The term ‘racism’ has a generic meaning today, denoting social ostracism of outgroups, or in the worst case scenario, depicting an act of savagery meted out by some race or some warring party to another race or ethnic group. In the standard usage today the word ‘racism’ is not necessarily a referent for a different skin color, or a depiction of someone’s high or low cognitive ability. As a result of constant semantic shifts the word ‘racism’ is used to describe a form of barbarism, generally viewed as despicable and contrary to the most basic norms of human conduct.
If one accepts this very general and generic definition of racism, then the German people, shortly after WWII, became a prime victim of the most massive form of racism and racial discrimination — unseen and unheard of at any time in the history of mankind. The scope of terror inflicted to the German people during the Allied firebombing of German cities, the degree of suffering experienced by millions of German civilians in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the war, goes beyond human imagination. By its scope and its sophistication this peculiar type of cruelty against Germans is hardly comparable to any earlier tragedy of any other race or ethnicity in Africa or Asia during colonial times. It had clear racial, linguistic and judicial overtones still awaiting an objective scholarly examination.
Images of Dresden after the fire bombing of February 13, 1945
Numerous books have been published by prominent authors, including the well- known American legal scholar Alfred de Zayas, the German historian Franz W. Seidler,and the Canadian historian James Bacque on the expulsion of Germans, the policy of starving of hundreds of thousands of surrendered German soldiers along the Rhine river that was carried out by the Allied commander Dwight Eisenhower, the grand theft of German property, mass rapes of over 2 million German women by Soviet soldiers, slave labor of captured young German children, etc. Yet most of these books, although based on solid forensic research and physical evidence, are barely accessible, and they are never mentioned in higher education in the USA and in Europe.
Germany’s European allies, such as Hungary, or the wartime France, dearly paid their collaboration with Germany too. Few French students, let alone American students, know that over 70,000 French civilians perished under American bombs from 1942 to 1944. They cannot be blamed, as there are no sites of commemoration for the bombs’ victims in France. Tiny Croatia, which remained the loyal ally of Germany to the last day of WWII, paid a heavy price too, losing the best part of its gene pool, after its middle class had been wiped out by Yugoslav Communists. Although considered today the most beautiful country in Europe and a prime tourist destination, Croatia is essentially a huge graveyard. In 1945 it became the largest communist killing field of ethnic Germans and Croats in Europe (see here and here).
It is still common in the Karst area in the mountains of southern Croatia to stumble upon small ravines and pits with rusted German helmets, rosary beads and scattered bones. Beyond the carnage of WWII and its immediate aftermath, the root causes of the recent interethnic war in the Balkans are the direct outcome of forcible Allied creation at Yalta and Potsdam of the artificial multicultural entity known as Yugoslavia.
The question that comes to mind is: Why is this unique form of racism against Germans not debated in public as is for instance the plight of Jews during WWII? While acknowledging that others suffered greatly during WWII and that Germany also committed large-scale atrocities against others, one still wonders: Why are the enormous crimes against the Germans simply not discussed?
The answer may not be hard to find. We are still living in the period where history has been written by the victors. The topic of the war and postwar German losses cannot be debated in academe or in public life because the gigantic scale of German suffering would automatically and immediately eclipse all other competing victimologies combined.
What is striking is that there is still no official tally as to the number of German civilians and soldiers who perished in the period from 1938 to 1950. Why has the German government never released the exact casualty figure? One can only read in some marginal revisionist journals or hear occasional rumours that 6 to 12 million Germans perished during that that time span — but there is no official document endorsing this allegation. And this silence is very, very telling, indeed.
Racism against Germans had been well thought out and was brought to its academic perfection before the war’s end. An influential American Jewish businessman, Theodore Kaufman, published in 1940 a small pamphlet titled Germany Must Perish! In 1942 pamphlet Kill, hiscounterpart, the high Soviet-Jewish official Ilya Ehrenburg, unabashedly urged Soviets solders to spare no mercy against the Germans: “The Germans are not human beings. Henceforth the word German means to us the most terrible curse. From now on the word ‘German’ will trigger your rifle.”
The Morgenthau Plan, devised by two ethnic Jews — Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. and Assistant Treasury Secretary Harry Dexter White — would have killed 10 million Germans by starvation and disease in the first two years after the war. (White has been named as a Soviet spy on the basis of the Venona documents.) This would have been in addition to the 1 million that had been killed in saturation bombing and 3 million in forced expulsions. As Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson wrote in his diary, “I found around me, particularly Morgenthau, a very bitter atmosphere of personal resentment against the entire German people without regard to individual guilt, of the Nazis.”
As recounted by Joseph Bendersky, American military officers commonly believed that there were many anti-German Jews in the U.S. military government after World War II who were bent on de-nazification and revenge. “Feeling inhibited from speaking publicly by alleged Jewish power, a number of officers, as well as some government officials, complained incessantly in private that Jewish ‘refugees in American uniforms,’ together with Jews in the U.S. government, unduly affected American policy toward Germany in a variety of detrimental ways” (p. 364). Refugee officers (i.e., German Jews returning as members of the U.S. military government) treated Germans brutally, including sadistic beatings and starvation (p. 365). In general, these Jews advocated harsh treatment, the concept of collective guilt, and trials for general staff officers. The reputation of these refugee officers was so bad that the Army ended up firing personnel who had entered the U.S. after 1933.
Although modern mainstream historiography and the media downplay Kaufmann’s little booklet and Ehrenburg’s hectoring of Soviet soldiers, their words had a significant psychological impact on the behavior of Allied soldiers.
Anti-German hatred did not stop when the war was over. It is still well alive and thriving, albeit by resorting to far more sophisticated methods. Over the last 70 years anti-German racism, under the guise of the fluid word ‘antifascism’ has been the pivot of the “negative legitimacy” of Western civilization in the eyes of intellectual elites. Anti-German hatred still represents the unavoidable pillar of the world order, including international law. Any dent in it would seriously harm the modern system and would possibly bring it down.
There is also a psychological dimension to a racist act. Usually the bigger the magnitude of a racist crime the more intellectual effort is needed by its perpetrator to hide it, or explain it away, either by propagandistic or by pedagogical tools. Perpetrators of huge racist crimes, such as those committed by the Allies against the German people, were subsequently obliged to project their own crimes on their German victims. By reversing the semantics of the word ‘racism,’ they were able to carry out their own racist policies, while at the same time naming the German victim as an exemplary role model of racism. Consequently, the victors of WWII had no other option but to trivialize or hush up their crimes, while simultaneously doctoring up the image of their own victimhoods while ascribing their own evildoing as a racially inborn trait of the defeated German side. The postmodern liberal “antifascist” and “antiracist” discourse of “crying wolf” — blaming the Other for one’s own dark and criminal secrets, can be traced to good old fable teller Aesop and his allegories about human duplicity.
Freda Utley, a former communist intellectual, who very early learned the meta-language of the Allied propaganda and who later turned into an anticommunist writer, observed the psychology of the victors and their usage of semantic pyrotechnics. As early as 1948 she knew what would become of Germany:
A thoughtful American professor, whom I met in Heidelberg, expressed the opinion that the United States military authorities on entering Germany and seeing the ghastly destruction wrought by our obliteration bombing were fearful that knowledge of it would cause a revulsion of opinion in America and might prevent the carrying out of Washington’s policy for Germany by awakening sympathy for the defeated and realization of our war crimes. This, he believes, is the reason why a whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler’s starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt. Certainly it worked out that way.” (Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. 1949)
Judicial Review or Racial Review?
There is also a judicial aspect of modern anti-German racism, well observed by the German legal scholar Carl Schmitt, who witnessed himself this unparalleled German drama. Wars declared “good” and specifically wars fought in the name of “democracy and human rights,” are the most barbaric ones. A democratic warrior is obliged to place his enemy below democratic standards, or simply set him outside the category of human beings. This was likely the image of Germans crossing the mind of American commanders when given orders to firebomb German cities. There were no longer “bad Krauts” residing in the crosshairs of the bombers, but monstrous beasts — a unique type of bacteria, a special form of disease that needed to be chemically removed in order to make the word safe for democracy.
Psychologically speaking American aircraft pilots or naïve GIs had perfect consciousness, being firmly convinced that some ugly telluric creatures from the Bible, some stray Gogs or Magogs, lived down under in the medieval cities of Cologne, Dresden, Bremen, and Munich. It is no accident that the largest Allied firebombing — of Hamburg in July 1943 — had a code name from the Old Testament: ‘Gomorrah.’
This pattern of demonization of the adversary was first used by the North against the South in legitimizing the Union aggression in 1863 and later on in brainwashing the Southerners. More recently it was used by George W. Bush and his neocon advisors in legitimizing military intervention in Iraq, notably by parroting the expression “Axis of Evil,” put together by his Canadian-American Jewish advisor David Frumin subliminal reference to Axis countries of WWII. In both historical instances, Deuteronomy, Chapter VII, with its prescriptions for genocide, was used as a handbook against unchosen ones. As Schmitt writes:
Hostility becomes so absolute that even the most ancient sacral differentiation between the enemy and the criminal disappears in the paroxysm of self-righteousness. To doubt one’s own justice appears as treason; to show interest in the opponent’s arguments is viewed as treacherousness, and the attempt to start discussion is considered as agreement with the enemy. (Ex Captivitate Salus, Erfahrungen der Zeit 1945/47 (Köln: Greven Verlag, 1950, p. 58).
After 1945, with the hindsight of the Allied terror bombing and fresh memories of immense suffering, the mimicry of political rectitude amidst the new German ruling class was comprehensible. Hundreds of thousands of German intellectuals had to be purged from schools and universities and newspapers and also obliged to fill out the demeaning Questionnaires (“Fragebogen”), while renouncing over and over again their “authoritarian personality.” The high priests of the Frankfurt School, specialists in “laundering the German character,” accomplished their work meticulously. (SeeCaspar Schrenck von Notzing; also my Homo Americanus.) In the decades to come German politicians had to prove that they could perform their liberal democratic tasks better than their American tutors. Given that all signs of nationalism, let alone racialism, had to be erased, the only form of patriotism allowed to Germans was “constitutional patriotism”: “The German people had to adapt itself to the constitution, instead of adapting the constitution to the German people,” writes the German legal scholar, Günther Maschke (Das bewaffnete Wort (“Die Verschwörung der Flakhelfer”) (Wien und Lepzig: Karolinger Verlag, 1997) p. 74; my emphasis).
The word ‘German’ has become synonymous with evil. German studies in the US academe have been thoroughly neglected; any mentioning of “German culture” is still reminiscent of the time span stretching from 1933 to 1945. Today, the Germans are a thoroughly neurotic people, a case of the victor’s successful cultural (and genetic?) engineering — probably the most unique case in the history of mankind.
The peculiar hatred of German tormentors must be put into wider psychological perspective and possibly also described by an evolutionary psychologist. It was largely the subconscious knowledge of their low character in comparison to the Germans that tormentors of the German people acted in such a barbaric fashion.
The German people, as the synthesis of all European races and residing in the place where North and West meet South and East in Europe, are in many ways the most accomplished of all Indo-European peoples. Rising from the ashes of WWII, they have built the strongest, most productive economy in Europe. Germans have a special sense of space and order (Ordnung and Ortung), which other European peoples do not have to the same degree. There is a joke that even a German drug addict knows how to neatly dispose of his used needles.
