Top

The Disloyalty Issue in Multicultural America -Kevin MacDonald

April 26, 2009

Disloyalty is an age-old issue with Jews, and for a simple reason: Jews often have interests as Jews that stretch beyond national boundaries. Even before the existence of Israel, Diaspora Jews often could be said to have a “foreign policy” in the sense that there was a general consensus among Jews to favor some nations and disfavor others.

For example, the Spanish Inquisition targeted Jews who pretended to be Christians, with the result that Jews in other countries sought Spain’s downfall. From 1881 until the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was seen as an enemy of Jews. As a result, the organized Jewish community in other countries often opposed Russian interests. Jacob Schiff, the preeminent Jewish activist of the period, financed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, and he financed revolutionaries in Russia.

At times, Jewish foreign policy interests were in conflict with those of the wider society. In 1908 Schiff also led the successful effort to abrogate the Russian Trade Agreement which was opposed by the Taft Administration as not in the interests of the United States. Schiff’s motive for helping Jews in Russia conflicted with US national interests as understood by the US government.

Questions of disloyalty are by no means unique to Jews. Loyalty issues arecommon for minority groups living as a Diaspora, as with Overseas Chinese and Indian groups living as minorities abroad. In the US, issues of divided loyalties arose among pre-1965 immigrants who retained attachments to their countries of origin. During World War I, many German-Americans were reluctant to support the Allied cause against Germany because of their ties with their homeland.

The German-Americans eventually assimilated completely, at least partly because of their racial similarity to other White Americans. However, assimilation is unlikely for post-1965 immigrant minorities given their racial dissimilarities to the traditionally dominant people and culture of America. This is even more so because of the rise of multiculturalism as a paradigm for Western societies. As I noted in my review of Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby,

dual loyalty has become legitimate because of the rise of multiculturalism in America — a phenomenon that is due in no small part … to Jewish activism. … Beginning with Horace Kallen, Jewish intellectuals have been at the forefront in developing models of the United States as a culturally and ethnically pluralistic society. … Within the multicultural perspective, there is tolerance for different groups but the result is a tendency to deprecate the importance or even the existence of a common national identity. If there is no national identity, it’s hard to see how there can be a concept of national interest.

However, until the multicultural utopia legitimizes all loyalties in the name of world citizenship, divided loyalties will likely be a chronic issue. For example, ethnic Chinese who are American citizens have been convicted of spying for China. An April, 2008 Washington Post article listed 12 cases of ethnic Chinese spying on the United States.

We should not, therefore, be surprised that at least some American Jews may be more loyal to Israel than to the United States. Unlike the German-Americans who assimilated to America, Israel remains a powerful source of identity for the great majority of American Jews. Chi Mak, the Chinese spy who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for sending information on military technology to the Chinese, has as his counterparts Jonathan Pollard andBen-Ami Kadish, convicted of spying on behalf of Israel.

Besides Pollard and Kadish, there is a bumper crop of neoconservatives who have been credibly accused of spying for Israel: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Bryen, Douglas Feith, and Michael Ledeen.

None of the neocons were convicted, and now we have the AIPAC espionage trial in which former AIPAC employees Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman have been accused of providing information to Israeli Embassy employees. Cong. Jane Harman has allegedly been caught agreeing to “waddle in” to help get the charges against Rosen and Weissman reduced.

As part of her defense in the media, Harman pointedly noted that “anyone I might have talked to was an American citizen, and these were conversations that took place in the United States.”

This is the multicultural defense par excellence. Harman was talking to an American about the business of AIPAC, an American organization that has not been required to register as an agent of a foreign government. What could possibly be wrong with that?

One problem with that is that the American citizen that Harman may well have been talking to was Haim Saban who is not only an American citizen but also a citizen of Israel. Saban’s commitment to Israel seems almost a caricature of a nut case Zionist — someone who makesAlan Dershowitz and Martin Peretz seem lukewarm by comparison.

Saban’s commitment to Israel really knows no bounds. This is from an interview with Haaretzin 2006; Saban’s comments are in quotes.

