From June 6 to June 14, Dr. Tom Sunic, professor, author, translator and member of the Board of Directors of the American Third Position, will have a book tour in Canada. Tom will also give a few interesting lectures. See below his itinerary and the titles of his talks. His host is Paul Fromm from CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression).
Tom Sunic Paul Fromm
For more information re the dates and venues, please call: 905-274-3868
Dr. Sunic will be signing his new books Homo americanus: A Child of the Postmodern Age (2007) and Postmortem Report; Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity (2010)
Dr. Sunic will speak in:
Hamilton, Ontario, Sunday, June 6. Evening
Victoria, British Columbia, Monday, June 7, Evening.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Tuesday, June 8, Evening.
Edmonton, Alberta, Wednesday, June 9. Evening.
Calgary, Alberta, Thursday, June 10. Evening.
Ottawa, Ontario, Friday, June 11. Evening.
Toronto, Ontario, Sunday, June 13. Afternoon.
London, Ontario, Monday, June 14. Evening.
Depending on interest level Dr. Sunic may hold some speeches in German and/or French too.
Titles of speeches:
1. “Cultural or Political Hegemony? The Case of the USA and Europe”
2 “Liberal Propaganda: Double Speech, Double Talk and Mendacity”
3. “Shifting Semantics, Coming Repression; The Origin of “Hate Speech”
4. “The Origin of Self-Censorship; Why are White Academics Scared?”
5. “What is White Identity? Racial and Cultural Perspective”
6. “East Europe and Russia; White Enclaves, Possible Future”
7. “What Can We Learn from Leftists and Liberal Scholars?”
8. “The Fate of Ethnic Germans in Eastern Europe after WWII”
9. “Which Lessons and Parallels can one draw in Croatia’ from the Wars” (1945 and 1995)? ( „ Welche Lehren zieht man in Kroatien aus den Kriegserfahrungen?“ 1945 , 1995) Speech in German at Bad Kissingen, Germany, June 25 at the Sudeten Germans’ meeting).
Key strategic relationship with Turkey damaged and Netanyahu visit to White House cancelled.
In a scene echoed around the world, a woman flashes a victory sign during a protest outside the Belgian foreign affairs building in Brussels. Photograph: Francois Lenoir/Reuters
Israel’s calculated gamble in sending commandos to raid the Mediterranean flotilla looked likely last night to exact a high price, leaving it increasingly isolated internationally and diplomatically and losing the vital public relations war in the Middle East.
The first and biggest casualty of what appeared to many as a rash act of night time derring-do was Israel’s relationship with what used to be its key strategic, regional and Muslim ally, Turkey.
Anger erupted on the streets of Istanbul and Ankara, with Israeli flags burned and the Netanyahu government advising Israelis to stay away from Turkey. Thousands took to the streets and marched on the Israeli consulate.
Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, described the Israeli raid as “an act of inhumane state terrorism”, while the foreign ministry spoke of “an act of piracy” and of “irreparable damage” to relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
Three of the six ships flew the Turkish flag, the convoy was organised by a Turkish charity, and several hundred of those on board the ships were Turks. “We had a very good relationship with Israel, but we have had all kind of difficulties in the past,” said a senior diplomat in Ankara, Selim Yenel. “This tops them all.”
Protesters scaled the high fences protecting the Israeli consulate in Istanbul, only to be repelled by security forces.
“I cried all night. What Israel did was murder and terrorism,” said Mehmet Tas, a computer software student. “Turkey and Europe should unite and attack Israel.”
The fury on the streets was mirrored by high-level rage. Ankara recalled its ambassador from Israel. Erdogan rushed home from a trip to Latin America to deal with the fallout. Observers predicted a possible breach in diplomatic relations.
“Israel has targeted innocent civilians,” said the foreign ministry in Ankara. “It has shown yet again that it does not care about human lives or peace initiatives.”
Noting that the dawn raid occurred in international waters, Ankara hinted at demanding legal redress.
The Turks convened an emergency meeting of generals and security ministers and called off military exercises with Israel, as did Greece.
The United Nations security council was expected to meet last night in New York over the incident.
“I heard the ships were in international water. That is very bad,” said Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
The Obama administration, while regretting the death toll, reserved judgment on apportioning blame.
“The United States is currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy,” said White House spokesman William Burton.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cancelled plans to visit Obama at the White House today.
Amid a flurry of diplomatic activity, Israeli ambassadors were summoned in Stockholm, Madrid, and Athens, while Spain, holding the six-month rotating presidency of the European Union, called a session of the EU’s political and security committee.
Foreign governments deplored the loss of life and voiced outrage at the Israeli conduct. But amid a propaganda war between the Israeli government press machine and pro-Palestinian lobbies over who started the fight and whether any of the activists on board were armed, they were also wary of going further than verbal condemnation.
The common response in Europe was to condemn what was seen as Israel’s disproportionate use of force. Even Germany, generally reluctant to criticize Israel because of the Holocaust, voiced horror at what Palestinian leaders dubbed a massacre.