In addition, the German language is the richest Indo-European language. It enables hundreds of thousands of neologisms and compound nouns; it is timeless and endless and ideal for philosophical speculation. Unlike the English language and even more so the highly contextual French language (which is full of antonyms and homonyms), the German language is a straight-forward and a very “earthbound” language, having in addition a solid normative grammar. Alas, unlike French, its major fault is that it does not give a speaker latitude for diplomatic weaselling.
The paradox of our postmodernity is that despite being the most demonized people on earth, Germans are the most welcome people anywhere. Unlike the French, the English, and let alone the Americans, who are resented, if not despised in foreign countries, German businessmen, tourists and even their politically correct elites, are welcome everywhere. From the Arabic casbahs to India’s bazaars, barefooted street kids yell in great respect when they spot Germans: “Alemani! Alemani!” Officially, even Germany’s former archenemies in Russia and Israel reserve to German diplomats a far more lavish treatment than they do to other foreign diplomats.
Subconsciously everybody knows that something terrible and unspeakable happened to Germans. But it’s not deserving loud and open discourse — at least not for now.
The question is asked time and again, “what can I do to save The West and defend my people?” The answers are generally (if at all suggested) of a broad scope encompassing political movements or counter movements, media presentation and so on. But as the expression, ‘life is what happens while you’re busy making other plans’ is so resoundingly true, it might pay to consider that we (individually) do not need grandiose blueprints to save and defend our people and culture. We simply need to affirm both to ourselves and before our enemies, that we, the Sons and Daughters of The West, are yet alive. For that which is alive celebrates its life. The West is a living entity, and we are its lifeblood. Therefore to celebrate The West is to celebrate our own being, our own existence. And as any wise man knows, true affection is not expressed in grand actions but in the everyday gestures, in the little things.
And that is not to suggest that grand visions should not be fostered and implemented, but rather that we should be careful not to keep our gaze fixed so intently on the future that we miss out on the present day-to-day joys and celebrations of Western life. And as autumn, and the (decidedly European in nature) Holiday Season, is soon upon us, what better time of the year is there for the sons and daughters of The West to indulge in the glory of our culture.
Of all the seasons that encompass the cycle of life, I doubt none holds a greater fondness in the hearts of Whites, than Fall. Or perhaps, more specifically, that late September to late December time frame when the days grow shorter as the sun begins to sink earlier, leaving the evening world painted in gold and the sky a deep blue-fading to purple starlit twilight, before it sets. The leaves begin to turn and the air becomes cool, clean, refreshing and enlivening. The nights seem deep and misty, while dawn comes bright and silvery over the frost covered landscape. Even those leafless, seemingly lifeless, trees look like finely etched works of art against the fading evening light of a Fall Sky. Autumn seems to bring a million such images (memories) to mind that seem to heighten our expectation of the season.
Of course our anticipation/imaginings of this season and its events are most often more magical than the actual thing, when it arrives. This is generally because we do not take the initiative to be sure and mark those moments (when they are upon us) in memorable ways.
As I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize, in opposition to beliefs I once held, that what we commonly think of as rituals, customs and ceremonies are deeply important. It is through them that our subconscious thoughts are brought to the surface and manifested in the practicing/celebrating of the various aspects of our culture. They refresh our minds and keep us moored to that collective memory that lies beyond waking thought. Who among us can deny that magical feeling that is conjured up in autumn, culminating in the mystical mythology and symbols of Halloween. Is it a mere commercially programmed expectation, or something far deeper in our collective soul? Or in Thanksgiving with its abundance of good (and favorite) foods and gatherings of family, with all its implied cultural memories of ancient festivals at the gathering of the harvest and the bounty of the food which kith and kin labored to grow. (It is a celebration of life. Family Life. Western Life!)
Or what of that warm and magical feeling we all get around Christmas time, with its images of snow and carols and family and gatherings and mistletoes and so on. December 25th is deep in the heart of Winter. Yet it is at this time, when the world seems the most lifeless, when the cold bitter winds can seem the most lacerating and spring an eternity away, that we children of The West find the most warmth of heart, peace of mind and contentedness of spirit. And this general ‘warmth’ is not found solely through wood and flame, but primarily through proximity to one another and in celebrating the “magic of the season”. That is no commercialized reaction. That is a deep and primal reflex stirred by a collective memory in our ancient subconsciousness.
So these events, and their seasons, quite obviously have a deep resonance within our very being. And the rituals and ceremonies with which they are celebrated keep our affection for them at not just the subconscious level (that ancient-derived mystical feeling we get around that Holiday) but the conscience one as well.
Many people are familiar with the biblical passage that states, “train a child in the way he should go and when he is grown he will not depart from it”. Some take that to mean that simply indoctrinating young people with points of dogma will ensure their adherence to it throughout their lives. But I think it means that if you immerse them in the customs and rituals of that faith (or culture –or both-) then it will, throughout their lives, stir their cultural (family/collective-tribal) memories and that they will hold, or return, to the dogma by virtue of their affection for and familiarity of (and thus comfort in) the rituals.
That’s why holidays such as Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas evoke such strong feelings in Whites. They are ancient and the sensations (and collective memories) they evoke, and the rituals associated with them, are ingrained in our DNA…in our Soul!
So, where do we begin?
With simplicity and discipline.
Our culture isn’t an abstract thing. It is We (with a capital W), past and present and future. And We just need the willingness to let it manifest through us and celebrate it. And, obviously, take care not to overdue it one-way or the other. There is pleasure and joy to be found in restraint. Of having turkey only once a year at thanksgiving, or having a ‘Christmas Ham’ only on Christmas. Or even in having a cup of coffee only in the early morning. For therein is the presence of ritual and the positive associations with it.
As the family is the cornerstone of society, family-life is therefore the cornerstone which props up Western civilization and its culture. And as the acorn becomes the mighty oak, so to does the small celebrations of family/Western life becomes the greater consciousness of it and the desire to preserve and defend it.
I suppose it is memories of which I write. For if life can be said to have a purpose, then that purpose is to preserve memory, without which we have no identity individually or collectively. So foster memories of your people and culture, and use simple rituals and ceremonies to achieve it.
Star a family tradition of burning applewood for the first fire of fall. Or having your first hot chocolate in a toast to the first snowfall of the year. Plan for annual activities to gather and bind cornstalks for Halloween or to gather pinecones for Christmas wreaths. Make your own official family holiday. Name (for example) Oct 10th as the official mom vs. dad chili cook-off day. Instead of a calendar of saints, create a calendar of family, of grandparents and great- grandparents and/or European heroes whose actions defended and saved our people, or which helped to better articulate our consciousness of ourselves. Play Beethoven records around the house on his birthday. Quote Shakespeare to one another on his, and so on.
Have trees on your property? Get the family together and name them. Give them pet names reflecting a family event that happened near them. Give pet names to favorite spots around your hometown or out in the country where you spend time. Forming a connection to places and things through naming them (even if they’re silly names) personalizes your immediate world in a way that will, over time, resonate deeply. It creates a psychological bond to your “stomping ground” (as we say in America) and keeps invigorated that sense of having a personal stake in the place around you and what occurs there.
Have European Day. The Sons and Daughters of The West Annual Celebration!
Make it a feast and festival in honor to and celebration of our ancestors, both recent and ancient. Design a family collage including images of Our People, with Alfred the Great next to a picture of grandpa.
It is a context that is a powerful psychological force in propounding to the young their connection to THEIR people and history.
Think of the impact and significance of telling the young stories about our peoples migrations from Germania and then into the new world. Tell the stories about the trials and sacrifices of OUR PEOPLE as they laid down the rich history that is the tapestry with which our own lives are interwoven (we have a rich cultural heritage that is ignored or lost to most). Stories of how we, the Saxons, Vandals, Goths etc… journeyed to new frontiers. Of Hengist and Horsa and so on.
Learn what you can about our, general, ancient history, myths and fairytales and fill in/embellish the rest. It is your right. You are part of a collective genetic history, the blood of which still runs in your veins. And your romanticized additions will not lack in credibility for there is a collective memory that runs through us, energizing us, like a river through a forest, nurturing and re-freshening the life therein. Our fairytales and myths all contain a general cultural truth. They reflect an unspoken, yet transmitted from one generation to the next, cultural memory that stretches back to the dawn of time and acts as guides and examples for us, for all times.
And Death and Sorrow.
We must set aside time to remember the departed. Not only in colourful tales, making merry their memories, but as a time to mourn and lament their absence. For death is a part of life and loss a grievous thing. We must not hide from it or cover it in a veneer of “closure” or a subtle transfer to just the “Happy Memories”. The ignoring or minimalizing of death and sorrow allows for the growth of apathy to all else that ceases or “changes”. Again, it is memory we are speaking of. Death is a physical departure. And though it leaves an emptiness in our lives of the present, our memories act as a monument on the fields of eternity (the hearts of the young). It is, after all, not called a grave MARKER for nothing.
And, on the other side, the same is true of birth. How many people really celebrate birth? Birth is something that should be met with riotous celebration of both the child and the mother and a congratulatory salute to the father as if he were a conquering king returning victoriously from battle.
For now, make this autumn more yours/ours than it has ever been. Gather together family and friends and begin (or perhaps better stated, begin again) the annual celebration. “Movie Night” or “Pizza Night” ain’t gonna cut it. There needs to be something deeper that celebrates a family (or community) unit as a living, breathing, (flesh and spirit) biological entity that is both past and present, with an ever watchful eye on the future.
Plan for an afternoon and/or evening get together in the backyard, or at the park, and make merry! Send the kids out to make a crown of leaves (golden, yellow and red) for mom or grandma and a scepter of oak wrapped with grapevine for dad or grandpa. Make the adornments symbolic, of a historic nature and/or personnel one. On the feast table place a centerpiece made of holly and bramble and pine. Have each thing representative of something…..of life, family, history, the turning of they year or the eternalness of the blood (as in kith and kin). What do the various foods mean? What do they symbolize? (Study some and think it over). Make their representation simple but poignant. Bring out the baked breads, and fruits and berries and cakes and elderberry wine. Make up some riddles and songs and original verse and revel in your people and their culture. Toast to the departed and then to the yet to be.
Remember, our victory comes not at a single stroke on a momentary battlefield, for life itself is an eternal battlefield. No, our victory is assured through the simple act of showing up, of unabashedly celebrating our race and its heritage. Our adversaries, after all, are literally terrified of the weakest among us. Just look at the healthcare debate in America right now. A handful of White, (mostly) elderly gray-haired seniors, shaking their arthritic fists in defiance, sent the radical left (from the corporate media to the political ruling elite) shrieking in abject horror and retreating into the shadows, if only for the moment.
The power of our adversaries is a paper dragon and their seemingly assured victory over The West is all smoke and mirrors. Their only advantage right now is in their Wormtongue-like ability to convince many of us that the war is over and that they have won. They like to project the image of the Sons and Daughters of The West as lifeless bodies on the battlefield, yet if one of those bodies so much as twitches it sends horrified shockwaves through their numerically advantaged combined forces. And when they discover that life yet flows in those White bodies, they will recoil into the shadows once again and their decades long threat that seemed to be on the verge of completely annihilating The West will have seemed as no more than a passing cloud on a clear day.
