Gangster Bolshevism on Zionism and the Jews

Gangster Bolsheviks are a very strange group that formed online. They are led by a good friend of mine. It is basically a strange political ideology. It has some problems with it, but there is nothing to worry about as it isn’t going anywhere anyway. I like them, but I am aware of their issues and deficiencies, which I am wary of. This is a pretty good position to take with regard to Jews, Zionism and Antisemitism. I feel that it sums up the various problems well and criticized Zionism and even the Jews themselves without being anti-Semitic which is a pretty hard thing to do. I know the leader of this movement very well, and whatever else he may be, I assure you that is not an antisemite! Of course most Jews would call this antisemitic, but most Jews are insane when it comes to the issue of antisemitism. Everything is antisemitic to the Jew. Antisemitism is everywhere, underneath every bed whether visible or not, lurking deep in the heart of every goy, even the nicest and most philosemitic of them. Screaming antisemitism all the time over nothing (for every ten people the Jew accuses of antisemitism, nine of those people are innocent. The problem here is that the most innocent critic of the Jews or everyone any Gentile who refuses to become a fawning philosemite gets incessantly bashed, harassed, abused and even threatened by paranoid Jewish lunatics. After a while, these people, who were not anti-Semitic to start with start to become anti-Semitic due to all the Jewish abuse. You hit  a man enough times and he might start hitting back. Paradoxically, this makes Jews happy since in a weird way, the more antisemites in the world (without having too many of the too extreme ones) the happier the Jews are. One truism about the Jews is that you can never take away the Jew’s victimhood. This is his prized possession, and he will virtually kill to retain possession of it. Without a world full of ugly haters always on the verge of genocide, there is no reason for the Jews to exist as a separate people who only breed in with their own kind. As antisemitism diminishes, Jews relax more, become less Jewish and “Jewy,” mingle more with non-Jews and start to marry out with Gentiles in droves. In this way any serious diminishment of antisemitism is a fatal stab to the heart of the Jews. Jews are no different from many humans in this way. The most cynical leaders of political movements and states know that it is always handy to have some enemies around. If everyone around is nice, well, just go and pick a few fights and create some brand new enemies and give yourself, your party, movement or nation a new reason to exist. GB statement begins here: ‘GB Antizionism’ denies that Jewish ethnocentrism is by default more evil than other forms of ethnocentrism, but criticizes the modern forms of Jewish ethnocentrism:

  1. Zionist Jewish power over the American Government (or any other non-Jewish Government).
  2. Zionist choice of location in Palestine, when Palestine is already the homeland of Palestinians.
  3. Insincere promotion of ‘multiculturalism’ in non-Jewish lands.
  4. ‘Neocon’ and Trotskyite ideologies (which are perversions of conservative and Marxist-Leninist ideologies respectively).
  5. Moral stigmatization of Holocaust Revisionism. Debunking it is acceptable, since debate is not an ethnocentric tactic.
  6. Use of controlled mass media to do all of the above (though television can be made irrelevant and obsolete).

Jewish ethnocentrism could take place in other forms, which are more desirable, but which have been forsaken in the name of a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine:

  1. In a mafia.
  2. In a revolution that is in the interest of the working class and majority ethnic group.
  3. In an Amish style traditional community.
  4. In an uninhabited separate nation with or without foreign aid from other governments.

Jewish ‘group loyalty’ is not intolerable under all circumstances but for specific reasons. We’re opposed to Zionist Jews ruling over Americans and Palestinians, insincere multiculturalism and subversion of existing ideologies (Marxism becomes Trotskyism, Conservatism become neoconservatism). We realize this insincere multiculturalism and subversion of existing ideologies occurs at the hands of non-Jews as well. Finally we realize that Jewish ethnocentrism is not dependent upon Jewish racial purity but Jewish psychology. We deny the total separation between eastern and western civilizations, noting that the Caucasian race originated outside of Europe and the European religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) except for paganism originated in the middle east. We recognize that Nordic traits are less common among Jews than Northern Europeans (not Southern Europeans) and realize that maternal ancestry transmits Jewishness (as well as Orthodox conversions), but still do not classify Jews as a race but an ethnoreligious group. Jews are also not a nation because they fail the ‘common territory’ requirement for nationhood (which is borrowed from Josef Stalin’s ‘Marxism and the National Question’). We promote non-Jews and ‘apostate’ Jews being wise to Jewish ethnocentrism instead of denying it. Zionist ideology and spying existed, though with less popularity, before Israel was officially a state. In general non-Jews and apostate Jews should be aware of Jewish ethnocentrism, but not obsessed with or opposed to it under reasonable circumstances. Individual Jews must choose either assimilation or self-reliance, but not parasitic behavior. If this is maintained for a few generation the parasitic behavior will disappear as non-Jews are wise to it and Zionists have less power. Jews may form a homeland in ‘open’ territories (areas that are not already occupied by a nationality) and Jews may become Palestinian and worship in Palestine as non-Palestinians. Our positions against antisemitism:

  1. We oppose attacking Jews as a ‘race’ (we have defined them already as an ethnoreligious community).
  2. We oppose ‘explanations’ that exclusively blame Jews for world predicaments while ignoring other factors.
  3. We oppose ‘Christian Antisemitism’ (and think the Jewish-invented god was stolen by Christians and Muslims).

How Many Jews Were Killed in the Holocaust?

Of course the Holocaust is real, and of course most of those denying it are wildly anti-Semitic. But how many were killed? The best figure is 5.7 million Jews killed. The Dean of Holocaust Studies, Martin Gilbert, estimates 5.1 million killed. Reasonable estimates go all the way down to I believe 4.2 million killed. Below that and you really are getting into Holocaust Denial territory. There is some very interesting evidence, that may be factual, that the true figure is actually more than 6 million Jews killed. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

The Racialized Politics of California

Anonymous writes:

RL: All of the hardcore, out and out racists that I know are conservatives. All the conservatives I know, vehemently insist that they AREN’T racists, and that their politics aren’t racist either. They truly, honestly believe they are just trying to be FAIR, and if a certain policy (eg, dealing with crime or welfare fraud), happens to have a “disproportionate impact” on a certain race, that’s their own damned fault for their disproportionate misbehavior. FWIW, a few of them are interracially married, or the product of such. You can disagree that conservatism actually is fair or wise (in fact, I know that you do — this is a socialist blog)… but… as an insider, I’m telling you their true inner motives. Correct or not, in their heads and hearts they THINK they’re just doing the right thing — they are NOT, repeat NOT, acting out of hate. Same for voting Republican. They honestly thought, 20 years ago, that the Republicans were the good guys. And they still honestly think, today, that the Republicans are the lesser of 2 evils. THAT is why they vote Republican. It has nothing to do with sending a “f*** you” to blacks. You must know a very strange set of conservatives. OR perhaps we define the term differently.

Here in the California, almost all of the interracial couples would automatically be Democrats. You won’t find any Republicans or conservatives interracially married. That is something that you would just never see. Here in California, you might find a few Black conservatives. I have met a few. But they were not interracially married, and they are rare as hen’s teeth anyway. Almost every Mexican American or Hispanic you meet here in this state is a Democrat. I can’t remember the last time I met a Hispanic Republican here in California, although when I was teaching school, I had some Hispanic kids who told me that their parents were Republicans. Their parents were Hispanics with high paying jobs. In general, as a Californian, you would wonder if Hispanic Republicans even exist. Most Asians are Democrats here in California. Japanese, Chinese and Korean Americans almost all seem to be Democrats. I can’t remember the last time I met one of those people who was a Republican. It is true that you will find quite a few Laotian, Vietnamese and Hmong Republicans here in this state. Some of them might even be married to White people. Politics here in California are unbelievably racialized. If you meet a White person here, there is a very good chance that they are Republicans who call themselves conservatives. If you meet an Hispanic, usually a Mexican American, they will almost always be a Democrat. Nearly every Black you meet except for a few will be Democrats. Most all NE Asians you will meet will be Democrats. It will be very common to run into SE Asian Republicans. They vote Republican because they fled from Communist regimes. Some other groups are hard to figure here in California. Jews: Mostly Democrats, but it is not unusual to meet a Jewish Republican. Arabs: All Arabs you meet will be Democrats. Indians, Punjabis and Pakistanis: I have no idea who they vote in my state. I have known a number of them, but I never talked politics with them. They don’t seem to be very interested in US politics. Armenians: Hard to say, maybe 50-50 split Democrats and Republicans. Ethnic Whites – Italians, Portuguese, Greeks, Spaniards, Yugoslavs, etc.: Very mixed, but at least in this part of California, many of them are now Republicans for some odd reason. If you see an “Hispanic” Republican around here, it’s almost always as Portuguese or in some cases a Spaniard. Other Hispanics (Central and South Americans): Apparently most of them are Democrats, but I haven’t asked many of them about their politics, so I don’t know. Central American neighborhoods in Los Angeles vote Democrat by high margins. Iranians: Not sure how they vote. I have known some of them, but we never talked politics. Filipinos: Probably vote Democratic. I have never talked politics with a Filipino, and I have known quite a few of them. They are not very politically involved. Filipino neighborhoods in Los Angeles probably vote very Democratic. American Indians: Almost all of them are Democrats, and they vote more than you think they do. Never heard of a Republican Indian. Is there such a thing. Bottom line is that the Republican Party here in California is a very White party and has been one for some time now. You will meet countless White conservatives and Republicans, but you will almost never meet one single non White Republican other than a SE Asian. If you see a conservative rally in this state, everyone holding a sign will be a White person, no exceptions. I have never been to a Republican Party meeting in this state, but I would imagine that everyone there would be a White person. By the same token, the Democratic Party in this state is becoming the party of all of the non-Whites and some of the Whites. Democratic Party functions here in this state are quite mixed, but most of the real activists in the party are White people. The other races are just not that involved in party politics enough to go to meetings and whatnot.

3 Jews, 10 Opinions

Hizzle writes:

I should add that the only intransigence to this project of transformation that I’ve detected from the Left came from the Jews Bernie Sanders and James Howard Kunstler.

What? Bernie Sanders is opposed to mass immigration?! I thought maybe Kunstler was. He is a great guy, totally outside the box. The thing about Jews is they like to think outside the box and take all sorts of wild, unorthodox opinions. They are natural rebels. 2 Jews, 3 opinions. Or rather, 2 Jews, 10 opinions. Jews do have a herd mentality on some stuff, mostly Jewish ethnic stuff, but there are always Jewish rebels no matter what cause you are talking about. Even Jewish religion says so. Jewish religion says that the Jews are always rebelling and God is always punishing them for their rebellion.

Auster Acts Stupid

Lawrence Auster is a pro-White Jew who may or may not be a White nationalist. He’s a member of the Alt Right. His pro-White views stem almost overwhelmingly from his dislike of Blacks. This dislike is common among many East Coast urban Jews. They grew up in older Jewish districts that turned heavily Black. Many grew up with Blacks. Others left but had older Jewish relatives or friends, often parents or grandparents, who stayed. Some of the worst and most up-front racists I ever met in the 1970’s were Jews from back East. One was from Jew York. The others were from Detroit. Once I was going over to the Detroit guy’s place in Newport Beach to buy some pot. He was a drug dealer, first pot and then cocaine. I had a Black guy with me, friend of mine from university, who wanted to buy some pot. The Jewish guy, JE, heard that a Black guy was coming and started laughing his ass off. He said no Blacks were allowed in his apartment. I told the Black guy, and he looked crushed, then sighed and said, “It’s ok,” and sent me in to buy the pot anyway. I got in there and tried to talk to JE, but he would not stop laughing. He was alternately laughing and talking about niggers. I got back to the car and tried to explain JE’s position to the Black guy, and he tried to understand. JE was from Detroit, a great city that more or less got ruined when Whites (and Jews) moved out and Blacks moved in en masse. Back in the 1970’s, such unapologetic racism was rare among the Whites I hung out with around LA and Orange Counties. I assume that this is the same thing that is going on with Auster. Auster is  a Christian convert from Judaism, and he is on board with the Christian Right against the Degeneration of America. He’s also a Libertarian, of course. Nevertheless, he’s still very much an ethnocentric Jew, and of course he’s a Zionist. He’s quite the Islamophobe. Like the Catholics, the Jews tend to take a bite out of you, almost from birth. I used to date this lady lawyer down in Orange County. She was active in the left wing of the Democratic Party, and so was I. We were both members of the Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED), Tom Hayden’s left Democratic Party thing he set up with Jane Fonda. I met a lot of nice, cute chicks in that group. Left politics is a great place to meet women. One time we were over at this guy’s house at a meeting. The guy said he was Catholic, but he wasn’t praciticing. The lady lawyer started laughing. “You can never leave the church. She said. They take a piece of you. You’re always a Catholic. It gets in your blood.” Judaism is much the same, as my Irish Catholic doctor suggested. “They take a piece of you then,” he chortled. “Just like the Catholics!” That’s about it. You can take the Jew out of the Jewish community, but you can’t take the Jewishness out of the Jew. Even converts out of Judaism or atheist Jews often retain a very strong Jewish identity and resulting ethnocentrism. You often wonder why they even bothered to convert as they haven’t really left the Jews at all! Here he is acting dumb about Islam, talking about Pat Buchanan:

Buchanan cannot acknowledge the true nature of either Nazism or Islam, because Nazism and Islam both require the destruction of the Jews, and therefore for Buchanan to oppose either Nazism or Islam would put him on the same side as the Jews, which would make Buchanan cease being Buchanan.

Islam requires the destruction of the Jews? The Jews lived under Islam for 1,300 years and they managed to survive. Some Jews live under Islam to the present day. Don’t see much destruction going on. On and off violence, yes. Destruction? No.

Why Do I Write About White People on Here?

A commenter asks:

Why the obsession with whiteness, Robert?

A few reasons. The first is that I love my people! I love them wherever they are on Earth. I support Pan-Aryanism, the unity of all the Whites or even Caucasians. I even or especially love my Caucasian brothers and sisters outside of Europe because they are so neglected and abused by some of my fellow Whites. I love being White. I wake up every morning, look up at the ceiling, and think, “Thank God for making me White!” I think everyone else should be free to feel just as good about their ethnicity as I do. But I want nothing to do with most pro-White people because almost all of them are racist jerks. I’m not interested in any kind of racist BS – I just love my people! I would support an anti-racist or non-racist pro-White movement, but it would probably never happen. To me pro-White just means feeling good about being White. It doesn’t mean up with the Whites and down with everyone else. As an internationalist, all workers are my brothers. The only enemies of the workers are our class enemies, the rich and the upper middle class. I am also very interested in the definition of Whiteness and how it is defined and whatnot. Caucasian is a real race for sure, not a social construct. The way Whiteness is defined, except by some Pan-Aryanists, is pretty much of a social construct, let’s face it. They define in everyone they like and they define out everyone they don’t like. Anyone who thinks Jews are not White needs to have their head examined. Just look at them.

White Nationalism is Based on a Social Construct

Mindy Minsky writes:

This is why White nationalism isn’t based on science. What Jared Taylor considers White is a social construct.

Yeah it’s bullshit. Stormfront has decided that Jews are not White. I think they ruled that Albanians are not either, and Turks, Georgians, Armenians, the Caucasus, Arabs or Iranians. There was a huge fight over Armenians a while back, and 300 Armenian Nazis were thrown off Stormfront. However, due to a policy change, they were allowed to come back on. It’s mostly Serbs and other Slavs that insist that Albanians are non-Whites. Stormfront has been silent on the subject of Georgians lately and I think a lot were allowed to join. Something similar was going on with Iranians, and I believe there are now Iranian Stormfronters. The name Iran is actually derived from the word “Aryan.” Even if you are being a White nationalist dick, you have to at least agree that there are White Turks, that Georgians, the Caucasus and Armenians are White, that Iran is basically White, and that there are White Berbers, White Turks and White Arabs. Look at Bashar Assad. Tell me that’s not a White man? Obviously, Stormfront Nazis have a political reason for saying that Jews are not White. But it’s such nonsense. If you want to be an honest White nationalist, you could say that Jews are a White tribe that is hostile to all the other White tribes, that often refuses to identify as White and that lines up with the enemies of the Whites. I am not a White nationalist, but that statement is actually more fair.

Are Jews Brighter Due to Mongoloid Genes?

Gay Area Girl writes:

I heard a someone speculate that Ashkenazim are more intelligent than Whites because they possess more Mongoloid genes due to being (supposedly) descended from the Khazars, and later accumulating genes from the Genghis Khan and his army, though inland Central Asian populations have significantly lower IQ’s than Coastal East Asians (source Huax.)

Ashkenazim are not smart due to Mongoloid genes. Those Khazarian genes are not that great for intellgience anyway. Turks have more genes from the Mongolian raiders are Jews do. Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis all have plenty of genes from Genghis Khan. So do the Hazara, who may well be the leftovers of Khan’s invasions. None of these groups are particularly bright.

               IQ*
Group
Ashkenazi Jews 118?
Mizrachi Jews   93
US Whites      103
Turks           93
Kazakhs         88
Afghans         86
Iranians        88
Iraqi           90
Hazara          86?

*IQ based on a US score of 100, which puts US Whites at 103. As you can see, the addition of genes from Khan’s conquerors doesn’t exactly do wonders for your IQ. We can see this by comparing the results in groups who have substantial introgression of genes from Khan’s invasions. If anything, Khazarian genes of genes from Khan’s raiders would have lowered the Ashkenazi IQ. The Ashkenazi IQ, without their sojourn in Europe, may well have ended up around 93, where the Mizrachi Jewish IQ is. We can also see that the introgression of 100 IQ White genes in a 90 IQ pre-Ashkenzi population is not enough to raise the figure up to the astounding 118. The best explanation is probably genetic selection pressures while the Ashkenazim were in Europe. The Ashkenazim practiced a form of Talmudic Judaism in their ghettos whereby the males were required to learn to read and study the Torah and the Talmud. The Talmud is 13,000 pages. This was during a time when few could read or write. Reportedly those who could not cut it simply converted to Christianity and left Judaism to marry Christian women. Also Jews highly valued intelligence. The rabbis would have virtual IQ tests to see who would marry their daughters. The boys would all compete to get the girl. The smartest boy would get the rabbi’s hottie daughter. Wealthier Jews and rabbis tended to have larger families. Later, Jews got into various trades such as money lending, banking and accounting which required a lot more brain work than that of your average Christian peasant, an uneducated serf toiling the soil. Presumably Jews who could not cut it may have left Judaism. Jews are extremely inbred, as can be seen by the number of genetic diseases that they have. Presumably this inbreeding has somehow selected for various genes promoting high intelligence. Car Guy writes:

The IQ structure of Jews is probably furthest from that of Mongoloids: More verbal, way less visuospatial. It’s more in line with Whites’, which isn’t surprising — Jews are essentially White people, thanks to centuries of mixing.

Car Guy is correct. The Jewish IQ looks very “White” or “European.” It doesn’t look East Asian at all. Of course Jews are White people – just look at them.