You said once that you are a one-note person, and that note is Israel. Why?

“You can’t explain love.”

It’s really love?

“More than love. Passion. A love that is passion.”

Please explain.

“When we approach Israel I always ask the pilots of my plane to let me sit in the chair between them. We don’t play ‘Heveinu Shalom Aleichem,’ but when I see the coast coming up my heart starts to go boom, boom, boom.”

Is Israel also part of your everyday life here, in Los Angeles?

“At 9 A.M. I start with London and Kirschenbaum [Channel 10's evening current events program]. After that, throughout the day, if I see something about Israel on one of the four channels that are always on in my office, on mute, I immediately turn on the sound. And I have Israeli music on my computer, classics and contemporary singers, too.

“Let me tell you a story. A few years ago I got some new albums and I put them on the computer. Suddenly ‘The Photos in the Album’ [sung by Haim Moshe] comes up. I’m standing there, shaving, listening to the lyrics. And the tears stream over the soap, without my even being able to explain why. Grandma, mom cooking, I promised you wouldn’t fight against anyone. A knife in the heart. That is the heart of the nation. And I love this nation. I love the Jewish people, even more the Israeli people. I feel a very deep bond which I can’t explain.”

Haim Saban is an American citizen, but can there really be any question where his loyalty lies? I suspect it’s the same with the neocons accused of spying, and with AIPAC’s Rosen and Weissman. A big part of my article on neocons was simply to document their intense commitment to Israel.

Nevertheless, I suppose that if we asked these people whether they are more loyal to Israel than the US, they would deny it and they may be utterly sincere in their denial.

But how could any reasonable person believe what they are saying? Psychological research shows quite clearly that people with strong ingroup loyalties are likely to suffer cognitive distortions that would bias their attitudes and their policy recommendations. They may well believe that their recommendations also benefit the United States, but they might not even be aware of how their commitment to Israel can bias their judgment.

The big picture here is that the Israel Lobby has managed to create a climate in which issues of the loyalty of American Jews are off limits at the highest reaches of government. However, this sensitivity to Jewish concerns (and susceptibility to Jewish pressure) has not filtered down into the intelligence and military establishment, especially at the lower echelons.

Commenting on the Harman case, “an official with an American Jewish organization,” stated that suspicion of the loyalties of American Jews is “rooted deep in the system and it comes from the bottom up.” An Israeli official is paraphrased as claiming that “suspicion toward Israel [is] prevalent in the military and intelligence establishments but [is] not common at the political and diplomatic levels.”

These lower-level people are less susceptible to public pressure because they represent an institutional consensus that has not yet embraced multiculturalism and the slavish American commitment to Israel. Instead, they seem committed to the quaint view that America is a nation state with interests that are different from other nations, including Israel.

This in turn suggests that the powers that be may eventually get the charges against Rosen and Weissman dropped. As a result of court rulings in favor of the defense, this certainly looks to be the case. Elite culture is far more influenced by Jewish sensibilities and far more on board with the multicultural zeitgeist than those responsible for initiating these investigations.

Rosen and Weissman may be exonerated, but the lower-level people still have quite a bit of power. The American intelligence community is doubtless the only reason Jonathan Pollard languishes in prison despite huge public relations campaigns proclaiming the injustice of his sentence. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were strongly pressured to pardon him so that he can return to a hero’s welcome in Israel. However, as an Israeli commentator has noted, “Each time, over the last 2 decades that there has been some sense that a commutation or a pardon might be in the offing, there have been official leaks to the media, creating such devastating press about Jonathan that it made it difficult for the president to proceed with commutation.”

The notorious Mark Rich received a pardon by throwing enough money at Bill Clinton. But there was no powerful constituency opposing Rich. It’s different with Pollard. No president dare release Pollard, even though Bill Clinton, at least, would have loved to do so. Clinton agreed to release Pollard but changed his mind when CIA Director George Tenet threatened to resign if Pollard was released.

