Archive for February, 2010

Read Full Post »


“Stalin’s Willing Executioners”? Girin vs. MacDonald
By Eugene Girin [and an excellent response by Professor MacDonald further below]

In “Stalin’s Willing Executioners“?, his VDARE.COM review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century, Dr. Kevin MacDonald accused the Jews of being responsible for the worst aspects of Soviet communism: the Red Terror, Collectivization, and Stalin’s bloody Purges.

As an ex-Soviet Jew and past contributor to VDARE.COM, and as someone who agrees with most of VDARE.COM’s positions, I was surprised to see this canard, which usually circulates among Russian anti-Semitic cranks, be given credence by an American professor who poses as a serious researcher of evolutionary psychology.

MacDonald uses anecdotal evidence and out-of-context citations to assert that the Soviet secret police (Cheka-OGPU-NKVD) and Gulag administration were all overwhelmingly Jewish and that the Jews “to such a large extent ran the USSR.” This is utterly false.

But according to Slezkine in The Jewish Century, which MacDonald was reviewing, “the vast majority of Bolshevik party members (72 percent in 1922) were ethnic Russians.” The most overrepresented ethnic group was the Latvians. Only 2.6 percent of Bolshevik party members in revolutionary St. Petersburg and only 5.2 percent of Communists in the Soviet Union in the year 1922 and were Jewish.

In 1920, only 9.1 percent of all Cheka operatives were Jews and in 1924, Jews made up only 8.5 percent of the central apparatus of the Soviet secret police.

I do agree that a tragically large number of Eastern European Jews—in the purely ethnic sense, of course—actively supported communism. Two of my great-grandfathers were among the first communists in Poland and Romania. (One later spent eight years in Stalin’s Gulag and the other died of tuberculosis in exile in Central Asia. So much for the Red Dream.) But these figures are hardly characteristic of a Jewish-dominated organization.

Kevin MacDonald also demonstrates his utter ignorance of Soviet Jewish historical realities when he argues that ex-Jews like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and the thousands of Cheka operatives and Bolshevik party members retained their Jewish identity and “Eastern European shtetl culture.”

In fact, Jewish Bolsheviks were simply apostates who turned their back on their faith and people. Some of them were simply violent scoundrels without any sense of ethnic pride and belonging, shunned and despised by their community. Others were brutal revolutionaries—like Trotsky who refused to bury his father in a Jewish cemetery, refused to meet with Jewish delegations, and violently persecuted Russian Zionists. “I am not a Jew and have nothing in common with the Jewish people,” he said around 1919.

Jewish Communists viewed Judaism as a shameful relic of the pre-Soviet past that had to be eradicated. Thousands of synagogues were desecrated and closed down only to be re-opened as athletic societies, social clubs, and warehouses. Rabbis were arrested and imprisoned with Christian clergymen in the horrid Solovki prison camp. There, they were housed in the same barracks as common criminals.

In 1918, the Ukrainian rabbinical congress, which met in Odessa, issued a cherem—a declaration of excommunication—against Trotsky and other prominent Jewish Bolsheviks. The famous Jewish sage Chofetz Chaim characterized communism as the “destruction of the soul” and in 1927, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneerson, the leader of the Hassidic Chabad Lubavitch movement, was arrested by the Soviet secret police and only pressure from abroad prevented the Soviet authorities from sending him to a labor camp.

Thousands of Jews were murdered, raped, assaulted, and robbed by units of the Red Army in the Ukraine and Belarus during the Russian Civil War (1918-22) and the Russo-Polish War (1919-20). In the town of Gluhov, Red soldiers murdered over a hundred Jews, shot the rabbi, looted the synagogue, and tore up the Torah scrolls. In another Ukrainian town of Novgorod-Seversky, Red Army soldiers slaughtered eighty-eight Jews and maimed many others. The anti-Semitic brutality of the Red Army is magnificently depicted in Isaac Babel’s haunting novel Red Cavalry.

Large numbers of Russian Jews were arrested, tortured, exiled, and executed by the Bolsheviks for either belonging to “enemy parties” like the Mensheviks, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the Kadets, to “enemy classes” like the merchants and the intellectuals. At least 200,000 Russian Jews fled Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution and the Red Terror.

Russian Jews were active contributors to the anti-Bolshevik struggle. A Jewish Socialist Revolutionary, Fanya Kaplan attempted to assassinate Lenin and was executed by the Bolsheviks. Dozens of Jews served in the White (anti-Bolshevik) armies and one of them, David Pasmanik, organized the Jewish Anti-Communist Committee in Paris. The army of the anti-Bolshevik Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in Galicia and Bukovina had a Jewish detachment of 1,200 soldiers under the command of Solomon Leinberg and dozens of Jews served in the guerrilla forces of the Ukrainian anti-Bolshevik anarchist Nestor Makhno. The legendary Ukrainian Jew, Lev (“Lyovka”) Zadov was Makno’s counter-intelligence chief.

Contrary to Kevin MacDonald’s brazen assertions, Communist rule was a tragedy for Russian Jews. We were deprived of our traditions, culture, language, and communal cohesiveness. The Russian Jewish community has been ravaged by assimilation, intermarriage, and indifference because of Soviet rule. Many Russian Jews lost all sense of ethno-religious identity and became perpetual outsiders, unaccepted by neither Jews nor Russians.

Kevin MacDonald’s claims about the disproportional role of Jews in the worst excesses of Russian communism betray a dark obsession with the Jews, an obsession that harms and discredits real American conservatism and the immigration-reform movement.

Eugene Girin [email him] immigrated (legally!) from the Republic of Moldova in 1994 at the age of 10. He is a student at CUNY Baruch College and has been published by VDARE.COM, Front Page Magazine, and other websites.

Kevin MacDonald responds:

Fundamentally, Eugene Girin does not like Yuri Slezkine’s findings. In response, seeking to make these conclusions easier to dismiss, he adopts the stratagem of trying to convince his readers that I have misrepresented Slezkine. But I did not.

