranian eyes.
The time has come to adopt new ways of thinking. No more fiery declarations and empty threats, but rather a carefully weighed policy grounded in sound strategy. Ultimately, in an era of a multi-nuclear Middle East, all sides will have a clear interest to lower tension and not to increase it.
I’ve been observing and studying the fall of Western man for about two decades now. For a number of years I could not really understand the process, but eventually I caught on. I’ve shared my fears and observations about our displacement with friends and family in a haphazard way but it was not until this winter that I systematically reached out to try to warn them. More than the election of the first African American president last fall, it was the sudden implosion of the economy that convinced me that my minimum duty was to at least pass on my estimation that a few basic measures of preventive self defense were in order.
Before talking to anyone, however, I pondered the likely response to my warnings. Like almost every White racialist out there, I’ve experienced rejection from nearly every White I’ve talked to. Why this is so remains a mystery to me, for the evidence of White decline is everywhere. Sure, humans are prone to denial, but how can it continue this far past the obvious?
Denial or not, I resolved to go one step beyond the writing I’ve been doing to actually talk to specific friends and family members about the elevated risks they face simply by being a White person in today’s America. Of particular concern are the naïve young women in my family.
Looking back on it, the impetus for this personal campaign probably came from a column by the editor of The Occidental Quarterly, Greg Johnson. Mr. Johnson used the occasion of the release of a low-keyed video about race in America to ponder precisely what I’m talking about. In his words: “When a White person awakens to our race’s peril, the first impulse—and the first duty—is to try to awaken others. But where to begin?”
His decision was to “highly recommend Craig Bodeker’s masterful 58 minute documentaryA Conversation about Race. It is an ideal first step on the road to racial awakening.” Taking this advice, I started there, ordering a copy for my brother in Virginia. A blue collar man, he’s been hard hit his whole life by stagnant or declining wages, in part due to the massive immigration—legal and illegal—of laborers with little education. Since he’s a nice guy who is at least superficially willing to listen to my ideas on race, I figured he’d react favorably.
I sent him a copy of the documentary, which he acknowledged receiving, but in subsequent e-mails and phone conversations, he’s never brought up the subject. I have to assume then that he simply has chosen not to watch it. And it’s not that he doesn’t like to watch TV. On the contrary, he’s one of those guys who watches hours and hours of it after work and on weekends. I can always get a pretty good idea of what the latest popular sayings or phrases are just by listening to him.
Well, my brother was just a start. Being Irish America of a certain generation, I’ve got a good number of relatives both back in my hometown and spread out across America. Cousin Mike, for one, is about as good as they come. A few years younger than me, he never went to college but has worked hard enough all these years to allow his horse-loving wife to be a stay-at-home mom. (It helps that land and home prices in small town America are still low.)
As a self-employed businessman—a guy who works with his hands but also has to focus on the bottom line—Mike is probably a little more serious about events than the average guy his age. That’s why I approached him in a unique way. In essence, I made him an offer: “Mike, I’ve got cash in a bank that might be going under someday soon and I can’t be sure federal insurance will mean a lot at that point. Thus, I’d rather use some of that money to buy something here and now that could make a big difference in our lives: I’m willing to pay for whatever firearms and ammo you would feel comfortable owning.”
Because Mike knows how to use dangerous tools and has a fairly sharp sense of what human beings can be capable of in a pinch, I thought it better that he rather than more innocent relatives be in charge of legal firearms. Unfortunately, I never heard back from him.
Now before you get worried about this talk of firearms, let me state directly what worries me most: the chance that our society will even more extensively allow our underclass to blame Whites for whatever perceived misdeeds the underclass feels we are responsible for, and worse, to tacitly allow them to act on their sense of resentment or vengeance more than they already do. And it’s not even the carjacking or street crime that most worries me; it’s the rape.
My point is this—there are many good sources for finding out about the scourge we Whites generally face today in America (and Canada, England, etc.) And like I said, one of the most fearful is Black-on-White rape. In addition to a brother, I have four sisters, and among the six of us we have a lot of young White girls, mostly blondes. Maybe now you can see why I’m worried.
We race realists all have something that triggered our escape from the imposed lies about racial equality and the ideology of unique White wickedness. For me, it was certainly the Wichita Massacre, in which five young Whites were raped and/or murdered by two Black men in a horrendous attack—one which our national media utterly ignored. For others it may have been the Knoxville slayings, or maybe the way the news media focus far more on the alleged crimes of White men, as in the Duke Lacrosse rape hoaxor the Jena 6 fraud.
In any case, you readers know the score about interracial crime, which, as Greg Johnson tells us, Bodeker discusses openly in his race documentary:
In the United States in 2005, 37,000 White women were raped by Blacks, while in the same period “fewer than ten” Black women were raped by Whites. (The odd locution “fewer than ten” rather than a specific number leads me to think that the number could be zero, but that the statistical margin of error is ten.) Bodeker then makes another brilliant point: according to the conventional wisdom on racism, we are supposed to be worried if, on any given day, a White person somewhere in America is harboring racist attitudes towards Blacks; but if one is concerned that, on the very same day, one hundred White women are being raped by Blacks, that is racism most foul.
What I’m trying to do here is understand why what is obvious to me and other race realists is so stubbornly resisted by my friends and family. I mean, what more than is already happening will it take to wake them from their stupor? As an academic, my approach has been through the written word, often in ways that might test the patience of the general reader. Still, I think even my academic prose is accessible and, because it is almost exclusively focused on popular culture, of interest to a wide audience.
For instance, my thirty-something columns at this site cover a broad range of popular culture. My longer works in The Occidental Quarterly do the same but in far more depth. The most popular essay to date seems to be one on television—The Jews of Prime Time. Others can be read here, here and here(this year expect three more essays in my “Understanding Hollywood” series).
My focus on Hollywood comes from the common assumption—heavily supported by an immense body of scholarship—that media influence the way a population thinks and acts. For example, a major thrust of Kevin MacDonald’srecent work (see also here and here) is on showing the power of culture to shape attitudes and control behavior. As he says, “It’s the culture, stupid.”
And it is not only media like film, television and newsprint that do this. It can also be advertising, even in ways that are not directly related to the bottom line.
For instance, the blatantly anti-White male series run by Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) a few years back is unmistakable in its disdain for traditional White society. The conceit is that a nonthreatening and personable Black man in khaki trousers is superior to the crowd of stuffy White (non-Jewish) male bankers who are “from the last century.” Have a look. As we are introduced to a series of White male faces, the narrator intones, “They’re out of touch. They’re old fashioned. They’re greedy.” In contrast, the audience consists of “regular people.” You know, Black women, Pakistani immigrants, and most of all our Black male emcee. The White males are imbeciles — one stating “I’m clueless and rich.”
Another commercial in the series has the herd of White male bankers threatening to jump from the roof of the bank because super banker Bill (the African American) has introduced wildly successful new banking products that the White bankers had never dreamed of. The ad closes with the bankers’ wives being hydraulically lifted to the roof to berate their emasculated banker husbands.