“The German government is shocked by events in the international waters by Gaza,” said a German government spokesman, adding that Israeli actions should observe the fundamental principle of proportionality. “A first glance suggests this basic principle was not adhered to.”
Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign and security policy chief, said: “I have spoken to Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman to express our deepest concern about the tragedy that has happened. I said there should be an immediate inquiry by Israel into the circumstances.”
Her demand for an Israeli inquiry was echoed by European governments, but at odds with several other calls for an independent international investigation.
Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, told Liberman that any investigation should be “comprehensive, transparent, and neutral”.
While Israel generally prevents foreign politicians entering the Gaza Strip, Ashton was allowed in during her first trip to the Middle East in March. She called yesterday for a partial lifting of the blockade maintained by Israel and Egypt.
“I have also taken the opportunity to point out the importance of opening the crossings for humanitarian aid to go through, to ensure that ordinary people have a better existence than that which I saw.”
William Hague, the foreign secretary, said that the three-year Israeli siege of Gaza should be relaxed. “I call on the government of Israel to open the crossings to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, and address the serious concerns about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians.”
The Russian government meanwhile expressed its deep anxiety over the incident. It described the assault by Israeli commandos as a gross violation of international law and called for a thorough investigation.
“Use of weapons against civilians and detaining ships in the open sea without any legal reason constitute obvious and gross violations of generally accepted legal standards,” Russia’s foreign ministry said in a statement. It called for the “earliest possible lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza”.
Tony Blair, envoy in the Middle East for the UN, US, EU, and Russia quartet, said: “We need a different and better way of helping the people of Gaza and avoiding the hardship and tragedy that is inherent in the present situation.”
All the evidence suggests that Israel is calculating that it can brazen out the chorus of criticism and limit the substantive damage to its relations with Turkey.
NEW ORLEANS — Anger and frustration surged across the Gulf Coast on Monday as residents learned that the latest attempt to cap a renegade underwater well had failed and that oil may keep gushing into the Gulf of Mexico until at least August, when relief wells are scheduled to be finished.
Larry Howard collects water samples Monday near Venice, La. for the EPA.
As they entered the 42nd day of the crisis Monday, officials with oil company BP said that over the weekend they had abandoned the so-called “top kill” maneuver to jam drilling mud into the well to stop its flow and were trying a new technique.
“Everybody’s lost hope,” said councilman Jay LaFont of Grand Isle, La., where beaches and its fishing industry were closed because of the spill. “As long as you have something to look forward to, a little glimmer of hope, you can move on. But this just drained everything out of us.”
Up to 800,000 gallons of crude a day has spewed from a well 5,000 feet underwater since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20, killing 11 crewmembers, and sank two days later, unleashing the greatest oil disaster in U.S. history. The well has spilled at least 20 million gallons of crude — surpassing the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska that dumped 11 million.
Using underwater robotic vessels, BP engineers now will try to cut off the pipe attached to the blowout preventer — the 48-foot-tall device that sits over the well — and install a cap atop it, BP spokesman John Curry said. The cap will have piping that will suck oil up to a surface vessel, he said.
This latest attempt was scheduled to be in motion by Wednesday at the earliest. Two relief wells — aimed at punching a hole under the well and plugging it with cement — won’t be completed until August, Curry said. By then, more than 50 million gallons of oil could have spilled. “We clearly understand the frustration and we’re sorry for the disruption of lives,” Curry said. Cutting the pipe will temporarily increase the flow of oil gushing into the Gulf by 20%, he said.
Scientists discovered a new plume of oil — a dense, black cloud about 1,000 feet underwater stretching 6 miles from the well, said Mandy Joye, a University of Georgia scientist leading the research.
“We will die a slow death over the next two years as this oil creeps ashore,” Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser said.
Newly uploaded to the web, December 1992 and December 1993 issues of Wilmot Robertson’s classic Instauration magazine (http://www.instaurationonline.com) provide the grist for our White common sense mill on Memorial Day, May 31, 2010.
Political mores often reflect sexual attitudes. Conversely (and more commonly) political environment affects sexual mores. In our so-called best of all worlds, “free love” has become an aggressive ideology transmitted by left-wing opinion makers. The underlying assumption, going back to the Freudian-Marxist inspired student revolts of 1968, is that by indulging in wild sex a muscled regime can be muzzled and any temptation for an authoritarian rule can be tamed.
Palaver about “free love equals no war” is still a prevalent dogma in the liberal system. Hans Eysenck, the late psychologist and expert on race and intelligence (also occasionally defamed as a ‘racist’), deconstructed the Freudian fraud in his book The Decline and Fall of the Freudian Empire: “Freud’s place is not with Copernicus and Darwin but with Hans Christian Andersen and tellers of fairy tales. Psychoanalysis is at best a premature crystallization of spurious orthodoxies; at worst a pseudo-scientific doctrine that has done untold harm to psychology and psychiatry alike” (1990, p. 208). One could infer from Eysenck’s statement what a great many Whites have known for decades, but have been afraid to utter aloud: Freudianism has been an excellent tool for pathologizing Whites into feelings of guilt in regard to their traditional attitudes toward sex and politics.