When White Nationalists Complain About Jews

Repost from the old site. Problem is, they usually end up sounding like this guy. German nationalism probably only dates to the 1880’s, and Italian, Russian and Pan-Slavic nationalism barely to the turn of the century. Otherwise, nationalism in the modern sense really only arose in Europe with the French Revolution (though it was present first in England in the 1600’s with the defeat of the Spanish Armada), but it took the other nations mostly until the end of the century to adopt nationalism. Modern European nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon. These modern nationalists pretty quickly took an interest in race along with the usual volkisch blood and soil bullshit. And most European nationalists agreed on one thing: the Jew was no good. More recently, in the very early 20th Century, Nordicism began to evolve in Germany and in the US and the UK. I once had a copy of a proto-Nazi book by a German race scientist delineating all of the races in Europe and the surrounding area detailed down to the last detail. It was published in 1918. This newer nationalism transcended the older nationalism of the one nation in an attempt to unite all Northwestern Europeans under some sort of a superior Nordic or White Race. At the same time, pan-Slavism and even Islamism developed (Yes, modern Islamism only dates to around 1900 or so). Southern Europeans were quickly defined out of the equation by Nordicists, especially in the US where they were widely despised, but Hitler actually put Meds second only to Nordics. He hated Slavs, but this was mostly because he said they were a “slave race”. They were a slave race apparently because they had allowed themselves to be enslaved by Jews in the form of Jewish Bolshevism or Communism. The fascists’ main beef with Communists was that the Communists tended to be anti-nationalist. And it’s simple to see why Jews have been in the forefront of seeing that White ethnic consciousness or nationalism is dead and buried forever. This is why the anti-racists (who, granted, do bash away at Whites) are so often Jewish. This is why Noel Ignatiev (Jew) has founded an organization to make Whites go away forever. This is why Tim Wise (Jew) exists. This is why Jews so often decline to identify as White. This is why there are so many Jews on the board of the NAACP. This is why Jews pushed the 1965 Immigration Act and could well be why they pushed civil rights so hard. Let’s face it: it’s hard to believe that US Jews really care about civil rights while they support their KKK-Jewish brethren in Israel so strongly. KKK types are only bad when they are non-Jewish? KKK-Jews (Zionists) are ok, but KKK Whites are not? Forget it. There must be another motive. All of this Jewish behavior made the White Pride crowd dislike Jews more and more with every punch in the ring. Anti-Semitism is not monolithic; some of it is pretty harmless stuff and unfortunately a lot of it is even true to one degree or another. But the Jews have never acknowledged that truth is a defense against anti-Semitism. Yet when you start talking about your blond hair and blue eyes and your White race and White blood and then start slamming away at Jews, people, especially Jewish people, do tend to see historical parallels that are not necessarily present in other anti-Semitic brands. Face it, of all of the anti-Semites all down through time, these were the most efficiently deadly of them all. So while Jews will often shrug at other forms of “anti-Semitism” (especially anti-Judaism, which arguably is not necessarily even anti-Semitism at all but instead religious apologetic), the White Pride anti-Semites do tend to hit Jews in a particularly hard way. And who could blame them?

Jewish Money in US Politics

Ishmael writes, about Jewish political and money power:

It’s simply due to the Jews raising money and influencing the political process. They don’t organize and control the world in smoke filled rooms in the deli basement. Ashkenazi Jews are rats that make tons of money, but the same could be said about other minorities in countries across the world (see Indonesia). Once out of their ghettos, they do their best to assimilate, unlike the insular, but successful, Asians that have comparable IQ’s but don’t really climb to the top.

That’s all it is. Jews make tons of money, and they use that money to throw their weight around in the political process to favor various outcomes. The only real “Jewish” thing they promote is pro-Israel politics. I can’t think of any other US political process that they are all behind. Their politics tends to be progressive, but there are definitely rightwing rich Jews out there (Adelson). It’s just that the Jewish money is such a huge factor that you can’t go against them on Israel or you get destroyed. Also they will use their media power to destroy any politician who goes against them on Israel. So Jewish money has corrupted the US political process in terms of pro-Israel bias, but that’s about the only variable that it works on. Obviously, blatant anti-Semites are not going to get any Jewish money, but we haven’t had any seriously anti-Semitic candidates in forever here in the US. The “Jews own America” meme is rather weak, but it also ought to be noted that Americans are nowadays a bunch of “Jew-lovin’ fools.” A more philosemitic populace scarcely exists on Earth. The American people  support Israel ideologically anyway, even without all that Jewish money. I am actually glad for Jewish money, as frankly it funds the Democratic Party in the US. One of the recent Karl Rove projects was to make the Republicans more pro-Israel than the Democrats and therefore starve the Democrats of Jewish money, killing the party. It didn’t really work. Sure, Jews are very Zionist and they don’t like the soft on Israel crowd, but there’s nothing a Jew hates worse than these fundamentalist Christian clowns. Even secular Jews really don’t like either Christians or Christianity much (trust me, I have been around Jews my whole life) but they really don’t like these fundies. The Jews are deeply suspicious of them and consider them to be religious fanatics.

Opium for the People

“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” — Napoleon.

A few decades before Marx, a few folks already had it all figured out. Twenty years after the Jacobin Liberation, another great liberation was planned, this time of all of Europe. Across the continent, from Lisbon to Moscow, there was one ancien regime after another. Bonaparte, prefiguring Woodrow Wilson and the democracy-spreading neocons, was out to liberate them all. A spectre haunted Europe, the spectre of Napoleon. The lords and royals trembled in their boots. Feudalism had barely been overthrown in much of the land, and in decrepit or pure forms it struggled on. All across Europe, progressive, liberals and what passed for the Left supported Napoleon. The Modern Right, defined by Burke for the first time during the Revolution, shook with fear. Prior to Burke, the Right was only those who ruled in the name of God. In his own land, Napoleon opened the gates of the Jewish ghettos, extended full rights to them and in so doing, to all minorities. With the stroke of a pen, he extended what was nearly the world’s first full rights to minorities. Previously, human society had always been the usual zero-sum game, majority rule meant majority abuse, and it was never easy being a minority. After centuries in the ghetto, the Jew emerged a pitiful and damaged creature. Progressives and liberals all over Europe took up the cause of the assimilation of the Jews, the only logical response to the plight of the Jews. As Napoleon is the father of all modern Jews in sense, so was he the father of the modern Jewish progressive spirit. It is little known, but prior to Napoleon, the Jews had always been deeply conservative. Their politics was the usual reactionary politics of the rich. As they emerged from the ghettos and tasted real discrimination, the Jews became lit with the fire of revolution. If the Jews could be liberated, then so could all men. It was from here that the Jewish reform movements sprang, and passionate Jews, eyes lit with fire, burst forth to be a light unto nations. This was the impetus for the 200 years of Jewish reformers, progressives, liberals and revolutionaries that followed. By the late 1800’s, Jewish reaction had had enough. Orthodox Judaism was formed, really just the old reconstituted rabbinic superstition and stultifying stupidity of the ghetto. Several decades later, nationalist revolutions rocked all of Europe. The empires, religious and otherwise, were crumbling. The era of the nation-state (in its own way really a democratic movement at core), for better or for worse, had begun. The same year Marx published his Manifesto. In another 2 or 3 decades, the streets of Paris would run red with blood, and the Paris Commune was smashed. 30,000 corpses lay in the Parisian streets. The Age of Revolution had begun, but really it all started in 1812 via a proud little man, his hand warming in his coat.

The Jews of Germany, 1918-1933

Gay Area Girl writes:

What exactly happened between 1918-1933 in Germany? To what extent were ordinary Jews involved or sympathetic to the European Jewish elite?

By 1932, Jews were After WW1, many Germans attacked German patriotism and nationalism as sort of a toxic element that had led the nation into the ruins of war. Many of those doing were Jewish intellectuals, comedians, show biz types, etc. They were basically correct, but your average German was not in a mood for careful self-reflection. It probably is not true that the German Jews “stabbed the nation in the back.” It is true that American Jews led a huge media propaganda campaign to get the US into the war, probably in return for getting the British to agree to give the Jews Palestine via the Balfour Amendment in 1917. So the US Jews really did drag the US into the war. However, many US Jews were German Jews and they actually supported Germany in WW1. In Germany, most German Jews were patriots during the war. During the 1920’s, the German economy collapsed, but at the same time, Berlin became very decadent, a sort of a playground for the rich and famous all over Europe. There was a lot of decadent and depraved behavior going on with regard to sex, drugs, boozing, etc. There was also a lot of homosexuality and bisexuality in the scene. There were all sorts of folks involved in what was basically just a decadent artsy scene, but a number of them were Jewish. This whole decadent scene got tagged as “Jewish.” Your average German was a cultural conservative and thought the Berlin scene was sick and depraved. Around 1920, German Communists attempted to seize power via a violent revolution. A number of people were killed in this endeavor, which led to a short lived Bavarian Socialist Republic. The Communists basically failed in their revolution, and history is not kind to losers. Many of the leaders of the German Communists were Jews, including Rosa Luxembourg. Your average middle class German was horrified by the specter of Communism and blamed the German Jews for it. But many German Jews were very rich and did not support Communism at all. There was a lot of class war going on the 1920’s. A trade union would try to shut down a factory via a strike. The leadership of the trade union would be Jewish. The factory owner himself, a Jew, would fight the trade union in an often bloody street fight to keep the factory open. Hitler looked at this and instead of seeing what was logically intra-Jewish class war instead saw a conspiracy in which the Jewish factory owner and the Jewish trade union leadership conspired in a fake battle in order to create chaos and tear the nation asunder. The German workers never supported the Nazis. They always supported the Socialists (Social Democrats) and Communists. Nazism was basically a middle class movement of the petit bourgeois, as most fascism tends to be. The German industrialists went along with Nazism simply as a way to crush the Left. They didn’t like the racism very much, but they thought Hitler was all talk, and it would never get out of hand. In short, they didn’t think he would do what he said. In this way, they were similar to the US rich, who go along with far right populist extremism on social and other issues in order to get the Right Populists votes on pro-rich economics. But these same US rich don’t think that the rightwing social issue crazies are going to implement their project. Your average rich American doesn’t give a damn about abortion or gay marriage or any of that stuff. In this way, the rich always play with fire when they attempt to manipulate rightwing populism to their advantage. The German Left split and would not work together. The German Communists called the Social Democrats “Social Fascists” and condemned them. The two often had street fights and would not unite against the Right. There was a lot of sheer fanaticism in Germany. Eric Hoffer, in his book The True Believer, wrote how many Germans would support the Communists one week and then the Nazis another. They would go back and forth between the two, even though they were supposedly at the opposite ends of the spectrum and hated each other. In this sense, the political spectrum may be seen as more circular than linear, and the Far Left and Far Right almost seem to meet at the bottom of a circle.

The Jews and the Banks: History as Parable

Creeders writes:

Can experts of Jewish history share some ideas on what actually happened in Germany and Europe from 1914-1945? I need further pointers. I did some detailed research on this topic. The outcome of my studies found a conclusion quite different from that found in any history book. Other extremely interesting topics would be: 1) Jewish role in Bolshevik Revolution and their roles in taking down USSR. (The Russian billionaire mobs are almost 10 2) Jewish bankers and their wealth. Rothschild is suspiciously absent from Forbes’ list of the rich. They are now being portrayed as a dead dynasty. But if you look at many deals, you could find shadows of Rothschild. I am a Christian. I do not hate Jews. But I have the feeling from what I have gathered that a true look history will inevitably stir up resentment towards the Jews. However, I think truth is more important, never mind it might cause anti-Semitism.

Jews did play a prominent role in the Bolshevik Revolution, and this was a source of much anti-Semitism among those who hated Communism and associated the Jews with it. However, the Bolsheviks also had mass support among the exploited Orthodox workers and peasants of the USSR. The Jews used to control much of the banking of the world, and this was the cause of much anti-Semitism. However, they never got control over US banking, thought they made a run on it from 1900-1920. There was a concerted conspiracy on the part of wealthy Jews to grab control of the US banks so the Jews could have the banks. US bankers were mostly anti-Semitic Christians in those days. US publications were also often ran by Christians who were not afraid to criticize the Jews. The conspiracy worked like this. The Jews would buy Christian banks. Once the Jews had a bank, they would sell it, but only to another Jew, never to a Christian. Bankers caught wind of this conspiracy and blew the whistle on the Jews, stopping them in their tracks. So they did not succeed at all in this effort. However, the whistle was blown much later in a similar Jewish conspiracy to control US investment banking. The result was that the Jews made inroads into US investment banking which they retain to this day. The Jews did not get control over US investment banking, but they ended up with a significant share. Around the same time, similar Jewish conspiracies were hatched to control both Hollywood and the US mass media. These were initialized by wealthy Jews were were getting nervous about racist US Hollywood and newspapers. In particular, Jews were very worried about such films as Birth of a Nation. Jews didn’t really care about Blacks that much, but they worried that this sort of White Christian racism (sort of nascent White nationalism) could end up being directed at the Jews. Numerous papers were in the hand of overtly White Christian racists. The Jews also were worried that this press racism could be directed at the Jews at some time. So runs were made on US papers and Hollywood. Hollywood was grabbed for the Jews, and they retain it to this day. The papers were also grabbed, and Jews continue to dominate the US papers. From their controlling position in the US papers, Jews then grabbed control over US broadcasting, which they controlled for many years. Jews continue to  have a probable dominant position in US radio and particularly television. The fact that the Jewish runs on US banking and investment banking were halted (a similar run Jewish conspiracy to control Wall Street was also stopped dead) shows that a certain amount of protective anti-Semitism is necessary in order to retain majority control over a nation where a feverish Jewish minority works as a tribe to gain control over a nation’s institutions. It’s not right for a This also shows that a nation that completely loses its potential for protective anti-Semitism like in a sense like a body that has shut down it’s immune system. It can easily be invaded and conquered by foreign bacteria and viruses (Sorry for the inadvertent Nazi analogy!). White blood cells, both figuratively in nations and actually in corporeal bodies, are there for a reason. The Jews used to run the banks of Europe. Well, a thing call the Holocaust ended all of that. The Holocaust was a horrible thing, but it’s an ill wind that blows no good. Jewish domination of European banks wasn’t really good for European Jews or Gentiles in the long run, and in fact it was one of the spurs of the deadly Holocaust. If grabbing the banks of Europe ended up getting countless Jews killed, that power grab simply was not worth it for the Jewish people. Presently, Jews just don’t run the banks anymore anywhere, except in Israel. Banks are generally monochromatic corporate multinational institutions, as parasitic as ever but devoid of any particular dominant ethnic grouping. They are simply run by the It’s a class thing, not an ethnic thing anymore.

Do the Jews Deserve All This Attention?

Gay Are Girl writes:

Kevin MacDonald is too obsessed with Jews for his own good. Jews just don’t deserve that kind of attention.

Ah the Hell with the Jews. The Jews are boring. Yawn. The only people who think Jews are all that are Jews themselves and anti-Semites. I really don’t think the Jews deserve all this importance. Simone Weil, the great French writer and Jew converted heroically to Christianity, described Judaism as like a stage where the stage is darkened except for a single spotlight that focuses on a main actor, who is moving about or giving a speech. All the audience is focused on that actor in the spotlight. Everything else is dark, the rest of the stage, even the audience. In Judaism, the actor in the spotlight is simply the Jews. The rest of the world is there, but it is in darkness, so in a sense it is as if fact the entire Gentile World simply does not even exist. All that exists is the Jews, their trials and tribulations, their books and whatnot. That is why some Medieval Jews even built their own ghettos, and a Medieval Jew would not even drink tea or break bread with a Gentile. This was done to create walls, figurative and real, between the Jews and the rest of the world. If you refuse to eat or have tea with 9 It’s often said that Jews hate non-Jews. There is some truth to this of course, but Weil’s analogy is better. More properly, to the religious Jew, the rest of us simply do not even exist at all! How can you hate a black hole, a cipher, a phantom, something that is not even there? In order to hate something, first of all it must exist. An object not even created into existence cannot exist long enough to be hated. Of course, if something does not exist, you can’t really care about it either, but that’s another matter. On a Usenet board, a wise fellow who was also, it is true, an anti-Semite, said that Jews saw non-Jews as like that pet lizard you have in your terrarium or like those deer out in your yard wandering around and grazing on your plants. Even if you are an animal lover, your lizard or your yard deer are just not on the same level as your fellow humans. They are something else, and yes, they are also something on a lower plane. There is truth to this too, but I still like the spotlight analogy better. The Jew sees himself and his kin as not just the center of the world but as the center of the universe. It’s a fallacy, but we give credence to this unpleasant fantasy by going on and on about the Jews and, as the anti-Semite does, placing them in a central position in our universe as some sort of focal point of omnipotent and omnipresent evil that must be combated. The philo-Semite in mirroring Jewish solipsism and narcissism and the anti-Semite in also imitating the Jew by placing him a central place (but in contrast to the Jew, as evil and not as good) both flatter the Jews and fuel-inject their obnoxious and silly chauvinism. Don’t fall for it.

Victim Addiction Works: Blacks Increasingly Ape Jewish Paranoia

Every time I check in with Black people, they sound more and more like Jews. And that is not a compliment! This is what Jews do. If you start writing or talking about Jews, Jews get super suspicious instantly. They start looking all agitated. Neurotic Jewish kook (NJK): “Whoa! Why are you talking about us! Whoa! Why did you write an article about us? What’s going on here anyway?” Innocent Gentile (IG): “Well, you know, I think about Jews a lot nowadays…” More alarm. NJK: “Whoa! Why are you thinking about us a lot? That’s very alarming! Why do you think about us a lot?” IG: “Oh, I don’t know. Jews are interesting. I’m fascinated by them.” NJK: “Whoa man! You’re obsessed with us! Dude that is like so alarming!” The basic idea that the Jew has is that any non-Jew who is reading, writing, talking or even thinking about Jews “too much” (which really means at all) is automatically an extremely disturbing and frightening person because it’s assumed that any Gentile who shows a lot of interest in Jews is probably an anti-Semite. The response of the Jew is typical. NJK: “Whoa dude! Stop reading about us, man! Put those books away! Whoa! You sure are talking about us a lot! Stop talking about us, dammit! Shut up! Whoa! You’re writing about Jews! Dude! That is like really alarming! You are really scaring me! You’ve got to stop writing about us right the fuck now!” Then the Jew gets really worried and starts asking all these weird suspicious questions to try to figure out if you’re an anti-Semite or not. Even if you say nothing incriminating, he doesn’t really believe you, and he’s still looking you up and down like a detective. Typically, this probing reveals some “evil” anti-Semitic attitudes (as defined by Jews, which just means anything Jew-critical in any way, shape or form). Then the Jew reacts in various ways, either saying you are stereotyping to saying, “Hey, that’s anti-Semitic man come on.” That’s the mild form, if he still likes you. They can get way worse all the way to severely abusive, threatening, menacing, terrorizing and homicidal. At worst, they begin investigations into you like stalkers and contact your neighbors, employer, etc. to try to smear your name or get you fired. Bottom line is I am seeing Blacks do this more and more. Acting like a bunch of Jews! Which, really, to me, is just shameful. Proud, strong Black people aping, of all people, the paranoid-masochistic, victim-addicted, fanatically vindictive, stalkerish, harassing and totalitarian Jews, altering between shivering huddled in the corner and swinging a baseball bat at your head. Really now. Come on, Black people. You can do better than that.