In perhaps the most offensive version, our Black banker Bill explains the source of WaMu’s success. Taking a secret elevator down into the basement, he reveals his secret: “Here at WaMu we have the bankers’ pen. It’s simple—If these stodgy old bankers think an idea is wrong, then we know it’s right.” When the pen of White bankers gets riled up over the new business practices Bill has overseen, he placates them by having a large champagne dispenser lowered into the cage, just as baby calves are bottle fed out in the barn.
(Far be it from me to gloat over the failures of multiculturalism, but I did notice that last fall WaMu went bankrupt. I guess Black banker Bill’s ideas were not that applicable in the real world.)
I know my friends and relatives are watching such advertising all the time. In addition to a similar message of White displacement being preached at all levels of education (ever look at the textbooks your kids are assigned?), the meaning is crystal clear. Why the denial, then?
Honestly, this kind of image is now part of the furniture that is found in the American living room. Think about Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show for starters. For many Americans — especially young adults, he sets the stage for viewing reality. Now, I know what the response of the vast majority of Whites is to anti-White images: as long as they are funny, anything goes. It doesn’t’ matter how vile, untrue or damaging the images are, just as long as they are funny. Needless to say, Blacks, Jews, women, and a string of other minorities long ago learned that humor was one of the most effective ways to attack, belittle and disenfranchise a target group. Whites in general, however, are clueless.
For instance, The Daily Show recently ran a skit called White in America—the Children, which operated on a number of levels. The most basic message was that Whites’ days as majority Americans were numbered. Stewart opens the skit by announcing that “President Obama was elected on a message of change. But is that change good for everyone?” Light-skinned Black Larry Wilmore adopts the role of reporter, introducing one set of Americans at risk: “There is one group of Americans who are now facing the biggest challenge in their history: White people.”
This “once proud race” faces dispossession at the hands of Blacks, Asians “and most rapidly, Latinos” (the transition being represented in the skit by White minivans being replaced by Black cars, Asian motorcycles and low-rider Mexican American cars). In a faux-serious interview, Wilmore faces a group of eight White children and tries to make them understand that their future is bleak. The children—brainwashed already by a steady diet of multiculturalism—are not only in denial about their prospects, they positively welcome the coming change.
The only blonde young girl, for instance, testily responds to observations about her group’s decline, blurting out “We’re not upset in any way, shape or form.” More realistic about race realities, interviewer Wilmore solemnly informs them: “You will be.”
Of course he is absolutely right. Displacement and loss of power have been utterly devastating to groups throughout history. Think how well Americans Indians have fared. Or modern Palestinians. To fail to be upset by such a prospect goes far beyond mere denial, it seems to me. To give up power in a situation where the groups who inherit power (particularly Jews, Blacks, and Latinos) have historical grudges against Whites seems the ultimate folly.
Showing his well-rehearsed multicultural response to the “inevitable” coming changes in America, a White boy quizzes Wilmore, asking “What if this happens and only good change occurs in America?” What kind of Kool-Aid are such young White children already drinking? Perhaps it’s understandable that White children believe these things. The truly pathetic part is that such childish fantasies of about the future of Whites in multicultural America are believed by White adults.
Again, I want to stress the pervasiveness of such images of White dispossession. As mentioned, I’ve written extensively about Hollywood’s scripted replacement of Whites, but you can find it just about everywhere. The venerable Atlantic Monthly, for instance, has for some years now been running prominent ads from the top corporations in America—Microsoft, UPS, Lockheed Martin, etc.—that visually celebrate the coming diversity they see in our future.
Aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, for example, envisions their future rockets being built by a whole range of races — completely unlike the real history of rocketry, where White males did all the thinking, designing and building.
Lockheed Martin ad with future rocket scientists
Microsoft took an even more blatant approach to the same idea, announcing: “We see a rocket scientist.” In the picture, a Black youth is the future rocket scientist. (The odds of someone from a population with an average IQ of 85 producing a rocket scientist are miniscule.) Around him are an Asian boy, a presumably Hispanic boy, a mulatto girl, and two White girls. Real White male rocket scientists and astronauts need not apply.
Microsoft ad: “We see a rocket scientist” (I don’t)
To be sure, NASA itself has been part of this lunge toward diversity, scrapping its all-White male pool of Apollo astronauts for a predictably diverse cast, such as we see here in a crew photo of the space shuttle astronauts who died in the 1986 Challenger explosion:
Space Shuttle Challenger Crew
Space Shuttle Columbia Crew, with Israeli flag
(Nearly two decades later, the multicultural look was still in force at NASA, though the second time a shuttle orbiter was lost, an Israeli was among the crew. This made for a good photo op with both nations’ flags.)
My favorite ad is another Lockheed Martin creation, this one celebrating the joys of diversity in (allegedly) fostering unique perspectives and innovation — which is why the world has seen such stunning fighter jets conceived and produced in places ranging from Mozambique to Polynesia to Ecuador. Here are the people who will be responsible for Lockheed Martin’s future jets. You go, girls!
Lockheed Martin ad featuring non-White female space scientists
The gauntlet laid down for the White race is formidable: demographics,immigration, affirmative action, White self-hate, and the relentless efforts of Jewish groups to eliminate Whites as rivals for world domination.
But I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there is room for optimism, such as that displayed by VDARE’s Steve Sailer, who recently wrote, “The interaction of government-sponsored non-traditional immigration and “disparate impact” affirmative action constitutes a doomsday machine the will rapidly dispossess, and probably seriously radicalize, White America. It’s a recipe for revolution.”
Obviously, I don’t see our dispossession as positive, but I sure would be happy if Sailer is right about a coming White revolution. Sadly, I just don’t see it—and the non-responses of my friends and family discussed above strikes me as typical.
No doubt what really turns people off is when I persist in discussing what I see as the root cause of White dispossession: Jewish activism. We at The Occidental Observer have focused on this cause since the inception of the website last year. I insist on this because I believe political philosopher Carl Schmitt was right: “It’s not only you who chooses your enemy, it’s more often your enemy who chooses you.”
Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.
What do you suppose it is like to be elected president of the United States only to find that your power is restricted to the service of powerful interest groups?
A president who does a good job for the ruling interest groups is paid off with remunerative corporate directorships, outrageous speaking fees, and a lucrative book contract. If he is young when he assumes office, like Bill Clinton and Obama, it means a long life of luxurious leisure. Fighting the special interests doesn’t pay and doesn’t succeed.
On April 30 the primacy of special over public interests was demonstrated yet again. The Democrats’ bill to prevent 1.7 million mortgage foreclosures and, thus, preserve $300 billion in home equity by permitting homeowners to renegotiate their mortgages, was defeated in the Senate, despite the 60-vote majority of the Democrats. The banksters were able to defeat the bill 51 to 45.
These are the same financial gangsters whose unbridled greed and utter irresponsibility have wiped out half of Americans’ retirement savings, sent the economy into a deep hole, and threatened the US dollar’s reserve currency role. It is difficult to imagine an interest group with a more damaged reputation. Yet, a majority of “the people’s representatives” voted as the discredited banksters instructed.
Hundreds of billions of public dollars have gone to bail out the banksters, but when some Democrats tried to get the Senate to do a mite for homeowners, the US Senate stuck with the banks. The Senate’s motto is: “Hundreds of billions for the banksters, not a dime for homeowners.”
If Obama was naive about well-intentioned change before the vote, he no longer has this political handicap.
Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin acknowledged the voters’ defeat by the discredited banksters. The banks, Durbin said, “frankly own the place”.
It is not difficult to understand why. Among those who defeated the homeowners bill are senators Jon Tester (Mont), Max Baucus (Mont), Blanche Lincoln (Ark), Ben Nelson (Neb), Many Landrieu (La), Tim Johnson (SD), and Arlan Specter (Pa). According to reports, the banksters have poured a half million dollars into Tester’s campaign funds. Baucus has received $3.5 million; Lincoln $1.3 million; Nelson $1.4 million; Landrieu $2 million; Johnson $2.5 million; Specter $4.5 million.
The same Congress that can’t find a dime for homeowners or health care appropriates hundreds of billions of dollars for the military/security complex. The week after the Senate foreclosed on American homeowners, the Obama “change” administration asked Congress for an additional $61 billion dollars for the neoconservatives’ war in Iraq and $65 billion more for the neoconservatives’ war in Afghanistan. Congress greeted this request with a rousing “Yes we can!”
The additional $126 billion comes on top of the $533.7 billion “defense” budget for this year. The $660 billion–probably a low-ball number–is ten times the military spending of China, the second most powerful country in the world.
How is it possible that “the world’s only superpower” is threatened by the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan? How can the US be a superpower if it is threatened by countries that have no military capability other than a guerilla capability to resist invaders?
These “wars” are a hoax designed to enrich the US armaments industry and to infuse the “security forces” with police powers over American citizenry.
Not a dime to prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes, but hundreds of billions of dollars to murder Muslim women and children and to create millions of refugees, many of whom will either sign up with insurgents or end up as the next wave of immigrants into America.
This is the way the American government works. And it thinks it is a “city on the hill, a light unto the world”.
Americans elected Obama because he said he would end the gratuitous criminal wars of the Bush brownshirts, wars that have destroyed America’s reputation and financial solvency and serve no public interest. But once in office Obama found that he was ruled by the military/security complex. War is not being ended, merely transferred from the unpopular war in Iraq to the more popular war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Obama, in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, continues to attack “targets” in Pakistan. In place of a war in Iraq, the military/security complex now has two wars going in much more difficult circumstances.
Viewing the promotion gravy train that results from decades of warfare, the US officer corps has responded to the “challenge to American security” from the Taliban. “We have to kill them over there before they come over here.” No member of the US government or its numerous well-paid agents has ever explained how the Taliban, which is focused on Afghanistan, could ever get to America. Yet this hyped fear is sufficient for the public to support the continuing enrichment of the military/security complex, while American homes are foreclosed by the banksters who have destroyed the retirement prospects of the US population.
According to Pentagon budget documents, by next year the cost of the war against Afghanistan will exceed the cost of the war against Iraq. According to a Nobel prize-winning economist and a budget expert at Harvard University, the war against Iraq has cost the American taxpayers $3 trillion, that is, $3,000 billion in out-of-pocket and already incurred future costs, such as caring for veterans.
If the Pentagon is correct, then by next year the US government will have squandered $6 trillion dollars on two wars, the only purpose of which is to enrich the munitions manufacturers and the “security” bureaucracy.
The human and social costs are dramatic as well and not only for the Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani populations ravaged by American bombs. Dahr Jamail reports that US Army psychiatrists have concluded that by their third deployment, 30 percent of American troops are mental wrecks. Among the costs that reverberate across generations of Americans are elevated rates of suicide, unemployment, divorce, child and spousal abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, homelessness and incarceration.
In the Afghan “desert of death” the Obama administration is constructing a giant military base. Why? What does the internal politics of Afghanistan have to do with the US?
What is this enormous waste of resources that America does not have accomplishing—besides enriching the American munitions industry?
China and to some extent India are the rising powers in the world. Russia, the largest country on earth, is armed with a nuclear arsenal as terrifying as the American one. The US dollar’s role as reserve currency, the most important source of American power, is undermined by the budget deficits that result from the munitions corporations’ wars and the bankster bailouts.
Why is the US making itself impotent fighting wars that have nothing whatsoever to do with is security, wars that are, in fact, threatening its security?
Never has money been so important in human relations. Never has it so much affected the destiny of so many Americans and Europeans. Today money has become a civil religion that makes it the centerpiece of discourse in all cultures and subcultures. At European and American cafes, on the Champs Élysées, or on Sunset Boulevard, at concert halls, and even in parliaments, one hears and smells its verbal derivatives such as “moulah,” “dough,” “fric,” “Kohle,” “pognon.” It is a language understood by all. In all segments of their lives Western citizens invariably talk about money and what money can buy. The great respite may come with the current financial crisis, which is finally undoing the liberal system with all its conventional wisdoms and lies. The ongoing economic depression may be the sign that the reign of money and the dictatorship of well-being are coming to an end.
Sounds familiar? No, it does not. In ancient European traditions money and commerce were looked down upon and at times these two activities were in principle forbidden to Europeans. Merchants were often foreigners and considered second class citizens.
The famous English poet and novelist D. H. Lawrence — a “revolutionary nationalist” — talks about “money madness” in his collection of poems Pansies. His poem “Kill money” summarizes best this facet of 20th-century mores: Kill money/put money out of existence/It is a perverted instinct/A hidden thought /which rots the brain, the blood, the bones, the stones, the soul.
Similar views were held by the long forgotten American Southern agrarians in the 30’s, who viciously attacked American money madness and the belief in progress. They had dark premonitions about the future of America. As noted by John Crowe Ransom, “Along with the gospel of progress goes the gospel of service. Americans are still dreaming the materialistic dreams of their youth.” And further he writes: “The concept of Progress is the concept of man’s increasing command, and eventually a perfect command over the forces of nature: a concept which enhances too readily our conceit and brutalizes our life.”
Thousands of book titles and thousands of poems from antiquity all the way to early modernity bear witness to a tradition of deep revulsion Europeans had for money and merchants. Charles Dickens’ description of the character Fagin the Jew in his novel Oliver Twist may be soon cut out from the mandatory school curriculum. Fagin’s physical repulsiveness, his strange name, and most of all his Jewish identity do not square with modern ukases on ethnic and diversity training in American schools. The crook Fagin illustrates boundless human greed when he sings to himself and his young captive boys: “In this life, one thing counts / In the bank, large amounts / I’m afraid these don’t grow on trees, / You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two / You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys, / You’ve got to pick-a-pocket or two.”
Already Ezra Pound, a connoisseur of the English language and a visionary on the methods of usury, and his contemporary, Norwegian Nobel prize winner Knut Hamsun, have disappeared from library shelves. Their fault? They critically examined the crisis of financial capitalism, or what we call more euphemistically today “global recession” and the main movers and shakers behind it.
In medieval times, money and the merchant class were social outcasts solely needed to run the economy of a country. Yet today they have morphed into role models of the West represented by a slick and successful banker dressed in an Armani suit and sporting a broad smile on his face. What a change from traditional Europe in which an intelligent man was destined for priesthood, sainthood, or a military career!
It is with the rising tide of modernity that the value system began to change. Even nowadays the word ‘merchant’ in the French and the German languages (marchand, Händler) has a slightly pejorative meaning, associated with a foreigner, prototypically a Jew. The early Catholic Church had an ambiguous attitude toward money — and toward Jews. Well known are St. Luke’s parables (16:19–31) that it “is easier for a camel to go thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.”