Politically correct — sexually incorrect
Freudianism, instead of curing alleged sexual neuroses and phobias, has ended up creating far more serious ones. Fifty years after the “sexual revolution” the West is replete with men suffering from sexual impotence, with an ever growing number of women and men indulging in odd, perverted and criminal sexual behavior. Yet, despite the fact that the quackery of Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich is no longer trendy, the topic of sex continues to play a crucial role in social interaction. In order to liberate White youth from their feelings of traditional European shame (which is not the same as the Judaic concept of guilt), the non-stop media parading of geometric Hollywood beauties makes many young Whites develop the inferiority complex about their own sexual equipment — or performance in the bedroom. As a result, a classical nucleus of society — the family — falls apart.
There is a widespread assumption fostered by liberal and leftist opinion-makers that right-wingers and nationalists are sexual perverts, misogynists, or wild macho-types suffering from a proto-totalitarian Oedipus complex — which accordingly, must lead to proverbial anti-Semitic pogroms. Such a diagnosis of the White man was offered by Erich Fromm in his famed The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, a book in which the ultimate symbols of evil, the incorrigible Hitler and Himmler, are routinely depicted as “case studies of anal-hoarding-necrophilic sadists.” (1973, pp. 333–411). Fromm’s and Freud’s avalanche of nonsense may tell us more about their own troubled childhood and their obsession with their own misshapen anal-nasal-oral-circumcised-penile-protrusions than about the non-Jewish objects of their descriptions.
Once could invert the Freudian dogma regarding the alleged pathogenic sexuality of young Whites and supplant it by solid empirical data offered by renowned sociobiologist Gérard Zwang, an expert on sex and sexual pathologies and a contributor to European New Right journals — and someone who enjoys the occasional privilege of being labeled a ‘racist’.
If one was to assume that traditional child rearing is conducive to a White man’s sexual aberrations and his violent behavior in the political arena, then one should start with Oriental and African practices of circumcision first — which in Europe, ever since the ancient Greeks and Romans has been viewed as an act of morbid religious fanaticism.
Back from the Exodus, 500 years later, the “dictatorship” of Moses established circumcision as an absolute obligation, for fear of being excluded from the Chosen People. The prescription is still valid for the Orthodox Jew and for Israelis. … In France, the pro-circumcision followers argue that the prepuce would be a parasitic remnant of the femininity inside a masculine body. The myth of “native bisexuality” is an old craze with disastrous consequences. … In our territory (France), the very numerous circumcisions requested by Jewish or Muslim parents are often paid by the Social Security of a so-called secular country! … The ideal should obviously be one day the definitive extinction of the dismal monotheistic religions, of their unacceptable dogmas, and of their ridiculous prescriptions. (G. Zwang, “Demystifying Circumcision”)
Auguste Rodin, "The Kiss" (1889)
Liberal pontificators are quick to denounce the practice of infibulation (female mutilation of clitoris) on many immigrant African women residing in Europe, but hardly will they utter a word to denounce equally painful circumcision on new-born Jews or Muslims.
With or without this strange Levantine make-believe metaphysical mimicry of penile pseudo-castration, unbridled sexual activity has become today a quasi categorical imperative, largely dependent on the whims of the capitalist market. According to the logic of supply and demand one should not rule out that the liberal system may soon issue a decree for mandatory multiracial marriages. Marriage of White couples may be “scientifically” attested as an “unhealthy union at variance with democratic principles of ethnic sensitivity training.” Never has the West witnessed so much psycho-babble about “love”, “interracial tolerance,” “gender mainstreaming,” “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc. — at the time when suicidal loneliness, serial divorces, sexual narcissism, and sexual violence have become its only trademarks of survivability.
The Ancients were no less sexually active (and probably even more so) than our contemporaries, as testified by their plastic art showing naked women in warm embrace of their men, or as depicted by Homer in his numerous stories of cupid gods and goddesses. Apuleius, a Roman writer of Berber origin, writes explicitly about a woman enchanted by the sex act. From the 14th-century Italian Boccaccio, to modern Henry Miller, countless European authors offer us graphic stories of love making between White women and White men. But there is one crucial distinction. In the modern liberal system sex has become an aggressive ideology consisting of mechanistic rituals whose only goal is a “dictatorship of the mandatory orgasm,” thus becoming the very opposite of what sex once was.
In societies marked by the Puritan spirit, which is still the case among large segments of the White American population, the century-old scorning of sexual encounters has had its logical postmodern backlash: prudishness, promiscuity and pornography. The English-born poet and novelist, D. H. Lawrence was a remarkable man who is close to what we call today a “revolutionary conservative” and is highly popular among European White nationalists. In his essay Pornography and Obscenity he wrote how one must reject Puritanism and sentimentalism. “Puritan is a sick man, soul and body sick, so why should we bother about his hallucinations. Sex appeal, of course, varies enormously. There are endless different kinds and endless degrees of each kind.” (The Portable D.H. Lawrence, 1977, p. 652,).