Are Asian Women Nicer Than American White Women?

Bhabi wrote:

I hear that White American men have a huge fetish for East Asian women and looks wise I don’t get it, though there are some very pretty East Asian women, I think the American men just expect that they are in general “nicer” than White American women, and who knows, maybe they are, but somehow I doubt it. Asians, and that includes South Asians like my people too, are more upwardly mobile obsessed than Americans and can be totally merciless gold and status diggers. Pick your poison, boys!

Oh Hell yeah! Asian women are way nicer than White American women! If you get with an Asian chick from another country who has no money (makes an average salary in that land) she will not be a gold digger at all. You will seem like a millionaire to her anyway even if you are poor. Asian-American women, it is true, can be merciless gold-diggers. They are extremely materialistic to the point of insanity. My brother married a Vietnamese woman who is an outrageous gold digger. Her gold digging is so out front that it would seem offensive to most Americans. She’s into MONEY big-time. Jewish women have a reputation for being gold diggers, but it is not that well earned. Instead, they badger and pester you to be successful and make money. Not that they marry for money per se. A lot of Jews are kind of nerdy, leftwing and not particularly materialistic types nowadays. Hispanic women are very low on the materialism scale. Especially if you get one from overseas, she will think you have a million bucks because she is just poor. Plus, Latins in general are more relaxed and not obsessed with money. Hispanic women are also generally very nice and sweet, especially if you treat them well. But once they dump you if they think you mistreated them (as in cheating on them for example) they go cold as ice too just like Asian women. The legend of the hot and cold ranting and raving Latin bitch is in my opinion largely illusory. I was hanging out with a Brazilian woman here in the US for a while, and she was friends with an older Brazilian woman. The young one, a 19 year old, basically cut it off with me for some reason that I don’t recall. The older one said something like, “Well, she doesn’t want to hurt your feelings. We Brazilian women are raised not to challenge men or hurt men’s feelings. We avoid confrontations with me.” I thought, this is one cool culture! American Indian women can also be pretty nice in a deferential sort of way. I have known many, many Asian women, and especially immigrants are extremely nice, way, way, way nicer than American White women. They’re basically trained to be submissive and deferential to men and to not start shit with me. All women must be like this! I was involved with a Taiwanese woman at university, and even when she was being a total bitch, it was almost laughable, because her Taiwanese megabitch mode was about the same as how most White women act normally! As far as how White women get when they are bitchy, well, she just didn’t go there. I dumped her though and then she turned into an extreme hater evil Chinese Dragon Lady from Hell. The coldest and meanest icewomen you have ever seen on the face of the Earth! I see why Chinese guys keep them under control! They have a hidden bitch factor that’s colder than the North Pole. If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Review of Peter Fritzsche's Germans Into Nazis, by Robert John

Repost from the old site. I am proud to present a book review by a new guest author, Robert John. His biography is at the end of the piece. In this piece, he reviews a book by Peter Fritzsche, Germans into Nazis. This book takes on, in part, a thesis by a best-selling book by Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners. Goldhagen’s book was wildly controversial, to say the least. His thesis was that Nazism was a normal evolution of the virulent anti-Semitism inherent in German society for decades, if not centuries. An anti-Semitism spanning all of society, from top to bottom, urban to rural. Goldhagen gives examples of how ordinary Germans knew full well the nature of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews, but either did nothing about it, or cheered it on. He cites postcards sent back by German soldiers to family at home, telling gleefully about how the soldiers were massacring Jews on the Front. The reaction to Goldhagen’s book was ferocious, much of it coming from conservative Catholics, anti-Semites and German nationalists but also from serious scholars. To this day, Goldhagen is a favorite whipping boy of anti-Semites and Holocaust revisionists and deniers, except that their own behavior seems to prove Goldhagen correct. So those who hate Jews take exception to Goldhagen saying that Germany was a nation of Jew-haters. One would think they would cheer this assertion on? Regarding this review, here are some facts for those lacking background in this matter: After World War 1, Germany was hobbled at the Treaty of Versailles with horrible reparations that were essentially unpayable and ruined the economy. John points out correctly that Versailles led logically to the rise of Nazism. Immediately afterwards, in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution, German Communists attempted to overthrow the state. They were defeated. German anti-Communists, including most of the middle class, noted that many of the leaders of the Communist revolutions in Russia and Germany were Jewish. History is not kind to losers. For better or worse, German Jews were blamed for a few of them having led the failed German revolution. In the 1920’s, Germany had a series of very unstable governments known as the Weimar Republic. At the same time, there was widespread political violence in the streets, often between Communists and socialists on one side and nationalists and proto-fascists on the other. The economy was devastated and it took a wheelbarrow full of worthless money to buy a loaf of bread. At the same time, a wealthy and decadent class lived it up in the nightclubs of Berlin. Many of this decadent artist class were Jewish and many were also homosexuals and bisexuals. The movie, Cabaret, starring Liza Minnelli, about the life of gay author Christopher Isherwood, was set in Weimar Berlin. Comedians and artists, many of whom were Jewish, ridiculed German nationalism and the things that patriotic Germans held dear to their hearts. This nationalism, along with traditional German culture, was held by these artists as having led to the war and the disastrous defeat. Enraged German nationalists saw only decadent urbanites, many of them Jewish, attacking German culture and values. Further, the decadent lifestyle in Berlin enraged traditional elements in Germany. The wild life of the rich in the cities aroused rage amongst the immiserated poor, workers and middle classes. While German Gentiles were being economically ruined, many German Jews had avoided economic destruction by stashing their money outside the country early in the crisis. No doubt this led to charges that the Jews were failing to invest in Germany. In the late 1920’s and early 1930’s, as German property values plummeted, German Jews were able to return bring their money back and buy up much of the country for 10 cents on the dollar. By 1932, German Jews, After quotas on Jews in government jobs, the professions and universities were lifted in the 1920’s, the ranks of attorneys, doctors, judges and law professors were quickly filled by high-IQ Jews. 1/2 of German law professors and Berlin attorneys were Jewish. 1/3 to 1/2 of Berlin doctors were Jewish. 2 Many Germans were outraged at the overnight Jewish success and implied humiliation of German Gentiles and insisted that the Jews must have cheated to get these positions. Just before they seized power, Nazi propagandists made much use of these figures. They also claimed that most politicians and civil servants were Jews, which was not true. Only a few high-ranking civil servants were Jewish. There were few Jewish politicians – during the entire Weimar Period, there were only 8 Jewish members of the Reichstag from Berlin. After 1922, there were almost no Jewish Cabinet ministers. Similar claims that most pickpockets were Jewish and that German prisoners were filled with Jews were also false. Looking at figures from 1925, only 1.0 As you can see, the Nazis were engaging in some scapegoating and out and out lying about German Jews. The Weimar Regimes (republican democracy) seemed to be powerless to remedy any of these problems. Democracy came to be seen as symbolic with ineffectual government that fiddled while the nation burned, with decadent intellectuals and artists who attacked beloved German culture and values, with an outrageous gap between rich and poor, and with a disastrous economy. So the Nazis ran on a platform of “the Hell with democracy”. At the same time, similar fascist movements were spreading across Europe, especially Central and Eastern Europe, where most nations had fascist governments during this period. Even Finland and the Baltics had fascist governments. Fritzsche’s book points out that the Nazis succeeded due to good old politics, Karl Rove style. They appealed to workers, women and liberals, though their program was secretly hostile to all three. They attacked social conservatism and the rich while hiding the fact that support for these elements was an essential nature of their project. Even the name “National Socialists” was chosen along the same lines, to co-opt the rising Socialist and Communist movements in Germany. By playing such dishonest political games, they gained support of socialists, Communists, liberals and even some Jews. While the socialists and Communists seemed boring or dangerous, the Nazis were all about getting Germans to feel good about themselves and have fun at the same time. Instead of Reagan’s “Morning in America”, it was “Morning in Germany”. After they seized power, no German socialist or Communist was fooled by the Nazi lies about being a socialist party. In fact, at its core, Nazism was hostile first and foremost to liberals, union members, socialists and Communists. Communists, socialists and union members were the first to go the concentration camps, Dachau being the most famous. The Jews were number four on the list, after these three! After they seized power, at the Night of the Long Knives, the Left Nazis were all killed or driven out of the party. Through the 1930’s, most of the German Left went to ground, fled the country or took up arms against the government. The German Communist Party declared war on the Nazi regime during this period. The name “National Socialists” has confused many people, including rightwing ideologues. There is much more to the refutation of the disgusting rightwing lie, “Nazis were a leftwing, socialist movement” but I will save it for another post. I realize that a quick, ignorant, emotional read of this piece could lead one to the conclusion that it is some defense of Nazism. If you read it closely, intelligently and soberly, you should notice that it is nothing of the kind. I hope you enjoy John’s piece.

Those Abnormal Germans? Understanding Goldhagen Robert John*

Germans into Nazis Peter Fritzsche Harvard University Press, 1998 269 pages. ISBN 0-674-35091-X The history of this century has been dominated by the horrors that came from the inferno of World War I. The rise of Nazism in Germany is only comprehensible by taking into account the national hardships and frustration provoked by defeat and the harsh and punitive treaty of Versailles, in which President Wilson played the leading role. Peter Fritzsche, professor of history, University of Illinois, and the author of Reading Berlin 1900 (Harvard), gives an account of what gave the German National Socialists their electoral victories in 1932 and why. Why were 37.4 percent of German votes cast for the Nazis in the July 1932 legislative elections, when for the first time they became the largest party; the SPD was second with 21.6 percent? Half a century after their destruction, new accounts of German National Socialism, and its leader, still contend for space on bookstore shelves. Many seek to explain German support for a leader portrayed as the most dangerous archfiend of recorded history, or to analyze the dynamics of that leader himself. Daniel Goldhagen, in his best-selling book Hitler’s Willing Executioners, suggested that Hitler was little more than a midwife in a German war against the Jews. Goldhagen blamed successful appeal to widespread German anti-Jewish prejudice for the Nazi victories. He alleged that by the time Hitler came to power in 1933, racial anti-Semitism had already made Germany “pregnant with murder.” Fritzsche gives an account of some of the confusion of patriotism and social turbulence from 1918 to 1933. He quotes the Berliner Tageblatt of 10 November 1918:

Yesterday morning . . .everything was still there – the Kaiser, the chancellor, the police chief – yesterday afternoon nothing of all that existed any longer.

The March 1917 Menshevik Revolution in Russia was being re-enacted in Germany, with Friedrich Ebert playing the role that Kerensky had played in Russia the year before. With knowledge of the red terror the Bolsheviks were waging in Russia, and some awareness that the majority of their leaders were Jewish, gave grounds for the development of a counterrevolution with anti-Semitic elements. Like most other historians of the Allied Powers, Fritzsche omits significant reference to Allied failure to honor President Wilson’s Fourteen Points for peace which were announced by him on 8th January 1918. It was on their basis, and Wilson’s declaration a month later: that there were to be no annexations, no contributions, and no punitive damages, that General Ludendorff had recommended to Field-Marshall Hindenburg that Germany ask for an Armistice. Diplomatic exchanges followed until 23rd of October. On that day, Wilson informed the German government that, were he compelled to negotiate with the military rulers and monarchist autocrats, he would demand not peace negotiations but a general surrender. The Kaiser abdicated. In his haste to present the circumstances and appeal of National Socialist policies to the German people at the beginning of the 1930’s, Fritzsche also skips reference to the continued Allied food blockade of Germany for nearly six months after the war had ended. Even the German Baltic fishing fleet, which had augmented German food supplies during the war, was prevented from putting to sea. (See The Politics of Hunger: The Allied blockade of Germany, 1915-1919, Vincent, C. Paul, Ohio Univ. Press, 1985, and the Kathë Kollwitz lithograph Deutschlands Kinder hungern – Germany’s Children are Starving.) In the spring of 1919, both the putting down of Communist insurrections in Berlin, Bremen, and Munich and breaking of general strikes in Halle, Magdeberg and Braunschweig by a Freikorps of nationalist volunteers, temporarily suspended the threat of a repetition of the Bolsheviks’ October revolution in Russia. When the Freikorps finally disbanded, they left behind a loose confederacy of secret organizations, veterans’ groups, and rifle clubs. Organization by both the Left and the Right seems to have satisfied a popular need for feelings of solidarity and renewal. By 1924 there were signs that this social activity was taking a more coherent political form. New organizations were also distinctive for being more open to women, who established their own auxiliaries, and attended patriotic celebrations. Activities for women, common in international socialist organizations, were included in nationalist events in community life. Brass bands and choral societies joined in what looked more like a family celebration than a wartime field service. The wife of an engineer described a new look in her city streets: groups of young people passing by, singing patriotic songs. In midsummer her daughter Irmgard, living in Nordheim, looked forward to Sunday’s flag consecration and dance.

Everywhere there is great excitement . . . all the regimental associations are coming, even the riflery clubs. (p. 134)

Fritzsche chooses such illustrations of entertainment and excitement, rather than negative appeals, that drew many of the young and others away from the blandness of the Social Democrats, and the preaching of international revolution, “Workers of the world: Unite,” of the Communists. ‘For good reasons or bad, Germans turned indifferent to the Weimar Republic, but they did not remain inactive or apathetic. The real consequence of the revolution was not so much the parliamentary government it secured as the organization and activism of thousands of constituents it made possible. The new Germany can best be found in the humdrum mobilization of interest groups, veterans’ associations, and party branches and in the self-authorization of a hundred voices, libelous, illiberal, and chauvinistic as they may have been. It is a sad but compelling paradox that the hostile defamations of the president of the republic were as indicative of democratization as the presidency of good-willed Fritz Ebert himself’ (p.136). In the hard economic times of 1930,when the social welfare programs of the state were being cut back, the Nazis erected a “rudimentary shadow welfare state” for their supporters, responding to the crisis in a concrete way. They never made the mistake of Hugenberg’s German Nationalists of holding political meetings in the best hotel in town. During a metalworkers strike, striking party members were fed three times daily in Nazi pubs. Womens’ groups associated with the party were particularly active. National Socialist speeches and propaganda repudiated the narrow politics on the “reactionary” bourgeois parliamentarians and the proliferating interest groups and splinter parties. In speech after speech at mass rallies, Hitler and his followers tended to address voters as citizens, rather than as blocs or constituents, and repeated again and again the need to solve local problems by liberating the entire nation from republican misrule. (In Britain a National Government was set up in 1931 with slogans of unification, patriotism, insulation, planning, etc.) The National Socialist message brought to the people in town after town was not the class consciousness of Hindenberg’s upper class, nor its representation in the primacy of ‘the class struggle’ of the Communists and Socialists; instead, national solidarity was the answer to Germany’s vexing problems: social reform, economic productivity, the shameful peace. There was a deliberate attempt to enroll Germans in a collective destiny and to present Hitler as a national savior rather than a solicitous politician (Fritzsche, p. 195). Nazi propaganda very effectively portrayed political choices in Utopian terms: here was a party that opposed the present “system” and, once in power, would rebuild the nation. It was not just the modern methods of political campaigning that the Nazis used that brought them success; it was their message. With Hitler as Chancellor, workers who had watched the Social Democrats fight long and hard and always unsuccessfully to persuade the Reichstag to recognize 1 May as an official holiday, looked or listened to the Leader’s May Day speech to a disciplined mass at Tempelhof in 1933. All day the radio played the songs of “miners, farmers, and soldiers.” A “symphony of work” composed by Hans-Jurgen Nierentz and Herbert Windt, featured interviews with a dock worker from Hamburg, an agricultural laborer from East Prussia, a steel worker from the Saar, a miner from the Ruhr, and a vintner from the Mosel Valley. The crowd drank beer, ate sausages, and, in the evening, marveled at the fireworks. Should one wonder why many former Communist and international Socialists who joined the Nazis, came to be called “underdone beef:” —brown on the outside, still red on the inside? The Nazis distanced themselves from liberal state administrators, social conservatives, and traditional authoritarians. They were as dismissive of the Kaiserreich as they were of the Weimar Republic. ‘In short, the Nazis were ideological innovators.’ They met popular demands for political sovereignty and social recognition and insisted that these could only be achieved through national union, which would provide Germans with an embracing sense of collective identity and a strong role in international politics.

It was this far-reaching program of renovation that made the Nazis stand out and made them attractive to a plurality of voters. If Hitler and his followers had simply recirculated the anti-Semitism of Anton Drexler’s German Workers’ Party or blustered on about the shameless Treaty of Versailles or devoted all their energies to combating the Social Democrats and other treasonous “November criminals,” the movement would have stalled completely. This is exactly what happened to Wolfgang Kappa and the Freikorpsmen of 1919-1920 and also explains the demise of Alfred Hugenberg and the German Nationalists in 1924-1930. Instead, attacks on conservatives as well as Marxists, denunciations of local power arrangements as well as the national parliament, and an affirmative vision of a prosperous, technologically advanced nation gave the Nazis a sharp ideological edge. At a time when so much civic strife is defined in terms of cultural affinities it is all the more important, if sometimes difficult, to recall the force of ideology. Long-standing ethnic hatreds, religious fundamentalisms, and transnational “civilizations” dominate contemporary discussions about instability and unrest, which are frequently understood in terms of the friction between basically essential cultural qualities that have come into contact with one another. However, the Nazi phenomenon was not a hyperventilated expression of German values, even as it pronounced the allegedly superior quality of the German people. Nor was it the pathological result of economic hard times, instead National Socialism comprised a program of cultural and social regeneration premised on the superordination of the nation and the Volk and modeled very much on the public spirit and collective militancy of the nation at war.

Fritzsche concludes:

even as the Nazis upheld an integral, almost redemptive nationalism, they created new categories of outsiders, enemies, and victims. That system was neither accidental nor unanimous’ (p.235).

Some Jewish historians have noted almost marginally that National Socialist election material did not directly appeal to anti-Jewish sentiment (for example, Avraham Barkai’s From Boycott to Annihilation, Brandeis Univ. Press, 1987, 11, Saul Friedländer’s Nazi Germany and the Jews, Harper-Collins, 1997, 4), or Finkelstein and Birns’ A Nation On Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis, Henry Holt 1998). So why is the Goldhagen account and conclusion so different from that of Fritzsche? The parsimonious explanation is the ‘Zoom syndrome.’ This is a tendency to magnify items supporting the prejudices of the observer. Goldhagen focuses on German critics of Jews or practices associated with them, and projects these as anti-Semitism leading to a program of Jewish extermination. His premise is—unchecked criticism of Jews leads to a ‘Holocaust.’ With this ‘tunnel vision,’ he is deprived of depth and width of perspective. Leading Jewish academics are stressing the importance of incorporating the Jewish ‘experience of the Holocaust’ into the perspective of Jewish studies programs. This would help Jewish scholars to regain or maintain historical perspective. In his review of A Nation On Trial in the New York Times Book Review, Max Frankel, a former executive editor of the paper, recorded his mother’s experience in wartime Berlin in 1940 as an enemy alien Polish Jew. A commissioner of police gave her the name and location of the Gestapo chief who would give the family an exit permit.