But the Church chose a less pious way to power. In 1179, the Third Lateran Council forbade Jews from living in Christian communities and exiled them to ghettos — with full rights to practice usury and tax collecting. To a large extent the Church, while providing the best shelter for Jews against frequent bouts of popular anti-Jewish anger, also greatly amassed wealth — courtesy of Jewish tax collectors.
The father of the Enlightenment, the 18th-century French philosopher Voltaire, is often quoted as a first spokesman of tolerance and human rights in Western civilization. But it is often forgotten that Voltaire was also an unabashed anti-Semite. Voltaire’s critical remarks about Jews and their love for money were recently expunged from his books, or simply not translated. But some still thrive such as “always superstitious and greedy for the good of others, always barbarous, crawling when in misfortune and insolent in prosperity, that is what the Jews were in the eyes of the Greeks and Romans..” (Essais sur les mœurs)
The ancient European ruling class certainly had its share of corruption and greed. But in principle, until the Enlightenment, the social roles of money and merchants were subjugated to the role of the prince and power politics. Until then, the entire value system had been based on spiritual transcendence and not on economic growth — at least in its appearance. In ancient Greece, King Midas who was a kind man, could not resist the temptation of turning everything into gold with his magic fingers, until he ruined his family, turned water into undrinkable metal, and his face assumed the shape of a donkey. King Croesus went berserk after amassing so much wealth that he could not devote his time and his thoughts to the impending war with the Persians.
In the ancient European tradition, revulsion against money pervades the sagas and the old popular legends, teaching everybody that piety prospers over prosperity. Material wealth brings disaster.
Today, by contrast, official advocacy of frugality and modesty is perceived as a sign of the early stage of lunacy. If a well-educated and well-cultivated man comes along and starts preaching modesty or rejects honoraria for his work, he is considered a failure, a person who does not respect his own worth. How on earth can some well-read and well-bred person offer his services for free? How on earth can a well-educated man refuse using his mental resources to generate the almighty dollar? The answer is not difficult to discover. In capitalism everything has its price, but nothing has value.
The modern liberal capitalist system is a deeply inhuman system, based on fraudulent teaching that everybody is equal in economic competition. In reality though, it rewards only those whose skills and talents happen to be marketable. Those rare Whites who decide to retain some vestiges of old European traditions are squarely pronounced incompetent. Liberal capitalism both in America and in Europe has turned all humans into perishable commodities.
Nobody summarized this better than the Italian philosopher Julius Evola, another revolutionary nationalist who wrote: “Facing the classical dilemma ‘your money or your life,’ the bourgeois will answer: ‘Take my life but leave me my money.’”
Greed, passionate greed eclipses all elements of human decency. Until relatively recently avarice was laughed at and its chief protagonists were considered immoral people, so well represented in Molière’s comedy L’Avare. Today the greedier the better: The money maker is the ultimate role model.
Both East and West participate in this ethic of greed. The richest people in post-communist Eastern Europe are former communist hacks who converted themselves in a twinkle of an eye from disciples of Marx into acolytes of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Finance capitalism provides the perception of limitless possibility of how to get rich out of the blue. This is a typical Bernie Madoff syndrome, namely that affluence can be created by sheer speculation. The entire banking system in Eastern Europe has been sold to foreigners over the last 10 years.
Modern capitalism and a penchant for finance owe much to Judaism. Werner Sombart, a German disciple of Max Weber, who can in no way be called an anti-Semite wrote in The Jews and Modern Capitalismthat “money was their sole companion when they were thrust naked into the street, and their sole protector when the hand of the oppressor was heavy upon them. So they learned to love it, seeing that by its aid alone they could subdue the mighty ones of the earth. Money became the means whereby they — and through them all mankind — might wield power without themselves being strong.”
Money changes social mores too. Young White couples put off having children until they achieve their economic dreams, while Mexicans and Blacks begin having children as impoverished teenagers, and Muslims place a high value on fertility. This is one of the main causes of our malaise, as White societies with declining fertility are inundated by highly fertile non-White populations with value systems that prize fertility over the accumulation of the accouterments of economic success.
And in this economic recession these Whites are not interested in a pay raise but rather in how to keep their job — security at all cost, even if it means working for lower wages. Neither are young job market entrants interested in saving money. Instead they live on credit in their petty little niche with their petty little pleasures and without incurring any risks.
What a difference from early American pioneers described by Jack London, who braved the vagaries of weather and who totally ignored the meaning of “hedge funds”! The attractions of money and the necessity of making money mean that everybody in our postmodern world becomes prey to the system.
It is a fundamental mistake among many so called right wingers and racialists to assume that capitalism is the only answer to communism. Both systems are in fact similar because they preach the same religion of progress and the unfolding of earthly paradise — albeit in different gears. But this time liberal capitalism has nobody to hide behind in order to conceal its vulgar depravity. The likely hypothesis is that the crumbling capitalist system will fall apart as a result of its own victory. One dies always from those who give him birth.
This page is a work in progress. Please read the FAQs and try the solution before adding a comment. (There is not much here yet, but more Q&As will be added as we go along.)
Q: How can I listen to show archives?
A: On every show archive web page, you will see three icons (similar to the image shown here) providing no fewer than three ways of listening to the archive:
By downloading the MP3 and then playing it on your computer. Click the graphic labeled “DOWNLOAD” to download the file.
By subscribing to the VoR podcast. Click the the graphic labeled “PODAST” to subscribe.
By playing the built-in archive Flash player. Click the triangular play button on the graphic circled in red.
Q: I am having a problem with the built-in archive Flash player. What should I do?
A: When you play the built-in archive Flash player, the player should look like the image shown here. Notice the greenish blue bar gradually filling the middle rectangle. This bar indicates the buffering of the audio in the Flash player.
The Flash player is a convenient feature, but some people have reported problems. The Flash player may fail to buffer the entire audio. If the greenish blue bar stops growing, then there is something causing the Internet connection to fail — temporary heavy traffic, poor bandwidth, or local computer CPU limitations are potential causes.
It’s advisable to update to the most recent version of your preferred browser and to the most recent version of the Flash plugin. However, if you are still repeatedly experiencing problems, then you should probably download the MP3 or subscribe to Podcast if you have that capability.
The Weight of Tradition: Ancient Roots of Modern Conflict
Israel’s brutal and aggressive policies, including its inhumane treatment of non-Jews, as well as the often arrogant outlook of the organized Jewish community, reflect a centuries-old mindset that has roots in the Hebrew scriptures (the “Old Testament”). As Weber explains in this broadcast, Judaism is not just “another religion.” Its character and core values are markedly unlike those of Christianity and the other great world religions. Jews are encouraged to regard themselves as separate from the rest of humanity, and as members of a community with interests distinct from those of everyone else.
Nothing has exposed the spiteful, malicious attitudes of the queer empowerment gang than the treatment of Miss California USA, Carrie Prejean. For no other offense than answering a question that upset a pervert judge, Miss Prejean has become the target of a media snipe hunt. Perjean may be stripped of her Miss California title today by Donald Trump, who owns the rights to the Miss USA pageant.