No one is saying that all Jews supported the USSR or denying that some Jews suffered from the regime, even at the height of Jewish power. But Slezkine provides overwhelming evidence that Jews constituted an elite in the USSR and that the great majority of Soviet Jews supported Bolshevism and benefited from it—evidence that fits well with previously existing data that I have summarized in my writing on this topic.

Girin provides some Slezkine figures on Jewish representation in early Bolshevism to suggest that Jews did not play a particularly outstanding role. However, he fails to note how Slezkine contextualizes these findings. After all, the title of Slezkine’s book is The Jewish Century. It would be odd to find that Slezkine’s real view is that Jews were not much of a factor in arguably the most significant upheaval of the 20th century.

For example, Girin quotes Slezkine that “the vast majority of Bolshevik party members (72 percent in 1922) were ethnic Russians.” But he fails to note Slezkine’s basic argument that the Jews formed an elite within the Bolshevik movement: Jews formed 40 percent of the top elected officials in the army, 5 of the 12 members of the Bolshevik Central Committee that voted to launch an armed insurrection in 1917, and much else (see Slezkine, pp. 175–180).

Jews did not form a particularly high percentage of the Cheka, says Slezkine, “but even in the Cheka, Bolsheviks of Jewish origin combined ideological commitment with literacy in ways that set them apart and propelled them upward” (p. 177).

Slezkine’s views on this matter are entirely compatible with my previously published analysis of the Jewish role in Bolshevism: Jews formed an indispensable elite that was a necessary condition for the success of Bolshevism. (Even this is an understatement, as argued in the longer Occidental Quarterly version of my VDARE.COM article.)

Historian Albert Lindemann makes the same point in his book Esau’s Tears:

“Citing the absolute numbers of Jews [within the Bolshevik movement], or their percentage of the whole, fails to recognize certain key if intangible factors: the assertiveness and often dazzling verbal skills of Jewish Bolsheviks, their energy, and their strength of conviction” (p. 429).

There is no claim that all or even most Bolsheviks were Jews.

Jews formed less than five percent of the Russian population at the time of the Revolution, and they were underrepresented in the major urban areas of Moscow and Leningrad prior to the Revolution because of the Pale of Settlement laws. But having a very large, even dominant influence despite forming a small percentage of the population has been a theme of Jewish history, most notably in Eastern and Central Europe prior to the Revolution. The case of Revolutionary Russia once again underscores the importance of philosemitism and building alliances for the Jews. This has been typically necessary in Diaspora situations in order to advance their perceived interests.

Girin makes the outrageous claim that I argued that “ex-Jews like Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, and the thousands of Cheka operatives and Bolshevik party members retained their Jewish identity and ‘Eastern European shtetl culture [his emphasis]””

But in fact I explicitly granted the possibility that they did not. And I certainly did not say that Jewish Bolsheviks retained their Eastern European shtetl culture in toto, but that they had retained some aspects of traditional Jewish identity, specifically the ones I listed: a strong sense of estrangement from non-Jewish society, a fear and hatred of peasants, hostility toward the Czarist upper class, and a very negative attitude toward Christianity.

Since this is a major issue on which I do not agree with Slezkine, I spend almost eight pages on the issue of the Jewish identity of Jewish Bolsheviks in the longer Occidental Quarterly review (pp. 75–82). I would urge readers to look at this material as well as Chapter 3 of my study The Culture of Critique.

And in the end, as Slezkine actually says (p. 286), by the time of World War II most Jews

“knew that they were, in some sense, Jews. They may never have been to a synagogue, seen a menorah, heard Yiddish or Hebrew, tasted gefilte fish or indeed met their grandparents. But they knew they were Jews in the Soviet sense, which was also—in essence—the Nazi sense. They were Jews by blood.”

As for Girin’s other comments, they essentially contradict Slezkine’s argument that in fact the USSR was a Jewish haven and that Jews formed an elite until the post-World War II era, when issues related to Zionism and popular and official anti-Semitism combined to lessen Jewish power.

The fact that Jews were an elite in the USSR shouldn’t be a surprise. As Slezkine and others have documented, Jews were an economically and culturally dominant elite throughout Eastern and Central Europe too, and they soon became an elite in the U.S. after the massive upsurge in Jewish immigration beginning in the late 19th century.

Nor should it be surprising that there is a massive taboo surrounding Jewish involvement in the most murderous regime in history. After all, despite the fact that Jews constitute less than 3 percent of the U.S. population, the Holocaust has become a cultural icon as a direct result of Jewish activism and influence in the media, Israel has become a sacred cow in American politics, and the role of Jewish organizations in helping unleash massive multiethnic immigration into the U.S., as well as engineering the current American involvement in Iraq, goes unmentioned in public debate.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

I first read Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Cultural Baggage” in the year 2000, and must have been the only student in my writing class to have found it so repulsive. Although I respond to these situations far differently today — and anyone reading this likely knows that the offensive assignments have only multiplied in the course of a decade — it was enough at that time to prompt me drop to the class. In fact, I left school altogether in disgust and disbelief. I could hardly grasp that things had gotten so bad. It took me a while to accept the obvious: that our situation will never improve, and that things are bound to grow exponentially worse, until people like myself have earned positions of influence and reclaimed authority. The way that things are structured, degrees go a long way in affecting change in the establishment. It is essential, then, that we learn to transform every source of frustration and discouragement along our path into positive, constructive energy, to the best of our ability. As we patiently advance toward our ideal, the rotten, decayed matter around us crumbles and falls aside. And most importantly, every success toward our goal serves to amplify the attraction of our Cause. Every step forward serves as encouragement for others along this path who invariably meet with the same frustration and discouragement. What is clearly designed to break our will must only make us harder. Knowing more today than I did a decade ago regarding the Frankfurt School, the origins of Political Correctness, and the Social-Marxian strategy of utilizing deracinated feminists like Ehrenreich and other “outsider” groups (particularly on campus) as agents of revolution, I am better equipped to deal with these irksome obstacles with the proper perspective and a far more logical approach. It seems silly to me now that such a simple thing — this ridiculous essay — affected me in such a major way… But with the negative comes the positive.