Despite globalization, “Americanization” and the increasing difficulty to distinguish between sexual mores in White America and in White Europe, some differences are still visible and often lead to serious misunderstanding among transatlantic partners. This time, the inevitable cultural factor, and not a genetic factor, takes the upper hand.
White Spectral Lovers
What may be viewed as vulgar sexual conduct from the perspective of White America is often hailed as something natural in Europe. A sharp and well-travelled European eye, even with no academic baggage, notices a strong dose of hypermoralism and sentimentalism among White American males and females. Examples abound. For instance, public tearful confessions by an American male, either on the podium or at the pulpit about cheating on his wife, while viewed as normal in America, are viewed as pathetic in Europe. Many European White males and women, when visiting America, are stunned when an intelligent American speaker, gripped by emotions, starts shedding tears on his microphone, regardless of whether the theme of his allocution is the plight of Jesus Christ or the predicament of the White race.
One might explain this phenomenon by suggesting that on a psychological level White Americans, given the early and strong influence of the Old Testament, have been more influenced by the Judaic spirit of guilt than White Europeans, who have traditionally been far more obsessed with a sense of shame. Judaic feelings of guilt were, in the 20th century, successfully transposed in a secular manner by the Marxist Frankfurt School on the entire White population all over the West, and particularly on the German people. By contrast, in the ancient Greek drama and even later among heroes of the Middle Ages, one can hardly spot signs of guilt. Instead, characters are mostly immersed in endless introspective brooding about some shameful act they may or may have not committed.
Conversely, many White American women rightly conclude that sexual behavior of European males is often erratic, quirky and disorderly. European males are often poorly groomed when dating or mating, often lacking respect for their female partners. For a newcomer to Europe, the overkill of pornographic literature all over public places and the torrents of x-rate movies aired on prime time are indeed unnerving. There is also a different conceptualization of sex and decadence by White Europeans and White Americans respectively.
Many European White nationalists like to brag about their Dionysian spirit, which often borders on undisciplined behavior. Numerous Catholic holidays in Europe, such as St. Anthony’s day in June, St. Patrick’s day in March, St. George day in April etc., are celebrated from Ireland to Flanders. Typical are Flemish kermesse celebrations depicted by Pieter Breughel.
Pieter Brueghel the Younger, "The Kermesse of St. George“ (1628)
These celebrations are not meant for Bible preaching, but rather as an occasion to release residual, primordial and pagan feelings. The pent-up sense of the tragic, the accumulated sorrows that come along with age, must be wildly vented, even at the price of appearing grotesque in foreigners’ eyes.
The duration of such mega-feasts is strictly limited. Over the centuries, the Catholic Church has been shrewd enough to incorporate the pagan heritage into Catholic feasts, because otherwise its monotheistic dogma would not have lasted long. Not surprisingly, kermesses and carnivals are in reality far more prophylactic and effective for good sex than all the Viagra and Freudian shrinks combined. On such occasions, still alive in Catholic rural Europe, everybody revels, drinks, everybody pinches each other’s backside, as shown long time ago on Rubens’ and Breughel’s paintings. However, when the fun is over the same revelers go back to their traditional family chores.
It is a common practice among high intellectual classes in Europe for a married man to flirt with an unknown attractive woman at a social gathering — even in the presence of his own spouse. In fact, for a married man in Europe courting an intelligent woman is considered a sign of good upbringing and chivalry — with a tacit ocular understanding between the two that they may end up in bed together — but with no strings attached. On public beaches from France’s Saint Tropez to Croatia’s Dalmatia, all the way to public parks in Copenhagen, it is normal in hot summers to observe naked women of all ages sunbathing and skinny-dipping in the presence of young children. This is something unimaginable on the Santa Cruz Riviera in California, as it would immediately attract a crazed local peeping tom or a stern-faced police officer.
Several years ago a scandal broke out in the USA caused by the former US President William Clinton’s sexual escapade with a Jewish woman, Monika Lewinsky. Clinton’s sexual adventures literally became a federal case in America, with many American journalists across the political spectrum demanding his resignation. In Europe, Clinton’s extramarital affair was received by many with a shrug of shoulders. One can hardly imagine a voter in Europe asking for the president to be removed from office just because he was cheating on his wife. Having a mate, a concubine a maitresse has been an age-old practice among European politicians, deliberately ignored by their spouses, approved by their constituencies, and tolerated by the Church, and in no way seen as a sign of character weakness.
Thousands of Western scientists, artists and poets, who had an organic view of love making, have disappeared now from the academic radar screen. The antebellum South, still demonized as a backward place, was the last place in the West that had at some point in history salvaged White European medieval customs of honor, virility, generosity and chivalry. This can be seen in the tragic poetry of unreconstructed Southerners, such as John Crowe Ransom.