Twenty years ago, the plight of Miss Prejean would have been unthinkable. Young women who won pageants were expected to be models of virtue and decency. Now normal marriage is off limits to contestants.
While the liberal media extols the joys of queer matrimony, Miss Prejean is scolded for “nude” photos taken of her several years ago. These pictures are so scandalous the NBC TODAY Show broadcast the images uncut for all America to see! Photos of this type appear in magazines ads and on packages of womens’ underwear unnoticed, yet Perjean is disgraced for posing partially nude in unpublished photos of herself.
Compare Miss Prejean’s treatment with the coverage of Miley Cyrus, the teenage celebrity of “Hannah Montana” fame. Miss Cyrus, while only 15 years old, appeared partially nude on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine; yet the media brushed off this case of borderline child pornography as nonsense. Vanity Fair and Cyrus got a pass because the photo was taken by notorious lesbian “artist” Annie Leibovitz. Cyrus later apologized to her adolescent fans, but remarked: “Annie took, like, a beautiful shot, and I thought it was really cool. That’s what she wanted me to do, and you can’t say no to Annie.” Disney Studios, which controls the Hanna Montana brand, was outraged by the cover. Vanity Fairstated that they saw nothing wrong with a semi-nude photo of a teenage girl appearing on the cover of the magazine. As long as women and girls cooperate with the queer agenda in the fashion industry, they won’t be turned into pariahs. Queer depravity has no boundaries.
The “Hate Crimes Prevention Bill” will be in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week. It recently passed the House, causing the Anti-Defamation League to rejoice. The ADL called the law “an essential and necessary step forward in the national effort to counter hate crimes”and urged passage by the Senate.
Needless to say, here are very sound reasons to oppose this legislation.“Hate Crime” laws are superfluous, since crimes such as murder or assault are crimes whatever the motivation. Moreover, as Paul Craig Robertsrecently pointed out there is a pronounced tendency for American legislation to metastasize into regulations far different and much more sweeping than the enactors envisaged (or admitted). This alone is reason enough to oppose any legislative advance into the areas of motivation or opinion. It is inevitable that “Hate Crimes” will quickly come to include political speech, specifically on immigration.
Why are Jewish organizations so committed to this drive to abolish free speech? Sadly, such an attitude is entirely within the Jewish tradition. Jewish groups have a long history of powerful controls over group members, ranging from regulations on economic behavior and charity toward other Jews, to regulating behavior likely to give rise to anti-Semitism or likely to damage other interests of the group.
One aspect of this is that there was little history of free speech within traditional Jewish societies. Historically, Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinskypoint out, rabbis and other elite members of the Ashkenazi and Sephardic communities had extraordinary power over other Jews— literally the power of life and death. And they were highly intolerant. Jews accused of heretical religious views were beaten or murdered. Their books were burned or buried in cemeteries. When a heretic died, his body was beaten by a special burial committee, placed in a cart filled with dung, and deposited outside the Jewish cemetery.
This repressive tradition continues. Notwithstanding the image of freelytolerating dissent within the Jewish community (“Two Jews, three opinions”), John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt have shown that on important issues like Israel, Jewish dissenters are marginalized and there is strong pressure to limit disagreement. Jews can criticize Israel but only out of public view. Mearsheimer and Walt note that pro-Israel activism is dominated by “hard-line Zionists, Orthodox, and neoconservativecircles”. As has happened so often in Jewish history, the most committed Jews have determined the direction of the Jewish community, with the result that the leadership of pro-Israel organizations tends to be more radical than the rest of the American Jewish community
Already, elsewhere in the English-speaking world, the “Hate Crime”strategy has been used to repress views unwelcome to Jewish organizations.
Levant describes the Simon Wiesenthal Center as “one of the most vicious interveners in Canadian Human Rights Commission censorship trials.”
Bernie Farber, Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress, claimed recently that “our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused.” Levant comments:
“That sounds like Ian Fine, senior counsel for the CHRC, who declared that ‘there can’t be enough laws against hate.’ … Farber … wants more censorship, more government intervention into thoughts and ideas — and the emotion called ‘hate’.”
A good example of this intolerance for speech they don’t like is the response of Canada’s organized Jewish community to recent demonstrations against Israel. The Canadian Jewish Congress complained that protests against Israel’s incursion into Gaza contained images that were “uncivil, un-Canadian, that demonize Jews and Israelis,” and is asking the police to investigate the matter for referral to the CHRC.
Nevertheless, despite the strong support of the organized Jewish community for thought crime legislation, the CJC’s Farber has the effrontery toclaim“we are firm supporters and believers in the need to be able to demonstrate passionately in free and democratic societies”.
Perhaps he is excluding Canada from the ranks of “free and democratic”societies. In that he would be quite right.
In Australia, Jewish organizations have also been leading the push to criminalize thought. Andrew Fraser, a former professor of public law at Macquarie University in Sydney, was brought before the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission because he had written a letter published in a newspaper suggesting that “once black African colonies in Australia grow in size and in confidence, one can reasonably expect a number of social problems and rising levels of crime and violence.” In his comments before the Commission, Fraser noted that the charges against him by an African had actually been instigated by “several organized Jewish groups that boast openly of the campaign they have organized against me,” citing articles in Jewish newspapers. Fraser wrote that Jewish individuals and organizations had acted “to further their shared ethnic interest in the growth of a multi-racial society in Australia.”
In a wonderful passage, Fraser states that he has no objection against African and Jewish groups pursuing their interests in making Australia into a multi-racial society—
“But they must understand that, as Australia becomes a multi-racial society, it is inevitable that Anglo-Australians, having observed the self-interested activities of other racial, ethnic and religious groups, are bound to become more conscious of their own distinctive racial identity. Many white Australians already feel that they are losing their ancestral homeland to a massive influx of Third World migrants hostile or indifferent to the ethnic interests of the host society. … The simple fact is that a multi-racial immigration policy is not obviously and necessarily in the best interests of white Australians.”
Exactly. But the problem is that there is an imposing array of national and international organizations that are both promoting non-White immigration into formerly European countries, and attempting to criminalize any dissent from that policy.
Already we see intellectual justifications (see also here and here) from legal scholars aimed at making American law more in line with European and Canadian laws limiting freedom of speech on multicultural issues. (Importing foreign law into American courts is a particular cause of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, one of the Supreme Court’s two Jewish Justices).
Two reasons explain the tremendous push by Jewish organizations for“Hate” laws. The first is, obviously, Israel. Zionists in America have succeeded in turning the U.S. into a client state of Israel and in commandeering huge quantities of American resources in its defense. This is an astonishing achievement, far removed from any obvious interests of the majority population in the U.S. As the task gets more difficult, the temptation to repress grows.
William I. Robinson, a Jewish sociology professor at the University of California–Santa Barbara, is good recent example. Robinson sent an email to his students juxtaposing what he termed “parallel images of Nazis and Israelis” — Jews victimized during the Holocaust and Palestinians attacked by Israel during the recent Gaza invasion. The response was swift. The ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center condemned Robinson’s email. The ADL’s Abraham Foxman announced that “You can criticize Israel; you can criticize the war in Gaza. But to compare what the Israelis are doing in defense of their citizens to what the Nazis did to the Jews is clearly anti-Semitism”.