It’s noteworthy that the Israeli official quoted above exempts the diplomatic service from the charge of being insufficiently sensitive to Israel. This was not always the case. The State Department was famously an anti-Israel bastion beginning with Secretary of State George Marshall in the Truman Administration. Jewish foreign policy activists — most notably the neocons — viewed the State Department, and particularly the Near East Desk, as dominated by Protestant Ivy Leaguers who were insensitive to Jewish concerns and particularly Israel.

But all of that is long gone — an early casualty of the demise of the East Coast Yankee Protestant elite and Jewish ascendancy in those same circles. But the intelligence and military establishments have still not capitulated entirely. As a result, we see little flare-ups of rebellion from time to time, like the current AIPAC case, the investigations of so many neocons, and the continued incarceration of Jonathan Pollard.

It is doubtless noteworthy that the Whites who remain influential in the intelligence and military establishments are relatively unlikely to be East Coast Ivy Leaguers. They are more likely to be Southerners or have other White identities. As the co-author of a recent academic report noted, “Politically and economically, the South remains the heart of our country’s military.” The FBI remains a whipping boy of liberals unhappy because it is insufficiently diverse.

The concern of the Israeli official that suspicions of Israel remain prevalent in the US military and intelligence establishments is particularly interesting. The attraction of White Southerners for the military is on a par with the attraction of White descendants of Puritans to moralistic aggression. The Southern military tradition is a legacy of the Scots-Irish Celtic culture so well described in David Hackett Fisher’s classic Albion’s Seed, Kevin Phillips’ The Cousin’s Wars,and James Webb’s Born Fighting.

As I have noted elsewhere, this is the only significant group of American White people with any cultural confidence. For this group of Whites — and only this group — there is “a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with ‘the real America.’”

This is implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our politics and culture.

The current angst about the obvious examples of Jewish disloyalty is part of a larger cultural struggle. The old East Coast Protestant elite and its bastions, such as the State Department and the Ivy League universities, have fallen to the new multicultural zeitgeist in which Jewish disloyalty is more or less inconceivable. But there are still some holdouts. And therein lies the hope.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach.

Source: The Occidental Observer

Comments

5 Responses to “The Disloyalty Issue in Multicultural America -Kevin MacDonald”

  1. Mary O on April 26th, 2009 5:15 pm

    “From 1881 until the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia was seen as an enemy of Jews.”

    To believe Tolstoy, the Jews were the enemy of the Russians, long before the 1880s. In “Anna Karenina,” (1877) Anna’s brother, the Prince Stepan Arkadyevitch Oblonsky, needs an extra salary to support his large family, he therefore must appeal to a panel which includes “two ministers, one lady and two Jews” for an additional bureaucratic appointment. The Jew Volgarinov deliberately humiliates him. [AK: Part VII; chapter XVII].

    Anna Karenina ends amid the nationalist political movements of 1848, as Count Vronsky taking up the pan-Slavonic cause volunteers to defend the Orthodox Serbs against Ottoman Turks, while Levin (siding with Prince Shtcherbatsky, a true Russian nationalist) remains at home.

    Therefore, according to Tolstoy, the Russian aristocracy was well under the thumb of the Jews even in the 1840s, but yet the Jews are hardly even mentioned in “War and Peace” (1869) which describes the events of 1805 through the War of 1812. Perhaps the social breakdown resulting from the French invasion, allowed a Jewish power grab?

    In any case, an American apologist position seems to state “well, of course, the Bolshevik leadership (and later Stalinists, and the leadership of the USSR) were all Jews, and firmly dedicated to Jewish and only Jewish interests, after all, the Czars were just so mean to the poor little things.” However, we can infer from these two Tolstoy novels that the Jews were interlopers and manipulated the government of Russia for nearly a century before the Russian Revolution. Surely Oblonsky was not the only person who resented their interference.

  2. Mary O on April 26th, 2009 9:49 pm

    “The old East Coast Protestant elite and its bastions, such as the State Department and the Ivy League universities, have fallen to the new multicultural zeitgeist in which Jewish disloyalty is more or less inconceivable.”

    Whenever you try to pin someone down about who exactly are the “WASP,” they will usually name wealthy White families of various European ethnicities and often Catholics. For example, the Buckleys and the Kennedys are supposedly “WASP.”