As she thanked him and turned to leave, the commissioner suddenly asked, “Where did you say you want to go?” “To America.” “If you get there, will you tell them we’ re not all bad?” To her last day, she did.

The facts cited by both Fritzsche and Goldhagen, and other previous writers, are explained as never before, using evolutionary and social identity theory, by Professor Kevin MacDonald’s analyses of anti-Semitism published in the Praeger Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence series, in 1998 “Separation and Its Discontents: Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism and The Culture of Critique, and in his previously published A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Strategy, 1994. *Dr. John is a diplomatic historian, policy analyst, and a former professor of psychiatric education. He is the author of The Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention 1914-1948, 3rd. ed. 2006, 2 volumes, with a foreword by Arnold Toynbee, and Behind the Balfour Declaration: The Hidden Origins of Today’s Mideast Crisis, 1988. He has been a U.S. correspondent for the monthly Middle East International and adviser on international affairs to the Council on American Affairs. He was presented with the 1997 Freedom Award by the International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Analysis in Baden-Baden “for his outstanding work and contributions towards the fight for human rights, justice and liberty.”

From Jew to Jew: Why We Should Oppose the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza

Repost from the old site. Here is a document I received from a progressive Jewish colleague who is associated with the group that published this document, A Jewish Voice For Peace. The group is located in the San Francisco Bay Area in California. In this struggle, we need all the allies we can get. A real 2-state solution, described below, would, for all its deficiencies, be light years better than the hardline Zionist horrorshow that has America in a death grip. The single-state solution preferred by so many anti-Zionists lacks international support at this time and thus is little more than a pipe dream, whatever moral weight it may throw. While Hamas was surely the democratic choice of the people, so was Hitler. So was George Bush. So was Ariel Sharon. So what? Many Hamas members are racist anti-Semitic bigots who have no interest in sharing Palestine with Jews. They have helped spread backwards Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine, which has encouraged abuse and terrorization of secular Muslims and especially of Palestinian Christians. The emigration of Palestinian Christians is to a large degree due to the increasing fundamentalism in Palestine. But see here for some recent commendable positive moves by Hamas towards Palestinian Christians in Bethlehem. This blog condemns fundamentalism in all forms and all religions everywhere on Earth, from Afghanistan to India to America to Palestine. While Hamas is not Al Qaeda at all, there is much to criticize there. Furthermore, the activists described above would attack the essay below for “being directed only at Jews” and for being “Jewish-centric”. Yet politics is the art of the possible, and with the region in flames and the conflagration threatening to spread to new lands, the sane people need all the friends we can get at this point. Those who know quite about the Middle East conflict will find this essay, which is somewhat dated, to be old hat and may wish to skip it. Those who know little about the Middle East (only 1 Along similar lines as this article, see Christopher Hedges, Get Carter, in the January 7, 2007 issue of The Nation. Although the 2-state solution may seem like a shameless sellout to the fringe anti-Zionists described above, in the US right now, sentiments like we see both this and Hedges article are regarded by the Israeli Lobby as ultraradical and are attacked with animal-like ferocity. Note: This publication is seriously dated, dating back possibly to 2002. Nevertheless, it is still quite relevant.

From Jew to Jew:

Why We Should Oppose the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Written by Jews for Fellow Jews

A Jewish Voice For Peace Publication

Download the PDF file here Introduction Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, A Jewish Voice For Peace is the oldest and largest of a growing number of Jewish groups that are convinced that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory must end. There are two compelling reasons for this. First, we wish to preserve the best part of our Jewish heritage -a deeply-ingrained sense of morality – and pass it on to the next generation, unsullied by the mistreatment of another people. We were brought up to believe that, as Jews, we are obligated to always take the moral high road and we can’t imagine letting this proud ethical tradition die now. Second, as we will show in this paper, we are convinced that the only way to ensure the security of the people of Israel is for their government to conclude a just peace with the Palestinians. Without some reasonable version of justice being done, there will never be peace, and so we oppose any Israeli government policy that denies the Palestinians their legitimate rights. What those are will be examined shortly. Is this position “anti-Jewish”? No, it is not (any more than criticizing U.S. government policies is anti-American.) Even as we love all of humanity, we have a special love for the Jewish people and for the warm and compassionate side of Jewish culture. We share with all Jews the trauma of the genocide of our people by the Nazis and our long history of periodic persecution. We understand the instinct to “circle the wagons” when our people face danger, and we long for the day when Jews in Israel, as everywhere, will be able to lead normal, secure, productive lives. The question is how will that happy day come about? By blindly supporting the Israeli government’s self-destructive path to war and more war? We don’t think so. We feel that these crucial issues need more discussion within the American Jewish community, not less. They certainly are debated at length in Israel itself, as evidenced by a recent Ma’ariv poll showing that 5 It’s time for us to join the debate as well, and help formulate a more reasonable solution to the conflict. Unfortunately, the ongoing violence in Palestine and Israel has led too many people, on both sides, to adopt blanket stereotypes of one another, turning them into something “less-than-human”. This process of dehumanization then allows people to justify the violence committed by their own side, starting the cycle all over again. This is a classic “lose-lose” situation that can continue on forever. Is there a way out of this mess? Yes, we think so, but only if we suspend our understandable reaction of automatically blaming the other side. Only then can we objectively assess the root causes of the conflict and the realistic choices there are for resolving it. So, in the interest of peace, and with an open heart and mind, please consider the following facts. 1. THE OCCUPATION The international community, through the United Nations and other forums, has made it clear that virtually the entire world considers the Israeli occupation of territories it captured in the 1967 war to be wrong and contrary to basic principles of international law. Every year since 1967 (up until the Oslo Process started), the UN General Assembly passed the same resolution (usually by lopsided votes like 150-2), stating that Israel is obligated to vacate the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, in exchange for security guaranteed by the international community, in accordance with UN Resolution 242. While the circumstances were much different, the legal basis of these resolutions is the same principle used to force Iraq out of Kuwait—i.e., a country cannot annex or indefinitely occupy territory gained by force of arms. The only reason that Israel is able to maintain its occupation of Palestinian land is that the US routinely vetoes every Security Council resolution that would insist that Israel live up to its obligations under international law. One of the original goals of Zionism was to create a Jewish state that would be just another normal country. If that is what Israel wants (and that is a reasonable goal), then it must be held to the same standards as any other country, including the prohibition against annexing territory captured by force of arms. 2. THE SETTLEMENTS Similarly, all Jewish settlements, every single one, in territories outside Israel’s 1967 boundaries, are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed and is obligated to abide by, as well as UN Security Council Resolutions 446 and 465. As John Quigley, a professor of international law at Ohio State has written,

The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the country.

This prohibition is found in the Convention’s Article 49, which states:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies

Here’s what former President Jimmy Carter wrote in the Washington Post at the beginning of the current intifada:

An underlying reason that years of US diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to create facts by building settlements in occupied territory…it is unlikely that real progress can be made…as long as Israel insists on its settlement policy, illegal under international laws that are supported by the United States and all other nations.

In fact, on December 5, 2001, Switzerland convened a conference of 114 nations that have signed the Fourth Geneva Convention (a conference boycotted by the US and Israel). The assembled nations decided unanimously that the Convention did indeed apply to the occupied territories, that Israel was in gross violation of their obligations under that Convention, that Jewish-only settlements in those territories were illegal under the rules of the Convention, and that it was the responsibility of the other contracting parties to stop these violations of international law. To be in such flagrant violation of the norms of international behavior is bad for Israel’s standing in the world, bad for the Jewish people as a whole and, as we shall see, totally unnecessary. 3. ISRAEL’S SECURITY It is sometimes argued that the settlements are necessary for Israel’s security, to protect Israel from terrorism and the threat of violence. But the reality is that the settlements are a major cause of Israel’s current security problems, not the cure for them. New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis pointed out the aggressive nature of the settlements as follows:

It is false to see the settlements as ordinary villages or towns where Israelis only want to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbors. They are in fact imposed by force—superior Israeli military force—on Palestinian territory.

Many have been built precisely to assert Israeli power and ownership. They are not peaceful villages but militarized encampments. . .The settlement policy is not just a political but a moral danger to the character of the state. “But wouldn’t the Palestinians use their own state as a base for even more attacks against Israel?”, it might be asked. For one, the Palestinians have long agreed that their future state would be non-militarized, no foreign forces hostile to Israel would be allowed in, and international monitors could be stationed on Palestinian land in order to verify these conditions. As for individual acts of terrorism, there is an historical precedent that gives a realistic answer to this question. During the first years after the Oslo agreements were signed, Hamas tried to disrupt the peace process but, because of the prevailing optimism, their influence in Palestinian society diminished and their armed attacks fell off sharply. What that means for the future is that if the Palestinian people feel that even a rough version of justice has been done, they will not support the more extreme elements in their political spectrum. This is not just guesswork; it already happened with just the hope of justice being done. Another aspect of this is that if Israel had internationally recognized borders, then they could be defended much more easily than the current situation where every hill in Palestine is a potential bone of contention because of Jewish settlements encroaching on Palestinian land. If the settlements and their settlers and the military apparatus they require were gone, and the Palestinians were given enough aid by the international community to create a viable economy in their own state, they would naturally be overjoyed and a positive turn of events would be the inevitable result. 4. “BUT DON’T THEY JUST WANT TO DRIVE THE JEWS INTO THE SEA?” Officially since 1988, and unofficially for years before that, the Palestinian position has been that they recognize Israel’s right to exist in peace and security within their 1967 borders. Period. At the same time, they expect to be allowed to establish a truly independent, viable, contiguous, non-militarized state in all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. This is what UN Resolution 242 says: “Land for Peace” – and the Palestinian Authority has stated repeatedly that UN Resolution 242 has to be the basis for any long-lasting solution to the conflict. It is true that some Palestinians advocate that all of historic Palestine should be under Arab control, but there is no support for this position, either in the international community, nor among most Palestinians. Statements to that effect are just hyperbole and do not represent the official Palestinian position. Similarly, statements by some Palestinians inciting people to violence against Israelis can easily be matched by statements from Orthodox rabbis and fundamentalist settlers calling for death to the Arabs. There are meshuganahs aplenty on both sides. But since the Palestinians’ official position is clear, why shouldn’t Israel take the Palestinians up on this offer and withdraw from the occupied territories? Israel is far stronger militarily than all the Arab armies combined and would face no credible military threat from a Palestinian state. And the threat of individual terrorist acts would, of necessity, be much less once the Palestinians felt that they had received a modicum of justice. What would Israel lose by this obvious solution of just ending the occupation, which they could do tomorrow if they wanted to (or if the US insisted that they do)? The only thing it would “lose” is the dream of some of its citizens for a “Greater Israel”, where Israel’s boundaries are expanded to its biblical borders. The problem with that dream is that it totally ignores the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the will of virtually the entire international community. As long as the right-wing settlers and their supporters in the Israeli government insist on pursuing this dream, there will be nothing but bloodshed forever. The Palestinian people have lived in Palestine for thousands of years and they are not going away. Israel must conclude a just peace with them or innocent blood will continue to be shed indefinitely. 5. NEGOTIATIONS LEADING UP TO THE CURRENT INTIFADA It has often been asked, “But didn’t Barak offer 9 Similarly, the offer Barak made at Camp David II would have left the main settlement blocks and their Jewish-only bypass roads in place. Along with the extensive areas Israel planned on retaining indefinitely for its military use, this would have dissected Palestinian territory into separate bantustans (“native reservations”), isolated from each other, each surrounded by Israeli-controlled territory and having no common borders with each other or other Arab nations. The territories would have had no control over their own air space; their main water aquifers (underneath the settlement blocs) would have been taken by Israel; and the Israeli military would have able to surround and blockade each enclave at will. See this map courtesy of the Foundation for Middle East Peace for a bird’s eye view of the problems of Barak’s plan. Jerusalem would have been similarly dissected so that each Palestinian island would be surrounded by an Israeli sea. This wouldn’t be an acceptable “end of the conflict” if you were Palestinian, would it? (Israel actually presented no maps at Camp David itself, but this was their offer of two months previous, and only marginal additional territory was theoretically offered at Camp David.) The other important question here is 9 The international community has never recognized Israeli sovereignty over “Greater Jerusalem” and has repeatedly declared that Israel should withdraw from this and all territories it conquered by force of arms in 1967. Barak’s offer also excluded large swaths of the Jordan Valley which the Israeli military would control indefinitely. Thus the Foundation for Middle East Peace estimates that the actual percentage of occupied land offered to the Palestinians was more like 8 After the Camp David talks ended without an agreement, did Arafat refuse to negotiate? In a word, no. At the end of Camp David, it was Barak who said that his offers there would not be the basis for further discussions, that they were now “null and void”, and that Camp David was an “all or nothing” summit. The Palestinians were willing to continue serious negotiations, and did at Taba, even after the current intifada had started. According to Ron Pundak, an Israeli diplomat who was a key architect of the Oslo Accords:

The negotiations in Taba, which took place moments before Barak’s government lost the elections, proved that a permanent status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians was within reach. (It) led to dramatic progress on all issues on the agenda.

But meanwhile, Sharon had gone to the Temple Mount with 1000 Israeli soldiers in tow, followed the next day by a demonstration of Palestinians (who had no firearms), which was met with totally unnecessary lethal force by the Israeli police, resulting in at least four Palestinians being shot and killed. This demonstration, which could have been contained by nonlethal means if the Israeli government had wanted to, was the beginning of the current cycle of violence. 6. LOOKING AT CAUSE AND EFFECT “What about Palestinian crimes? Why don’t you lay equal blame on them?” Certainly, Palestinians have committed grave crimes, and in any process of reconciliation, both sides will have much to answer for. But as Jews, we are responsible to look at Israel objectively, and not just when Israelis are victims of violence. In order to understand why there is the level of violence we see today, it is necessary to understand how we got to this point. a) Before the 1967 war. Before the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there was little organized Palestinian resistance. The majority of the tension was between Israel and the neighboring states. For the most part, violence between Israel and the Palestinians was limited to isolated Palestinian “infiltrations”, as Israel generally referred to them. The Israeli population may certainly have believed that they were in mortal danger from the armies of their Arab neighbors. But by the mid-1960s, Israeli leaders had a good deal of confidence that they could defeat a combination of Arab forces similar to what they accomplished in 1948, and with greater ease. History, of course, proved them correct, which calls into question the myth that Israel was fighting a self-defensive war for its very existence in 1967. b) The 1967 war itself. The myth that the 1967 war was a purely defensive one is further weakened by statements of Israeli leaders themselves. For example, the New York Times published an article on May 11, 1997 quoting Moshe Dayan’s own diaries, in which he admits that the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights in 1967 did so less for security than for the farmland. Dayan wrote:

They didn’t even try to hide their greed for that land…The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.

Or again from Prof. John Quigley’s landmark book, Palestine And Israel:

Mordecai Bentov, a cabinet minister who attended the June 4 (1967) cabinet meeting and supported the decision to invade Egypt, said Israel’s ‘entire story’ about ‘the danger of extermination’ was ‘invented of whole cloth and exaggerated after the fact to justify the annexation of new Arab territories’.

Even Menachem Begin said:

The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

In short, the argument of self-defense does not stand up to a close examination of the historical record. c) Peace Proposals after the 1967 war. In 1969, Nixon’s Secretary of State, William Rogers, proposed a peace plan based on UN Resolution 242, which would have guaranteed Israel’s security within her pre-1967 borders. Israel rejected it out-of-hand. In 1971, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat offered Israel a similar proposal (which did not mention Palestinian rights at all). This was also rejected by Israel. In 1976, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the PLO supported a resolution in the UN Security Council affirming Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, as in UN Resolution 242, but with a Palestinian state created alongside Israel. Israel opposed it and the US vetoed it. Arafat personally reaffirmed his support of a two-state solution in statements made to Senator Adlai Stevenson in 1976, and Rep. Paul Findley and New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis in 1978. The Saudis made similar proposals in 1979 and 1981, which were reiterated in their 2002 peace proposal, adopted by the entire Arab League. Yet Israel rejected all these peace proposals, and more, even though Israel’s security was guaranteed in each one of them. Why? The historical record is clear that Israel’s desire for additional land has been the single most important factor behind its expansionist policies. As David Ben-Gurion said in 1938:

I favor partition of the country because when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine.

In sum, the 1967 war was not a purely defensive war on Israel’s part, as Begin told us. The Israeli army met very little Palestinian resistance during the early years of the occupation. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, most Palestinian violence came from groups outside of the Occupied Territories. It is the Israeli desire to retain control over the West Bank, its expanding settlements and land appropriations that have sown the seeds of the situation we have today. d) The Israeli occupation as the root cause of the violence. The main hallmark of the Israeli occupation has been the forcible expropriation of over half of the West Bank and Gaza for Jewish-only settlements, Jewish-only by-pass roads and Israeli closed military areas. These expropriations are possible only because of overwhelming Israeli military might and are, in and of themselves, acts of violence—just as armed robbery is an act of violence, even if no one is hurt. Can we really expect that no violent reaction to it would have occurred? Israel’s former Attorney General, Michael Ben-Yair stated point-blank in Ha’aretz (3/3/02):

We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. . . In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day.

e) How did the current level of violence come about? Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians are well documented in our own media. And, while major Israeli incursions have gotten a good deal of attention, day-to-day excesses of the Israeli military have not been so widely reported. To get an accurate picture of the chain of events, let’s look at the reports issued by human rights groups near the beginning of the current intifada. Human Rights Watch, for example, stated:

Israeli security forces have committed by far the most serious and systematic violations. We documented excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, arbitrary killings, and collective punishment, including willful destruction of property and severe restrictions on movement that far exceed any possible military necessity.

B’Tselem is Israel’s leading human rights group and their detailed analyses of the current intifada can be found at their website. They concluded early on:

In spite of claims to the contrary, Israel has not adopted a policy of restraint in its response to events in the Occupied Territories…Israel uses excessive and disproportionate force in dispersing demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians…Collective punishment, in the form of Israel’s severe restrictions on Palestinians’ movement in the Occupied Territories, makes life unbearable for hundreds of thousands with no justification.

Collective punishment is illegal under international law. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights reported the following:

There is considerable evidence of indiscriminate firing at civilians in the proximity of demonstrations and elsewhere (by Israeli troops)…The live ammunition employed includes high-velocity bullets which splinter on impact and cause the maximum harm.