In other words, the ADL believes in free speech—up to the point where it think it conflicts with its version of Jewish interests. And after that point, it is perfectly willing to do whatever it takes to shut up people like Robinson. (Hmm, sounds familiar; see also here.)
The second reason Jewish organizations want enhanced repression powers: immigration. The organized Jewish community has long been the single most effective pressure group in favor of massive non-White immigration into the United States. The ADL and other Jewish organizations are currently presenting a united front on the issue of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform”, which would legalize millions of illegal immigrants and set off another massive round of chain migration to the US from Mexico and other countries. Organizations with high levels of Jewish funding such as the ACLU and have been in the forefront of expanding the “rights” of legal and illegal immigrants and refugees and making the enforcement of immigration laws difficult.The Southern Poverty Law Center(or $PLC in VDARE.com terminology) seems to have completey shifted its focus from, well, southern poverty and the Ku Klux Klan to attacking critics of immigration, no matter how law-abiding and respectable.
From my Darwinian perspective, this is quite clearly a program of conquest and displacement of European peoples by non-European peoples.Since I am of European descent this strikes me as rather obviously against my interests.
Most of the time since the catastrophic 1965 Immigration Act passed—producing, once again, consequences quite different from what the enactors claimed to envision—a bipartisan consensus kept what was happening out of public debate.
But the Bush/Kennedy Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration attempts of 2006 and 2007 were unexpectedly defeated—only and exclusively because of grassroots opposition. This political instability can be expected to increase as the consequences of immigration become increasingly undeniable. Accordingly, elite intolerance of dissent on the immigration issue is perceptibly rising.
It’s important to realize the scope of this effort to prohibit speech that conflicts with the multicultural utopia envisioned by the left. Exhibit A in the Big Picture of Hate Crime legislation is the recent Durban Review Conferencein Geneva — the follow-up to the World Conference Against Racism of 2001.
The Outcome Documentput outas the consensus sentiment of the conference is a real eye-opener. It is a compendium of the dogmas of the intellectual left which, if implemented, would result in massive transfers of wealth from Western countries to undeveloped countries and massive population transfers from undeveloped countries to Western countries. And it calls for international legal power to punish speech and actions that deviate from these policy goals.
For example, Paragraph 13 provides this masterpiece of Orwellian doublethink: it “reaffirms … that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law … and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression.” [My emphasis]
On the face of it, this seems to state that a race scientist like J. Phillipe Rushton or Richard Lynn could be sent to prison for claiming on the basis of scientific data that there are distinct races and that they differ in intelligence and other traits linked with economic development. But even so, the OD claims, the proposed laws will not infringe these scholars’ right to say whatever they want.
Perhaps the idea is that while Rushton and Lynn are in prison, they will be free to discuss these ideas with their cellmates.
Without mentioning Western societies in particular, the OD clearly articulates a moral and legal duty of Western societies to be overrun anyone who wants to live in them.
There should have been a mass protest by people of European descent at Geneva. But, ironically, the only protestors were Jewish activists.
However, these activists were concerned not because the program of the OD, if implemented, would sound the death knell of every traditionally European country in the world. Rather, they were protesting because the OD reiterated its support for the Durban Declaration and Programme of Actionof 2001. This contained paragraphs referring to Israel as a foreign occupying power over the Palestinians and calling for an independent Palestinian state. Each of these proposals is anathema to serious Zionists.
There was a massive paradox in Jews protesting the Geneva Conference—given that Jewish organizations in Western societies have been strong supporters of the policies advocated by the rest of the document. Essentially, Jewish organizations are seeking to carve out for Israel an ethnonationalist exception to the leftist zeitgeist that dominates the OD. Israel has a discriminatory immigration policy based on tracing descent to a Jewish mother, and it has a variety of policies that discriminate against Arabs within Israel (e.g., Palestinians who marry Israeli Arabs cannot become Israeli citizens). It has created an apartheid society in the West Bank occupied territories, and it has treated African migrants and refugees very poorly, doing its utmost to discourage them from coming and making their lives as miserable as possible after they arrive. All of these are in clear violation of the OD.
In short, Israel is behaving as if it is a nation with a certain ethnic core and is arranging its affairs in order to keep its ethnic identity. But in the US, the organized Jewish community has been the most effective force in favor of massive non-White immigration.
Arguably, the federal hate crime law now before the Senate does not explicitly penalize speech in the absence of a crime. But not only do these social engineering measures have a very strong tendency to mutate under the influence of the courts and the bureaucrats—it is also quite clear thatsome of the supporters of “hate laws” are eager to expand them to speech even in the absence of any other crime. Thus the “Megan MeierCyberbullying Prevention Act”wasjust introduced in the House. It would make it a federal felony to cause “substantial emotional distress”through “Severe, Repeated, and Hostile” speech.
Such a law could easily be applied to politicians or judges, and is obviouslyunconstitutional under current interpretations. But one can easily imagine that Obama appointees would have no problem altering this in the interests of the “empathy”for “people’s hopes and struggles”that he has said he will require of them. Of course, Obama’s criterion of “empathy” as a legal standard is about as far removed as one can imagine from the rule of law based on founding documents (especially the First Amendment) and legal tradition. But he did say, after all, that he was the candidate of “change”.
The ADL is on the verge of getting its Federal Hate Crimes bill signed into law. It is only a matter of time before it makes an all out assault on the First Amendment.
And now the Obama Administration, and the entire intellectual left, will be wholly on board with the Jewish organizations’ long-held agenda.
By Mark Weber – Institute for Historical Review April 14, 2009
It’s important to understand Zionism, not just because it’s an influential ideology and a powerful social-political movement, but also because there’s a lot of ignorance, confusion and deliberate misinformation about it.
If you look up the word “Zionism” in a standard American dictionary, what you’ll find is likely to be inaccurate, or least misleading. For example, a popular and supposedly authoritative American dictionary in my office defines Zionism as “A movement formerly for reestablishing, now for supporting, the Jewish national state of Israel.” / 1 This definition, which is typical of American reference works, is more than just misleading. It’s deceitful.
The founder of the modern Zionist movement was a Jewish writer named Theodor Herzl. In the 1890s he was living in Paris, where he was a journalist for a major newspaper in Vienna. He was deeply troubled by the widespread anti-Semitism, or anti-Jewish sentiment, in France at the time. He thought a lot about the pattern of tension, distrust and conflict between Jews and non-Jews that had persisted through the centuries, and he hit upon what he believed is a solution to this age-old problem.
Herzl laid out his views in a book, written in German, entitled The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat). Published in 1896, this work is the manifesto or basic document of the Zionist movement. A year and a half later, Herzl convened the first international Zionist conference. Fifty one years later, when the “State of Israel” was solemnly proclaimed at a meeting in Tel Aviv, above the speakers’ podium at the conference was, appropriately, a large portrait of Herzl.