    Jews, in particular, will often use the term to disparage any White person of wealth. The attitude is that there are no differences among us Whites worth acknowledging, in the same sense that sometimes all Latinos are referred to as simply “Mexicans.”

    (Note: This attitude also explains why we Whites are ALL responsible for the supposed “Holocaust.” )

    “The German-Americans eventually assimilated completely, at least partly because of their racial similarity to other White Americans.”

    If the Germans could assimilate so very quickly, thanks to White racial similarity, perhaps the English were not so different or isolated from the rest of us after all.

    Did the older Anglo-Protestant population of the US disappear or did they just intermarry with the French, Germans, Irish, Scandinavians and Italians, in short, all other White groups?

    The Ivy League colleges have indeed been torn from the Anglo-Protestant traditions in which they were founded, but the truth is that only Jews and Affirmative Action candidates (AAC) can afford to attend. These Ivies wrote off the White middle-class & upper middle-class long ago. Many talented students were caught in the trap that their parents made too much money for them to qualify for aid, yet they didn’t make enough to afford the exorbitant cost of tuition, room and board.

    Since the Ivies still retain the power to feed at least some of their graduates into the State Department; naturally State would be full of Jews and AAC.

    A young White Ivy grad with a BA is only qualified for the usual entry-level position (retail sales associate/assistant manager, paralegal, teacher …), and generally, will end up working for AAC, unless they have some special and unique qualification which will allow them to jump the AAC level into a better government position. Of course, they will still have to deal with the AAC, but not as their subordinate; and this difference is key.

    Unfortunately, some truly dangerous experience like being a Peace Corp volunteer is just what State seeks in such a candidate. How ironic it is when you contemplate that maybe Kate Puzie, recently murdered in Africa, was actually trying to avoid the humiliation of working for an AAC here in the US.

    Is there really any multi-cultural zeitgeist or has the potential career path of a socially ambitious young White just become ever so competitive, intricate and necessarily duplicious?

  3. Mary O on April 26th, 2009 10:39 pm

    “As I have noted elsewhere, [Scot-Irish Celts are] the only significant group of American White people with any cultural confidence. For this group of Whites — and only this group — there is “a racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through cultural cues instead—a suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a working-class white minority with ‘the real America.’”

    Well, what about Poles, Irish, Italians, Episcopalians? We have lots of basically White groups.

    And how are the Scot-Irish so self-confident? Frankly, the “I hate city folk” attitude is politically immature and at the same time utterly pretentious. Where did their people come from, if not London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin? Now of course, their families may have actually lived outside those cities, but there is no question but that our culture revolved around our great cities.

    Scot-Irish loyalties are not pro-White; but rather they worship Jews as the Chosen. The young soldiers who carried out the Abu Ghraib atrocities were basically of this extraction; innocent, decent human beings themselves, however, they resorted to the very sickest forms of torture at the command of the mysterious “John Israel.”

    Why they blindly obeyed this “Mr. Israel” has never been explained, but we can only guess why they obey Israel, the nation. Perhaps having been uprooted from Scotland by the terrible Land Clearances, they came to America, with great feelings of having been betrayed by their landlords (who were often related to their families by blood) and their religious leaders (who sided with the landlords, who had basically paid them off). Therefore, they bitterly took reading the Bible on their own, and formed small emotionalist “born again” groups.

    These groups, devoid of the serious scholarship of the Catholic and established Protestant churches, were easily duped into believing that Ashkenazi Jews were relatives of Jesus Christ, and that Israel has actually existed for the past 2000 years.

    Far from feeling any sense of White racial pride, they reject not only urban White culture in its entirety, but they hate White suburbanites just as much. They hate and mistrust any successful White, and thereby hinder the emergence of any viable pro-White leadership.

    The GOP, for example, in pandering to this small but noisy demographic, nominated the ignorant Palin as McCaine’s VP candidate, thereby crushing his chances in the election. As awkward as it may have been for the party to throw Palin off the ticket, if McCaine had acted swiftly to replace her with a normal male candidate (or even any normally intelligent woman as candidate), he would be president today.