Hang in there. We’ve got work to do. -W.

By Barbara Ehrenreich

Recently an acquaintance was telling me about the joys of rediscovering her ethnic and religious heritage. “I know exactly what my ancestors were doing 2,000 years ago,” she said, eyes gleaming with enthusiasm, “and I can do the same things now.” Then she leaned forward and inquired politely, “And what is your ethnic background, if I may ask?”

“None,” I said, that being the first word in line to get out of my mouth. Well, not “none,” I backtracked. Scottish, English, Irish—that was something, I supposed. Too much Irish to qualify as a WASP, too much English to warrant a “Kiss me, I’m Irish” button; plus there are a number of dead ends in the family tree due to adoptions, missing records, failing memories, and the like. I was blushing by this time. Did “none” mean I was rejecting my heritage out of Anglo-Celtic self-hatred?

But the truth is I was raised with “none.” We’d eaten ethnic foods in my childhood home, but these were all borrowed, like the Cornish pasties, or meat pies, my father had picked up from his fellow miners in Butte. If my mother had one rule, it was militant ecumenicism in all matter of food and experience: “Try new things,” she would say, meaning anything from sweetbreads to clams, with an emphasis on the “new.”

My mother never introduced a domestic procedure by telling me, “Grandma did it this way.” What did Grandma know, living in the days before vacuum cleaners and disposable toilet mops? In my parents’ general view, new things were better than old, and the very fact that some ritual had been performed in the past was good reason for abandoning it now. Because what was in the past, as our forebears knew it? Nothing but poverty, superstition and grief. “Think for yourself,” Dad used to say, “Always ask why.”

In fact, this may have been the ideal cultural heritage for an ethnic strain like my own—bounced as it was from the Highlands of Scotland across the sea, then across the plains to the Rockies, down into the mines, and finally spewed out into high-tech, suburban America. What better philosophy, for a race of migrants, than “Think for yourself’? What better maxim, for a people whose whole world was rudely inverted every thirty years or so, than “Try new things”?

The more tradition-minded, the newly enthusiastic celebrants of Hanukkah and Kwanzaa and the Winter Solstice, will be clucking sadly as they read this. They will see little point to survival if the survivors carry no cultural freight—religion, for example, or ethnic tradition. To them I would say that skepticism, curiosity, and wide-eyed ecumenical tolerance are also a part of the human tradition, and are at least as old as such notions as “Serbian” or “Croatian,” “Scottish,” or “Jewish.” I make no claims for my personal line of progenitors except that they remained steadfastly loyal to the values that induced all of our ancestors, long, long ago, to climb down from the trees and make their way into the open savanna.

Throughout the sixties and seventies I watched one group after another stand up and proudly reclaim their roots while I just sank back ever deeper into my seat. It had begun to seem almost un-American not to have some sort of hyphen in hand, linking one to more venerable times and locales. I hoped that by marrying a man of Eastern European-Jewish descent I would acquire for my descendants the ethnic genes that my own forebears so sadly lacked. At one point I even subjected the children to a Passover feast of my own design, including a little talk about the Israelites’ flight from Egypt. But the kids said, “Give us a break, Mom.” The kids knew that their Jewish grandparents were secular folks who didn’t observe Passover themselves.

A few weeks ago, I cleared my throat and asked my children, now grown, whether they felt any stirrings of ethnic identity which might have been insufficiently nourished at home. “None,” they said, adding firmly, “and the world would be a better place if nobody else did either.” My chest swelled with pride, as my mother’s would have, to know that the race of “none” marches on.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »


Academic Left Opposes Free Speech, Academic Freedom and the Legitimate Interests of White Americans
By Kevin MacDonald
Updated: Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Source: www.Daily49er.com

For nearly four years the Cal State Long Beach community has seen repeated attacks on me. Powerful activist organizations — the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League — have come to campus to condemn me. Several departments at the university have issued public denunciations, and I have been harassed and condemned by individual professors on faculty e-mail lists. Beginning with the current semester, several students have disrupted my classes; they have campaigned to get me fired and have written inflammatory articles in the Daily 49er.

Why all this hostility? Fundamentally, I am attacked because I advocate ideas that fly in the face of the conventional wisdom as seen by the academic left that has come to dominate the university.

First and foremost, I am an evolutionary psychologist. On the basis of my understanding of the theory and research in this field, my view is that everyone has ethnic interests — including people of European descent. A great many other identifiable groups in multicultural America have a strong sense of ethnic identity and interest. Quite a few departments on this campus are devoted to strengthening the ethnic identity of non-whites and articulating their interests. But explicit expressions of white European-American identity and interests are condemned as indicating moral turpitude or even psychiatric impairment.

This is a completely unnatural state of affairs — the result of a prolonged assault on the legitimacy of these concepts by politically and ethnically motivated elites that have dominated public discourse on issues of race and ethnicity since before World War II and especially since the 1960s.

I reject labels such as “white supremacist” or “racist” that are routinely bestowed on assertions of white identity and interests as a means of muzzling their expression. Non-Western peoples throughout the world continue to seek political power, and they attempt to control their borders, establish their own cultures and defend their perceived interests. No one would claim that Korea, say, has a moral obligation to import millions of non-Koreans or to change their culture so that the traditional people and culture are pushed aside. Many countries, including Mexico, have excluded immigrants and dealt with them harshly. Israel not only has an identity as a Jewish state, it also rigorously enforces a biological conception of Jewishness as the basis of its immigration policy. Israel has erected an apartheid society on the West Bank and has discriminatory policies against its Palestinian minority within Israel.

Nevertheless, as Joel Kotkin points out in his recent book “The Next Hundred Million”, the U.S. stands poised to add 100 million non-whites by 2050, making the current white majority into a minority and implying a dramatic decline in their political and cultural influence.