Equally disturbing is the evidence that many of the deaths and injuries inflicted were the result of head wounds and wounds to the upper body, which suggests an intention to cause serious bodily injury rather than restrain demonstrations…The measures of closure, curfew or destruction of property constitute violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and human rights obligations binding upon Israel. Amnesty International has also made numerous statements on the current intifada, including the following:

Amnesty International reiterated its long-standing calls to Israel to end its policy of liquidations and other arbitrary killings and urged the international community to send international observers…In these state assassinations the Israeli authorities offer no proof of guilt, no right to defense. Extrajudicial executions are absolutely prohibited by international law.

This attitude of the disposability of Palestinian life has now filtered down to the ordinary soldier. An IDF reservist interviewed on prime-time First Channel Israeli TV (12/14/01) stated:

Nowadays, there is much less of a dilemma. We more or less got a clearance from both the military and the political echelons. Nowadays, we shoot them in the head and no questions asked.

Is this what we want our Jewish legacy to be? The overwhelming consensus of these reports means that Israeli demands for the Palestinians to “stop the violence” turn reality on its head. The Palestinians have suffered almost four times the fatalities that Israel has in the current fighting, as well as tens of thousands of serious injuries. Furthermore, answering stone throwing with M-16 military weapons designed for battlefield use, or responding to ineffective Molotov cocktails with very effective armored tanks and attack helicopters is simply not morally justifiable. It is also important to keep in mind that many of Israel’s current actions have been going on, in various degrees, for the last 35 years – systematic torture of Palestinians in Israeli jails, the forcible and illegal appropriation of over half the West Bank and Gaza by Israel for Jewish-only uses, daily humiliations and abuse at Israeli military checkpoints all over Palestinian land—these have combined to bring Palestinian anger to a boiling point. In sum, we have seen that Israeli actions have served to seriously escalate the violence, and that Israel’s stubborn refusal to end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, even to the extent of just stopping its settlement activity, has been a major obstacle to any progress towards peace. To be sure, Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians have also been major obstacles towards such progress. Occupation and repression can never justify terrorism against civilians, but neither do terrorist acts by a few negate the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. The best way to address these crimes is to end the occupation which inspires the Palestinians to commit them. Recent history has demonstrated clearly that support for such crimes, and the number of Palestinians willing to commit them, drops precipitously when the Palestinians have had hope for independence, and risen sharply in response to the intensifying occupation and expansion of settlements. We must also bear in mind that we are not morally responsible for Palestinian crimes, although we must work to prevent them. But we are morally responsible for Israeli actions taken in our name and with our tax dollars. 7. THE JEWISH PEACE MOVEMENT One’s opinion on the Israel/Palestine conflict need not be a black or white question; you can support the Israeli people but still criticize their government’s illegal and ultimately self-destructive policies. We believe that the Jewish peace movement, both in Israel and around the world, has a far better plan to ensure Israel’s security. That plan is to create real peace as a consequence of real justice being done, not a “peace” of victor and vanquished. We recommend that you go to Gush Shalom, Btselem, and Batshalom and read for yourself what thinking Israelis demand of their own government. Thousands of Israelis, including hundreds of Israel’s top university professors, are convinced their government is committing unpardonable acts and have taken public stands against them. For example, over 400 reserve combat officers and soldiers in the IDF have publicly stated their moral opposition to Sharon’s increasingly brutal use of force during the current intifada. These “refuseniks” have the sympathy of a growing portion of the Israeli public, now up to 2

We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Territories destroy all the values we had absorbed while growing up in this country… hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight in this War of the Settlements.

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people. We hereby declare that we shall continue serving in the Israel Defense Forces in any mission that serves Israel’s defense. The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose—and we shall take no part in them. Even Ami Ayalon, the former head of the Shin Bet (Israel’s equivalent to the FBI), recently stated in Le Monde:

I favor unconditional withdrawal from the Territories, preferably in the context of an agreement, but not necessarily. What needs to be done, urgently, is to withdraw from the Territories, a true withdrawal which gives the Palestinians territorial continuity.

So if disagreement with the Israeli government is kosher in Israel, shouldn’t it also be a topic of discussion among American Jews? For just one example, a recent survey of American Jewish attitudes showed that 3 Our community does not, and should not, have just one opinion on these questions. What is needed is more discussion, not less, on these crucial matters. The intifada is not primarily the result of the religious fanaticism, the blind anti-Semitism or the “inherent violent tendencies” of the Arabs. Rather, in our view, it is the inevitable result of the most basic human emotions – their need to be free and to live with dignity in the land of their ancestors. A Palestinian child who is awakened at dawn by Israeli soldiers demolishing his home and uprooting the family’s olive grove does not need anyone to tell him to hate. The Israeli Occupation has seriously eroded the Jewish people’s proud moral heritage, developed over the centuries; and, in any case, we are convinced it will never work, even in the most pragmatic terms. The Palestinians will always resist being under military occupation, and have the right, under international law, to do so. As a result, there will never be real security for Israel until there is a reasonable version of justice for the Palestinians. How could it be otherwise? 8. ISRAEL’S SECURITY – Continued “But doesn’t Israel have to do something to stop the suicide bombers?” A reasonable question, and here is a most reasonable answer from Gush Shalom’s founder, Uri Avnery:

When tanks run amok in the center of a town, crushing cars and destroying walls, tearing up roads, shooting indiscriminately in all directions, causing panic to a whole population —it induces helpless rage.

When soldiers crush through a wall into the living room of a family, causing shock to children and adults, ransacking their belongings, destroying the fruits of a life of hard work, and then break the wall to the next apartment to wreck havoc there—it induces helpless rage. When officers order to shoot at ambulances, killing doctors and paramedics engaged in saving the lives of the wounded, bleeding to death—it induces helpless rage. And then it appears that the rage is not helpless after all. The suicide bombers go forward to avenge… Anyone who believes that Arafat can push a button and stop this is living in a dream world…At best, the pressure cooker can cool off slowly, if the majority of the people are persuaded that their honor has been restored and their liberation guaranteed. Then public support for the ‘terrorists’ will diminish, they will be isolated and wither away. That was what happened in the past. 9. SOURCES OF INFORMATION A major cause of misunderstanding between the Jewish peace movement and other American Jews is that we rely on different sources of information. If what you know about Israel and Palestine comes from the US corporate press, TV news and/or the mainstream US Jewish press, then your perception of events will be determined by their worldview. As Jewish media critic Norman Solomon wrote in 2001:

Searching the Nexis database of U.S. media coverage during the first 100 days of this year, I found several dozen stories using the phrase ‘Israeli retaliation’ or ‘Israel retaliated.’

During the same period, how many stories used the phrase ‘Palestinian retaliation’ or ‘Palestinians retaliated’? One. Both sides of the conflict, of course, describe their violence as retaliatory. But only one side routinely benefits from having its violent moves depicted that way by major American media. If, however, you supplement your information by reading the Israeli press, progressive magazines like Tikkun or The Nation, internet sites like Common Dreams and radio stations of the Pacifica network, then a very different picture of what is going on emerges. In particular, we suggest that you sign up for our free email news service, the Jewish Peace News , which gives you the latest news and most cogent analyses of Middle East events, much of it from the Israeli press. You can subscribe by sending an e-mail to: jewishpeacenews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. 10. SHARON’S CURRENT POLICIES Ariel Sharon has always opposed real negotiations with the Palestinians, preferring instead to try to defeat them militarily. He has vehemently opposed all Palestinian/Israel agreements and has repeatedly stated that he has no intention of returning a single settlement to Palestinian rule. Even the editors of the Washington Post (2/22/02) wrote:

During lulls in the conflict, Mr. Sharon frequently has been the first to renew the fight; during three weeks in December (2001) and early January (2002) when the Palestinians responded to a call from Mr. Arafat and stopped almost all attacks, Israeli forces killed a dozen Palestinians.

The obvious conclusion to draw is that Sharon does not want peace or real negotiations, just a vanquishing of his sworn enemies. Indeed, if Sharon really wanted Arafat to arrest Palestinian militants, then why has he systematically destroyed the Palestinian Authority’s ability to do so? According to the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom:

The Palestinian police and security services have hardly any premises or prisons left in which to put terrorists, even if the decision was taken to arrest them; the bombardments were all too thorough.

Most crucially, in the spring of 2002, Israel commenced its most severe armed attacks yet in the West Bank, involving the following “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions— some of them rising to the level of war crimes, according to Human Rights Watch and other monitoring groups.

  • Israeli snipers on the tops of buildings, shooting anything that moves.
  • Ambulances shot at, medical personnel unable to evacuate the wounded, who have then died needlessly from their wounds.
  • Civilian neighborhoods bombed by U.S.-supplied helicopter gunships, F-16 fighter jets and Israeli tanks, causing widespread devastation and, inevitably, many civilian casualties.
  • Palestinian homes crushed by military bulldozers—sometimes, as in Jenin, with the occupants still inside.
  • Wanton destruction of the infrastructure of Palestinian civil society—water pipes and pumping stations, electrical power poles and plants, medical facilities, schools, hospitals, mosques and churches, public buildings, etc., in addition to massive looting and gratuitous vandalization of homes, businesses and governmental offices.
  • The use of “human shields” for Israeli military actions.
  • Journalists shot at who try to document the above gross violations of international law.

And Israel is now constructing a “buffer zone” that will de facto annex about 1 In other words, eight big open-air prisons, which Palestinians cannot get out of, except at the whim of the Israeli authorities. Again, this kind of collective punishment is specifically outlawed by the Fourth Geneva Convention. A joint statement by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists (4/07/02) stated:

We strongly deplore actions by the state of Israel that harm persons protected by international humanitarian law. . . Such actions violate international standards and transcend any justification of military necessity.

Even in practical terms, these Israeli actions are counterproductive. As Gush Shalom writes:

The retaliatory and punitive raids by the army do manage to intercept some potential suicide bombers—but the very same raids and incursions, by demonstrating the brutality of the Occupation, also increase on the Palestinian side, the motivation for retribution, and help the recruitment of new suicide bombers.

Only an end to the Occupation by political means, allowing a fair expression of the basic Palestinian aspirations, can dry up the suicide bombing phenomenon at its source, and provide new hope to the desperate young Palestinians from whose ranks the bombers are recruited. The recent upsurge in anti-Semitism worldwide is clearly connected with escalated Israeli aggression. As Israel has succeeded in convincing many people that it represents World Jewry, many supporters of Palestinians have directed their anger at Israeli actions against Jewish institutions in their own countries. Right-wing white supremacist forces have also seized this opportunity to give their anti-Semitic venom legitimacy. Thus all Jews have a stake in seeing the sorts of human rights violations we have just described stopped. CONCLUSION Any country has the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens, and Israel is no exception. But its policies for the last 35 years, and especially during the current intifada, have been based on the old adage, “The best defense is a good offense”. While that’s OK in football, in Israel that has translated into systematic torture or ill-treatment of literally hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Israeli prisons, according to B’Tselem and other reputable groups. It means wanton cruelty being inflicted every day at military checkpoints, wanton destruction of Palestinian homes, and illegal strangling of Palestinian economic life, leading to extreme deprivation. And there is no other phrase than “war crimes” to accurately describe many of the actions of the IDF during the attacks against the Palestinian civilian population in the spring of 2002. In short, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory is simply wrong—brutal, illegal and unnecessary. We do agree that both sides have done poorly in advancing the cause of peace. As Jews, however, it is incumbent upon us to put our own house in order, above all else. As Americans, our responsibility is doubled. Our government has, through unprecedented financial and political support, allowed Israel to maintain its occupation and commit human rights violations with complete impunity. Thus, we are both responsible for the escalation and in a unique position to do something about it. In the long-run, the only hope for a normal, peaceful life for the people of Israel is for their government to end their occupation of Palestinian land, allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state, and live and let live. The only other alternative is the current situation of endless bloodshed, which our silence, among other things, makes possible. HOW TO DO YOUR PART FOR PEACE If you have found this paper enlightening, please join A Jewish Voice For Peace and help us in our work. We have been organizing and educating people about the real causes of the unrest in Israel and Palestine since 1996. Among our many useful projects, we make available to people, free of charge, an e-news service that delivers daily to its readers the best articles on the current conflict, largely from the Israeli press. To sign up for the Jewish Peace News, simply send an e-mail to jewishpeacenewssubscribe@yahoogroups.com. A Jewish Voice For Peace has made great strides in the past year. In order for us to continue to grow and expand our services and our reach, we need your help. Your donations will make it possible for us to hire new staff members, increase our educational services and vastly expand our media reach. All contributions are tax-deductible. To get in touch with us, write us at P.O. Box 13286, Berkeley, CA.

Evil Jews Bleed Gentile to Death for Matzos

Repost from the old site. Take a look at this sordid spectacle here. A pack of vicious, feral, Asiatic Zionist Jews surround a poor Gentile, Lance Thruster, (actually a stand-in for Jesus) in the woods somewhere in the Pale of Russia, torture him to death by crucifixion, and are in the process of draining all of the blood out of his body with thousands of pricks with tiny knives. The blood is being collected as I write this, and Lance is still alive and typing somehow despite being nailed to the holy cross like our Savior. The blood will be collected and used to prepare matzo balls. The Blood Libel is no libel – it’s actual truth, and you can see it right here on the Internets. Seriously folks, I happen to know Lance, and I don’t really think he is an anti-Semite at all. I think he’s a college student at USC, my alma mater. He just hates Israel, that’s all. These Zionist Jews are torturing him and roasting him over their fire, calling him racist, fascist, anti-Semite, Nazi, KKK, Jew-hater, bigot, skinhead, on and on. They are also accusing him of being paranoid. Whenever you shine the light on any aspect of Jewish Power, you get accused by entire football fields of snarling Jews of suffering from a paranoid psychosis. Yeah, a paranoid psychosis called reality. Jewlicious, I believe, is a liberal to progressive Jewish site who take a relatively soft line, as Jews go, on Zionism. Mostly young, hip, leftwing funny Jewish guys on there with a few of their female counterparts. This just goes to show you that as far as Zionism goes, US Jewish society is just flat-out morally bankrupt these days. It’s also an object lesson in how to create anti-Semites. If poor Lance makes it through this session with hating Jews too much, he deserves a medal. Lots of folks are just plain human and don’t have such powers, so anti-Semitism grows while Israel cheers and urges the Diaspora to high-tail to Eretz Israel pronto. It’s not quite conspiracy, but it’s pretty squalid.

Photos of Anders Behring Breivik and an Exposition of His Treatise

Anders Breivik is of course the anti-Islamic Norwegian cultural conservative who killed 76 people in two attacks in Oslo, Norway the other day. Much nonsense has been written about these attacks. He wrote a manifesto, which I am currently reading. It’s 1,510 pages long. I’ve only read some of it – about 750 pages or so, but it’s very interesting. I agree with Kevin MacDonald that he is an important political thinker.

He’s simply a political terrorist like Osama bin Laden and his followers. He attacked arguably political institutions – first of all, buildings of the Norwegian state in an attempt to kill the Prime Minister, then later a youth camp for young leaders of Norwegian Labour Party. These are the elite children of the leadership of the party, and most of them will probably go on to become party political operative and even leaders. So it was a political attack by an armed terrorist organization.

The only thing yucky about the attack is that many of those targeted were children. Even if you argue that these kids were going to go on to become party political operatives and leaders, there is something nasty about killing unarmed minors. However, this aspect was overblown, and my analysis showed that about 2/3 of those killed were adults, making them legitimate targets.

I do not think that government officials and adults who are in line to become the future leadership of a political party are “innocent civilians,” sorry. This guy says he’s at war with the state, and in that role, political figures are certainly legitimate targets.

Photo of the seemingly normal shooter in a nice pose.

Not that I agree with his ideology or his goals. As a Leftist, of course I am saddened that my comrades were gunned down so cruelly like this. I also don’t agree with his anti-Islamic agenda.

His document is very interesting. I will have more to write about it. Much nonsense has been written about this guy which would have been dispelled with a simple review of his document, which apparently no one bothered to do.

The shooter in a scuba outfit with an automatic weapon. The insignia on his shoulder says "Marxist Hunter" and "Multicultural Traitor Hunting Permit."

The killer is a Christian fundamentalist. He most certainly is not! In fact, he states in his book that he lacks a personal relationship with Jesus or God. Nevertheless, he prayed before his operation, and he quotes liberally from the Bible, mostly Old Testament verse that dispels the notion that Christianity is a religion of peace. He quotes sections saying that Christians have a right to fight back against their enemies.

What this guy is is a cultural Christian. It’s a phrase he uses a lot. He even supports what he calls atheist Christians and agnostic Christians in his crusade against Islam. He feels that Europe is a culturally Christian continent, and of course he is right. He feels that this nominally Christian culture is in danger from the encroachment of Islam.

The killer is a racist. He’s not really a racist, though he flirts with it a bit. The document is confused in this regard. He states over and over that he is an anti-racist, but that’s not exactly the case either.

For instance, he does not believe that European Whites should breed with non-Whites. He worries about the allegiances of European non-White non-Muslims in the Civil War that he predicts will engulf Europe.

And he recommends that the US be partitioned off into a White state for Whites and a multicultural state for everyone else. So as far as his recommendations for the US go, he’s a White nationalist. He is also very sympathetic to the plight of the South African Afrikaners, and he feels that the Blacks are waging a race war against them. He acknowledges that Gypsies are widely hated, and he wants to set up a homeland for them somewhere in Anatolia after it is heavily cleansed of Muslims.

But he does enlist the support of non-White Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics in his war against the Muslims. He’s had many friends of all different races, and in his personal views, he’s not much of a racialist.

The killer in a photo, apparently with his mother and sister.

The killer is a fascist. This is more difficult to refute, though he claims to be an antifascist, and he writes a lot about how much he dislikes the National Socialist racists in Europe. In particular, as a Judeophile, he opposes their anti-Semitism, which he sees as ridiculous.

However, at the same time, he also praises certain aspects of National Socialism and offers an apologetics for Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. He acknowledges that the Holocaust occurred, but says that Hitler originally just wanted to deport the Jews, but was forced to exterminate them to get rid of a Fifth Column when the Nazis started losing the war in 1942. Actually, I think the Holocaust started before then. He also approves of National Socialist anti-feminism, monoculture and conservative values.

The killer in some sort of a military uniform.

At the same time, he sees the Nazi card as an albatross around the neck of European nationalists, and he says that they need to break free of that if they are ever going to succeed. He opposes White nationalism for similar reasons, that it will never get majority support from Europeans.

What he wants is majority support for his War on Islam project, and the best way to get that is to chuck the Nazism and White ethnic nationalism. He sees anti-Islamic nationalism as having potentially majority support, and he wants to get rid of all of the problematic elements that could diminish such support.

His political project involves rightwing coups in Europe that overthrow the multiculturalist states. They would then institute a short lived dictatorship in which rights would be suspended. 100-200,000 top level multiculturalist traitors would be hunted down and executed by the new state. Many others would be exiled. Freedom of speech would be curtailed indefinitely under the new regimes as “multiculturalist propaganda” would be banned.

Those Muslims who do not convert out would be deported from Europe back to Muslim lands. Muslim lands in the Balkans, Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt would be conquered and resettled with Greeks, Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Armenians, Assyrians and Copts. This is frankly a fascist project whether he admits it or not.