By night they haunted a thicket of April mist,
Out of that black ground suddenly come to birth,
Else angels lost in each other and fallen on earth.
Lovers they knew they were, but why unclasped, unkissed?
Why should two lovers be frozen apart in fear?
And yet they were, they were.
An iconic French nationalist scholar, an artist, and a political prisoner in France after WWII, Maurice Bardèche was well aware of the slow coming darkness in the West following the defeat of the South in the Civil War:
Firstly, to be a Southerner is to see and feel that one of the biggest catastrophes of our times was the capture of Atlanta. The defeat at Sedan is for me nothing more than an event of history; a sad event, but as any other event colorless and historical. As for the defeat at Waterloo – I cannot convince myself that it has changed the destiny of the world. Even the collapse of Germany, although it seems to me an injustice, a bad whim of God and as any other appearance against all good sense — I do not consider irrevocable. But the capture of Atlanta — this is for me an irreparable event, the fatal beacon of History. It is the victory of the Barbarians. (Sparte et les Sudistes, 1969, p. 96).
Wilmot Robertson’s Instauration magazine ceased publication after 25 years with Volume 25 in 1999-2000. The May 28, 2010 Jamie Kelso Show salutes the republication of the entirety of Instauration at http://www.instaurationonline.com with readings from the December 1999 issue. The traffic to the new website where all of this republication is taking place has soared with the attention received from VOR at http://www.reasonradionetwork.com and WhiteNewsNow, Mr. Kelso’s site, at http://www.whitenewsnow.com/forums, where an entire forum is dedicated to Instauration Online.
Primary elections were held across the country on Tuesday and Wednesday. While the last two major elections had a partisan tone, within both the democrat and republican primaries there has been a major backlash against the establishment candidates. Rand Paul, who is the son of Congressman Ron Paul and favorite of the Tea Party Movement, defeated the establishment backed candidate Trey Grayson in the Republican Primary of Senate in Kentucky and Senator Arlen Specter was defeated on the democratic primary by Congressman Joe Sestak.
What we are seeing with this election that has not been seen in a while is the voters are rejecting the establishment backed candidates. While the Tea Party has been co-opted to some degree, it has given a platform for patriotic Americans to to influence the result of elections. Rand Paul whose father helped start this movement had the backing of liberty minded Americans across the country. His opponent Tray Grayson had the backing of the entire GOP establishment, including Dick Cheney, but that was not enough to get him nominated.
Rand Paul’s nomination is a sign for change to come with the GOP. The Hill’s John Feehery said “Rand Paul’s election may very well mean the beginning of the end of the neo-conservative movement in the Republican Party. It also might mark the beginning of the end of the social-conservative wing of the Republican Party.” Mainstream Conservative pundit George Will even admitted his ideas were catching on with Republican voters stating “it may seem strange for a Republican to have opposed, as Paul did, the invasion of Iraq. But in the eighth year of that war, many Kentuckians may think he was strangely prescient. To some it may seem extreme to say, as Paul does, that although the invasion of Afghanistan was proper, our current mission there is “murky.” But many Kentuckians may think this is an extreme understatement.
This has caused concern for the Republican establishment. Former Bush speech writer David Frum denounced Paul’s victory, stating, “Rand Paul’s victory in the Kentucky Republican primary is obviously a depressing event for those who support strong national defense and rational conservative politics. In another year, such a victory would be a prelude to a Republican defeat in the general election.” While some of Paul’s hardcore supporters are disappointed by his verbal support for Israel, Neocons like Frum are upset that the principles of non-interventionism and opposition to foreign air making a comeback within the conservative movement.
Frum acknowledges that Paul’s victory symbolized frustration with the Republican establishment stating, “How is it that the GOP has lost its antibodies against a candidate like Rand Paul?” He admits his impact on the GOP adding, “But despite Paul’s self-presentation as “anti-establishment,” the D.C. conservative establishment by and large made its peace with him. It is this acquiescence – even more than Paul’s own nomination – that is the most ominous news from tonight’s vote.”
Senator Arlen Specter Specter dropped out of the Republican Party because of opposition from the Tea Party crowd. Sestak who had the backing of the anti-war movement will go on to face Republican Pat Toomey who is the Tea Party favorite in the general. Specter was beholden to powerful pro-Israel interest. Morton Klein who was the former head of the Zionist Organization of America said, “Anything I ever asked Arlen Specter to do with respect to Israel or Jews, he has always done it.” Klein also credit Specter’s role in maintaining foreign aid for Israel. While Toomey and Sestak are no Rand Pauls, they are certainly vast improvements over Specter, who was for amnesty for illegal immigrants, bailouts, foreign aid, and the Iraq War.
In the upcoming primaries many more establishment candidates are vulnerable, primarily John McCain who angered voters will his co-signing of the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill. He is facing Congressman J.D. Hayworth, who has made border enforcement his signatory issue. Like Specter, McCain supported the bailouts and represents much of the same globalist interventionist agenda.