In his book Herzl explained that regardless of where they live, or their citizenship, Jews constitute not merely a religious community, but a nationality, a people. He used the German word, Volk. Wherever large numbers of Jews live among non-Jews, he said, conflict is not only likely, it’s inevitable. He wrote: “The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in noticeable numbers. Where it does not exist, it is brought in by arriving Jews … I believe I understand anti-Semitism, which is a very complex phenomenon. I consider this development as a Jew, without hate or fear.” / 2
In his public and private writings, Herzl explained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but rather a natural response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. Anti-Jewish sentiment, he said, is not due to ignorance or bigotry, as so many have claimed. Instead, he concluded, the ancient and seemingly intractable conflict between Jews and non-Jews is entirely understandable, because Jews are a distinct and separate people, with interests that are different from, and which often conflict with, the interests of the people among whom they live.
A prime source of modern anti-Jewish sentiment, Herzl believed, was that the so-called “emancipation” of Jews in the 18th and 19th centuries from the confined life of the ghetto into modern urban society brought them into direct economic competition with non-Jews in the middle classes. Anti-Semitism, Herzl wrote, is “an understandable reaction to Jewish defects.” In his diary he wrote: “I find the anti-Semites are fully within their rights.” / 3
Herzl maintained that Jews must stop pretending — both to themselves and to non-Jews — that they are like everyone else, and instead must frankly acknowledge that they are a distinct and separate people, with distinct and separate goals and interests. The only workable long-term solution, he said, is for Jews to recognize reality and live, finally, as a “normal” people in a separate state of their own. In a memo to the Tsar of Russia, Herzl wrote that Zionism is the “final solution of the Jewish question.” / 4
Over the years many other Jewish leaders have affirmed Herzl’s outlook. Louis Brandeis, a US Supreme Court justice and a leading American Zionist, said: “Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member.” / 5
Stephen S. Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress and of the World Jewish Congress, told a rally in New York in June 1938: “I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith. I am a Jew … Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race, and we are a race.” / 6
Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann, wrote in his memoirs: “Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them … [This] reaction … cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off.” / 7
In keeping with the Zionist worldview, Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon told a meeting of American Jews in Jerusalem in July 2004 that all Jews around the world should relocate to Israel as soon as possible. And because anti-Semitism was especially widespread in France, he added, Jews in that country should immediately move to Israel. French officials quickly, and predictably, responded by rejecting Sharon’s remarks as “unacceptable.” / 8
But imagine if the leaders of France, the United States, and other countries were to respond to those remarks by Sharon, and similar ones by other Zionists, by expressing agreement. Imagine if an American president were to respond by saying: “You’re right, Mr. Sharon. We agree with you. We agree that Jews do not belong in the United States. In fact, we are ready to show our support for what you say by doing everything we can to promote and encourage all Jews to leave our country and move to Israel.”
That would be the logical and honest attitude of non-Jewish political leaders who say that they support Israel and Zionism. But the political leaders of the United States, France, Britain, and other such countries today are neither honest nor consistent.
During the 1930s, one European government that was honest and consistent in its attitude on this issue was the government of Third Reich Germany. Jewish Zionists and German National Socialists shared similar views about how best to handle what Herzl called “the Jewish question.” They agreed that Jews and Germans were distinctly different nationalities, and that Jews did not belong in Europe, but rather in the so-called “Jewish homeland” in Palestine.
On the basis of their shared views, Germans and Jews worked together for what each community believed was in its own best national interest. The Hitler government vigorously supported Zionism and Jewish emigration to Palestine from 1933 until 1940-41, when the Second World War prevented further extensive collaboration. / 9
(During the war years attitudes hardened, and policy shifted drastically. The German policy of collaboration with Zionists and support for Jewish emigration to Palestine gave way to a harsh “final solution” policy.)
During the 1930s, the central SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps, repeatedly proclaimed its support for Zionism. An article published in 1935, for example, told readers: / 10
“The recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood and not on religion leads the German government to guarantee without reservation the racial separateness of this community. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry, the so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry around the world, and its rejection of all assimilationist notions. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.”
In late 1933, a leading German shipping line began direct passenger service from Hamburg to Haifa, Palestine, providing “strictly kosher food” on board.
In September 1935, the German government enacted the “Nuremberg Laws,” which prohibited marriages and sexual relations between Jews and Germans and, in effect, proclaimed the country’s Jews an alien minority group. / 11 A few days after the Nuremberg Laws were enacted, the main German Zionist newspaper, the Jüdische Rundschau, editorially welcomed the new measures. It explained to readers: / 12
“Germany … is meeting the demands of the World Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German nation and Jewry. The new laws give the Jewish minority in Germany its own cultural life, its own national life. In future it will be able to shape its own schools, its own theater, and its own sports associations. In short, it can create its own future in all aspects of national life …”
During the 1930s, Zionist groups, working together with Third Reich authorities, organized a network of some forty camps and agricultural centers throughout Germany where prospective settlers were trained for their new lives in Palestine.
The centerpiece of German-Zionist cooperation during the Hitler era was the Transfer Agreement, a pact that enabled tens of thousands of German Jews to migrate to Palestine with their wealth. The Agreement, also known as the Ha’avara – Hebrew for “transfer” – was concluded in August 1933 following talks between German officials and an official of the Jewish Agency, the Palestine center of the World Zionist Organization. / 13
Between 1933 and 1941, some 60,000 German Jews emigrated to Palestine through the Ha’avara and other German-Zionist arrangements, or about ten percent of Germany’s 1933 Jewish population. Some Ha’avara emigrants transferred considerable personal wealth from Germany to Palestine. As Jewish historian Edwin Black has noted: “Many of these people, especially in the late 1930s, were allowed to transfer actual replicas of their homes and factories — indeed rough replicas of their very existence.” / 14
The Transfer Agreement was the most far-reaching example of cooperation between Hitler’s Germany and international Zionism. Through this pact, Hitler’s Third Reich did more than any other government during the 1930s to support the Zionist movement and Jewish development in Palestine.
The essence of Zionism, or Jewish nationalism, is that Jews everywhere — regardless of where they live, regardless of their religious outlook, and regardless of their citizenship — are members of the Jewish “people” or “nation,” to whom all Jews owe a primary loyalty and allegiance.
The overwhelming majority of Jews in the United States today identify with and support Israel, and are affiliated with Zionist groups and organizations. Every significant Jewish group or association in the United States, and every prominent Jewish American political or community leader supports Israel and Zionism, in most cases fervently so. With very few exceptions, even American Jews who are critical of some of Israel’s more embarrassing policies nonetheless express support for Israel and the nationalist ideology upon with the Zionist state is based.
A Zionist Jew, by definition, owes his primary loyalty to the Jewish community and to Israel. Zionism is not compatible with patriotism to any country or entity other than Israel and the world Jewish community. That’s why it’s difficult to accept as sincere or honest the pious assurances of Jewish leaders in the United States that American Jews are just as loyal to the US as everyone else.
In the United States, nearly every prominent political leader – Jewish and non-Jewish, Democrat and Republican — ardently supports Israel and the Jewish nationalist ideology upon which it is based. In Washington, political leaders of both major parties insist on US support for Israel as an ethnically Jewish state. They fervently support, and eagerly seek the favor of, influential Jewish-Zionist groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
Everyone — whether Jewish or non-Jewish — who claims to support Israel should, if he is honest and consistent, endorse the view of Israeli prime minister Sharon, and other Zionist leaders, and support the migration of Jews everywhere to Israel. But of course that’s not what happens.