The killer in his Crusader Knights Templar uniform. He saw himself as a modern day Knight Templar waging a latter day crusade against Islam.

The killer is mentally ill. Having read through hundreds of pages of his stuff, I do not agree with this charge at all. Some of his politics is a bit confused, but that goes with the territory. On the other hand, the document is lucid, well-written and coherent. Ideologically, it fits together very well. He’s very intelligent and very well-read. His political project is sensible, well thought out and follows logically. He doesn’t believe in conspiracy theory, which makes him less nuts that your average Muslim or American.

The killer is a sociopath. I don’t agree. I think he is just a political terrorist. There are acts of political terrorism occurring all over the world, all the time. Those who engage in them and those who order them are not necessarily sociopaths. They are warriors, either members of militaries or some sort of guerrillas.

He actually seemed somewhat sensitive, and he spent quite a few pages agonizing over the nature of the acts he was about to engage in.

He concluded that Catholic Church absolves sins committed in the defense of religion, in particular in defense a Christian Crusade against Islam. This came up quite a bit back in the day when Crusaders were accused of sin during the various Crusades. The Church concluded that sins committed during the Crusades were absolved by the Church as necessary for the defense of the religion.

In addition, they could be redeemed via indulgences bought up by the collective good deeds of Jesus and the saints. By the theory of indulgences, sinners can redeem their sins by trading them in as it were for redemption. The redemption would be purchased via the good deeds done by Jesus, the saints and other good Christians.

At one point, he launches into an argument about whether it is a good idea to kill 100 to save 1000. He thinks it is.

On the other hand, he also feels that his targets, the multicultural Cultural Marxist elite of Europe, are traitors that need to be killed in order to save the continent from Islam. However, many political terrorists think their victims have it coming. Such a belief is not indicative of sociopathy.

Photo of the killer in the outfit he used to mix explosives at his farm. The process was very long and convoluted, and he spends a great many pages discussing it in depth in his book.

The killers is an anarchist. He is most certainly not. He believes very much in a future fascist-like state. He opposes the current multiculturalist regimes, but that does not make him an anarchist.

The document is rambling, incoherent and consists mostly of cut and paste jobs from other works. None of this is true. It is mostly his own work, and he writes very well. His English is excellent. The document does not ramble but instead follows quite well. It’s very coherent and easy to follow and understand.

The killer was provoked and incited to act by works by such anti-Islamic authors as

A photo of the killer looking like a quiet, normal fellow.

The killers has no point or legitimate project. Unfortunately, he does have a point and a legitimate project. Islam frankly has been a total disaster in Western Europe. Importing millions of Muslims, most of whom will never assimilate, into the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Germany has been a complete catastrophe. It’s time to admit that it’s a failure.

A few Muslims are not much of a problem, but over a certain percentage, they are simply not compatible with a modern, Western, secular, culturally Christian state. Projections showing an Islamic Europe in 70 years or so are terrifying. There’s not much to do about it except to stop importing them to Western Europe.

Many nations of the West don’t have a Muslim problem yet. These include the nations of Eastern Europe, Finland, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, the US and New Zealand. In most cases, the Muslim percentages here are low. The US

Deporting Muslims is not doable, so the countries with Muslim problems above should simply stop importing them and hope their birth rate slows down. The Muslim nations of Albania, Bosnia, Tunisia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan already have below replacement birth rates. 1

Wikipedia Jews Attack James Petras

Repost from the old site.

James Petras is a fine man of the Left who has long been interested in Latin America and especially revolutionary movements down there. He has long supported the FARC revolutionaries in Colombia (as does this blog) and lately he has been supporting the Movement of the Landless in Brazil.

He’s a great labor organizer who goes down to Latin America and works with the people, getting his hands dirty with the workers and peasants themselves. He’s a towering intellect, and has often criticized Left movements from a Far Left perspectives, accusing them of being sellouts. For instance, he has gone after the FMLN in El Salvador lately for pursuing a half-hearted effort at reform.

I believe he was going after Evo Morales in Bolivia lately. He’s great for tearing the masks off these Latin American Leftists who the US press is screaming Commie Bloody Murder about, showing us that many of them are not even very far to the Left and the proposals they are offering are quite moderate and unlikely to seriously shake up socioeconomic relations in these places.

It’s always great to read him on anything having to do with the Latin American Left.

Lately he has sort of gone off on a bender against US Jews and particularly the Israeli Lobby and Israel. He has received some criticism for this from the Left, especially the anarchist Left (see Three Way Fight) and Maoists. Maoists and anarchists (Three Way Fight critique here) are among those on the Left who are particularly sensitive to charges of anti-Semitism and go to great lengths to avoid such.

This despite the recent rightwing Jewish – Zionist rewriting of history that shows the entire 20th Century Left as being anti-Semitic. See Why the Jews? The Reasons for Contemporary Anti-Semitism by Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin for more on that – it’s actually an excellent read and I recommend it.

The ADL has recently weighed in against Petras, accusing him of fomenting some kind of “New Anti-Semitism” (this means an anti-Semitism focused mostly on Israel). All of this crap is a rather minor sideshow to Petras’ excellent corpus and career, but as you can see in his Wikipedia entry, most of the entry is given over his tussle with the Jews.

On the discussion page, the Wikipedia Jews have gone nuts, accusing him of being an “anti-Jewish racist” and other bullshit. There’s the usual crap about Israel Shamir on there, straight from the UK Spotlight Trotskyite antifa loonie-tunes accusations – Shamir as a Swedish neo-Nazi living in Norway.

In fact, Israel Shamir, whatever one thinks of him (and he surely has his anti-Semitic moments) is a Russian Jew, son of a famous rabbi, who immigrated to Israel, fought in the Israeli military, wrote for some Israeli papers, moved to Japan where he translated Japanese haiku books, moved back to Russia where he got involved in some dubious anti-Semitic far right Russian publications, moved back to Israel, where he currently resides in Jaffa (in fact, you can probably even visit him there – lots of folks do).

It’s really sad that this “Swedish neo-Nazi” bullshit has been allowed to gain as much traction as it has. Yes, his Wikipedia page says that too. I know what you were thinking. Chip Berlet is one of the leaders of the Israel Shamir Lynch Mob. Berlet, the strange “Marxist” who is in deep with the radical right libertarians that rule Wikipedia.

Looks like the Wikipedia Jews got pretty much thwarted on this one. Maybe someone is finally starting to reign them in over there. Note that “Humus Sapiens” is one of the most notorious Wikipedia Jews, active for years now. Still at it, I guess.

Check out the article history. Real food fight.

Links to some Wikipedia nasties.

Wikipedia Jews: Jayjg, one of the worst Jewish POV-pushers on Wikipedia. Humus Sapiens, a Russian Jewish immigrant to the US. Izak, one of their sidekicks.

Slim Virgin , one of the worst ones of all. I understand that SV is not even Jewish (!); she’s just some Gentile philosemite. She’s obsessed with 1. The Jews, 2. 9-11. SV is one of the most horrible and abusive administrators on Wikipedia. She was so abusive that the Wikipedia Review undertook an investigation of her.

She was very hard to track down as she covers her tracks very well, but they eventually determined that she is a former Cambridge University graduate student named Linda Mack who was hired by investigative reporter Pierre Salinger and John K. Cooley to investigate the Lockerbie bombing.

Two Libyans were eventually convicted of the bombing, and Ghaddafi was ordered to pay a huge fine, but there is good evidence that Libya had nothing to do with the bombing. There is also evidence that UK law enforcement knew this but went after Ghaddafi anyway because they hated him and wanted to wrap up the case.

It is still not known who was behind the bombing, but the Iranian regime was probably the author of the attack. The attack was probably a payback for the US shooting down of an Iranian airliner during the Iran-Iraq War, an act that the US said was accidental. Iran refused to accept the accidental shootdown theory.

Linda Mack was instrumental in steering Salinger and Cooley towards the Libyans. Salinger and Cooley eventually decided that Mack was a spy with the UK’s notorious MI5 intelligence agency (the British CIA). Linda Mack is now reportedly living in Alberta, Canada under the name Sarah McEwan.

Antifascist, who uses the same handle and has the same obsessions as a notorious Jewish Zionist who used to stalk anti-Zionists on Indymedia, often issuing them horrible death threats. He’s obsessed with Wendy Campbell and Gilad Atzmon.

His name is Ketlan Ossowski ( blog here) and he is described as an obsessive Jew who uses Leftism and anti-fascism as a cover to promote Zionism. I strongly suspect that he is the same guy who stalked and threatened Wendy Campbell. Zeq, long-notorious, the lone Wikipedia Jew busted in the CAMERA fiasco, now banned.

Others: Roland Rance, a Jewish Marxist (Jewish first, Marxist far distant second) from London, famous from the wars over Gilad Atzmon and Mary Rizzo’s Peace Palestine blog, apparently active in the Socialist Workers Party and in with the Lenin’s Tomb crowd. I’m not going to comment on this guy much as he’s written me civilly via email.

Just another frothing Trot about sums it up though.

Why Jews Support Open Borders

There are some comments suggesting that Jews support Open Borders for less than ulterior motives. One suggestion was that Jews supported Open Borders in order to get Hispanics on board with pro-Israel sentiment. Another suggestion was that Jews made an agreement to support the Black Agenda if Blacks would ease up on South Africa, an Israeli ally.

First of all, Jews are going to support the Black agenda anyway, so there’s no need for an agreement. Second of all, this deal did not work very well because Blacks kept hammering away at South Africa nevertheless.

Sure, Jews are basically looking out for their own. Of course they are.

But that doesn’t explain Jewish liberalism very much. Jewish liberalism is deep and heartfelt and frankly goes against their economic self-interest as wealthy people. It’s probably a holdover from the early days when the Jews first came here and they were poor and often Leftist. Then there is the Reform notion of Tikkun Olam, making the world a better place. Jews have been heavily involved in many or most of the progressive projects in the past century. Most Jews think that’s pretty cool. Why were they doing that? Maybe Tikkun Olam.

The Right has been anti-Semitic for a long time, at least a century or more in Europe and in the US.

Before that, Napoleon was a progressive who tried to overthrow conservative monarchies in Europe in the name of a progressive project, almost a Woodrow Wilson or neoconservative before his time. He also liberated the Jews. This may have begun the love affair between progressives and the Jews. In other words, Jewish liberalism or Leftism may have begun with Napoleon.

US conservatism was anti-Semitic for most of this century. It was only with the Reagan Revolution and the New Right headquartered in Orange County, California, that the Right began to move away from that. The Birchers also turned away from anti-Semitism after a bit.

Nevertheless, the Republican Party is very racist, mostly against Blacks and to a lesser extent against Hispanics. Jews see that and worry. Most Jews figure that a White who hates Blacks or maybe Hispanics probably doesn’t like Jews very much either. It’s a form of paranoia, but it’s based on reality.

Further, the Republican Party is insanely Christian fundamentalist. Jews don’t think too much of Christianity period for historical reasons. And they really don’t like these fundie Christians one bit. These fundies are like Christians on steroids, and most liberal Jews do not like them or trust them.

We have not talked enough on here about the sociology of political expression. Jews grow up in a liberal environment, so they turn into liberals.

In my previous post, I noted a number of towns I had lived in and how it seemed that every White person in the towns was a conservative Republican. I never was, but frankly that was not an easy position for me to take, and I suffered a lot for it. The peer pressure to go along with the crowd is extreme in White communities, and I think this is one reason so many Whites go Republican. They are simply doing what everyone else is doing.

We see this with conservatism in Texas, Arizona, the mountain West, the Ozarks, the South and Appalachia. I’ve known conservative Whites from these areas, and I often felt that they got into that politics because that was what everyone else was doing. Most didn’t seem to have a logical reason for being reactionaries.

What’s going on here is that liberal Jews like the Jewish organizations think that anti-immigrant sentiment is bad for the Jews. They were all immigrants not too long ago. And they know that anti-immigrant sentiment leads to nativism, which turns to racism, which turns to racist nationalism or racist ethnonationalism, which has a tendency historically to turn on the Jews as not real Sneeds of Sneedland or whatever.

Also, most of these organizations are made up of liberal Jews, and if you are a Democratic Party liberal, I know this from experience, it is utterly mandatory that you get on board with the Open Borders thing. If you don’t, you are shunned and ultimately banned from forums or cast out of party circles in one way or another. The Democratic Party and liberalism has a number of issues on which you are not allowed to dissent, and Open Borders is one of them.

Very Nice New Piece on Race in Mexico

Here.

The site is actually named after me, which has me shaking my head in amazement.

The piece, and the site itself, was inspired by my site, in particular my pieces on race in Mexico and on the major and minor races of man.

Most Mexicans are mestizos, but there are large minorities of more or less pure Europeans and Indians. He describes most of the significant White groups in Mexico and puts Whites at ~1

Although most Whites have Spanish roots, there are also significant French, Portuguese, German, Italians and Irish minorities. I met a young woman who is Mexican-American, but she is mostly Portuguese. The village she was born in in Mexico is made up of primarily Portuguese people! There are also quite a few Jews in Mexico.

More or less pure Indians make up ~1

Mestizos make up ~6

There are what he calls 3 occult roots in Mexico: Blacks, Asians and Arabs.

The first root, the Blacks, has its basis in African slaves who were brought to the east coast of Mexico. This affair did not last long as a slave who married a free Mexican had children who were free. So, slavery quickly went out and the Blacks disappeared via mixed breeding as slaves quickly took free, non-Black Mexicans as spouses.

The result was that pure Blacks nearly disappeared and the remainder are mostly mulattos, zambos (Indian-Black) and triracials. In addition, your average Mexican mestizo now is ~4-

The next root is Asians. In the early days, quite a few Filipinos came to Mexico when it was part of Spain via the colony of the Philippines. By this time, they are heavily mixed with other races in Mexico. In the early 20th Century, many Chinese came to Mexico. Unfortunately, most were tossed out in the 1930’s in a wave of nativism, but in Mexico city and Mexicali, there are still quite a few Chinese and part-Chinese, as the Chinese also married heavily into the mix.

The last root is Arabs. Most of these Arabs are Christians from Mesopotamia, the Levant and Egypt. They came in response to anti-Christian attacks waged by the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1. Since they came from the Ottoman Empire, many Mexicans referred to them as “Turks.” Carlos Slim, Mexico’s richest man, is Lebanese, as is Salma Hayek.

All three of these occult roots each make up ~

There have been various studies of Mexico’s admixture, but they tend to come up with quite different results. I agree with the the author that the best studies show Mexico’s genome to be 5

Most self-identified Mexican Indians have some White in them, in addition to a bit of Black. Percentages range from

The author notes that Mexican-Americans have traditionally been a lot Whiter than Mexicans, because they tend to come from the Whiter regions of Northern Mexico. Southwest Mexicans have usually tested out at 6

A photo on his site of Chicano gangbangers shows that they are mostly White, something we have always known here.

Towards the end he makes up a list of racial categories of Mexicans, following my lead in this piece, even adopting my formulae and marking scheme.

He lists five major races in Mexico – Whites, Indians, Mestizos, Blacks and Asians.

No major disagreement there.

I have been regarded as a mad splitter in my piece above. One critic said that if Lindsay doesn’t stop soon, he’s going to have as many races as there are languages. This criticism, in addition to endless bashing by race deniers, hurt my feelings, as a result, I have made few new updates to my races of man post.

However, the author is much worse of a splitter than I have ever been, splitting off all sorts of groups that I probably would not have split off. Hence, his scheme is better seen as a view towards Mexican ethnies or ethnic groups than races per se. For instance, he divides Mexican mestizos and Mexican Whites into quite a few different races, on what basis I am not sure. Are they ethnies? Quite possibly. Races? Dunno about that.

In my scheme, I actually adopted a conservative scheme in which I tried not to split off new races unless I couldn’t help it. I wanted some significant genetic distance between a group or ethny before I would split them off. Hence, I lumped most Europeans into a single race because there isn’t much genetic distance between them. I am wondering if the author has any genetic data to back up splitting many of these groups into different races, because I only split based on hard genetic data.

At the end, I think we have two different schemes here. One is dividing races based on hard genetics and the other is splitting racers and also ethnies on the basis of partly genetics but also subjective factors. On the other hand, there probably is not much genetic data on the various different Mexican mestizos and Whites.

All in all, a very commendable piece, the fruit of long research. By the way, the photos are excellent. Make sure to check them out.

Why Jews Hate Ethnic Nationalism Except Their Own

Repost from the old site. I just got banned from another blog, a Leftist one of course. The usual charge being that I am a White Supremacist and and anti-Semite. I’m banned from all sorts of Leftist sites on these grounds, hopefully I will be banned from many more, and I’m happy as punch. Neither charge is the remotest bit true, and anyway on White Nationalist sites I am often regarded as a lunatic antifa anti-racist Enemy of the White Man. Keep em guessing, what the Hell. Life is a role-playing exercise and I can wear lots of hats, and sometimes you might not even recognize me. It started when went over to this great big anarchist blog where some of the most famous anarchists in the blogosphere star and tried to start some fights as usual. Like good anarcho-fishies, they bit the hook, ran me around the boat a few times, gave me a good fight and almost broke my rod. In the end, yeah, I was banned, but they were flopping in the gunny sack. Win-win. My crime was suggesting that White people should be proud of their heritage and not ashamed of it, assuming they can do this without transforming into racist assholes, which is admittedly difficult. Well, some Jewish guy chimes in that the idea of Whites being proud of themselves is laughable, and Blacks have way more to be proud of (I tell ya, Jews are natural comics), and he, as a White, of course feels no pride whatsoever. I responded that the reason you feel that way is you are Jewish, and noted that many Jews don’t feel proud of being White and are even self-hating Whites. I added that I was confident he was quite proud of being Jewish, as almost all Jews are. Ok, some silly anarcho-dude comes back with the old rejoinder that Jews don’t feel any more pride than Irishmen. LOL! This is 2008, not 1858, darn it. I can’t believe that so many liberals and lefties actually believe this. Almost all White ethnics here in the US have been detribalized in terms of their national origin. Some retain a tribal mindset to some degree (Armenians in my area are some of the most tribal Whites around) but the rest have more or less just coalesced into the Great White American Mess where heritage is little more than curiosity. Well, anyway, back and forth, Kevin Carson (Guy gets 210 visitors a day to his blog, and I get 6,000, and he gets a Wiki page and I don’t?) comes on and deletes all my posts and those of some real-life White Nationalist scary guy called Ian Jobling, who quit American Renaissance due to his Jew-worship and now plays some funny kind of White Nationalist Jew-worshiper carnival sideshow on his own site. As far as White Nationalist sites go, Jobling’s is surely one of the most reasonable, if such a thing can ever be reasonable. But on these sites you have to look to the comments for the real scary stuff, and in some creepy way, all of these sites are just nasty. Furthermore, I want to know Dr. Jobling’s agenda. What proposals is he putting forth, and what does he support or oppose? We can hardly tell by looking at the blog or his Wikipedia entry. All I can tell is guess is he is for imperialism, or at least he thinks it gets a bad rap. The real problem, says Jobling, is not Anglosphere (= White) imperialism, but it’s dark-skinned Americans dropping out of school and getting knocked up and stuff. Yeah. He wants to retain White majorities in all the White countries. On the principle of national sovereignty, first of all, I would say, go to it, palefaces. But in the US, with Whites at 6 Apparently he also opposes civil rights, although he downplays that in hopes to suck you in, but all US WN’s hate 1964. My opinion on Gentile Jew-worshipers is that it is a funny trick to watch humans perform, as I grew up in such a family, both of my parents being Judeophiles. So I was a Judeophile for most of my life, until about age 44, when I finally started to think about it for once and realized that no silly tribe deserves to be worshiped, Jews no more than Arapahos or Estonians or Toba Batak or Burusho. It’s not as harmful as anti-Semitism, but Jew-worship has surely left the Palestinians reeling. Then all these anarchist antifa batbrains come on and rant about how I’m a White Supremacist and I guess a Nazi, and further how I’m an anti-Semite and I insulted one of this Carson character’s “best and oldest Jewish friends”. I’m not making this up. Forget Proudhon, one of the most virulent anti-Semites that ever lived. Forget Bakunin, humane but Jewish-critical and surely an anti-Semite by Carson’s standards. Anarchism has wimped out seriously and drank the multicultural punch. All cultures are equal, though Kropotkin vehemently disagreed. It’s all antifa all the time, Whitey is the enemy, we need to flood the White Planet with the Third World, and the Jew is off limits, cuz a guy with a bone in his nose equals Einstein, according to Cultural Marxist hooey. From our blog here, a great comment by James Schipper, one of our finest commenters, who is probably even smarter than I am when sober, on why Jews hate ethnic nationalism, and the outrageous modern Jewish paradox of being a self-hating “White” and promoting anti-White stuff, while at the same time supporting one of the world’s most virulently ethnonationalist states. Make sense? Course not. Ethnic nationalism is evil, especially when White guys do it, except when Jews do it, then it’s ok, or great, or understandable, or this or that, or whatever. Uh huh. I’m sure Carson and his bomb-throwing anarchist buddies thinks James’ comment is anti-Semitic, too. Wa wa boo hoo mommy mommy. Bite me, anarchists.