Whether explicitly or implicitly, ethnostates are the norm throughout the world. Societies in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand that have been controlled by whites for hundreds of years are the only ones to accept the idea that the ethnic majority has a moral imperative to cede power and become a minority. I view this outcome as the result of competition over the construction of culture in which the legitimate interests of Whites have been compromised. My scholarly book, “The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements” (1998), and much of my subsequent writing, are an attempt to determine how this unnatural state of affairs came about.

The big picture is that the left championed the interests of the working and middle classes of pre-1965 America. Since that time, the left has been strongly identified with massive non-white immigration and multiculturalism — policies that have compromised the interests of the working and middle classes of traditional America, black and white alike.

My main concern is that this upheaval opposes the legitimate interests of the European-descended peoples of the U.S. It’s not about hatred. It’s about seeing legitimate conflicts of interest among different ethnic groups. I was a staunch leftist as a young person. But it’s obvious that the left now stands for policies that are radically opposed to the interests of people like me.

As part of this revolution against pre-1965 America, the left has erected a culture of political correctness in which expressions of ethnocentrism by Europeans are proscribed. Organizations such as the SPLC and the ADL seek to stifle free speech by condemning any hint of ethnocentrism by Europeans — and only Europeans.

Because their point of view is intellectually bankrupt and cannot be rationally defended, the left has repeatedly resorted to force to accomplish its goals. Many European countries and Canada have savage legal penalties that enforce intellectual conformity on these issues. In America the sanctions are more informal — but nevertheless similarly effective. The condemnations of my writing and my affiliations by academic departments, professors and students at Cal State Long Beach are a part of this campaign to shut down free speech on these issues and to make my life as difficult as possible.

America and other Western societies stand to lose much as a result of these transformations. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has shown that increasing ethnic diversity lowers the willingness to contribute to charity or to public goods such as, apropos the current national debate, public health care. Ethnic diversity also increases social isolation and lowers trust both within and between races; it also lowers political participation and lessens confidence in political leaders.

Throughout the world, ethnically diverse societies are marked by ethnic conflict. The bottom line is that no one has come up with a formula to get rid of ethnicity as a form of identity and as a vehicle of expressing interests. None seems on the horizon. My vision of the future of Western societies is that they are well on the road to becoming cauldrons of competing ethnic groups, with chronic divisions over issues like affirmative action, redistribution of wealth and the establishment of public goods like health care — any issue that may be seen as benefiting one ethnic group more than another. In the long run, democratic forms of government and the rule of law are threatened.

An early sign of this dystopian future is that American politics have become increasingly racialized. The Republican Party routinely receives roughly 90 percent of its votes from whites, while overwhelming majorities of non-whites identify with the Democratic Party. There is a palpable rage building in America among the tea partiers and working and middle-class white Americans who want something like the America they grew up in. These people are being pushed out economically and politically. They are less able to avoid the costs of multiculturalism: They can’t move to gated communities or send their children to all-white private schools. Their unions have been destroyed and their jobs either shipped overseas or performed by recent immigrants, legal and illegal.

Despite what some of my critics have claimed, I have never advocated violence as a solution to the rapidly diminishing prospects of non-elite white Americans. But we are clearly headed into very dangerous times.

Kevin MacDonald is a psychology professor at CSULB and a member of the American Third Position party.

Read Full Post »


“Stalin’s Willing Executioners”?
By Kevin MacDonald

Yuri Slezkine’s book The Jewish Century, which appeared last year to rapturous reviews, is an intellectual tour de force, alternately muddled and brilliant, courageous and apologetic. Slezkine’s greatest accomplishment is to set the historical record straight on the importance of Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath. He summarizes previously available data and extends our understanding of the Jewish role in revolutionary movements before 1917 and of Soviet society thereafter. His book provides a fascinating chronicle of the Jewish rise to elite status in all areas of Soviet society—culture, the universities, professional occupations, the media, and government. Indeed, the book is also probably the best, most up-to-date account of Jewish economic and cultural pre-eminence in Europe (and America) that we have.

The once-common view that the Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish revolution and that the Soviet Union was initially dominated by Jews has now been largely eliminated from modern academic historiography. The current view, accepted by almost all contemporary historians, is that Jews played no special role in Bolshevism and indeed, were uniquely victimized by it.

Slezkine’s book provides a bracing corrective to this current view.

Slezkine himself [email him] is a Russian immigrant of partially Jewish extraction. Arriving in America in 1983, he moved quickly into elite U.S. academic circles and is now a professor at U.C. Berkeley. This, his second book, is his first on a major theme.

While the greater part of The Jewish Century is an exposition of the Russian experience, Slezkine provides what are in effect sidebars (comparatively flimsy) recounting the Jewish experience in America and the Middle East. Together, these phenomena can in fact be seen as the three great Jewish migrations of the 20th century, since within Russia millions of Jews left the shtetl towns of the Pale of Settlement, migrating to Moscow and the other cities to man elite positions in the Soviet state.

Slezkine attempts to understand Jewish history and the rise of Jews to elite status in the 20th century by developing the thesis that the peoples of the world can be classified into two groups.

The successful peoples of the modern world, termed Mercurians, are urban, mobile, literate, articulate, and intellectually sophisticated.

The second group, termed Apollonians, is rooted to the land with traditional agrarian cultures, valuing physical strength and warrior virtues.

Since Slezkine sees Jews as the quintessential Mercurians, modernization is essentially a process of everyone becoming Jewish. Indeed, Slezkine regards both European individualism and the European nation state as imitations of pre-existing Jewish accomplishments—both deeply problematic views, in my opinion.

There are problems with the Mercurian/Apollonian distinction as well. The Gypsies whom he offers as an example of another Mercurian people, are basically the opposite of Jews: having a low-investment, low-IQ reproductive style characterized by higher fertility, earlier onset of reproduction, more unstable pair bonds, and more single parenting.