Paul’s victory and Specter’s defeat represent a growing movement for national sovereignty and non-interventionism that threatens the powers that be. This is just the beginning, as many other candidates are appealing to this growing populist sentiment against partisan politics and corruption in Washington and Wall Street.
the leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster—indeed, have actively opposed—a Zionism that challenges Israel’s behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism’s door, and now, to their horror, they are finding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.
Beinart does a good job describing the dominance of racial nationalism in Israel and the rationalizations, blind spots and hypocrisies of the organized Jewish community committed to minority empowerment in the US. Like John Mearsheimer, he thinks that American Jews are liberals at heart and are pulling away from Israel, especially because the rhetoric of victimization on which Israel is founded is more and more remote from their daily lives.
There are some reasons to doubt this analysis. Commitment to Israel among young secular Jews is likely to increase if there was indeed a real threat to Israel, as happened in the 1967 war. (See my comments on Mearsheimer.) Moreover, there are always gaps between the more committed Jews who man the activist organizations and the great majority of Jews for whom Israel is not the center of their lives. (Mearsheimer calls them the new Afrikaners and the great ambivalent middle.) It’s not obvious that the new Afrikaners won’t continue to run the show and police the attitudes of the great ambivalent middle as they have been doing for years. This may be so even though, as Beinart points out, AJC polling data indicates that young secular Jews are less attached to Israel than are Orthodox Jews.
But in any case, notice Beinart is not saying that this will mean that the support of American Jews for Israel will end. Far from it. Rather, the most interesting part of his analysis is his claim that the organized Jewish community will have to look to the Orthodox and other seriously religious Jews to maintain support for Israel:
To sustain their uncritical brand of Zionism, therefore, America’s Jewish organizations will need to look elsewhere to replenish their ranks. They will need to find young American Jews who have come of age during the West Bank occupation but are not troubled by it. And those young American Jews will come disproportionately from the Orthodox world.
And that bodes well for Zionist organizations because demography, as always, is destiny:
Because they marry earlier, intermarry less, and have more children, Orthodox Jews are growing rapidly as a share of the American Jewish population. According to a 2006 American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey, while Orthodox Jews make up only 12 percent of American Jewry over the age of sixty, they constitute 34 percent between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four. For America’s Zionist organizations, these Orthodox youngsters are a potential bonanza. In their yeshivas they learn devotion to Israel from an early age; they generally spend a year of religious study there after high school, and often know friends or relatives who have immigrated to Israel. The same AJC study found that while only 16 percent of non-Orthodox adult Jews under the age of forty feel “very close to Israel,” among the Orthodox the figure is 79 percent. As secular Jews drift away from America’s Zionist institutions, their Orthodox counterparts will likely step into the breach. The Orthodox “are still interested in parochial Jewish concerns,” explains Samuel Heilman, a sociologist at the City University of New York. “They are among the last ones who stayed in the Jewish house, so they now control the lights.”
The result will be that there will less of a gap between the fervid nationalism in Israel and the attitudes of a large percentage of American Jews: “If current trends continue, the growing influence of Orthodox Jews in America’s Jewish communal institutions will erode even the liberal-democratic veneer that today covers American Zionism.”
In the end, there will be “an American Zionist movement that does not even feign concern for Palestinian dignity and a broader American Jewish population that does not even feign concern for Israel.” Again, this last outcome is iffy because I can’t see any reason why the activists policing the great majority of ambivalent American Jews can’t continue indefinitely. And as the demographic trends continue, the job of policing secular Jews will be easier as they become an increasingly small minority of American Jews.
The interesting part of this analysis is what implications it has for how the rest of America sees Jews and the Israel lobby. The Israel lobby necessarily projects Israel as embodying American ideals: “AIPAC celebrates Israel’s commitment to ‘free speech and minority rights.’ The Conference of Presidents declares that ‘Israel and the United States share political, moral and intellectual values including democracy, freedom, security and peace.’”
It’s hard to see how the lobby can have any credibility with Americans at all if these deceptions are abandoned. Certainly the lobby will continue the deception as long as it can. It will continue to pour money into the campaign coffers of politicians who paint Israel as the democratic ally of the US and it will rigorously police the media—not a difficult job because so much of the elite media is dominated by hard core Zionists.
The worst case scenario for the lobby is that the propaganda that Israel embodies American ideals is so far out of touch with reality that even the American media cannot continue the charad, and American politicians would be laughed at as they spout the pro-Israel line.
But there are all sorts of issues besides Israeli racial nationalism where American media and politicians are completely out of touch with reality, particularly on issues related to race, multiculturalism, and immigration in the US. For example, elite consensus on immigration continues to shape media coverage and political rhetoric even though most Americans, particularly White Americans, oppose it.
The media has already shown that it can maintain egregious fictions for a very long time as long as there is elite consensus. But how is the elite consensus going to change in the face of aggressive policing by the lobby? In the same way, elite consensus on issues like race, crime, and IQ continue to be maintained in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary. Some of the same organizations that police unreality in the case of Zionism, such as the ADL, also enforce intellectual orthodoxy related to the other fictions on race, multiculturalism, and immigration that are so central to American political life. Right now things are proceeding just fine for the spinners of deception.