    Furthermore, their Scot-Irish brethren have turned Canada into a virtually totalitarian state; while our over-bearing Left would not exist were it not thanks to the Scot-Irish whom the Jews talked into forming coal miners’ and other unions.

    Partly Scot-Irish myself, I do not blame the Scot-Irish entirely for the excesses of the Left, but a people’s politics is the product of their experience. The Land Clearances were one horrible episode in our history, though almost never discussed, we are haunted by them to this very day. The Land Clearances are the reason why the nationalism and conservatism have never been trusted.

  4. Decebal on April 27th, 2009 10:25 pm

    Mary O,

    Very interesting perspective regarding WASP’s, you sound like H L Menken :)

    “Consider, for example the events attending the extension of the two great empires, English and American. Did either movement evoke any genuine courage and resolution? The answer is plainly no. Both empires were built up primarily by swindling and butchering unarmed savages, and after that, by robbing weak and friendless nations. Neither produced a hero above the average run in the movies….The Anglo-Saxon always tries to take a gang with him when he goes into battle, and even when he has it behind him he is very uneasy and prone to fall into panic at the first threat of genuine danger…
    The Anglo-Saxon of the great herd is, in many important respects, the least civilized of the white men and the least capable of true civilization. His political ideas are crude and shallow. He is almost wholly devoid of esthetic feeling. The most elementary facts about the visible universe alarm him, and incite him to put them down. Educate him, make a professor of him, teach him how to express his soul, and he still remains palpable third rate.”

    “Consider, for example the events attending the extension of the two great empires, English and American. Did either movement evoke any genuine courage and resolution? The answer is plainly no. Both empires were built up primarily by swindling and butchering unarmed savages, and after that, by robbing weak and friendless nations. Neither produced a hero above the average run in the movies….The Anglo-Saxon always tries to take a gang with him when he goes into battle, and even when he has it behind him he is very uneasy and prone to fall into panic at the first threat of genuine danger…
    The Anglo-Saxon of the great herd is, in many important respects, the least civilized of the white men and the least capable of true civilization. His political ideas are crude and shallow. He is almost wholly devoid of esthetic feeling. The most elementary facts about the visible universe alarm him, and incite him to put them down. Educate him, make a professor of him, teach him how to express his soul, and he still remains palpable third rate.”

    In all truth, without the Anglo-Saxon’s mediocrity, treason and venality, the Jew would have never achieved the eternal dream of total domination. Traitors are more disgusting than enemies.
    As for McCain, he exemplifies the worst traits of this class, nothing to lose Mary.

  5. Mary O on April 28th, 2009 2:23 am

    Actually I wasn’t criticizing the Anglo-Protestants at all. Maybe I didn’t make myself clear: the term “WASP” is a Jewy pejorative for all European Christians (esp. those who are wealthy or successful).

    The Anglo-Protestant Americans are portrayed in the article as having been vanquished by Jews, at least in the northeast US. The Jews have supplanted them at the Ivies, and Jews have taken over the State Dept and so forth. Most importantly, the Jews control our foreign policy.

    But I don’t believe that the Anglo-Protestants were defeated in some way and pushed aside, just that they intermarried with all the other White groups, and thereby to a large extent lost their separate and unique identity. The real problem is not that an older and socially distinct group of Anglo-Protestants have lost political power, but rather that contemporary Middle-Class Suburban Whites (which comprises Anglo-Protestants) do not have political power commensurate to their numbers. Nixon’s “Silent Majority” is actually a “Silenced [Suburban] Majority.”

    The Scot-Irish are not generally referred to as Anglo-Protestants, but rather as Celts. The author draws a distinction between these two different ethnic groups; which reflect divisions of Celt vs Anglo-Saxon in English history.

    Scot-Irish history is different from Anglo-Protestant or Irish history, and their values (JMO) are different.

    Here is a really good link that explains the whole story:

    http://www.electricscotland.com/history/hclearances.htm

    Note: In many ways, we White Americans of today are in a similar position to the Highlanders.