The Overseas Chinese, another proposed parallel, are indeed highly intelligent and entrepreneurial, like the Jews. But I would argue the aggressiveness of the Jews, compared to the relative political passivity of the Overseas Chinese, invalidates the comparison.

We do not read of Chinese cultural movements dominating the major local universities and media outlets, subjecting the traditional culture of Southeast Asians and anti-Chinese sentiment to radical critique —or of Chinese organizations campaigning for the removal of native cultural and religious symbols from public places.

Moreover, the vast majority of Jews in Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were hardly the modern Mercurians that Slezkine portrays.

Well into the 20th century, as Slezkine himself notes, most Eastern European Jews could not speak the languages of the non-Jews living around them. Slezkine also ignores their medieval outlook on life, their obsession with the Kabbala—the writings of Jewish mystics—their superstition and anti-rationalism, and their belief in magical remedies and exorcisms.

And these supposedly modern Mercurians had an attitude of absolute faith in the person of the tsadik, their rebbe, who was a charismatic figure seen by his followers literally as the personification of God in the world.

Slezkine devotes one line to the fact that Jewish populations in Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural increase of any European population in the nineteenth century. The grinding poverty that this produced caused an upsurge of fundamentalist extremism that coalesced in the Hasidic movement and, later in the nineteenth century, into political radicalism and Zionism as solutions to Jewish problems.

By proposing the basically spurious Mercurian/Apollonian contrast, Slezkine obscures the plain fact that Jewish history in the period he discusses constitutes a spectacularly, arguably uniquely, successful case of what I have described as an ethnocentric group competitive strategy in action.

Slezkine conceptualizes Mercurianism as a worldview and therefore a matter of psychological choice rather than a set of psychological mechanisms, notably general intelligence and ethnocentrism. He appears to be aware of the biological reality of kinship and ethnicity, but he steadfastly pursues a cultural determinism model. As a result of this false premise, he understates the power of ethnocentrism and group competitiveness as unifying factors in Jewish history.

This competitiveness was of course notorious in Eastern Europe before the 1917 revolution. Slezkine ignores, or at least does not spell out, the extent to which Jews were willing agents of exploitative elites in traditional societies, not only in Europe, but in the Muslim world as well. Forming alliances with exploitative elites is arguably the most reliably recurrent theme observable in Jewish economic behavior over the ages.

Indeed, Slezkine shows that this pattern effectively continued in Russia after the Revolution: Jews became part of a new exploitative elite. But here boundaries between Jews and non-Jews were unusually blurred—in traditional societies, barriers between Jews and non-Jews at all social levels were always high.

Slezkine supposes that Jews and other Mercurians performed economic tasks deemed inappropriate for the natives for religious reasons. But this is only part of the story. Often these were situations where the natives were simply comparatively less ruthless in exploiting their fellows, which put them at a competitive disadvantage. This was especially the case in Eastern Europe, where conducive economic arrangements, such as tax farming, estate management, and monopolies on retail liquor distribution, lasted far longer than in the West.

Slezkine also ignores the extent to which Jewish competition may have suppressed — arguably sometimes reversed — the formation of a native middle class in Eastern Europe. He seems instead to simply assume the locals lacked the abilities required.

But the fact is that in most of Western Europe Jews were expelled in the Middle Ages. And, as a result, when modernization occurred, it was accomplished with an indigenous middle class. Perhaps the Christian taxpayers of England made a good investment in their own future when they agreed to pay King Edward I a massive tax of £116,346 in return for expelling 2000 Jews in 1290. If, as in Eastern Europe, Jews had won the economic competition in most of these professions, there might not have been a non-Jewish middle class in England.

Although in the decades immediately before the Russian Revolution Jews had already made enormous advances in social and economic status, a major contribution of Slezkine’s book is to document that Communism was, indeed, “good for the Jews.” After the Revolution, there was active elimination of any remnants of the older order and their descendants. Anti-Semitism was outlawed. Jews benefited from “antibourgeois” quotas in educational institutions and other forms of discrimination against the middle class and aristocratic elements of the old regime, which could have competed with the Jews. While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to keep their ethnic identities, the revolution maintained an anti-majoritarian attitude. (Some might argue that the parallel with post ’65 Civil Rights Act America ironic!)

Beyond the issue of demonstrating that the Jews benefited from the Revolution lies the more important question of their role in implementing it. Having achieved power and elite status, did their traditional hostility to the leaders of the old regime, and to the peasantry, contribute to the peculiarly ghastly character of the early Soviet era?

On this question, Slezkine’s contribution is decisive.

Despite the important role of Jews among the Bolsheviks, most Jews were not Bolsheviks before the Revolution. However, Jews were prominent among the Bolsheviks, and once the Revolution was underway, the vast majority of Russian Jews became sympathizers and active participants.

Jews were particularly visible in the cities and as leaders in the army and in the revolutionary councils and committees. For example, there were 23 Jews among 62 Bolsheviks in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee elected at the Second Congress of Soviets in October, 1917. Jews were leaders of the movement and to a great extent they were its public face.

Their presence was particularly notable at the top levels of the Cheka and OGPU (two successive acronyms for the secret police). Here Slezkine provides statistics on Jewish overrepresentation in these organizations, especially in supervisory roles, and quotes historian Leonard Shapiro’s comment that “anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with and possibly shot by a Jewish investigator.”

During the 1930s, Slezkine reports, the secret police, now known as the NKVD, “was one of the most Jewish of all Soviet institutions”, with 42 of the 111 top officials being Jewish. At this time 12 of the 20 NKVD directorates were headed by ethnic Jews, including those in charge of State Security, Police, Labor Camps, and Resettlement (deportation).

The Gulag was headed by ethnic Jews from its beginning in 1930 until the end of 1938, a period that encompasses the worst excesses of the Great Terror.

They were, in Slezkine’s remarkable phrase, “Stalin’s willing executioners”.