The basic problem that I have with these “end times” for Zionism (and the American consensus on race and immigration) is that they assume a worst case scenario far off in the future somewhere. I certainly would like to believe that the mainstream media and politicians must eventually confront reality in all these areas — including issues related to White advocacy. Certainly we in the White advocacy movement believe that the fictions can’t be maintained forever and that White anger will eventually result in a credible movement to take back America, or at least part of it. So it’s encouraging to see that a great many smart people think that the fictions about Israel can’t be maintained indefinitely. But I’ll believe it when I see it.
Kevin MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
That was the slogan of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984,” where Winston Smith worked ceaselessly revising the past to conform to the latest party line of Big Brother.
And so we come to the battle over history books in the schools of Texas. Liberals are enraged that a Republican-dominated Board of Education is rewriting the texts. But is the rewrite being done to falsify history, or to undo a liberal bias embedded for decades?
Consider a few of the issues.
The new texts will emphasize that the separation of church and state was never written into the Constitution.
Is that not right? The First Amendment prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But, in 1776, nine of the 13 colonies had state religions established in their constitutions.
Thomas Jefferson’s words about a “separation of church and state” were not written until 1802, when he responded to a letter from the Danbury Baptist Association. Not until after World War II did the Supreme Court begin the systematic purge of Christianity from American public life.
Barack Obama may have declared, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.” But Woodrow Wilson said, “America was born a Christian nation,” and Harry Truman wrote Pius XII to affirm, “This is a Christian nation.”
The Texas school board wants the U.S. economic system called “free enterprise” rather than the term Karl Marx used, “capitalism.”
Anything wrong with that?
The Christian Science Monitor cites one professor Phillip VanFossen as appalled the new history texts will put a “more positive spin on Sen. Joe McCarthy’s communist witch hunt.”
The FDR and Truman administrations were shot through with treason. Alger Hiss, who was with FDR at Yalta and Truman in San Francisco when the U.N. was founded, was a Stalinist spy, exposed by Whittaker Chambers and Rep. Richard Nixon.
Harry Dexter White, Treasury’s No. 2, who pushed the infamous Morgenthau Plan to turn Germany into a pastureland, was a Soviet agent, as was White House aide Laughlin Currie and State’s Laurence Duggan, whose treason was confirmed by the VENONA decrypts of Soviet cables in 1995.
William Remington at Commerce was convicted of perjury for denying his ties to a spy ring. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for their role in betraying the secrets of the atom bomb.
The VENONA transcripts contained the names of scores of U.S. citizens assisting known Soviet agents during and after World War II.
By 1952, Truman, having been repudiated by his own party in New Hampshire, was down to 23 percent, and was the most unpopular president ever to leave office.
But Joe McCarthy’s approval, four years into this crusade in January 1954, stood at 50 percent, with only 29 percent disapproving.
And was that really a time of anti-communist hysteria?
Why, then, does not a single Gallup poll from 1950 to 1954 show even 1 percent of Americans giving anti-communist extremism or witch hunts or Joe McCarthy as an issue of concern?
Not only did Joe Kennedy Sr. admire and support Joe McCarthy, Jack Kennedy befriended him, Bobby worked for him, Teddy played touch football with him at Hyannis Port and the Kennedy girls dated him.
When, at a Harvard reunion, Jack heard a speaker say he was proud the college never produced an Alger Hiss or Joe McCarthy, JFK roared, “How dare you couple the name of a great patriot with that of a traitor?” and stormed out.
That 1954 was a year of disaster for Joe, with the Army-McCarthy hearings and censure by the Senate, is undeniable. But Joe is hated today not for what he got wrong, but for what he got right.
What is the purpose of teaching America’s children the history of their country? Few said it better than Ronald Reagan in his farewell address: “An informed patriotism is what we want. …
“So, we’ve got to teach history based not on what’s in fashion but what’s important. … You know, four years ago, on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, I read a letter from a young woman writing of her late father, who’d fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, ‘We will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did.’ Well, let’s help her keep her word.
“If we forget what we did, we won’t know who we are. I’m warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit.”
Teaching American history to America’s children is done so that they will come to know and love their country. And while all nations have sins of scarlet, none has a greater, more glorious past than ours.
And if teaching that is what the Texas Board of Education is all about, ensuring that the children of Texas know both sides of every great American quarrel and come away loving their country all the more, then God bless ‘em.
This is a rebroadcast of Robert Stark’s appearance on Bob Tuskin from Truth Be Told radio. Bob Tuskin, raised from a Jewish background, is an outspoken critic of Zionism and the New world Order. Topics include:
Instauration magazine Vol. 9 No.4 which came out in March 1984 is the focus of today’s show. As you listen to the archived recording of our show you can read and view along to this, and future, issues of Instauration the same day that they are first put online as pdf files at http://www.instaurationonline.com. Two figures, both of great moment to the cause of White common sense are Howard Phillips Lovecraft (H.P.) and Herbert George Wells (H.G.), the master of “weird” science fiction and father of science fiction respectively.