I’m not sure what is meant by ethnonationalism, but let us say that ethnonationalists define the nation as a group of people with shared ancestry, what the Germans call an Abstammungsgemeinschaft = community of descent, not a group that speaks the same language, shares the same basic culture, lives in the same territory and has group consciousness. Then it is not surprising that Jews are fearful of ethnonationalism because Judaism is essentially ethnonationalism, of the most extreme kind, elevated into a religion. Jews speak dozens of languages, belong to dozens of cultures and live in dozens of territories. How can they be a nation? They can only be a nation if the nation is conceived as an Abstammungsgemeinschaft, in the Jewish case the people that descend from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If ancestry, not language or culture, becomes paramount, then Jews will be seen as having ancestry different from the people around them and be regarded as foreigners. There are very good reasons to oppose preoccupation with ancestry, but in that case the Jews should practice what they preach and either abandon Judaism altogether or else detribalize it.

An Apologetics For Zionism

Repost from the old site. This comment was left on my site by a fellow who called himself “Apologist for Zionism”. He makes some very interesting points on here. We have dealt with his notion that every ethnic group deserves a state on this blog previously. Non-territorial nations certainly do not deserve a state at all, unless someone wants to donate one to them. These comments are interesting because in many ways they are straight of out of Theodor Herzl himself. Herzl has been accused by anti-Zionists of being a Jewish anti-Semite, and he was a serious critic of the Jews. He felt that Jews and Gentiles could not live together and he felt that the fault was equally divided between the two groups. He originally favored Jewish assimilation, but after the Dreyfus Affair in France in the late 1800’s (this shocked many people because they thought that anti-Semitism in France was history by this time) he changed his mind and figured that the only way forward was for Jews and Gentiles to live in permanent separation. He noted that when Jews did well, they become very successful businessmen and aroused the envy and wrath of the Gentiles, and when they sank into poverty, they bred radicals like rabbits.

When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. Herzl, Der Judenstaat, 1896, p.91.

The commenter points out that many early Zionists were socialists who felt that one of the problems of the Jew was that he had gotten out of touch with the land itself (however, Jews were forbidden to own land for most of their stay in Europe). To cure this defect, these socialist Zionists supported a sort of back to the land thing that would get Jews’ hands dirty and make them into salt of the Earth again. The question of whether or not nations have carrying capacities for Jews is most interesting, but I don’t even want to go there. The author suggests that the US is presently reaching such a capacity. Another very successful minority similar to Jews is the Overseas Chinese. There have been some pogroms against the Overseas Chinese, but it’s nothing compared to what Jews have been through. Only about Now, no group of people, no matter how kind-hearted or progressive, is going to put up with that kind of bullshit for long, and there is no way that the Overseas Chinese work 23 times harder or are 23 times smarter than Indonesians or Filipinos. At the outside, perhaps they are 3.5 times more intelligent than Indonesians or Filipinos. This would entitle them, with The problem with capitalism is that in amasses such insane fortunes in the hands of small groups who frankly have not earned it due to either their genes or their harder work. In so doing, capitalism virtually guarantees endless racial conflict. There are differences between Jews and Overseas Chinese. The Overseas Chinese tend to keep their heads down, keep out of politics, and are not endlessly meddling in the cultural and political affairs of the nation – they just focus on making money. Jews focus on making money too, but they can’t seem to help trying to change society, a habit that arouses mountains of anti-Semitism. This is an interesting comment:

In fact, some theorists and historians even believe that it was the general emancipation of the Jews in the early-to-mid 19th Century that led to the Industrial Revolution in The West and the consequent rise of modern industrial-capitalism, which Jews also played and still played a large part in.The countries in Europe where Jews had the most political and economic freedom, especially England and Germany, were also the first to industrialize on a large scale…coincidence?

That paragraph is most interesting, and led another commenter to rebut that Jews were never a part of industrialization in Germany and Britain; instead they were associated in Britain anyway with finance capital. The commenter then said he was reading a book by a guy named William Engdahl, A Century of War. Engdahl is no anti-Semite, but he felt that the predominance of finance capital in Britain led to colonial adventures instead of building up domestic industry, to the eventual detriment of Britain. He then noted that in the 1920’s and 1930’s, German products were said to be better than British products. I don’t know about Jewish emancipation leading to the Industrial Revolution in Britain and Germany, but I believe that Jews played an essential role in the development of capitalism itself. I also don’t agree with the “German socialist” viewpoint that Hitler later picked up – along with Israel Shamir – that the Jews are a virus-like people, a race of rootless cosmopolitans without ties to the blood and soil and without loyalty to the nation, as the German capitalists supposedly had. It’s my understanding that in the 1920’s, many top German capitalists, including factory owners, were Jews. Jews are now heavily involved in industry here in the US. Jews do not limit themselves anymore to finance capital, and they are not very big players in it anymore anyway, as it all seems to be taken over by multinational banks in the US, Europe and Asia with few to no Jewish connections. The role of the Jews in finance capital in the past was quite large (they almost controlled European banking from ~1850-1930 or so). The big players in the UK 110 years ago were not Jews but a couple of cabals, one centered around a man named Cecil Rhodes. This cabal also had ties to top UK universities like Oxford and Cambridge. They went to the top boys schools like Eaton. They were active in colonialism and in groups such as the Oriental Society. They actually formed secret societies. It’s true that Lord Rothschild was a member (at the periphery) of one of these secret societies, but he seems to have been the only Jew. I really doubt that the dominance of finance capital (= Jewish money) in the UK 110 years ago is what led to colonial adventures. This group centered around Rhodes was very much into colonialism, and Britain was a huge industrial power in those days, mostly due to her Navy and her colonies. Britain ruled the world from 1588 (the defeat of the Spanish Armada – and also the first stirrings of English nationalism – one of the first manifestations of classic European nationalism) all the way up until about 1935, when air power, notably German, successfully challenged British sea and colonial power. German products have always been better than British products, especially fine machinery. I doubt the superiority of German fine machined products over such British products has much to do with Jewish money. There was plenty of Jewish money floating around Germany around that time too. This cabal around Rhodes, I believe, continues to run The London Times to this very day, or at least they did in the mid 1960’s. At this point, the Jews are in Israel and they are not leaving. Radical Palestinians want to throw out every Jew who came after 1916 (The Balfour Declaration was in 1917). As a settler-colonist myself whose ancestors were still stealing Indian land for our settler-colonial project as late as 1873 in California (see Modoc Wars), this sort of thing makes me really uneasy. Any settlement to the conflict in the Holy Land must take into account the safety of the Jews already there. I would hate to see a situation similar to Iraq where maniacal insurgents are running around slaughtering Jews at will and setting off car bombs and killing 100-200 Jews at a time. Arabs are Arabs, and I don’t think Palestinians and Iraqis are all that different, except one comes from the Levant and the other from Mesopotamia. I’m also not sure that Jewish-led industrialization in Germany (assuming it is a fact) led to the alienation and impoverishment of the rural people and the rise of Nazi blood and soil German ethnic nationalism, but it’s a complicated question to be sure. The followers of the Nazis were mostly petit bourgeois, lower middle class office workers and the like. Rural dwellers were not so supportive. Zionist Apologist writes:

Every ethnic group has a right to a state. It’s a shame that the Jews had to steal Israel, but at least they have a place to call home now. Imperialism is unfortunately a part of humanity’s dark history – and we now have to deal with the dark consequences. A homeland for Jews (whether in Israel or wherever else) is the ONLY WAY to ‘heal’ the Jews, and it’ll take many generations. I’m sure you’ve heard the oft-repeated phrase [paraphrasing]: “Diaspora is the disease, and Israel is the cure.” The Zionists were considering places like Uganda or Argentina early on, and places like those would have been a better choice than Israel in the long run since the Jews would have then been able to develop an agricultural base economy, which is the root of a settled and stable nation-state. However, those places were very rural and undeveloped and hence probably wouldn’t have been successful (as the Jews saw many of their ‘agricultural colony’ experiments in Argentina and Africa and the USA and Canada collapse in dismal failure). I have noticed that Ashkenazi Jews have a definite inability to settle anywhere in any substantial numbers that hasn’t already been fairly heavily settled or where they don’t have access to a nearby network of fellow Jews. It is telling as well that the early Zionist ideals of hard work, agricultural and manual labor, and other mainstays of key Zionist doctrines are now being filled by imported (!) labor (often Asian or Arab) since so many Israelis ‘dislike’ that kind of work and all want to be lawyers and doctors and professors and journalists and bankers (surprise, surprise) rather than just another cog in Israeli society. Israel is even having problems with their military draft now. But, you see, THE WHOLE POINT of the Zionist experiment was for Jews to become cogs in a stable Jewish society instead of always being the perpetual Jewish ‘Other’ in the societies of foreign peoples. The Zionists also noticed that sometimes Jews tended to take advantage of often-times gullible non-Jewish peoples because of their general intelligence and capacity to facilitate commerce, and they wanted to fix that too. In fact, some theorists and historians even believe that it was the general emancipation of the Jews in the early-to-mid 19th Century that led to the Industrial Revolution in The West and the consequent rise of modern industrial-capitalism, which Jews also played and still played a large part in. The countries in Europe where Jews had the most political and economic freedom, especially England and Germany, were also the first to industrialize on a large scale…coincidence? The problem with this, though, is that this Jewish-inspired industrialization tended to slowly choke the lifestyle and economic systems of the rural/agrarian people of those countries who obviously weren’t Jews, thus leading to resentment (antisemitism) – hence the Nazi doctrine of “blood and soil” and their desire to eventually resurrect the German peasantry in the Slavic lands of Eastern Europe. I have also noticed that every nation has a sort of Jewish ‘carrying capacity,’ i.e. it is unable to manage, hold, or absorb Jews in very large numbers until antisemitism starts to break out (for instance, history shows that antisemitism in Germany grew very quickly as more and more Jews from Eastern Europe fled to Germany and Western Europe trying to escape poverty or antisemitism or whatever). And in some ways I think that the saturation point may be close to being reached in North America.I must say that an island nation might actually be best for Jews, as long as it could be mostly self sufficient. As Ezra Pound once said in one of his infamous WWII radio broadcasts: “Sell ’em Australia.”

References

Herzl, Theodore. 1896. The Jewish State. New York: Dover Publications reprint in 1988. Originally published, 1946, New York: American Zionist Emergency Council, edited, original translation by Slyvie d’Avigdor revised by Jacob M. Alkow.

Why Ron Paul is Not Ok

fpy says:

What do people here think of Ron Paul? He’s the only Republican who seems to NOT be an evil, plutocratic, warmongering fuck.

Libertarian. No to Libertarians! Libertarianism will ensure that the plutocrats have complete, total and absolute power. Libertarianism is more or less what holds in the 3rd World. It’s just ultra-capitalism with a minimal to nonexistent state to protect the people from the capitalists. Thing is, real Libertarianism has not only never existed, but it never will exist, and it never can exist. Capitalists need a state like a baby needs its mother. Without a state, the capitalists are nowhere. In particular, they need a very strong army and police to safeguard their wealth. And nowadays, US capitalism anyway is utterly tied in with imperialism to the extent that it can’t exist without it. Have you noticed that most advanced capitalist states are also imperialists? People keep telling me how modern capitalist states can avoid imperialism, but it’s just not possible. A large modern capitalist state must be imperialist. It’s mandatory. If you can’t understand that, then you don’t understand the nature of capitalism at all. Start with Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest State of Capitalism. Lenin is right! There is a group out there on the Internet who are associated with the pure Objectivists of the Ayn Rand school. I forget their name right now. I went over to their website, and it was the usual Libertarian crap. Plus, almost all the writers were Jews. Libertarianism is stacked floor to ceiling with Jews. To my shock, there was article after article supporting US imperialism, especially in defense of Israel and also towards socialist states. They identified Hugo Chavez and Cuba as enemy states and more or less advocated going to war against them. They get it. Modern US capitalism must be imperialist. There is no other way. Imperialism is part of the project. The Project for a New American Century crowd are US imperialists on steroids. They’re also a bunch of Jews too, but forget that for now. Read their papers carefully. The US has no allies, according to them. None, except Israel. All other countries are identified as enemy states (capitalist competitors). Europe is identified as an enemy region and steps are advocated to screw over Europe. Russia is a strong enemy state and is identified as such. Numerous projects are advocated to fuck over Russia. In particular, China is labeled as the worst enemy of the US. Due to capitalist and geopolitical competition, the PNAC crowd figures that the US will have to go to war with China at some point in the next 20 years. Under capitalism, you cannot have any allies. None, zero. An advanced capitalist state is competing with all other capitalist states. There is only so much money on Earth. As one state gets richer, it has to come from someone else. Probably you. Capitalist economic competition frequently results in open warfare, typically over markets. This is what geopolitics, Realpolitik, the Great Game, etc. are all about. And it’s one of the strongest arguments ever against capitalism. Capitalism virtually necessitates war, and war has deep ties to capitalism. Most Americans like capitalism, but few understand that war and imperialism are its essential handmaidens.

Is the "White" IQ So Superior?

Repost from the old site. I confess that I love to beat up White nationalists, or for that matter ethnic nationalists of any sort (this is why I verbally eviscerate Zionists – they are nothing but the Jewish equivalent of White Nationalists). There is nothing like nationalism, not to mention the super brain-killer of ethnic nationalism, to turn a smart person’s brain to useless mush. The problem is that beating up on WN’s is cruel. It’s like slapping a retarded person and ridiculing them in public. So I feel kind of guilty when I do it. For a look at what a nightmare the White Nationalist movement is, and what a racist horror it represents, check out the sanest, most moderate outlier of the movement, American Renaissance. I hang out there a lot, and post lots of comments, when they do not get deleted, which is 7 I post mostly on illegal aliens, which is all I care about race-wise, as I am utterly indifferent to the “Black problem”, anti-immigration xenophobia, Islamophobia, and all their other crazy obsessions. This is a good, frightening post to get you started. It is a common, and fairly disgusting, White Nationalist argument that Whites are superior to all other groups in IQ, with the exception of NE Asians. WN’s typically define Whites as Europeans, but no one quite knows where to draw the line there. For instance, many White Nationalists are so insane that they say Southern Europeans such as Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and Greeks, and Balkans such as Macedonians, Serbians, Albanians, Croats and Bosnians, and West Eurasians such as Armenians, Ashkenazi Jews, Georgians, Caucasians and Turks, and Middle Easterners such as Iranians, Kurds and Assyrians, are not White. Most of these groups are clearly White. There is a bit of a question when it comes to Iranians, Kurds, Turks and Assyrians, but most of these groups are White by any sane definition. So WN’s like to crow about how they are smarter than just about everyone else on the Earth. It follows that letting in anyone from any of the stupid races or ethnic groups to a White country is going to pollute the gene pool, result in growing stupidity, an inability to think and compete and a declining standard of living. I do think that they have a point, and I am not opposed to IQ tests for prospective immigrants other than spouses of Americans. Where I object is to the typical WN insanity of labeling entire races and ethnic groups as idiots who should not be allowed to set one foot on our soil. First of all, Western culture is good for IQ, independent of genes. This alone should throw a serious monkey wrench into WN crap about intellectually inferior races being banned from immigrating to White countries. Look: Everyone knows that the East Indian IQ in Europe is 96 (Lynn 2005), and it’s 81.5-83 in India and Pakistan. Merely living in an improved Western environment raised it 14 pts. Jamaicans raise their IQ’s from 71 to 85 within one generation of living in the UK – 14 points. Most sane people think selective immigration could have only raised either of those scores only a few points. Even if we grant 3 IQ points for selective immigration, we still get an 11 rise for both E. Indians and Jamaicans just for a Western environment. Even Moroccans raise their IQs from 84-89 (5 points) within a generation of living in Holland, and there was probably no selective immigration there at all, as the Europeans were just looking for manual labor. 73 IQ US Negro Blacks (taking a base African Black IQ of 67, adding in 17. Much of the Black raise has occurred since 1920. Everyone except WN lunatics Richard Lynn, except as noted.

US Hispanics   89
Croatia        90
Bosnia         90
Albania        90
Maori          90
Serbia         91
Cyprus         91.5
Chile          91.5 1
Greece         92
Macedonia      92.5
Ireland        93
Bulgaria       93
Armenia        93.5
Georgia        93.5
Israel         94
Romania        94
Argentina      94.5 2
Portugal       95
Slovenia       95.5
Moldova        95.5
Uruguay        96 3
Slovakia       96
Malta          96
Russia         96.5
Belarus        96.5
Ukraine        96.5
Spain          97.5
Czech Republic 97.5
US             98
Australia      98
Finland        98
Canada         98
France         98
Denmark        98
Andorra        98
Estonia        98
Hungary        98.5
Norway         99
Poland         99
Belgium        99.5
Iceland        99.5
Vietnam        99.5 4
Sweden         100
UK             100
Germany        100
Luxembourg     100.5
Netherlands    101
Austria        101
Switzerland    101
Italy          102

Notes

1. “Inferior” Chilean Mestizos beat four White groups, tie one. 2. “Inferior” Argentine Mestizos beat 13 White groups. 3. “Inferior” Uruguayan Mestizos beat 16 White groups, tie two. 4. “Inferior” Vietnamese beat 34 White groups, lose to eight, tie two.