Slezkine appears to take a certain pride in the drama of the role of the Jews in Russia during these years. Thus he says they were

“among the most exuberant crusaders against ‘bourgeois’ habits during the Great Transformation; the most disciplined advocates of socialist realism during the ‘Great Retreat’ (from revolutionary internationalism); and the most passionate prophets of faith, hope, and combat during the Great Patriotic War against the Nazis”.

Sometimes his juxtapositions between his descriptions of Jewish involvement in the horror of the early Soviet period and the life styles of the Jewish elite seem deliberately jarring. Lev Kopelev, a Jewish writer who witnessed and rationalized the Ukrainian famine in which millions died horrible deaths of starvation and disease as an “historical necessity” is quoted saying “You mustn’t give in to debilitating pity. We are the agents of historical necessity. We are fulfilling our revolutionary duty.”

On the next page, Slezkine describes the life of the largely Jewish elite in Moscow and Leningrad where they attended the theater, sent their children to the best schools, had peasant women (whose families were often the victims of mass murder) for nannies, spent weekends at pleasant dachas and vacationed at the Black Sea.

Again, Slezkine discusses the heavily Jewish NKVD and the Jewish leadership of the Great Terror of the 1930s. Then, he writes that in 1937 the prototypical Jewish State official “probably would have been living in elite housing in downtown Moscow . . . with access to special stores, a house in the country (dacha), and a live-in peasant nanny or maid”. He writes long and lovingly detailed sketches of life at the dachas of the elite—the “open verandas overlooking small gardens enclosed by picket fences…”

The reader is left on his own to recall the horrors of the Ukrainian famine, the liquidation of the Kulaks, and the Gulag.

Slezkine attempts to dodge the issue of the degree to which the horrors perpetrated by the early Soviet state were rooted in the traditional attitudes of the Jews who in fact played such an extensive role in their orchestration. He argues that the Jewish Communists were Communists, not Jews.

This does not survive factual analysis.

One might grant the possibility that the revolutionary vanguard was composed of Jews like Trotsky, apparently far more influenced by a universalist utopian vision than by their upbringing in traditional Judaism. But, even granting this, it does not necessarily follow for the millions of Jews who left the shtetl towns, migrated to the cities, and to such a large extent ran the USSR.

It strains credulity to suppose that these migrants completely and immediately threw off all remnants of the Eastern European shtetl culture—which, as Slezkine acknowledges, had a deep sense of estrangement from non-Jewish society, a fear and hatred of peasants, hostility toward the Czarist upper class, and a very negative attitude toward Christianity.

In other words, the war against what Slezkine terms “rural backwardness and religion” — major targets of the Revolution — was exactly the sort of war that traditional Jews would have supported wholeheartedly, because it was a war against everything they hated and thought of as oppressing Jews.

However, while Slezkine seems comfortable with the notion of revenge as a Jewish motive, he does not consider traditional Jewish culture itself as a possible contributor to Jewish behavior in the new Communist state.

Moreover, while it was generally true that Jewish servants of the Soviet regime had ceased being religious Jews, this did not mean they ceased having a Jewish identity. (Albert Lindeman made this point when reviewing Slezkine in The American Conservative [article not on line].)

Slezkine quotes the philosopher Vitaly Rubin speaking of his career at a top Moscow school in the 1930s where over half the students were Jewish:

“Understandably, the Jewish question did not arise there…All the Jews knew themselves to be Jews but considered everything to do with Jewishness a thing of the past…There was no active desire to renounce one’s Jewishness. The problem simply did not exist.”

In other words, in the early decades of the Soviet Union, the ruling class was so heavily a Jewish milieu, that there was no need to renounce a Jewish identity and no need to aggressively push for Jewish interests. Jews had achieved elite status.

But ethnic networking continued nonetheless. Indeed, Slezkine reports that when a leading Soviet spokesmen on anti-Semitism, Yuri Larin (Lurie), tried to explain the embarrassing fact that Jews were, as he said, “preeminent, overabundant, dominant, and so on” among the elite in the Soviet Union, he mentioned the “unusually strong sense of solidarity and a predisposition toward mutual help and support”—ethnic networking by any other name.

Obviously, “mutual help and support” required that Jews recognize each other as Jews. Jewish identity may not have been much discussed. But it operated nonetheless, even if subconsciously, in the rarified circles at the top of Soviet society.

Things changed. Slezkine shows that the apparent de-emphasis of Jewish identity by many members of the Soviet elite during the 1920s and 1930s turned out to be a poor indicator of whether or not these people identified as Jews—or would do so when Jewish and Soviet identities began to diverge in later years: when National Socialism reemphasized Jewish identity, and when Israel emerged as a magnet for Jewish sentiment and loyalty.

In the end, despite the rationalizations of many Soviet Jews on Jewish identity in the early Soviet period, it was blood that mattered.

After World War II, in a process which remains somewhat obscure, the Russian majority began taking back their country. One method was “massive affirmative action” aimed at giving greater representation to underrepresented ethnic groups. Jews became targets of suspicion because of their ethnic status. They were barred from some elite institutions, and had their opportunities for advancement limited. Overt anti-Semitism was encouraged by the more covert official variety apparent in the limits on Jewish advancement.

Under these circumstances, Slezkine says that Jews became “in many ways, the core of the antiregime intelligentsia”. Applications to leave the USSR increased dramatically after Israel’s Six-Day War of 1967 which, as in the United States and Eastern Europe, resulted in an upsurge of Jewish identification and ethnic pride. The floodgates were eventually opened by Gorbachev in the late 1980s. By 1994, 1.2 million Soviet Jews had emigrated—43% of the total. By 2002, there were only 230,000 Jews remaining in the Russian Federation, 0.16% of the population.

Nevertheless these remaining Jews remain overrepresented among the elite. Six of the seven oligarchs who emerged in control of the Soviet economy and media in the period of de-nationalization of the 1990s were Jews.

As mentioned above, Slezkine’s discussions of the Jewish experience in the Middle East and America are quite perfunctory in comparison.