So rise, and stand up again you Sons and Daughters of The West. And proclaim to our foes and to one another, “We are yet alive!”
Note: I realize that many are not in a position to engage in the idealized practices described above. The point, though, is to do what you can, where you are. Be it with a gathering of two or a hundred and two. If life can be said to be music, then Western Civilization if a grand symphony and we must each play our part. Be it a big or small part, a stand-alone note or a harmonized chord, each part ultimately contributes to the majesty of the whole.
In 2005, the Nobel Prize in Economic Science was awarded to Israeli mathematician and game theory specialist Robert J. Aumann, co-founder of the Center for Rationality at Hebrew University. This Jerusalem resident explains: “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”
Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. With the use of game theory algorithms, those responses become predictable, even foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.
Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide. For a skilled agent provocateur, the target can be a person, a company, an economy, a legislature, a nation or an entire culture—such as Islam. With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal.
For instance, a skilled game theorist could foresee that, in response to a 911-type mass murder, “the mark” (the U.S.) would deploy its military to avenge that attack. With phony intelligence fixed around a preset goal, a game theory algorithm could anticipate that those forces might well be redirected to invade Iraq—not to avenge 911 but to pursue the expansionist goals of Greater Israel.
To provoke that invasion required the displacement of an inconvenient truth (Iraq played no role in 911) with what lawmakers and the public could be deceived to believe. The emotionally wrenching nature of that incident was essential in order to induce Americans to abandon rational analysis and to facilitate their reliance on false intelligence.
Americans were (predictably) provoked by that mass murder. The foreseeable reaction—shock, grief and outrage—made it easier for them to believe that an infamous Iraqi Evil Doer was to blame. The displacement of facts with beliefs lies at heart of how Israel, the world’s leading authority in game theory, induces other nations to wage their wars.
False but Plausible
To displace facts with credible fiction requires a period of “preparing the minds” so that the mark will believe a pre-staged storyline. Thus the essential role of a complicit media to promote: (a) a plausible present danger (Iraqi weapons of mass destruction), (b) a plausible villain (a former ally rebranded as an Evil Doer), and (c) a plausible post-Cold War threat to national security (The Clash of Civilizations and “Islamo-fascism”).
Reports from inside Israeli intelligence suggest that the war-planners who induced the 2003 invasion of Iraq began their psyops campaign no later than 1986 when an Israeli Mossad operation (Operation Trojan) made it appear that the Libyan leadership was transmitting terrorist directives from Tripoli to their embassies worldwide. Soon thereafter, two U.S. soldiers were killed by a terrorist attack in a Berlin discotheque. Ten days later, U.S., British and German aircraft dropped 60 tons of bombs on Libya.
The following is a senior Mossad operative’s assessment (published in 1994 in The Other Side of Deception) of that 1986 operation—five years before the Gulf War and 15 years before the murderous provocation that preceded the invasion of Iraq:
After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt that it’ll work.
Could this account by former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky be correct? If so, Tel Aviv’s Iraqi operation required more pre-staging than its relatively simple Libyan deception.
America the Mark
From a game theory perspective, what is the probability of a violent reaction in the Middle East after more than a half-century of serial Israeli provocations—in an environment where the U.S. is identified (correctly) as the Zionist state’s special friend and protector?
During the 1967 War, the Israeli killing of 34 Americans aboard the USS Liberty confirmed that a U.S. president (Democrat Lyndon Johnson) could be induced to condone murderous behavior by Israel. Two decades later, Operation Trojan confirmed that a U.S. president (Republican Ronald Reagan) could be induced to attack an Arab nation based on intelligence fixed by Israel.
For more than six decades, the U.S. has armed, financed, befriended and defended Zionism. This “special relationship” includes the U.S.-discrediting veto of dozens of U.N. resolutions critical of Israeli conduct. From a game theory perspective, how difficult was it to anticipate that—out of a worldwide population of 1.3 billion Muslims—19 Muslim men could be induced to perpetrate a murderous act in response to U.S support for Israel’s lengthy mistreatment of Arabs and Muslims, particularly Palestinians?
Israeli game theorists operate not from the Center for Morality or the Center for Justice but from the Center for Rationality. As modeled by Zionist war planners, game theory is devoid of all values except one: the ability to anticipate—within an acceptable range of probabilities—how “the mark” will react when provoked. Thus we see the force-multiplier potential for those who wage war with well-planned provocations and well-timed crises.
Israeli behavior is often immoral and unjust but that does not mean it is irrational. For Colonial Zionists committed to the pursuit of an expansionist agenda, even murderous provocations are rational because the response can be mathematically modeled, ensuring the results are reasonably foreseeable. That alone is sufficient for a people who, as God’s chosen, consider it their right to operate above the rule of law.
In April 1988, several weeks before I was awarded a PhD degree in political science at the University of California–Santa Barbara, I had a private and casual dinner with a famous author of human ecology, professor emeritus Garrett Hardin. After a beer or two, he told me, if I recall his words well: “Look, Tom, I have been lecturing in biology; I can get away with saying things to my students about race that you will never ever be able to in humanities.”
Being young and living in the allegedly freest country in the world, I did not exactly understand what he meant. Years later I grasped the meaning of his words. I realized that there are academic fields in humanities that are subject to strict inquisitorial control and to undisputed canons of political rectitude. This sacred triangle consists of three subjects: a) modern historiography; b) Jewish power and influence; and c) the race question. Lecturing in an open an honest way on these topics means receiving a kiss of academic death.
Intellectual terror in American colleges is well-hidden behind the garb of feigned academic conviviality and the “have-a-wonderful-day” rhetoric of superficially friendly peers. Yet it has far more insidious effects than the naked terror I experienced in a drab ex-Communist Europe.
A Hollywood image of a German officer (the “Jew Hunter”) played by Christof Waltz in Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, a fantasy of Jewish revenge
Apart from being a derogatory, value-laden word that immediately lends itself to an array of catastrophic fantasies and judgment day scenarios, the word “Nazi” also gives birth to a schizoid behavior among a number of White nationalists, particularly in America. Many of them seriously project in their minds National Socialist Germany as a country populated by Albino-like Nordic-Übermenschen) possessing a hidden force that could be resuscitated any day either in Patagonia or on astral UFO’s. As noted previously in TOO (see here and here), the false reenactment of political events leads to their farcical repetition — with dangerous political consequences. In our postmodernity, the overkill of false images leads to the real kill. The often rowdy and infantile behavior of such “proud Aryan internet warriors” scares off serious White people who could otherwise be of some help in these decisive days of struggle for Western civilization. We must ask ourselves: Cui bono? Who benefits?
Diane Kruger and Christof Waltz who played major roles as Germans in Inglourious Basterds
Indeed, the surreal image of National Socialism as exclusively Nordic has been promoted by the left — antifascist scholars, environmentalists, Freudo-Boasians, various Jewish and pro-Jewish academic think tanks, the caviar-left, the gated community White liberals, etc. How? For decades they have been cranking out an overkill of one-sided books and movies on National Socialism and racism, and this for two simple reasons. First, it pays well and provides lush media and academic sinecures. Secondly, there has been a well-conceived pedagogical project ever since 1945 to prevent a critical reexamination of race and racism.
For starters, the second most powerful National Socialist man in the Third Reich was a dark-haired “shrunken German” (“nachgedunkelter Schrumpfgermane”), the proverbial Joseph Goebbels, a thin man, little over 5 feet tall, whose stature and face resembled more an ancient Roman quaestorthan a blond fighting machine. His thin lips, a round protruding back head (occiput), sad, yet very sharp eyes, testified to a man who under different historical circumstances would have made an excellent professor in comparative literature. Goebbels was born in the German province of Westphalia, close to France. In the 1st century ad, this area was an important Roman military outpost and a region in which many Germans today still show distinct Mediterranean facial traits.
The much discussed German anti-Slavic policies, which were based on the alleged racial inferiority of Slavs, are nonsense — all the more so since at least one out of three Germans carries the name of Slavic origin. Prior to 1945, well over 15 million Germans were born and lived in the Slavic speaking areas of East Europe, including the third-ranking man in the National Socialist command, the Russian-Baltic born German Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg’s face shows Nordic features with a slight Alpine Slavic streak.
The linguistic approach to the study of races should not be neglected because it was common for many Slavs all over Europe to change their names to German names (“Weber,” ” Bauer,” “Schmitt”), just as it was common for many Germans to change their names to Slavic ones. One needs to open up the white pages in Vienna, or in the once heavily Polish-populated Rhine basin, or in Berlin, to realize that one in every three German names ends with the Slavic syllable, such as ‘ski,’ ‘tschc,’ or ‘c.’
In former Prussia — which is today under Russian and Polish jurisdiction — lived a significant number of Germans of French ancestry with names like “Fontane,” “de Maizière”, or “Lafontaine,” bearing witness to a significant group of expelled 16th-century French Protestant Huguenots, many of whom became prominent German leaders and scholars. Unlike all other European kingdoms, 18th-century Prussia under Frederick the Great was the first country to endorse, the American Declaration of Independence. Prussia was then the most tolerant place on earth, attracting Enlightenment philosophers from France and from other parts of Europe.
Some of the highest ranking German generals in the Wehrmacht were of Slavic-German origin. Their family names are clearly Slavic and their skull morphology points to a large variety of all European subracial types, from the Alpine (“ostisch”), the Mediterranean (“westisch”) to the Nordic: Hans Hellmich, Curt Badinski, Bruno Chrobeck, Emil Dedek, Heinrich Domansky, Walter Dybilasz, Erich Glodkowski, Kurt Mierzinsky, Adalbert Mikulicz, Bronislaw Pawel, Georg Radziej, Hans Radisch, Franz Zednicek, Walter von Brauchitsch. So were the other high German officers such as the master of panzer warfare, the round-headed Heinz Guderian, who was of distant Armenian origin, or the tall and big-nosed Wilhelm Canaris, who was of Italian/Greek origin. (See the important book by Christopher Dolbeau — practically unknown in France — Face au Bolchevisme: Petit dictionnaire des résistances nationales à l’Est de l’Europe: 1917–1989. (Against Bolshevism: A Little Dictionary of National Resistances in East Europe: 1917–1989).
To assume, therefore, that the Institute for Racial Hygiene in Germany or the Gestapo were checking the names or the cranial index of high German officials, before admitting them to high military positions is academic lunacy. Yet a type of deliberate lunacy is still alive in some influential anti-German conspiratorial circles in the West and in America. The alleged racism of Germans against Slavs was part and parcel of the Allied propaganda and later of the Frankfurt School, whose goal was to whip up Slavs during and after WWII into anti-German frenzy. By accepting more than one million volunteers from Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Slovakia, etc. in the Wehrmacht and by allowing half a million non-German European volunteers in the Waffen SS, the German high military command thought it could create its own version of united Europe and successfully fight the war on two fronts.