With regard to Zionism and Israel, the attitude and policies of nearly all American political leaders, Jewish and non-Jewish, is characterized by hypocrisy and deceit. To put it another way, Zionist Jews and their non-Jewish supporters embrace a blatant double standard. Jewish-Zionist organizations, along with their non-Jewish allies, support one social-political ideology for Israel and the world Jewish community, and a completely different one for the United States and other non-Jewish countries. They insist that ethnic nationalism is evil and bad for non-Jews, while at the same time they vigorously support ethnic nationalism – that is, Zionism – for Jews.
They insist that Israel is and must be a Jewish nationalist state, with a privileged status for its Jewish population, including immigration laws that discriminate against non-Jews. At the same time, Jewish-Zionist groups and leaders, and the non-Jews who support them, insist that in the United States, Britain, France, Germany and other countries, there must be no privileged status for anyone based on race, ethnicity or religion.
Our political leaders tell us that American Jews should be encouraged to think of themselves as a distinct national group with an identity and community interests separate from those of other Americans. At the same time American politicians insist that Zionist Jews be given all rights as full and equal US citizens. On the basis of this double standard, Jews are given a privileged status in American political and cultural life.
Americans are led to believe that Zionism is a benign outlook of altruistic and righteous support for a so-called Jewish homeland. In fact, Zionism is an ideology and movement of ethnically-based Jewish nationalism that reinforces the identity and self-image of Jews as a distinct and separate community with interests different from those of non-Jews, and which strengthens the already powerful world Jewish community.
1. New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition (1978?), p. 1654.
2. Th. Herzl, Der Judenstaat. ( http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat/Einleitung / http://www.zionismus.info/judenstaat/02.htm )
Also quoted in: M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993, p. 29. ( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html )
3. Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents (Praeger,1998), pp. 45, 48.
4. Memo of Nov. 22, 1899. R. Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (New York: 1960), Vol. 3, p. 888.
5. Louis D. Brandeis, “The Jewish Problem and How to Solve It.” Speech of April 25, 1915. ( http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/sources_document11.html / http://www.law.louisville.edu/library/collections/brandeis/node/234 )
6. “Dr. Wise Urges Jews to Declare Selves as Such,” New York Herald Tribune, June 13, 1938, p. 12.
7. Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error (1949), p. 90. Quoted in: Albert S. Lindemann, The Jew Accused (1991), p. 277.
8. “French Jews Must `Move to Israel’,” BBC News, July 18, 2004 ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3904943.stm )
See also: “Sharon Urges Jews to Go to Israel,” BBC News, Nov. 17, 2003. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3275979.stm )
9. M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993 (Vol. 13, No. 4), pp. 29-37.
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html )
10. Das Schwarze Korps, Sept. 26, 1935. Quoted in: Francis R. Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question (Univ. of Texas, 1985), p. 56-57.
11. These days the Nuremberg Laws are routinely portrayed as imposing outrageous and inhumane discrimination against Jews. But to put this in perspective, it’s worth mentioning two points. First: the Nuremberg Laws ban on marriage between Jews and non-Jews is consistent with the law in Israel today, where such marriages are not permitted, as well as with the prohibition on such marriages as laid out in the Hebrew scriptures. (See, for example: Numbers 25: 6-8; Deuteronomy 7:3; Ezra 9: 12; 10: 10-11; Nehemiah 10: 30; 13: 25.)
Second, in 1935 less than one percent of the population of Germany was Jewish, which meant that the Nuremberg laws ban on marriage between Jews and non-Jews was irrelevant for the vast majority of the country’s population. By contrast, in the United States during the 1930s, most of the American states had laws in place that prohibited marriage between people of different races. Because the portion of the American population that was racially non-majority was much larger than in Germany, the US racial laws impacted a much larger portion of the US population at the time than the Nuremberg laws affected the German population.
12. Jüdische Rundschau, Sept. 17, 1935. Quoted in: Y. Arad, and others, Documents on the Holocaust (Jerusalem: 1981), pp. 82-83.
13. W. Feilchenfeld, “Ha’avara,” New Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel (Herzl Press, 1994), pp. 535-536; M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 1993, pp. 33-34.
14. Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984), p. 379.
Here, freely translated from Guillaume Faye’s Pourquoi nous combattons (2001), are ten ideas I think relevant to this struggle.
*EUROPE is at war, but doesn’t know it…It is occupied and colonized by peoples from the South and economically, strategically, and culturally subjugated by America’s New World Order…It is the sick man of the world. [page 9]
*ARCHEOFUTURISM: The spirit which realizes that the future arises from a resurgence of ancestral values and that notions of modernity and traditionalism need to be dialectically overcome …To confront the future, especially today, dictates a recourse to an archaic mentality that is premodern, inegalitarian, and non-humanistic, to a mentality that restores ancestral values and those of social order…The future thus is neither the negation of tradition nor of a people’s historical memory, but rather its metamorphosis and ultimately its growth and regeneration. [From Archéofuturisme 11, 72]
*IDENTITY: Characteristic of humanity is the diversity and singularity of its peoples and cultures. Every homogenization is synonymous with death and sclerosis…Ethnic identity and cultural identity form a block, but biological identity is primary, for without it culture and civilization are impossible to sustain…Identity is never frozen. It remains itself only in evolving, reconciling being and becoming. [146-48]
*BIOPOLITICS: A political project responsive to a people’s biological and demographic imperatives…Biopolitics is guided by the principle that a people’s biological quality is essential to its survival and well-being. [63-64]
*SELECTION: The collective process, based on competition, that minimizes or eliminates the weak and selects out the strong and capable. Selection entails both the natural evolution of a species and the historical development of a culture and civilization…Contemporary society prevents a just selection and instead imposes a savage, unjust one based on the law of the jungle. [212-13]
*INTERREGNUM: The period between the end of one civilization and the possible birth of another. We are currently living through an interregnum, a tragic historical moment when everything is in flames and when everything, like a Phoenix, might rise reborn from its ashes. 
*ETHNIC CIVIL WAR: Only the outbreak of such a war will resolve the problems created by the current colonization, Africanization, and Islamization of Europe…Only with their backs to the wall is a people spurred to come up with solutions that in other times would be unthinkable. 
*REVOLUTION: The violent reversal of a political situation that follows a profound crisis and is the work of an “active minority”…A true revolution is a metamorphosis, that is, a radical reversal of all values. The sole revolutionary of the modern era is Nietzsche…and not Marx, who sought simply another form of bourgeois society…We have long passed the point of no return, where it is possible to arrest the prevailing decay with moderate political reforms. [210-11]
*ARISTOCRACY: A true aristocracy embodies its people’s essence, which it serves with courage, disinterest, modesty, taste, simplicity, and stature…To recreate a new aristocracy is the eternal task of every rrevolutionary project…The creation of such an aristocracy is possible only through war, which is the most merciless of selective forces. [60-61]
*WILL TO POWER: The tendency of all life to perpetuate itself, to ensure its survival, and to enhance its domination, its superiority, and its creative capacities…The will to power accepts that life is struggle, an eternal struggle for supremacy, the endless struggle to improve and perfect oneself, the absolute refusal of nihilism, the opposite of contemporary relativism…It is the force of life and of history. It is not simply the organic imperative for domination, but for survival and continuity…A people or a civilization that abandons its will to power inevitably perishes.