Slezkine views the Jewish migration to Israel as heroic and believes the moral debt owed to Jews by Western societies justifies the most extreme expressions of Jewish racialism:

“The rhetoric of ethnic homogeneity and ethnic deportations, tabooed elsewhere in the West is a routine element of Israeli political life… no other European state can have as strong a claim on the West’s moral imagination.”

He sees the moral taboo on European ethnocentrism, the designation of Nazism as the epitome of absolute evil, and the identification of Jews as what he calls “the Chosen people of the postwar Western world” as simply the inevitable results of the events of World War II. In fact, of course, the creation and maintenance of the culture of the Holocaust and the special moral claims of Jews and Israel might be more fairly viewed the intended result of Jewish ethnic activism.

Slezkine’s caricature of American history is close to preposterous. He sees the United States as a Jewish promised land precisely because it is not defined tribally and “has no state-bearing natives”. In fact, of course, the Founding Fathers very explicitly saw themselves as Englishmen defending a specific political tradition. But (somewhat like the Soviet Union’s Jews in the early decades) they felt no need to assert the cultural and ethnic parameters of their creation; they asssumed the racial and cultural homogeneity of the Republic and perceived no threat to its control by themselves and their descendants.

And when the Founding Fathers’ descendents did percieve such a threat, they reacted powerfully and decisively, with the Know-Nothing movement in the 1850s and the Immigration Restriction (and associated “Americanization” requirements) in the early 20th Century Slezkine’s acceptance of the “Proposition Nation” myth reflects the triumph of intellectuals and propagandists, many of them Jewish, led by Horace Kallen in the 1920s. These succesfully replaced the previously standard view by which many Americans thought of themselves as members of a very successful ethnic group derived from Great Britain and with strong cultural and ethnic connections to Europe, particularly Northern Europe.

The fate of Russia in the first two decades following the Revolution prompts reflection on what might have happened in the United States had American communists and their sympathizers assumed power. Sectors of American society might perhaps have been deemed unacceptably backward and superstitious and even worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union—the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow.

Those “red state” voters who have loomed so important in recent national elections would have been the enemy. The cultural and religious attitudes of “red state” America are precisely those attitudes that have been deemed changeworthy by the left, particularly by the Jewish community, which has been the driving force of the left in America throughout the 20th century.

As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.”

And, as Elliott Abrams had noted, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism…”

The dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that caused so many Eastern European shtetl Jews to become “willing executioners” in the name of international socialism is unmistakably related, however remotely, to the views of some contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

Slezkine’s main point is that the most important factor for understanding the history of the 20th century is the rise of the Jews in the West and the Middle East, and their rise and decline in Russia. I think he is absolutely right about this.

If there is any lesson to be learned, it is that Jews not only became an elite in all these areas, they became a hostile elite—hostile to the traditional people and cultures of all three areas they came to dominate.

So far, the greatest human tragedies have occurred in the Soviet Union. But the presence of Israel in the Middle East is creating obvious dangers there. And alienation remains a potent motive for the disproportionate Jewish involvement in the transformation of the U.S. into a non-European society through non-traditional immigration.

Given this record of Jews as a very successful but hostile elite, it is possible that the continued demographic and cultural dominance of Western European peoples will not be retained, either in Europe or the United States, without a decline in Jewish influence.

But the lesson of the Soviet Union (as also Spain from the 15th–17th centuries) is that Jewish influence does wane as well as wax. Unlike the attitudes of the utopian ideologies of the 20th century, there is no end to history.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. This article is adapted from a longer review [pdf] published in the Fall 2005 issue of The Occidental Quarterly.

Read Full Post »


Brainwashing the Germans

The following is part of Chapter III: “The Origins of Political Correctness and America’s Role in Its Perfection,” from [1] Dr. Tom Sunic’s book: [2] Homo Americanus; Child of the Postmodern Age (2007) .

In the aftermath of World War II, the role of the American-based Frankfurt School scholars and European Marxist intellectuals was decisive in shaping the new European cultural scene. Scores of American left-leaning psychoanalysts – under the auspices of the Truman government – swarmed over Germany in an attempt to rectify not just the German mind but also to change the brains of all Europeans. Frankfurt School activists were mostly of German-Jewish extraction who had been expelled by the German authorities during National Socialist rule and who, after the Second World War, came back to Europe and began laying the foundations for a new approach in the study of the humanities. But there were also a considerable number of WASP Puritan-minded scholars and military men active in post-war Germany, such as Major General McClure, the poet Archibald MacLeish, the political scientist Harold Laswell, the jurist Robert Jackson and the philosopher John Dewey, who had envisaged copying the American way of democracy into the European public scene. They thought of themselves as divinely chosen people called to preach American democracy – a procedure which would be used by American elites in the decades to come on each occasion and in every spot of the world.

Most of the new American educators, however, were former disciples of Freud and Marx, who considered that the best approach in curing defeated Germany was by treating Germans as a nation of “clinical patients” in need of a hefty dose of liberal and socialist therapy. The Frankfurt School, during its days of American exile, had already drafted various social theories as to how to cure Germany of its “authoritarian character.” Accordingly, its major spokesmen argued that “the German petite bourgeoisie has always demonstrated a sado-masochistic character, branded by veneration for the strong man, hatred against the weak, narrow-mindedness, pettiness, hostility, thriftiness, often bordering on miserliness (both in terms of their feelings and money).” In the decades to come it sufficed to be labeled a “Neo-Nazi” or a “radical right winger” in order to lose the right of free speech and become an intellectual pariah. Although the American provisional military government in Germany pursued the hunt for National Socialist dignitaries and brought many to [“]justice[“], it used the same tactics in the realm of German education and the media. It never crossed the mind of American post-war educators that their actions would facilitate the rise of Marxist cultural hegemony in Europe and lead to the prolongation of the Cold War.