Today’s show is based almost entirely on the online edition of the April 1982 Instauration magazine, which Mr. Kelso uploaded to http://www.instaurationonline.com today. Listeners to either the live or recorded show can read along in the new online (pdf, or portable document format) magazine available to everyone at Instauration Online for free. Listeners can also print their own copies.
Surrendered Germans murdered by American troops in April 1945. General Eisenhower later reported, “Our forces liberated and mopped up the infamous concentration camp at Dachau … 300 SS camp guards were quickly neutralized.”
Friedrich Paul Berg joins Carolyn to discuss:
Undisciplined, unprepared American soldiers
General George S. Patton told troops to rape and kill
British/American bombing of civilians were greatest war crimes of all
German conduct during/after WWII superior to that of Allies
To learn more about Friedrich Paul Berg and his extensive body of work, visit his personal Web site.
Jamie takes the just-published online December 1995 issue of Instauration magazine as the point of departure. Many future Voice of Reason Kelso programs will be based on these classic issues as they are published for the first time in online form. Now, as a listener, you can view these out-of-print gems while we read them live on the air. As all 300 issues, published from 1975 to 2000, go online you can read them in exact scanned reproduction at http://www.instaurationonline.com.
Jamie salutes patriot Philip Giraldi, former CIA intelligence officer, for his truly courageous blows against the Israel First Lobby and anti-White American Lobby led by traitors like Michael Ledeen. A complete reading of Philip Giraldi’s article, Shaping the Story on Iran, is part of today’s show.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 unexpectedly became a focus of the midterm elections Thursday as tea-party favorite Rand Paul criticized the federal role in desegregating private businesses, then later said he would have voted for the law.
Mr. Paul, the Republican Party’s newly elected Senate nominee in Kentucky, has built his campaign around limiting the reach of the federal government. Pressed in two interviews on Wednesday—the first day of his general-election campaign for the Senate—Mr. Paul declined to say that he would have voted as a senator for the landmark civil-rights law.
“I’m opposed to any form of governmental racism or discrimination or segregation,” he told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. But he said the question of imposing standards on private businesses was “still a valid discussion.”
“The thing is, is if we want to harbor in on private businesses and their policies, then you have to have the discussion about [whether] you want to abridge the First Amendment as well,” he said.
His comments prompted a day of discomfort for GOP leaders, just before the Senate’s senior Republican, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.), was scheduled to stand with Mr. Paul at a unity rally Saturday in Kentucky.
The statements also underscored the challenge for the national GOP of absorbing insurgent, anti-establishment candidates such as Mr. Paul, who have tapped into the energy of the tea-party movement and other frustrated conservatives.
Mr. McConnell, through a spokesman, declared his own support for the civil-rights law, calling it a “monumental achievement” for the country. “Among Sen. McConnell’s most vivid memories…was watching his boss, Sen. John Sherman Cooper, help pull together the votes to break the filibuster and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” said Don Stewart, the spokesman.
As his comments gained attention Thursday, Mr. Paul issued a statement saying that he wouldn’t support any efforts to repeal the 1964 civil-rights law. He went a step further in an interview with radio-show host Laura Ingraham, saying he would have voted for the act.
“Segregation, the Jim Crow laws—these things were so abhorrent that I think the South had failed and that the federal government had a role in ending discrimination in all of these practices,” Mr. Paul said.
Mr. Paul’s campaign didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act required the integration of schools and other public facilities, and it made employment discrimination illegal, among other provisions.
There were signs Thursday that Republican leaders were moving to bring Mr. Paul’s campaign into the establishment fold.
A Kentucky Republican official said the Paul campaign is expected to bring on Catherine Todd Bailey, a former U.S. ambassador to Latvia and a prominent Kentucky Republican fund-raiser, as the campaign’s finance chairman.
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading organizer of conservative activists, called the focus on Mr. Paul’s comments an “awkward” moment.
“Growing political movements work through awkward moments of new people acclimating themselves to the Emily Post understanding of how you do politics in America,” said Mr. Norquist.
Kentucky Democrats said Mr. Paul’s libertarian philosophy raised other questions about the role of the federal government they would press him to address.
Jack Conway, the Kentucky attorney general and Mr. Paul’s Democratic opponent in the Senate race, said Mr. Paul holds a “narrow, rigid philosophy that government shouldn’t deal with businesses at all.”
In an interview with National Public Radio Wednesday, Mr. Paul had expressed misgivings about the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Conway said his campaign would challenge Mr. Paul on whether the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and consumer-safety agencies should exist.
“It’s one thing to say you’re in favor of limited government and against big government. Those are phrases that resonate,” said Rep. John Yarmuth, a Democrat who represents Louisville. “But when you bring that into the real world and say how you’re going to apply those, obviously you get into trouble.”