Even the very bad guys — the men most feared by Communists and Jews all over Europe and only trusted by Adolf Hitler in the last year of the war — were not quite the paradigms of the “Nazi Nordic” supermen. Or were they? Those haunting five were: the SS Gestapo and Interpol chief, the Austrian-born Ernst Kaltenbrunner; the Czech-Moravian born SS Reichskommissar and Foreign Minister hopeful, Arthur Seyss Inquart (real name Arthur Zajtich); the Austrian- born SS Chief of Special Forces, whose name appears to be of Hungarian origin, Otto Skorzeny; the Italian, Trieste-born SS police chief of Slovenian origin, Odilo Globocnik, who put down the Warsaw Jewish ghetto uprising in late April 1943; and finally the Croat-born Wehrmacht general, Lothar von Rendulic, who, even long after the war, was considered an expert on terrorist communist guerilla warfare. Many of their fellow travelers — the ones who escaped suicide or the Allied gallows — played a crucial role in the development of the US strategy for Cold War Communist containment.
Physically, all these men could be described as of the Dinaro-Nordic mixture, with prominent long heads and, to top it off, they are well over 6 foot tall, with Kaltenbrunner measuring 6′ 7″ (201 cm) feet and Skorzeny 6′ 4″ (194 cm). It is striking that all five were born in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, an area of Europe where Hitler himself was born and which he knew best.
Traditionally, tall stature has been a matter of pride and a trademark of ethnic groups in this part of southeast Mitteleuropa. From Bavaria to Austria, along the German-speaking northern Italian province of South Tyrol and stretching further along the Croatian coast down to Montenegro, this part of Europe had been literally the military highway of different European and non-European armies since time immemorial. It is a convergence point of all European ethnicities: Goths, Celts, Latins, Illyrians and Slavs, with some inescapable Asiatic, Turkic recessive genes still to be detected, particularly further inland in the eastern Balkans. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the 3rd century brought hundreds of thousands Roman legionaries to defend the limes on the Danube against Barbarians. The same can be said of the Goths who settled there in the 4th century and of Napoleon’s Grande Armée, which went on foot all the way from Paris to Vienna, then further north to Moscow and then further south to the Croatian coastal and medieval town of Dubrovnik. There was a brief Mongol incursion in the 13th century, followed later, from the late 15th to the early 18th century by lengthy and painful Turkish invasions, which the populace in this region holds in very bitter memory. The German derivative of the noun ‘Türke,’ the past participle verb ‘getürkt’ (‘faked,’ ‘screwed up’) has a very derogatory meaning today. So does the noun ‘Turcin’ among Croats, or ‘Turco’ in Italian — words still used to depict gross and violent behavior.
Otto Skorzeny, whose face had a prominent Schmiss (German for “gash”) from academic fencing in his youth
It is a common sight in the capital city of Bolzano, in South Tyrol and in the Croat coastal town of Split, to see lank long-limbed women who are 6 feet tall. Incidentally, the tallest man in Europe was a Croat, Grgo Kusic (1892–1918), who was 7’9” tall (2.37m) and who served in the Royal Guard of the late Austrian emperor Franz Joseph II. His contemporary, the Montenegrin Princess Helena measured 6 feet and was married to the late Italian King Vicror Emmanuel III, who measured a modest 5 feet.
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger also comes from this region. Born in the small village of Thal, right on the Slovenian-Styrian Austrian border, his physique and facial traits are not quite common for this region. He is a typical Nordic specimen — highly intelligent, although his square jaw is reminiscent of old Cro-Magnon chromosomes. Although born as a provincial “hillbilly” (“Bergtrottel” in colloquial German), after being successfully coached by his wife Maria (a member of the Kennedy dynasty), he learned the ropes of political survival in America. A few Californian pep talks about multiracial conviviality, coupled with his generous donations to Jewish organizations, made him a success story that his lookalikes in Austria could only dream of. Otherwise, under different historical circumstances, he would have ended up like his father, singing a different political tune — albeit with another heavy accent.
Family of Palestinian teen killed in 1992 tells Aftonbladet reporters IDF soldiers demanded NIS 5,000 to return his body and claimed stitches result of autopsy
Despite Israel’s harsh protests, Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet published a second article accusing the IDF of harvesting Palestinian organs.
In the article, published Sunday, Oisín Cantwell and Urban Andersson report from the northern West Bank village of Imatin, where 19-year-old Bilal Ahmad Ghanem was killed during a clash with Israeli soldiers in 1992.
Ghanem’s family claims that his body was returned several days later, wrapped in hospital bandages. Aftonbladet published what is said was a photo of the body, which had a scar running from the neck down to the abdomen.
The second article, titled “Mother never stopped suffering; she never stopped wondering,” quoted Bilal’s brother as saying that the killed teen was “hunted by Israel for protecting his people.”
The brother, who was 15-years-old at the time, recounted the shooting incident. “A number of (IDF) soldiers ambushed (the Palestinians) and opened fire. The fist shot hit (Bilal) in the chest, the second in the leg. We believe that he was still alive after sustaining the two bullet wounds.”
The mother, Sadija, told Aftonbladet “they could have arrested him, but instead they decided to kill him.
According to the family, the IDF demanded NIS 5,000 (about $1,300) to return the body.
“It was the middle of the night. The soldiers caused an electrical power outage in the entire village. Bilal was returned in a black bag; he had no teeth. The body was stitched from the neck all the way down to the abdomen,” the Swedish newspaper quoted the mother as saying.
According to the article, when asked what happened to the body, the soldiers said it had undergone an autopsy in Tel Aviv. The family, however, claims Bilal’s organs had been stolen.
The Israeli government declared Sunday morning that it expects the Swedish government to officially condemn the first Aftonbladet report.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We do not want the Swedish government to apologize, we want it to issue a condemnation.”
On Thursday Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman slammed the Swedish Foreign Ministry for saying that Swedish Ambassador to Israel Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier’s condemnation of the report does not represent the Swedish government’s stance.
“It’s a shame that the Swedish Foreign Ministry fails to intervene in a case of blood libels against Jews. This is reminiscent of Sweden’s stand during World War II, when had failed to intervene as well,” Lieberman said.
Kevin MacDonald has written an interesting review of my book, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America. While we agree that the United States had an Anglo-Protestant ethnic core, we disagree about why this dominant ethnic group lost power. My argument is that liberal Anglo-Protestant elites, in conjunction with pro-immigration business interests, undermined Anglo hegemony. For Professor MacDonald, Jews played a key role in unseating WASP power.
Interestingly, I have also had this critique leveled at me from left-wing writers who complain that my account reduces ethnics to passive subjects rather than active players in reshaping the country.
Yet I am unpersuaded that Jews or any other non-WASP group had much influence in WASP decline—for the same reason I believe that black Americans had very little impact on ending slavery. Of course minorities will advance their interests where they can. But in the case of blacks or Jews in the early 20th century, they had little power to do so.
The reality is that WASPs largely controlled American society until the 1960s, serving as the country’s presidents, legislators, writers and educators, and providing religious and commercial leadership. If WASPs had stuck together as an ethnic group—as they did momentarily in the 1840s-50s and in the 1890-1925 period—they could have maintained immigration quotas and assimilated immigrants into the WASP ethnic group. (Here I refer to full ethnic assimilation of the kind that absorbed the Scotch-Irish, Huguenots and Knickerbockers, not mere “civic” assimilation in which hyphenated identities persist)
The truth is that WASPs were usually divided. Business interests relentlessly pushed for more immigrants, as they do today, while the American Federation of Labor, led by Samuel Gompers, a Jew, clamored for restriction. Protestant clergymen and businessmen pushed for the admission of Chinese contract labor in the 1860s, 70s and 80s, fighting a losing battle against the Labor-driven Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. In the words of one, “The Chinese shall populate the Pacific Slope, and why not?”. Another was blunter: “I don’t care where I get my labor from, a white man or a chinaman, a mule or a horse”. The same is true today, where surveys find that unionized workers are most opposed to immigration while the wealthy most likely to support it.
Among some American WASP intellectuals, there was a restrictionist movement which was influenced in part by eugenics. But the eugenics movement was actually quite inclusive: Irish and German Catholics were now “Nordics” on the same level as WASPs because they were viewed as racially similar. Most American Anglo-Protestant nationalists were not so quick to accept Catholics: the 6-million member, predominantly northern and anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s expressed the sentiment of far more Anglo-Protestants than the elite eugenicists of the Immigration Restriction League. Prohibition in 1920 succeeded as a largely an anti-Catholic movement.
And when it came time to enact the 1924 National Origins quota act, Anglo-Protestants, who dominated Congress because of malapportioned congressional districts favoring rural areas, battled Irish, German and Scandinavian groups who wanted to base the quotas on the immigrant population rather than the native one. In the end, the WASPs won out over their fellow “Nordics”.
Did the Jews play much of a role in this? I would argue that they were too small and powerless to have much effect. Certainly they were foursquare against restriction, but so were other southern and eastern European ethnic groups.
Jewish intellectuals did have some effect. The Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis were not influential in the immigration debate, but Franz Boas was: in anthropology, he challenged the idea that immigrant groups had smaller skulls in the 1910s and 20s—not enough to make a difference but a voice nonetheless. Felix Adler had some effect on John Dewey’s Liberal Progressivism in the 1900s and Horace Kallen influenced WASP radicals like Randolph Bourne in the 1910s. The New York Intellectuals in the 30s, 40s and 50s were more influential, but again, only to the extent that their more prominent WASP fellow travelers (i.e. C. Wright Mills, Harry S Truman, Wendell Willkie) agreed.
In the end, it was up to the liberal WASPs, the John Deweys, Randolph Bournes and Jane Addamses of this world, to take or leave the ideas of Jews. In most cases, liberal WASPs generated their own cosmopolitan ideas, influenced mainly by ecumenical Protestantism of the Pauline “there is neither Jew nor Greek” variety. In many cases, the WASP liberals actually influenced the Jews, as with the Protestant “Settlement” movement which many Jews joined. WASP liberals could also draw upon the universalist utterances of American Founders. who sometimes gushed about serving as a sanctuary for all of Europe’s oppressed (though many forget that at other times the same Founders spoke of being the true Anglo-Saxons).
Jews and some Catholics did rise to prominence in Hollywood by the 1920s and 30s. But for the most part they simply reproduced the WASP image of America, with WASPs (or WASPified others like Rita Hayworth or Kirk Douglas) serving as lead characters while ethnics remained sidekicks. Frank Capra the Sicilian elevated “Mr. Smith” of the provinces as the clean face of the nation.
Only when liberal WASPs pushed the nation toward being universalist, then multiculturalist, could Jews, Catholics and blacks exercise some power. This happened in the 1960s with congressional redistricting and the Voting Rights Act.
In the 1970s and after, minorities begin to play a much bigger role. But I still believe that, without the approval of white racial liberals, ethnic minorities would be relatively powerless.
You might even see Jews, who are almost all white, throwing their lot in with the majority. Orthodox Jews, for example, tend to vote Republican and conflict with their nonwhite neighbors in Brooklyn and the Bronx.
Let’s also not forget that race theorists often betrayed WASP America because their view was more inclusive of Catholics and they viewed anti-Catholicism as bigotry while eugenics was considered rational and Enlightened.