    The Scot-Irish may be more averse to nationalism because of the horror of their experience in Scotland, where they were thrown off land that their families had farmed for generations — by their own blood relations, privileged people who held titles and who were considered the aristocracy. Often the evictions were cruel and
    sudden; they were deliberately given no warning to prevent any semblance of resistance which might delay the landlords’ profits. Nationalism is based on the idea that people will be loyal to and support other people of their same blood. That did not work in Scotland. No “volk” there, I guess. Not to mention that this series
    of actions did not give capitalism or conservatism a good name either.

    Similarly the Scot-Irish were betrayed by their church leaders whom the landlords had paid off. Their ministers told them that their great suffering was the result of their sin, and that they should blame themselves for their misfortunes. Therefore, they came to mistrust the established churches; however, without the
    serious Biblical scholarship provided by the more established churches, they were led astray and duped into accepting Jews as the Chosen.

    The Scot-Irish too also spoke a separate dialect from the rest of the Britons, and living in the highlands, they were remote geographically. Hence, the general British public never took up their cause. This experience may have led to their support of a
    “Big Brother” government in Canada, in which the interests of the minority is always upheld against the interest of the majority.

    Palin is probably more of an “Anglo-Protestant” than a typical Scot-Irish Celt, but she exemplifies their politics. McCaine could fit either group. He would not necessarily be a great president, but (JMO) he would not be giving all these bankers a blank check.

    BTW: I don’t agree with Mencken at all.

    Mencken: “Both empires were built up primarily by swindling and butchering unarmed savages, and after that, by robbing weak and friendless nations. Neither produced a hero above the average run in the movies…”

    While I do sympathize with actual Native Indian Americans, Whites were forced to fight the Indians in self-defense. What should we have done? Returned to Scotland to starve? My ancestors chose to fight and to live that I might live. We cleared the land, and we built the farms, the cities, the schools and the universities. We endured great hardship, and we took great risks. Any further contest of the right of White Americans to live on United States soil should be met with an open declaration of war — not against the Indians this time, but rather against those Liberals who disrespect us and question our honor.

    Mencken: “The Anglo-Saxon of the great herd is, in many important respects, the least civilized of the white men and the least capable of true civilization. His political ideas are crude and shallow. He is almost wholly devoid of esthetic feeling. The most elementary facts about the visible universe alarm him, and incite
    him to put them down. Educate him, make a professor of him, teach him how to express his soul, and he still remains palpable third rate.”

    The whole above quote makes no sense whatsoever. England has produced plenty of scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, writers and artists. As a German-American, Mencken may have been rightfully disgusted with the readiness of so many Americans to rush to war against Germany. The political ideas of the time were not so much “crude and shallow” as just plain naive. Wilson entrusted our money supply to the so-called Federal Reserve Bank. The Russian Revolution was seen as a natural and healthy overthrow of a tyrannical monarch. All forms of monarchy were smeared as innately destined to corruption. So-called “anti-Semitism” (that is, opposition to the Jewish agenda) was seen as a bigotry symptomatic of a corrupt Continentalism. Since all settled and well-established human societies are
    hierarchical, Continental classism flouted the American dream of “all men being created equal.” Americans saw Continental Europeans as arrogant, dissolute and cynical; Continental Europeans saw Americans as unsophisticated, overly idealistic and politically immature. America should have stayed out of WW1, but both the close ethnic ties of our leadership to the British, and the desire to show off our great strength to the rest of the world, pushed us into the debacle.

    Mencken: “The Anglo-Saxon always tries to take a gang with him when he goes into battle, and even when he has it behind him he is very uneasy and prone to fall into panic at the first threat of genuine danger…”

    According to conventional military strategy, the attacking party must concentrate his forces in order to be stronger than his opponent at the moment of conflict. As for being panic-prone, the British did have a fair enough share of victories. All Mencken is really saying is that the Anglo-Saxons never used guerrilla tactics; but yet General Washington quite certainly did. Would Mencken count George Washington as an Anglo-Saxon?

Bottom