References

Lynn, Richard. (January 2005). Business Today. Smith, Douglas K., Wessels, Richard A., Riebel, Emily M. August 1997. Use of the WISC-III and K-BIT with Hmong Students. School Psychology Training Program University of Wisconsin-River Falls. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Response to Zionist Apologist

Repost from the old site. Always-excellent commenter James Schipper responds to Zionist Apologist from a previous post. Pretty good stuff here. The notion that the problem with Jews is Judaism itself is similar to the arguments of Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir. However, Kevin MacDonald points out that Jewish ethnocentrism does not go away in the absence of Judaism. A good document that makes that clear is his book review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. I disagree with a lot in that review, but all you have to do is look around at a lot of Jewish radicals, and it’s clear that they have not yet, and never will, make a complete break with their Jewish identity. So pulling the Judaism out of the Jew does not solve the problem. As my physician noted when I told him that according to Jewish law, you never quit being a Jew, “So they get a piece of you, eh?” In an unpublished interview with me, I asked Kevin MacDonald if the Jews would ever become less ethnocentric with time. He said emphatically, “No. The Jews will always be ethnocentric..” Incidentally, I found MacDonald to be a warm, friendly, sane, intelligent and gracious man. I also did not think he was the slightest bit anti-Semitic, but maybe I am mistaken. He seemed to be a Judeophile in a sense; he was totally fascinated with Jews. Jewish dual loyalty has been a problem everywhere there are Jews and is a direct consequence of their extreme ethnocentrism and nothing else, although James’ suggests that Judaism also plays a role. James’ comments: Giving Uganda to the Zionists would have been just as unjust as giving Palestine to them. Uganda wasn’t empty territory either. As to Argentina, it was a sovereign country and at the time of Herzl it had just learned to develop the pampas. Why on earth would they give some of their pampas to outsiders from Europe? The best territory to cede to the Zionists would have been Western Australia. At the time it was sparsely populated — it still is — and unlike Palestine, it could easily have accommodated all the Jews of the world. Granted, Western Australia is mainly arid or semi-arid, but so is Palestine, with the difference that WA is huge. Unfortunately, the stinking British imperialists preferred to be generous with Arab land. A diaspora is simply the result of emigration. Since 1880, there has been an Italian diaspora. Are these diaspora Italians sick? No, and their diaspora will soon disappear through assimilation because Italians do not have a tribal religion which tells them that Italians are God’s chosen people and that Italy is their sacred homeland, to which they should one day return. The problem of Jews can be summed up in one word: Judaism. It is because of their religion that Jews can’t be fully assimilated and will always remain a foreign or semi-foreign body in Gentile societies. Judaism tells Jews that they are a people, not a religious community. Nobody refers to Lutherans. Orthodox, Sikhs, Mormons as a people because those religions are non-tribal. Consider the difference between Presbyterians and Jews. Most Presbyterians in the world have at least some Scottish ancestry, but Presbyterianism is not at all about Scots or Scotland. Nearly all Sikhs are Punjabis or descend from Punjabis, but the Sikh religion is not in the least about Punjabis. By contrast, Judaism is all about Jews and their promised land. If people sincerely believe in Judaism, one can have some sympathy for them, in the way that one can sympathize with a Jehovah’s Witness who sincerely believes that a blood transfusion is against God’s will. It is much harder to have sympathy for atheists who remain proudly Jewish and become Zionists. To stop believing in Judaism while continuing to believe that Jews are a people and that Israel is their sacred soil is like stopping to believe in Catholicism but continue to obey the Pope. In one way, Israel made life more difficult for Jews in Gentile countries because the existence of Israel makes Jews vulnerable to the charge of dual loyalty. This charge is more than a figment of anti-Semitic imagination.

References

MacDonald, Kevin. 2005. Stalin’s Willing Executioners: Jews as a Hostile Elite in the USSR – Review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century. The Occidental Quarterly: 5(3), 65-100.

Best Explanation Yet For the Holodomor

Repost from the old site. First of all, we really ought to note that there was no “Holodomor” as the Ukrainian nationalists and Ukrainian Nazis have it. According to them, there was a man-made famine in the Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that led to 6 million Ukrainians dying. The harvest was excellent, but the evil Stalinists confiscated all of the grain to starve the people due to their resistance to collectivization. This is the view that Americans have been fed their entire lives by the controlled US propaganda media (There is no free press of any consequence in the USA). Most historians now completely reject the notion that the USSR intentionally starved anyone to death in order to punish them for resisting the state’s directives. There was a famine in 1933, and it continued for a few years afterward, but it extended over most of the USSR and was not confined to the Ukraine. The government was not happy about the famine and took severe measures to curtail it. Most died of disease after being weakened by famine, not of starvation itself. Poor decisions were made by the state, but historically, this is often the case during famines. One can argue that the famine was caused by state policies, in particular an effort to jump-start collectivization and do it very rapidly. A similar effort in China in 1959-1962 also caused a famine and led to 15 million deaths, again, mostly from disease. There seems to be a pattern of too-rapid collectivization of agriculture causing disastrous famines in Communist countries (something similar happened during Pol Pot’s reign). There was also an armed struggle going on, with bands of kulaks taking up arms against party officials, collective farms and farmers, etc. In the course of this armed struggle, the state killed 390,000 people, mostly Ukrainians. If you want to call this mass murder or genocide or whatever, you’re entitled to do that, but that’s not what the Holodomor crowd is arguing. Also, there was widespread sabotage in the USSR around this time, mostly in the Ukraine again, whereby those resisting cultivation destroyed 5 The reasons for the famine and the story of the famine itself are quite complex and go beyond the scope of this post. For now, this review by Mark Tauger of a recent book by Davies and Wheatcroft perhaps sums up the famine in the USSR during this period to the best of our knowledge. Instead of summarizing this complicated review, I will just link to it and let you go read it yourself. On a related note, it appears that the Ukrainian Nazis (Holodomor crowd) have taken over an article called “Holodomor Denial” and pretty much ruined it. Most of the people accused of being Holodomor Deniers do acknowledge that there was a famine in the USSR during this period that killed at least 1 million people. Walter Duranty, the famous New York Times columnist, acknowledged at least 3 million deaths from famine. Douglas Tottle, Mario Sousa and Jeff Conlon, all supposedly Holodomor Deniers according to this outrageously biased article, all agreed that from 1-2 million died of a famine in the USSR during this period. The reason the Ukrainian Nazis have even come up with the phrase Holodomor Denial is to parrot the Jews’ Holocaust Denial. The Holodomor was given that name in the late 1980’s by Ukrainian nationalists in Canada, most of whom supported the Nazis and often fought beside them in WW2. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial are rampant amongst these fascist supporters. Just to show you how wicked Wikipedia is, take a look at the talk page for the article. The talk page was taken over by Ukrainian Nazis, I mean Holodomorists. Check out this entry. The person who wrote that, Jeff Peters, was subsequently permanently banned from working on Wikipedia merely for opposing the Ukrainian Nazis’ Holodomor lies. Here is his talk page with all the dirty details. Looks like he was also a supporter of Hezbollah and the Palestinians and ran afoul of the Wikipedia Jews. This is par for the course on Wikipedia. Most articles on Communism are seriously ruined by the Wikipedia Cabal. The Cabal, which takes orders from Jimmy Wales himself, is heavily loaded with libertarians who are quite hostile to any kind of socialism or social justice. Jimmy Wales himself is a wild and extreme libertarian who argued that the federal government should not have lifted one finger to help the Hurricane Katrina victims in any way. It’s amazing that not one single article in the “US free press” about Wikipedia or its corrupt founder has ever mentioned the extreme corruption and intellectual dishonesty at Wikipedia, the propaganda cabals that are allowed to run amok, or even Wales’ own extreme political views themselves. A free press in the US? It would be a great idea! Was there famine? Yes. Was there a Holodomor? No. The most responsible estimate of deaths due to the famine range from 1.5-6 million over a few years across much of the USSR. It is interesting that in private correspondence, Robert Conquest, who for decades insisted that the famine was intentional (his view is now the received wisdom on the subject in the West) In Search of a Soviet Holocaust. The Village Voice. Douglas Furr’s website. Coplon, Jeff. March 1988. Rewriting History – How Ukrainian Nationalists Imposed Their Doctored History on High School Students CAPITAL Region. Douglas Furr’s website. Davies, R. W. and Wheatcroft, Steven G. 2004. The Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture, 1931-1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Souza, Mario. Lies Concerning the History of the Soviet Union. North Star Compass website. Tauger, Mark B. 1991. Fraud, Famine, and Fascism: the Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard. Toronto: Progress Books.

Support For South Ossetian Secession

Repost from the old site. A good progressive principle, but one subject to some exceptions, is the principle of self-determination. This leads naturally to support for most if not all separatist movements. In my case, I do support most, but not all separatist movements. It’s interesting of all the people around the world, that only leftwingers and various seceding nationalities support this principle. It’s also interesting that once nations secede and become their own state, suddenly they do not believe in the right to secede anymore! We on the Left have always upheld this basic principle. The USSR held that all Russian nationalities had the right to secede. Unfortunately, it was not enforced much, but it was this very principle that allowed Gorbachev to permit the various USSR republics the right of secession in 1991. At that time, on at least that one variable, the USSR was the most civilized nation on Earth. Its civilized nature was a direct result of the progressive principles that were embodied in the USSR by the first Bolsheviks in 1917. Later, Czechoslovakia split up into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The reason they were able to do this so civilly is, number one, because they are White, and number two, due to the decades of internationalism that had been inculcated into them by Communist rule. I say that being White is important because I am absolutely convinced that only White nations are capable of breaking up civilly and peacefully without slaughtering each other in the process. In a way, breaking up your country without massacring your countrymen is the ultimate civilized act. Even Asians, as civilized as they are, would never be able to break up one of their countries without turning it into a mass slaughter. On this metric, they are not that civilized. What is it about Whites that allows them to break up a country? Is it altruism? Although studies are rare, in the US, Whites have rates of civic participation, volunteerism and donating to charity far above other groups. Now, it is true that Communist China has not done a good job of living up the progressive principles of self-determination. Clearly, Tibet has a right to go free, and I would argue that East Turkestan does too. And Taiwan is a separate country. Mao never was a true internationalist. He was always a Chinese nationalist first and a Communist second. Another reason to support secessionism is that the people who hate it most are the fascists. Idiots are always saying that fascism and Communism and fascism and socialism are the same thing. Let us call them on this one at least. This is a prime difference between fascists and Communists, the Left and the Right. The Left supports self-determination and cultural autonomy for national minorities and the Right has always opposed this, instead choosing to force all national minorities into a single ethnoreligiolinguistic entity. No one opposes separatist movements more than fascists, and no fascist nation has ever given one national minority an inch of cultural autonomy. Even in China, national minorities have considerable cultural autonomy and have the right to education in their national tongue. It’s true that the USSR’s commitment to cultural and linguistic freedom varied throughout the lifetime of the state. Its commitment was highest in the 1920’s, wavered seriously in the 1930’s when Stalin murdered many leaders of national minorities and never attained earlier depths with the subsequent promotion of Russification by Stalin and his successors. The Left nowadays is sleazy and unprincipled on the question of national self-determination. Sadly, the entire world Left refused to support the right of self-determination for the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, all because Yugoslavia was a Communist state. Then they all opposed the right of Kosova to break away from Serbia, I guess because Serbia used to be Communist state! This leads us to the recent fighting in Georgia. First of all, Georgia is pretty much of a fake state. Sure, there have been Georgians living in that area for a very long time, but the Soviet republic called Georgia included not only Georgians but other nationalities as well. Other minorities included Abkhazians, Adjarians and South Ossetians. It is possible that the republic of Georgia was seeded with these minorities as a divide and conquer strategy by the early Soviets, who were not perfect on the national question. Seeding Georgia with non-Georgians would make it more difficult for Georgia to secede from the USSR. Similarly, splitting the poor Ossetians between Russia and Georgia was probably another sleazy divide and conquer game. Anyway, in 1991, this completely fake state called Georgia (really just a republic of the USSR) gained its independence. If we are to support the principle of self-determination, we need to allow national minorities in fake states newly birthed the right to secede. On what basis were Abkhazia, Adjaria and South Ossetia an inherent part of some entity called “Georgia”? On no basis whatsoever! On what basis is some new fake country one day or one month old entitled to the bullshit and fascist principle of “inviolability of borders”? On no basis. So, when the Georgian state (really just a place with lines on the map with a lot of Georgians living in it, but drawn wider than the Georgian nation) got its independence, Abkhazia, Adjaria and South Ossetia surely had the right say, “Screw this, we want no part of this new state. We’re out of here.” Adjaria, a Muslim region in the southwest, seems to have settled its beef without fighting, but Abkhazia and South Ossetia both waged nasty and ugly separatist wars and managed to secede from the new state of Georgia. South Ossetia apparently wants to marry with North Ossetia and become a state in Russia called Ossetia. I’m not sure what Abkhazia wants to do. I think they may wish to join Russia also. Abkhazia is located in the northwest and populated mostly by Orthodox Christians. South Ossetia is located in the north-central part of Georgia and is composed mostly of Ossetians. The Ossetians were formerly called the Alans, an ancient kingdom related ethnically and linguistically to Iranians. They speak a language that is close to Iranian and resemble Iranians physically. Russia is being cynical about this, as befits an imperialist state. While Russia under Putin has fascist tendencies in the nasty repression on national minorities such as the Mari and the people of the Caucasus, Putin is willing, like all sleazy imperialists, do support secessionism when it benefits imperial goals. Russia has it in for Georgia, lately because Georgia has lined up heavily on the side of the US. There are US and Israeli advisors working with the Georgian military right now, and Russia is terrified by Georgian threats to join NATO. We need to note that NATO doesn’t have much right to exist anymore. NATO was set up to deal with the Soviet threat. That’s gone. So why is NATO still there? Apparently to form an imperialist bloc to oppose Russia! The Russians are furious about this, and rightly so. Who can blame them? Sadly, it is also possible that Russia is using this as a payback to the West for supporting the secession of Kosova. The West, including the US in its extreme cynicism, first of all supported the secession of all of the former states of Yugoslavia (apparently on the cynical grounds that since they were seceding from a Communist nation, therefore the right of self-determination was invoked). Then, just to stick it to Russia for the most part, the US and most of Europe supported Kosova and Montenegrin independence, just so long as they were pro-West. I supported it too, on the basis of solid principles called the right of self-determination. It is sad that the entire world Left opposed the independence of Kosova. This made Russia furious. Yet in Abkhazia, in the same sleazy West that championed every micro-state to be cleaved out of the former Yugoslavia, not a single Western state, nor any state anywhere, would support the principled secession of the Abkhazian people from Georgian imperialism. Does fascist Russia under Putin support the right of self-determination, however limited? Of course not. As a capitalist, and in fact fascist and now imperialist state, Russia clearly has no principles whatsoever. As payback to Kosova secession which hurt their pitiful fascist pan-Slavic feelings, the Russians are now supporting secession in Georgia. Principles? Come now! This whole conflict is shot through with imperialism all the way. The US is supporting Georgia not out of any principles, because as an imperialist state, the US has zero principles other than profiteering, plunder and subjection of other states and peoples. The US supports secessionism when it benefits imperialist interests, and opposes it when it hinders imperialist interests! And of course, it never admits this. When it supports secessionism, the US apparently invokes the right of self-determination. When it opposes secessionism, the US invokes the right of inviolability of national borders, as it is doing now in the case of Georgia. Contradictory, no? Sure is! The sleazy and pro-imperialist US media fails to point out this dissonance, and your average educated American will inconsistently invoke, like a moron, either the right of self-determination of the right of inviolability of borders, depending, as they support the imperial projects that they have been inculcated to support. This conflict, like all imperialist bullshit wars, boils down to various imperialist nations waging armed conflict over access to markets and natural resources. As is, oil from Azerbaijan and gas from the Stans goes through Georgia and I believe hooks up with Russian pipelines. The US, Georgia, Israel and Turkey wish to cut Russia out of the deal and cut a new pipeline through Georgia to Turkey. At least some of the oil will then go to Israel and from there, through the Suez and out to the Indian Ocean and various nations in that region, in particular India. Someone suggested to me that the West is cutting this new pipeline because they are afraid that Russia will cut off the flow of oil to the West. Forget it. They will not do any such thing unless pushed to the wall. The US, Israel, Georgia and probably Turkey are all doing this because they are more or less imperialist states. This conflict is also shot through with old Cold War “Beware the bear” bullshit. Even after the fall of Communism and the return of capitalism to Russia, US imperialism and anti-Communists everywhere have continued to see Russia through and Cold War and anti-Communist lens. It is as if the fall of the USSR never occurred. Any analysis of the conflict between the US and the West that leaves out this essential element is lacking. As a socialist, I want to ask the supporters of capitalism on this blog some questions. Show me how advanced capitalism can exist without imperialism. Prove to me that an advanced capitalist state can exist in the modern world without becoming an imperialist power. It seems to me that large capitalist states are typically mandated to become imperialist states and from there to engage in conflict, often armed, with other imperialist states for markets and natural resources. If this is so (and I think it is) how then can one support capitalism as it now exists, since it seems to be impossible to have large capitalist states that are not also imperialist? As you might have guessed, I support the right of South Ossetia to self-determination and to secede from Georgia and the right, however sleazy, of Russia to assist them in this principled endeavor. This conflict is getting real nasty real quick. Russia is threatening Israel and the US over their support for Georgia and the US has incredibly ordered Russia to withdraw its forces from South Ossetia. And the conflict very quickly seems to have expanded to Abkhazia. We have the potential for a really nasty conflict here. I would like to point out that the neoconservative scum who now pretty much run this country are first and foremost ferocious imperialists. They are some of the most voracious backers of US imperialism out there. In this endeavor, neoconservatives have been picking fights with Russia for a long time now. Many Jewish neoconservatives are involved in this imperial conflict with Russia, and unfortunately, in this light, they have supported Chechen independence not out of any decent principles, since neocons have no principles, but just to screw Russia. The fact that elements of imperialism have supported the Chechen separatists rouses Russian nationalism and paranoia and makes Russia all the less likely to give the Chechens and other Caucasian peoples the independence they deserve. It’s not known why the neocons have such a beef with Russia, but they also backed the Russian Jewish oligarchs in their fleecing of Russia. There seems to be an old beef between Jewish nationalists and Russia. We can see the outlines of this conflict in the campaign to “free the Soviet Jews”, which was one of the original catalysts for the formation of the Jewish neocons back in the 1970’s. There may also be a “screw the Russians” mindset dating from the hostile history of Russians and Jews in Russia, a history replete with pogroms of Jews.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)