If WASP America was to have been saved, the small band of eugenicists like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard could not play a key role. The push would have to be sustained by the mass anti-Catholicism of the Klan, Masons, American Protective Association and preachers like Billy Sunday, who had an audience of millions. Elites of colonial stock who were proud of their WASP ancestry—Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge and the D.A.R.—would have had to prevail over German, Irish and Scandinavian lobbies and Anglo business interests.
Scientific racists and Social Darwinists who preached a more inclusive message of Nordic unity actually undermined the idea of a Protestant nation descended from Anglo-Saxon Protestant settlers and pioneers.
So in writing the autopsy report for WASP America, I would pronounce the case one of suicide, not murder.
I appreciate Eric Kaufmann’s comment on my review of his The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America.
As I noted in the review, and especially in the longer version posted on my Occidental Observer website, I acknowledge that pre-existing traits of WASPs—all reducible to individualism—were a component in the fall of Anglo-America. However, I place more emphasis on Jewish influence as a necessary (not a sufficient) condition for the collapse of Anglo-America.
Kaufmann implies that Jews would have indeed attempted to institute the collapse of Anglo-America, “but in the case of blacks or Jews in the early 20th century, they had little power to do so.” This may have been true early in the 20th century (but see below). But in the case of Jews, it was certainly not true in the post-World War II era, which is when by all accounts WASP America collapsed.
Jewish power increased dramatically after World War II—as shown, for example, by Truman’s recognition of Israel over WASP opposition in the Departments of State and Defense after intense lobbying from Jewish groups. Consider also Lucy Dawidowitz’s statement, quoted in Aviva Weingarten’s Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, that in the early 1950s “for anyone in public life [anti-Semitism] is the sign of Cain. So overwhelming is the disrepute of anti-Semitism that an unrestrained demagogue like McCarthy has studiously avoided the Communist provocation and has, as a matter of fact, tried to establish himself as a philo-Semite.”
It is doubtless true that Jewish organizations did not have enough power early in the 20th century to bring down Anglo-America. For example, the organized Jewish community was indeed on the losing side of the immigration battles of the 1920s. Nevertheless, they had substantial power even during this period—not only in the area of immigration policy, but for example in the abrogation of the Russian trade agreement against the policy of the Taft Administration because of Russia’s treatment of Jews.
In my review, I quoted Edward A. Ross writing in 1914 to the effect that Jewish forces were by far the most important and effective anti-restrictionists. Ross’s comment fits well with the historical research cited above. Jewish leadership of the anti-restrictionist effort is quite apparent in getting Presidents Taft and Wilson to veto restrictionist legislation. This material is elaborated in my Culture of Critique chapter on immigration.
This certainly doesn’t mean that all Jews were opposed to immigration restriction. Samuel Gompers was indeed a restrictionist. But it does mean that the organized Jewish community, Jews in Congress, and Jewish financial support, were critical in preventing immigration restriction long before 1924.
Similarly, there is little doubt that the organized Jewish community was the main organizing force in producing the 1965 law. My views on the importance of Jewish groups in the 1965 law have been supported by Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham.
In The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, Kaufmann emphasizes the importance of elite institutions. He states that the fall of Anglo-America was a top-down revolution, not a revolution from below. He particularly highlights the role of the New York Intellectuals.
I certainly agree that it was a top-down movement. However, in his reply to me, Kaufmann minimizes the importance of the WASP Darwinian intellectual elite who were powerful through the 1920s, noting that the latter did not have the allegiance of the Protestant masses.
He can’t have it both ways: He can’t propose a top-down model for the demise of Anglo-America and at the same time dismiss the importance of the collapse of the WASP intellectual elite.
As Kaufmann wrote: “Whenever the northeastern ‘WASP’ elite make common cause with their less prestigious but more numerous provincial kin, Anglo-Protestant ethnic nationalism revives” (p. 26). It really didn’t matter if the Protestant masses didn’t believe in Darwin or evolution.
Again, my view is that the eclipse of Darwinism left the ethnic defense of Anglo-America to religious and popular movements, and that these were unable to dominate elite intellectual discourse, the academic world, or the media. This left a huge opening for the triumph of the New York Intellectuals and other—anti-WASP—movements of the left.
If Darwinism had won the war for the intellectual high ground, the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School’s implicit ideological message that WASPs had a moral imperative to give up hegemony would have been a non-starter. That’s why I (along with scholars like George Stocking and Carl Degler) emphasize Boas—his triumph in academic anthropology sealed the fate of Darwinism.
Contrary to Kaufmann’s implication, Darwinism in the social sciences is much broader than the eugenics movement—including, relevant to this discussion, theories of the importance of racial defense.
Kaufmann reiterates his view that “it was up to the liberal WASPs … to take or leave the ideas of Jews.” This is the most difficult point to argue for either side of this debate. My view, especially as elaborated in this section of the longer version of my review, is that Jewish intellectuals were in the driver’s seat by the 1940s, that they dominated the New York Intellectuals, and that they promoted people like Dewey who advanced ideas that were compatible with theirs.
Minimally, what’s missing from Kaufmann’s analysis is a detailed examination of the relative importance of Jews and WASPs among the New York Intellectuals and exactly how they influenced each other. For example, David Hollinger writes in Science, Jews, and Secular Culture:
“If lapsed Congregationalists like Dewey did not need immigrants to inspire them to press against the boundaries of even the most liberal of Protestant sensibilities, Dewey’s kind were resoundingly encouraged in that direction by the Jewish intellectuals they encountered in urban academic and literary communities”.
Exactly, but this certainly gives major influence to Jews among the New York Intellectuals. Dewey, whose “lack of presence as a writer, speaker, or personality makes his popular appeal something of a mystery” (Sandel, M. J. (1996). Dewey rides again, New York Review of Books May 9, p. 35), thus represented the public face of a movement dominated by Jewish intellectuals.
As documented in my Culture of Critique chapter, my view of the New York Intellectuals as a Jewish movement is accepted by other scholars. And I reiterate my other reasons for supposing that Kaufmann underestimates Jewish influence, none of which Kaufmann disputes in his letter: the strong Jewish identity of Jewish New York Intellectuals and the lack of ethnocentrism on the part of non-Jewish New York Intellectuals; the close connections between the New York Intellectuals and other Jewish intellectual movements, particularly the Frankfurt School and psychoanalysis; the very intensive role of the organized Jewish community in financing the New York Intellectuals, Boas, and the Frankfurt School and in promoting these cosmopolitan ideas in the media and the educational system; similar anti-nationalist tendencies by Jewish intellectuals in other societies.
This last is of special importance here, because Kaufmann suggests that the Jewish New York Intellectuals were influenced by their WASP counterparts. But all the evidence is that Jewish intellectuals did not need WASPs to push them in this direction. Anti-nationalist tendencies have been common among Jewish intellectuals throughout the 20th century, most notably in Eastern and Central Europe prior to WWII. In all these societies the Jews became an anti-national intellectual elite, but they recruited and promoted sympathetic non-Jews as well—much like in later decades the predominantly Jewish neoconservatives recruited non-Jews who accepted their views on Israel and other Jewish issues. The fact that the New York Intellectuals started out as Trotskyites—the quintessential internationalists—long before they absorbed WASPs like Dewey also points in this direction.
I stress Jewish influence on the media as a gap in Kaufmann’s analysis. Kaufmann counters that “for the most part they simply reproduced the WASP image of America.” But ignoring Jewish influence entirely seems unwarranted given that Jews already owned more elite media than WASPs by the 1930s. This trend was exacerbated after World War II, when Jews controlled the three major television networks. In his book, Kaufmann stresses the point that, because of the rise of television, the exposure of Americans “to the values and outlook of the New York/Washington/Hollywood elite thereby took on great significance”, citing Lichter et al. (1986). However, that same study showed that 14 percent of the news media elite were religiously affiliated Jews and 23 percent were raised in a Jewish household, indicating that people of Jewish background were overrepresented approximately by a factor of 10 among elite journalists. Indeed, Kaufmann himself, relying on Lerner et al. (American Elites, 1996) shows that Jews outnumbered Anglo-Saxons 58–21 among elites in television.
In my review, I show that the attitudes promoted by Jews in the media are influenced by their Jewish identity and reflect the liberal/left/cosmopolitan attitudes of the wider Jewish community. I also show that the media has very positive images of Jews and promotes specifically Jewish issues, such as the Holocaust. As Jonathon and Judith Pearl have noted, television portrays Jewish issues “with respect, relative depth, affection and good intentions, and the Jewish characters who appear in these shows have, without any doubt, been Jewish—often depicted as deeply involved in their Judaism”.
In the movies, a common theme is Jews coming to the rescue of non-Jews, as in Ordinary People, where a Jewish psychiatrist who rescues an emotionally repressed WASP family. Kathryn Bernheimer (1998, 162) notes that “in many films, the Jew is the moral exemplar who uplifts and edifies a gentile, serving as a humanizing influence by embodying culturally ingrained values.” WASPS, on the other hand, are routinely portrayed as emotionally and sexually repressed snobs who have no ethical scruples in competing with Jews or other outgroups. Minimally, Kaufmann should discuss the relative influence of Jews and WASPs on the media at different points in history.
To conclude, there is a strong case to be made that Jews were influential in the fall of Anglo-America. As Yuri Slezkine among others has shown, Jews became an elite throughout Eastern and Western Europe beginning in the late 19th century. The rise of Jews to elite status in the United States is no different, and it should not be surprising that they were an important factor in the decline of the previous elite. In order to make his argument for WASP suicide, Kaufman at least needs to consider the available evidence on Jewish influence.
The word and epithet ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ are usually hurled against White nationalists, never ever scathing other racial non-European outgroups. Over the last fifty years, no effort has been spared by the Western system and its mediacracy to pathologize White Western peoples into endless atonement and perpetual guilt feelings about their White race. The intended goal was to create a perception that all non-European races and outgroups are immune to sentiments of xenophobia or racial exclusion. The incessant anti-White propaganda and the idealization of non-Whites has attained grotesque dimensions, resulting in clinical self-hate and neurotic behavior among the majority of Whites.
Were such sickening attitudes of White Europeans and White Americans not suicidal, they would appear laughable at best. The sense of territorial imperative, the seething interracial hate is far more salient and violent among and amidst non-Whites than among Whites.
Beauty of the Beast
Mexican Americans do not like African Americans (see here, here). Neither do American Asians like African Americans and Mexican Americans combined (see AmRen’s list of racial conflict in the US). In a likely scenario of Whites becoming a displaced minority in the USA and Europe, other races would soon be at each other’s throat with violence surpassing the imagination of White peoples.
Similarly, in South Africa, the influential Xhosa tribesmen, who hold important political positions, resent Zulus, but so are they themselves the target of hate by Ndebele and Kwazulus. In Rwanda, Tutsis, who consider themselves more “European” and more civilized, hate Hutus, but so do Hutus hate Tutsis. Generally, Arab-speaking populations in northern Africa and the Middle East resent dark, Black neighbors below the Sahara belt.
The Sikhs in Punjab consider themselves the best looking people on the Indian subcontinent, ridiculing as less human the populace in neighboring Rajasthan. It is a common practice among Indian women, but also among women in the Middle East, not to expose themselves to sun, as White skin has more charm and provides huge social prestige. The ex-president of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, with her quasi-Euro- Mediterranean facial traits and complexion, gave her country an enormous sense of pride.
A Mexican cabbage picker from Salinas in California’s Central Valley is often encouraged by do-good US liberal White attorneys to yammer about being discriminated by Whites, and, of course, this is standard procedure for organizations like the anti-White ADL. Yet it would never cross the cabbage picker’s mind to voice similar grievances or ask the ADL to remedy his lot in his native Mexico. It is considered an unwritten rule that the bulk of the Mexican diplomatic corps should be made up of Whites, ‘hidalgos’ of sorts, so that a California “cholo” never dares to envisage his niche amidst them. He knows very well his socio-racial place, and if not tempted by robbing or stealing he can only dream in his barrio about having his sister or daughter married to a light skinned Anglo. Former Mexican president Vicente Fox (who did his best to make the US a non-White country by ridding Mexico of its dark-skinned citizens) looked more like a picture perfect antebellum “gringo” than like an LA “beaner.”
In Turkey high social positions and political perks, as well as diplomatic postings are the protected turf of individuals whose ancestry goes back to White slaves from 16th-century Southeastern Europe and the 18th-century Transcaucasia —not to the steppes of Turkmenistan. There is no worse insult for a Turk or an Iranian to dub them “Arabs” — which they are not. In the Red Light District of Istanbul, Aksaray, a stupendous 6-foot White Russian hooker is very, very pricy indeed, whereas a ride with a tiny Pilipino woman costs almost nothing. The father of modern Turkey, Kemal Pasha Ataturk, was a tall man with blue eyes of either Illyrian or Slavic ancestry, who spent more time brooding over modern Turks as hypothetical descendants of the Indo-European Hittites than recounting the exploits of pillaging Asiatic horsemen. It would never ever cross the mind of a stocky half-Mongoloid, unibrow blue collar worker in Ankara to ask for his share of Turkish social glitz — except when he arrives to Germany or Belgium with already good premonition of Germany’s self-hate and its tax payers’ largesse.
Kemal Pasha Ataturk
“We” vs. “They” — the “Other” is the basic conceptual pillar in the studies of racial psychology, whereby every racial group or subgroup dreams to be a bit more of the Other, provided that the Other is genetically better equipped. Thus an attractive White European or American woman with recessive Mediterranean genes may nervously pluck the stubborn hair on her upper lip or depilates her widow’s peak. Or a short Alpine-headed man from southern France may purchase high-healed boots. These are often issues of social acceptance or social rejection. Sometimes they can be matters of life or death.
One can only imagine the dramatic self-perception of non-Whites landing in America or in Europe, however modest or low their IQ may be. After all, which non-European mother, be it in Berlin, Stockholm, or San Antonio, does not strive to see, or at least project her son or daughter into a better gene pool, however much she may envy or hate her White host? And if her son is already doomed to be a victim of poor heredity, then some hyper-real surgical trick might do the job — as witnessed by the facial escapades of the Western hero, the late pop star Michael Jackson.
The Painful Otherness
The normative concept of beauty and the general code of social and political conduct and civility are exclusively of European origin. This includes the famous “body language” practiced by White liberal politicians and avidly mimicked by non-white politicians. Hence the norm for all peoples, of all races world-wide is to accept White Otherness either by emulating or mimicking its phenotype. The Western heritage, regardless of whether it is despised or loved by non-Europeans, is viewed either consciously or subconsciously as the ideal type and role model for all.
The major crime of the liberal system and its human rights pontiffs is that on the one hand it preaches diversity and uniqueness of each culture and each ethnic group, while on the other hand, because of its egalitarian, levelling and procrustean tactics, it fosters discriminatory policies against all races and all peoples wordwide. The liberal ideology of global ‘panmixia’ destroys individual cultures of different peoples while imposing feelings of cultural and racial inferiority on all. Thus, many non-Europeans, especially if cultivated, are implicitly forced to be ashamed of their roots, while accepting something which is alien to their psychophysical and cultural heritage.
While Europeans of different ethnic origins and with different facial traits (Dinaric, Alpine, Mediterranean, Nordic) do not have trouble in blending in, non-European races have considerable difficulties. This often results in feelings of racial exclusion, and consequently in criminal activities, especially among younger new comers to the USA or to Europe.
In a little known, yet highly significant preface to the second edition of his once famous book (Rasse und Seele [Race and Soul], 2nd edition, 1943), and following the attacks by the Vatican clergy against the racial laws of Nationalist Socialist Germany, the once-famous German psychologist and anthropologist Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss, wrote:
We have been accused of considering only the Nordic race as worthy and all other races as inferior. Wherever such “evidence” was believed, it has affected us negatively.
This is especially true because the word “Nordic” is easily misunderstood and misinterpreted by laymen, which has created all kinds of mischief. This was entirely mistaken and unnecessary.
It is true that in Germany and elsewhere, a number of books and booklets have been published that assert this sort of thing. From the beginning, the psychology of race clearly teaches us that each race finds ultimate value in itself.… In the final analysis it is the only factor that determines racial-spiritual values.
Every race bears within itself its own value system and standard of excellence; and no race can be evaluated by the standards of any other race. … Only a person who could stand above all races and transcend race would be able to make “objective” statements about a given human race. … Such a person does not exist, however, because to be human means to be conditioned and determined by race.
Perhaps God knows the true hierarchy of races, but we humans do not.
The German Volk or Nation is a mixture of various races, in which the Nordic race clearly predominates. However, there is an admixture of “Blood” in the German Volk (for example Mediterranean). Today it is no longer possible to sow mistrust between friendly peoples. … Each step in international and colonial politics confirms the tenets of racial psychology and increases its usefulness (practical utility) in dealing with different peoples. Its goal is not to divide and separate nations, but rather to connect them by objectively establishing enlightened understanding between them. (my translation)
Clauss is labelled a “Nazi scholar” by his Jewish and liberal detractors, although some of his remarks run counter to Hollywood custom-designed “Nazi Nordicists” and self-proclaimed Aryans, all the more because Clauss, like many German anthropologists, wrote much about Bedouins, and is still considered an authority on Arabic culture.
The Jew vs. the Same
It would be interesting to find out what was crossing the mind of the Jewish American author Susan Sontag, who famously said that “the White race is the cancer of human history.” If one grants that the White race is a cancer, Sontag is putting herself in an awkward position. Does she reject being White? Implicitly she suggested that Jews are not Whites, which only confirms the thesis of hundreds if not millions of of White racialists that Jews constitute a unique racial/ethnic group — and not just a different culture or a different religion.
Consequently, can Sontag’s Jewish compatriots be Whites — in the sense their White Euro-American liberal friends want them to be? Her defamatory comments on Whites imply that Jews do not fall into the category of Whites. But as practice has shown in Jew-Gentile relationships all over the West, neither do they like being called “Jews” by non-Jews — except when they need to capitalize on their Jewishness, both figuratively and financially. Yet implicitly, many Jews, while rejecting Whiteness in its “anti-Semitic” “right-wing,” or “Nazi” connotation — are not at all opposed to displaying their Whiteness. The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, with his feigned self-assertiveness, must have been well aware that his quasi-Nordic facial traits would be popular with his fellow Jews.
Many Jews quite rightly resent the German word and the concept of “Mischlinge” (crossbreeds) or “Mauscheljude” (trickster Jew or hidden Jew). At the same time, many Jews like to conceal as much as they can their original Turko-Kazharic-Semitic features. As I wrote earlier, the more things look hyper-real, the more real they get eventually. By the same logic, if Jews get upset by anti-Semites, why not call Jews Semites? Most likely this would be an offensive word for them too.
Tons of books on this subject are very difficult to obtain, especially if written in German. As a result, this most incendiary topic of our times is debated only in private or avoided completely. One thing is when Jewish authors like Salcia Landmann (Die Juden als Rasse, 1981) and Jon Entine (Abraham’s Children: Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People) write objectively — albeit from a Jewish perspective — about the “Jews as a race.” Yet it is quite a different story when a famous German anthropologist and eugenicist, also dubbed a “Nazi,” Otmar von Verschuer, writes about “the Jewish race.” It appears that the expression and the concept “the Jewish race” can only have safe passage and scholarly legitimacy when used and discussed by Jews.
PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
Gun-rights advocates say they’re exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday’s event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn’t need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. “In Arizona, I still have some freedoms,” he said.
Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.
“Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions,” Oliver said. “We were keeping peace on both ends.”
Last week, during Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading “It is time to water the tree of liberty” stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.
“It’s a political statement,” he told The Boston Globe. “If you don’t use your rights, then you lose your rights.”
Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.
Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.
“When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance,” Solop said. “It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication.”
He said he’s never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. “The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation,” he said.
Phoenix was Obama’s last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.
Authorities in Montana said they received no reports of anyone carrying firearms during Obama’s health care town hall near Bozeman on Friday. About 1,000 people both for and against Obama converged at a protest area near the Gallatin Field Airport hangar where the event took place. One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.
Heather Benjamin of Denver’s Mesa County sheriff’s department, the lead agency during Obama’s visit there, said no one was arrested.
Arizona is an “open-carry” state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it’s visible. Only someone carrying a concealed weapon is required to have a permit.
Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.
“To me, this is craziness,” he said. “When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you’re just making the situation dangerous for everyone.”
He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. “The more guns we see at more events like this, there’s more potential for something tragic happening,” he said.
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.
“In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to,” Donovan said. “They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon.”
Representatives of the National Rifle Association did not return calls for comment.
No word in the modern Western parlance is as scary as the word ‘race.’ It is avoided like the plague by contemporary opinion makers, except when they gleefully use its verbal derivative “racist” against right-wingers, White nationalists, forever looming ‘neo-Nazis’ and their proverbial bed fellows ‘anti-Semites.’In modern science, let alone in the social sciences, the word and the concept of race is denounced as a social construct, not being admitted as biological reality, despite overwhelming evidence that race is not just skin deep and that different races world-wide show marked differences in behavior, cultural achievements, and in IQ. As professor Daniel A. Beach recently noted: “Race pervades a great deal of social and interpersonal issues with which we must contend, yet we have no effective way of talking about it.”
Unlike their colleagues in the social sciences, many Western biologists and geneticists are well aware of differences among races, yet they prefer to resort to esoteric verbiage and expressions, such as “mapping the genome,” or “different gene pools” or “different haplotypes,” when doing research on the tricky subject of race.
Prior to the early 20th century the words ‘race’ and ‘racist’ were rarely used in the English, French, or German languages in Europe. Everybody knew which race he belonged to. The etymology of the word ‘race’ is still unclear, although most likely it derives from the old Latin word ‘radix,’ meaning roots, or the German ‘reiza, meaning family lineage. Its significance became ideologically loaded only in the late 1920s. Over the last 50 years, it has undergone a total semantic distortion. Indeed, if one were to follow the logic and discourse of professional antiracists, peoples of European ancestry must be all certified racists. Why? Because it is still an unwritten rule that White males and females all over the West mate and date solely within their own race.
European “Gestalt”: In Quest of Order and Form
The concept of eugenics is now associated with National Socialism and has come to be understood among the educated classes as the epitome of evil. In fact, however, eugenic measures were a standard family practice from time immemorial among European tribes. Undoubtedly, each family had to be prolific with a multitude of children able to work on the land or to guard the household. This meant allowing and frequently facilitating the death of children who were sickly or had disabilities.
Until recently in the European countryside when a young girl and boy were about to start dating, parents first inquired about whether their respective fathers or mothers were alcoholics, whether somebody in their family tree had some serious illness, such as diabetes, tuberculosis, or some nervous disorder — or even inborn proclivity to criminal behavior. A semi-literate, yet intelligent European peasant or farmer did not have to be versed in sociobiology or have a degree in molecular biology in order to realize that hereditary diseases of the unfortunate partner could easily be transmitted to the newborns, with deadly social consequences for the entire family.
In France it is still common to hear the expression “elle est de bonne race” (“she is of good breed or character”) for a good looking and healthy woman. In the Croatian or the Serbian language one can hear among young adults the colloquial adjective ‘rasna’ (‘raceful’) when depicting a good and healthy looking woman. In such particular instances ‘race’ is more a synonym of good health and good looks and less a scientific term for a distinctive European appearance.
After 1945 everything changed. The whole hell of moralizing and do-good pontificating broke loose. The more degenerate, the more maladaptive and the uglier — the better. The role of the environment became a sacrosanct dogma of liberal and communist world improvers, while blind faith in progress became a shining path for a promiscuous end of history. Especially the German word ‘Rasse,’ which was commonly used in the 1920s, 30s and the early 40’s, came to be highly uncomfortable for postwar German politicians who were themselves to be groomed by the Allies in self-hate and guilt feelings about their race. ‘Rasse’ is a sharp monosyllabic word whose consonant ‘s’ requires the speaker to emit a hissing sound.
Hence the reason that the legacy of National Socialism and thousands of German titles dealing with race, racial hygiene, racial studies, racial mixing, etc., had to disappear from library shelves, only to reappear as a subject of criminal proceedings in modern Germany. The German ruling class today is quick to raise the red flag against scholars who dare to use this word in a normative and value free manner. Shortly after WWII, thousands of books dealing with race and racial differences were burned and destroyed by the Allies. Institutes specializing in racial hygiene, such as Deutsche Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene or the prestigious Kaiser Wilhelm Institut für Anthropologie, were closed down. Hundreds of European doctors and specialists in genetics and biology — if not spirited out furtively to the USA or the USSR — were hunted down as war criminals, or denounced as proverbial Nazi quacks. (See Manfred Heinemann, Hochschuloffiziere und Wiederaufbau des Hochschulwesens in Westdeutschland,1944–1952. See also Reinhard Grohnert, Die Entnazifizierung in Baden 1945–1949.)
In Gods We Trust: Ancient “Ethnic Profiling”
Gargoyle from Westminster Abbey, London
The word ‘race’ did not exist but the sense of racial beauty and racial awareness was firmly grounded in the minds of ancient Europeans. In Homer’s Iliad most gods and goddesses are fair skinned and light eyed. Athena is described by Pindar as as the “blond and blue eyed goddess,” whereas tricksters or fickle persons, personified by satires and centaurs had repulsive Levantine features with wooly hair, thick lips and hooked noses. (R. Peterson, The Classical World, 1985, pp 30–31).
In the Middle Ages one encounters those grotesque images of ugliness on basilicas and cathedrals where gargoyles were used as ornamented water spouts projecting from roofs or water fountains. Those negative images displaying non-European racial traits would be banned today, as our modern multiracial pontiffs do not tolerate racial stereotyping, or what they euphemistically call ‘ethnic profiling.’ Likely, many out-group individuals in modern American or European cities would detect in those figures strange resemblance to their own non-European facial traits.
In a well-researched, yet forgotten book, Professor Allen G. Roper (Ancient Eugenics, 1913) provides a great many citations from ancient Greek and Latin texts describing eugenic practices by the old Greeks and Romans. Infanticide was not considered a barbaric act, but a paramount political necessity for a city-state in perennial crisis and warfare. They did not have a luxury of feeding genetic misfits, potential crooks, or the dregs of racial outgroups. The Spartan leader Solon drafted the first eugenic laws, and the Stoic Roman philosopher Seneca encouraged infanticide for misfits. “We drown the weaklings and the monstrosity. It is not passion but reason to separate the useless from the fit.”
In ancient Rome of the Republic, racial purity and close-knit bonds among kin were extremely valued. The whole concept of the city-state was premised on a small family unit, with the typical pater familias at the helm. Even today in popular unwritten culture in Europe, a saying goes that a “person’s character can best be recognized in his facial features.” Conversely, “a person’s distorted character follows his distorted countenance,” a saying that was common in ancient Rome (“Distortum vultum sequitur distortio morum.”).
It is a dangerous mistake, very widespread among White European American nationalists that the ancient Greeks were all of Nordic ancestry. As I have written elsewhere, the blond dolichocephalic faces that one finds painted on old Greek murals or pottery, or even bronze busts of Roman and Greek leaders, had primarily normative value; they were meant as the enhanced ideal type for what White Europeans should be — not the reflection of what they looked like in real life.
This is particularly relevant because of childish quarrels among European and American Whites nationalists and self-proclaimed Aryans. Such people often imagine ancient Spartan warriors as blond giants — or even picture the Waffen SS as superhuman extraterrestrial beings.
It should come as no surprise that the concept of beauty and race in prewar Europe, and particular in prewar Germany, witnessed a return to romanticized classicism. Models from antiquity and the Renaissance were adapted to the prevailing spirit of the times. Numerous German sculptors worked on their projects while benefiting from the logistic and financial support of the National Socialist political elite. Their sculptures resembled, either by form, or by composition, the works of Praxiteles or of Phidias of ancient Greece, or those executed by Michelangelo during the Renaissance. The most prominent German sculptors in the Third Reich were Arno Breker, Josef Thorak, and Fritz Klimsch, who although enjoying the significant logistical support of the National Socialist regime, were never members of the NSDAP.
After the Second World War, as the result of pressure from the Allies, Europe — and to a large extent America itself — were forced to open its doors to abstract art (Jackson Pollock, Piet Mondrian, etc) and, consequently Euro Americans and in particularly the Germans had to stifle the production of their traditional figurative art. A large number of paintings and other works of art executed during the Third Reich were either removed or destroyed. Several hundred sculptures were demolished or trashed during the Allied air bombardments. After the war, a considerable number of works of art were confiscated by the Americans, because of “their pornographic character.” In the spring of 1947, 8,722 paintings and sculptures of German artists were transported to the United States. Of these, only a small number have been returned to the Federal Republic of Germany.
Arno Breker’s work thrown in a backyard, 1945
The concept of racial beauty in ancient Greece or during the Renaissance in the 15th century Italy was often used as a pedagogical and graphic tool to provide the sense of order and form (Gestalt). In traditional Europe and America the vast majority of citizens were never ever the replicas of these hyperreal beauties represented on busts or sculptures.
Paintings of women by the late Italians Botticelli or Titian, or sculptures by the modern Germans Breker or Thorak, did not suggest that that all Italian and German women have elongated Gothic limbs, thin noses and Nordic cranial index.
The whole purpose of classicism and neoclassicisms, particularly in plastic art, but also in philosophy and literature suggested that Europeans had to abide by the cosmic rules of racial form and order. Whatever and whoever departs from order — brings in decadence and death.
Dr. Tom Sunic interviews world renowned Catholic scholar, author and rebel Dr. E. Michael Jones. The subject matter of this lively discussion and interview are religious hoaxes and modern political hoaxes. Dr. Jones gives us his take on the “Medjugorje hoax,” a place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, considered one of the holiest pilgrim place for many European and American Catholics. What are the political implications? Do not miss it!
The California mortgage market is central to understanding the chain of events that brought down the world economy. No doubt something else would have dragged it down eventually, but it would be nice to know what actually happened.
Fortunately, I finally found, buried away in a San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank report, some hints on who defaulted in California, the home to a sizable majority of all defaulted mortgage dollars.
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
November 26, 2008
Two economists at the San Francisco Fed made a study of mortgages originated in California in the Housing Bubble years of 2004-2006. They painstakingly matched federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data about mortgage originations, which track whether minorities get enough mortgage money but don’t track whether they pay it back, with private (and expensive) Lender Processing Services (LPS) data, which don’t care about ethnicity but do care about borrowers paying what they owe. The Fed economists came up with 239,101 successful matches of mortgages that show up in both databases. About 10,000 of them had entered the foreclosure process by the end of September 2007.
This is a good time period for looking at foreclosures, since these aren’t 2009 foreclosures that were caused by the recession; instead, these are the foreclosures that caused the recession. Most of this Fed report consists of a defense of the Community Reinvestment Act by showing lower foreclosure rates for banks (e.g., Washington Mutual) than for independent mortgage companies (e.g., Countrywide). Of course, that’s not a very informative comparison since the Clinton Administration warned Countrywide-like firms that they would have the CRA extended to cover them legislatively unless they behaved like they already were under the CRA. Thus, Angelo Mozilo signed a deal with HUD secretary Henry Cisneros to lend more to minorities and lower income borrowers, and then put Cisneros on Countrywide’s board, and even named Cisneros consultant to Mozilo’s CRA-like trillion dollar pledge of January 2005.
No, what’s really interesting is on pp 12-14. I put the most interesting stuff in bold at the end:
In Table 3, we present a very simple model where we predict the likelihood of foreclosure, controlling for borrower risk factors including income, race, and credit score. We present the findings as odds ratios to assist in interpreting the coefficients. We also control for neighborhood characteristics that may influence the underwriting decision, including the CAP rate, the age of the housing stock, and the percent of owner-occupied housing. Given the importance of house values in predicting foreclosures, we control for house price appreciation in each of the model iterations.
Several findings from even this simple model stand out. First, metropolitan house price changes do have a significant effect on the likelihood of foreclosure. Rapid house price appreciation in the 2 years preceding origination significantly increases the likelihood of foreclosure. This is consistent with previous research that has linked foreclosures and delinquencies to local housing market conditions, particularly in California where house prices rose quickly in relation to fundamentals and where subsequent corrections have been quite dramatic (Doms, Furlong and Krainer 2007). The tract’s capitalization rate is significant only at the 10 percent level, but also increases the foreclosure rate as expected. A higher percent of owner occupied housing in a tract and more recent construction both also seem to increase the likelihood of foreclosure, but only slightly.
Second, and not surprisingly, FICO scores matter. A borrower with a FICO score of less than 640 is 12.6 times more likely to be in foreclosure than a borrower with a FICO score of more than 720; for borrowers with a FICO score between 640 and 720, the odds ratio is 4.7 times compared to borrowers with the highest credit scores. We also find that race has an independent effect on foreclosure even after controlling for borrower income and credit score. In particular, African American borrowers were 3.3 times as likely as white borrowers to be in foreclosure, whereas Latino and Asian borrowers were 2.5 and 1.6 times respectively more likely to be in foreclosure as white borrowers.
So, in the economists’ simple multiple regression model, after adjusting for income and FICO, minorities in California still had substantially higher foreclosure rates than whites:
- blacks 3.3X
- Latinos 2.5X
- Asians 1.6X
(These adjusted gaps are all statistically significant at the 0.01 level.)
Presumably, the raw differences in foreclosure rates are even greater. Unfortunately, the actual raw numbers aren’t listed in the report, and the authors refused my repeated email requests to release the unadjusted numbers by ethnicity.
The raw ratios are important for estimating the overall share of defaulted dollars by ethnicity in California. We know from the federal HMDA data that minorities accounted for 77% of subprime home purchase dollars borrowed in California in 2006 (the worst vintage for defaults) and 56% of all home purchase dollars. You can see the graphs here. (I’m excluding borrowers of unknown ethnicity and mixed ethnicity couples).
Request 1: Would it be possible to reverse engineer the actual raw ratios from the numbers that do appear in this report?
Request 2: Also, is the Fed subject to the Freedom of Information Act?
According to Google, even though this report is eight months old, the part about the race differences in foreclosure rates has only been quoted once before, by E. Scott Reckard, an LA Times reporter who has done a lot of good work on the mortgage meltdown.
We have been transformed into a people of an idea from a nation founded on kinship and land by stealth. There are two different views of a nation. The progressive or ideological view is that a nation is not held together by the bonds of history and memory, tradition and custom, language and literature, birth and faith, kin and territory, but by abstract ideas. An abstract or ideological nation is supposed to be united by a set of ideals or are just an economy! They think that a fondness for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Free Speech binds immigrants into a nation. But without the ethnic-cultural core a nation dissolves.
Neither Democracy and Equality nor free markets are enough to hold a people together. The progressives think we can transcend our history and origins as a common people. This is the view I remarked in “Filling the Reality Gap” where people think they are creating a new nation. This follows the rationalist idea that if you get the premise right the right conclusion will follow but in practice human nature, accidents and circumstances prevent the perfect conclusion. (1)
The natural equality ideal was well shot by Jewish Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in Chapter 24 of “Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography”(1852): “The Jews…are a living and the most striking evidence of the falsity of that pernicious doctrine of modern times, the natural equality of man… but the natural equality of man now in vogue, and taking the form of cosmopolitan fraternity, is a principle which, were it possible to act on it, would deteriorate the great races and destroy all the genius of the world. What would be the consequences on the great Anglo-Saxon republic, for example, were its citizens to secede from their sound principle of reserve, and mingle with their negro and coloured populations? In the course of time they would become so deteriorated that their states would probably be reconquered and regained by the aborigines whom they have expelled, and who would then be their superiors.”
Queen Elizabeth in 1596, sent an “open letter” to the Lord Mayor of London, stating “there are of late divers blackmoores brought into this realme, of which kinde of people there are allready here to manie,” ordering that they be deported..
In 1601, she again complained about the “great numbers of Negars and Blackamoors which (as she is informed) are crept into this realm,” “infidels, having no understanding of Christ or his Gospel,” and had them repatriated.
There is concern that the immigrants will come to dominate us. We read repeated reports that we are becoming a minority in our own towns and cities. The immigrants are human and like us, are subject to the same failings and are likely to treat us badly as we did them. They would not be human if they did not bear us a grudge.
Sir Winston Churchill tried in 1955 to have a bill to control immigration drawn up which was not ready until June, two months after he stepped down because of his health. He wanted the Conservative party to adopt the slogan “Keep England White.” (2)
The fifth Marquess of Salisbury, grand son of the great Conservative Prime Minister and descendant of Lord Burleigh adviser to Queen Elizabeth, fought in Cabinet to stop immigration. A letter preserved at the National Archive written to Viscount Swinton in 1954: “We might well be faced with very much the same type of appalling issue that is now causing such great difficulties for the United States. The main causes of this sudden inflow of blacks is of course the Welfare State. So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into this country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities and we shall have no protection at all.”
Oliver Lyttletton (later Lord Chandos) wanted to introduce deposits of £500 to be put down by immigrants: “ if there is to be means of controlling the increasing flow of coloured people who come here largely to enjoy the benefits of the Welfare State.”
Britain allowed anyone to immigrate but other Commonwealth countries were trict on admissions and refused “persons who are likely to become a public charge,” illiterates”, those deemed “undesirable” had “unsuitable standards or habits of life” many had quota systems and even dictation tests. Jamaica prohibited those likely “to become a charge on public funds by reason of infirmity of body or mind or ill-health or who is not in possession of sufficient means to support himself or such of his dependents as he shall bring with him to the island”.
Thirty–nine territories had entry permit systems or required prospective residents to first obtain permission.
(Lyttleton letter to Swinton 31/3/1954.)
The battle between proponents of the two views have been nasty with representatives of the dominant view treating their traditionalist opponents with contempt. I invite anyone to read in Hansard the despicable way the great Cyril Osborne was treated in his many attempts in the House of Commons to introduce Bills to control immigration. He first tried in 1954 under the 10 minute rule. Before it got to Parliament the Commonwealth Affairs committee had 17 present, 14 spoke but only one supported the bill.
In May 1958, 3 months before the race battles of Notting Hill and Nottingham, Osborne wrote to Labour leader Hugh Gaitskill who left it to his secretary to reply: “The Labour Party is opposed to restriction of immigration as every Commonwealth citizen has the right as a British subject to enter this country.” Three months after he instigated a Commons debate on the 5th of December 1958. Labour spokesman Arthur Bottomley stated, “We are categorically against it (restrictions).”
At the second reading of the Commonwealth Immigration bill (1961) he said: “The world’s poor would swarm to Britain’s welfare honey pot. We have neither the room nor the resources to take all who would like to come.”
Norman Pannell a Conservative MP in Liverpool had served in the Nigerian Legislature and lived in Africa for over 10 years. He proposed a motion at the 1958 Tory conference for reciprocal rights of entry with other Commonwealth countries, for the U.K. let anyone in.
He also addressed the 1961 conference on the perils of admitting criminals and the sick. The debate was stage-managed to stop Cyril Osborne speaking. Pannell stated that though Home Secretary RAB Butler in 1958 disagreed with limiting numbers, had agreed with his suggestion of deporting immigrants who commit crimes but done nothing.
In a letter to the Times of 13th December 1960, Birmingham Conservative Harold Gurden wrote, “on the health question we find the middle ring of the city, where immigrants are mainly concentrated, heavily peppered with dots of tuberculosis incidence. It is the opinion of medical officers that at least some immigrants are suffering with this disease before entering the country…We have a duty to our constituents.” In 2007 it was admitted that we had a record number of cases of TB which the elites have imported.
When we were homogeneous, we trusted one another and the police did not need to be armed; now they regularly have to shoot people in the street, we are under constant surveillance and have totalitarian race laws the rulers use to oppress us.
At Birmingham Town Hall, on 18 April 1968, two days before Enoch’s Rivers of Blood speech, Sir Ronald Bell warned of the forthcoming Race Relations Act, “I am profoundly convinced … many further uses of law and of the power of the state for shaping men’s minds will follow…“To control thought totalitarians redefine words and change the meaning of legal terms.”
In 1981 K.Harvey Proctor announced the Monday Club plan to repatriate 50,000 immigrants a year. At a Monday Club dinner in early 1984, guest of honour Enoch Powell told that the Conservative party had threatened tosend Proctor to Coventry which would have been the first time in their history they had refused to speak to one of their MP’s !
In “The Unarmed Invasion”(1965) Lord Elton wrote:” We seem to be re-enacting the story of the Roman Empire, which in its decadence imported subject races to do the menial tasks.” In a biography Rock guitarist Eric Clapton tells of adverts he saw while touring Jamaica for immigrants and it was clear they were being brought as cheap labour.
The issue is not our “racism” but treason of the ruling caste that is held together by ideology. They have used propaganda and social engineering constantly to wipe us out and give our country to immigrants and their descendants. Protest and you are called a Nazi or smeared by the media with no regard to the Democratic principles they pretend to uphold. (3)
They have presented Patriotism as something evil or primitive because it is the soul of a nation and a barrier to reconstructing the nation along ideological lines. Patriotism is presented as nation-worship or the nationalism that denigrates or wants to dominate other nations, but it is an emotional bond with one’s own country – its land, its people, its past, its heroes, literature, language, traditions, culture, and customs.
A nation is more than a “division of labour” or a “market,.” and communities of interests makes commercial treaties. An economic union like the European Union is not a nation and can only be stopped from fragmenting by identity checks for every transaction, political police and surveillance.
An economy is not a country it operates within one and an economic system should strengthen the bonds of national union, but the nation is of a higher order than the construct of any economist. A nation is organic; lives and grows and can be destroyed.
A constitution does not create a nation it gives it order but that is after it lives in the hearts and minds of its people..
This belief that”that people of any culture or continent can be assimilated grows from John Locke’s funny idea that humans are Tabla Rasa – blank slates for experience to scribble on
and make them what they are. It’s nurture versus nature. This is why the believers or what Peter Brimelow termed “Immigration Enthusiasts” see no harm in immigration. (3)
Nation, is from a Latin root nascere, to be born, which intrinsically suggests a blood link, and a common community – an extended family. An “Ethnocultural community is”, wrote Peter Brimelow, “an interlacing of ethnicity and culture, that speaks one language”. It is handed down to the current generation by their ancestors and they have a duty to preserve it and pass it down to their children ad infinitum.
The immigrants are human like us and have attachments to their own tribe, race, nation, culture, community whence they came. Any man or woman, of any color or creed, can be a good person and law abiding citizen but will their grand children merge? The Muslims fighting us on our streets are from the smiley, servile immigrants of the fifties. They are now showing their teeth.
French counter revolutionary Joseph de Maistre wrote: “During my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians… but I must say, as for man, I have never come across him anywhere; if he exists, he is completely unknown to me.” It is what is left out of the abstraction “tribal behavior” is what makes us human. Take it away you do not get “pure man” or “liberated man” but dehumanised man.
To traditional conservatives, this “abstract nation” is an intellectual construct, which inspires love nor loyalty. They have the superficial idea that people speaking in local accents are as British as us! But what are they speaking about? (4)
Every true nation is the creation of a unique people. Indeed, an ideological nation based on abstract ideas only appeals to the reason not the heart and it is emotion that unites people not high minded attitudes and citizenship classes. We no longer speak the same language nor do we share the same faith. We are splitting into warring factions.
We have been trained to despise our heroes yet immigrant communities are encouraged to identify with theirs. But our glorious past is treated as shameful history.
Edmund Burke definied a kin and territory nation which involves a shared identity, history and ancestory, and continuity: “As the ends of such a partner-ship cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living and those who are dead, but between those who are living and those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”
Around ten years ago President Bill Clinton proudly told some Arab leaders that he was looking forward to whites becoming a minority in the states! Our children are having their future taken away.
I hear that artists and with his new film sacha Baron Cohen is pushing the boundaries back. Well that sounds such fun that I thought I would push some back: We are not going to be wiped out and we are going to give our children a future and we do it by re-asserting our being as Patrick J. Buchanan’s “Blood and Soil people.” As three times British Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin put it On May 24 1929 :“Let us keep this thought ever in our mind: “that each one of us, so far as in him lies, will strive to keep these islands a fit nursery for Our Race”. (5)