As a result of Frankfurt School reeducational endeavors in Germany, thousands of book titles in the fields of genetics and anthropology were removed from library shelves and thousands of museum artifacts were, if not destroyed in the preceding Allied fire bombing, shipped to the USA and the Soviet Union. The liberal and communist tenets of free speech and freedom of expression did not apply at all to the defeated side which had earlier been branded as “the enemy of humanity.

Particularly harsh was the Allied treatment of German teachers and academics. Since National Socialist Germany had significant support among German teachers and university professors, it was to be expected that the US reeducational authorities would start screening German intellectuals, writers, journalists and film makers. Having destroyed dozens of major libraries in Germany, with millions of volumes gone up in flames, the American occupying powers resorted to improvising measures in order to give some semblance of normalcy in what later became “the democratic Germany.” The occupying powers realized that universities and other places of higher learning could always turn into centers of civil unrest, and therefore, their attempts at denazifaction were first focused on German teachers and academics.

From the Allied viewpoint, and particularly from the viewpoint of the American military government, the universities, despite their undoubtedly great academic achievements in the past, were the breeding ground of reactionary nationalism conducted by the conservative oligarchy of professors. The focus of the universities was overspecialization by means of sharp delimitation between students as a unique elite versus the rest of the society. Moreover, education at the universities transmitted technical competence while neglecting social responsibility.

During the post-war screening of well-known figures from the German world of literature, thousands of German intellectuals were obliged to fill in questionnaires known in post-war Germany as Fragebogen. These questionnaires consisted of sheets of paper containing well over one hundred questions probing into all spheres of private, sexual, and political affinities of German suspects. The questions had many misspellings and their ultra-moralistic wording was often difficult for Germans to grasp. Had those “Fragebogen” not acquired a doomsday meaning for many Germans, they would have made good material for a Hollywood vaudeville. A German novelist and a former conservative revolutionary militant, Ernst von Salomon, describes in his satirical novel, Der Fragebogen, how the American “new pedagogues” extorted confessions from German captives, who were then either intellectually silenced or dispatched to the gallows.

There is still a perception in the liberal American establishment and its academia that women in National Socialist Germany were deprived of their rights and that their role consisted of shuttling from the church to the kitchen and then back to the children. Such comments, often to be heard and read by respectable liberal scholars in America, do not further the study of Fascism and National Socialism. They do, however, throw additional light on the genesis of political correctness in post-war and postmodern Europe. In many ways German women in the Third Reich had higher cultural and political visibility than anywhere else in Europe or America during the same epoch. Actresses like Leni Riefenstahl, Zarah Leander, and Joseph Goebbels’ friend (a Czech woman) Lida Baarova, or test aviation pioneer Hannah Reitsch and many other German women, played significant cultural roles in the Third Reich.

Among the new American educators, the opinion prevailed that the allegedly repressive European family was the breeding ground of political neurosis, xenophobia, and racism among young children:

“Whoever wishes to combat fascism must start from the premises that the central breeding ground for the reactionary person is represented by his family. Given that the authoritarian society reproduces itself in the structure of the individual through his authoritarian family, it follows that political reaction will defend the authoritarian family as the basis for its state, its culture and its civilization.

Patrick J. Buchanan, an American conservative Catholic author and a former American presidential candidate, observes that Frankfurt School intellectuals in postwar Germany, bankrolled by the American military authorities, succeeded in qualifying National Socialist sympathizers as “mentally sick,” a term which would later have a lasting impact on political vocabulary and the future development of political rectitude in Europe and America. Political prejudice, notably, a sense of authority and the resentment of Jews, were categorized as mental illnesses rooted in traditional European child-rearing. Therefore, in the eyes of the American reeducational authorities, the old fashioned European family needed to be removed and with it some of its Christian trappings. Similar antifascist approaches to cultural purges were in full swing in Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe, but as subsequent events showed, the Western version of political correctness proved to be far more effective. In the early postwar years the Americans and their war allies carried out large scale intellectual purges in the media, notably with issuing special licenses to newly launched newspaper outlets in Germany. The words “Nazism” and “Fascism” gradually lost their original meaning and turned, instead, into synonyms of evil. The new educational principle of “reductio ad hitlerum” became a new paradigm for studying social sciences. A scholar who would slightly diverge from these newly installed antifascist pedagogical methods would have meager chances for career advancement if not outright fired. In some cases, even sixty years after the end of World War II, he would have to face stiff penalties, including a jail term.

During the same postwar period in communist Eastern Europe, Soviet-led cultural repression was far more severe, but, ironically, its vulgar transparency, as seen in previous chapters, gave its victims an aura of martyrdom. In addition, as the Cold War, by the end of the 40s, began to pit the communist East against the capitalist West, the ruling Western elites deemed it appropriate to come to the moral rescue of Eastern European anticommunist dissenters – less on the grounds of their anticommunist views, but more as a sign that the American liberal system was more tolerant than communism. However, at the end of the twentieth century, with the breakdown of communism and with Americanism and liberalism having become the dominant ideologies of the West, this ceased to be the case. The ideology of antifascism became by the late 20th century a form of negative legitimacy for the entire West. It implied that if there was no “fascist threat,” the West would cease to exist in its present from. Therefore, the simulacra of ever-resurgent fascism and anti-Semitism needed to be kept alive.

Shortly after 1945, and largely due to the process of reeducation of German society, Marxist theoreticians and militants in Western Europe implanted themselves as a “counter-power” in places of opinion making, although legally speaking, the West had never embraced communist ideology. Western European and American universities, particularly in the fields of social sciences, were thus in a position to field more true Marxist believers than their communist fellow travelers in Eastern Europe. In the following decades Western European political elites went a step further: in order to show to the American sponsors their democratic credentials and their philo-Semitic attitudes, they introduced strict legislation forbidding historical revisionism of the Second World War and any critical study of mass immigration into Western Europe, including the study of negative socio-economic consequences of multiculturalism and multiracialism.

After the Cold War, despite the increasing thought control in higher education, America remains, legally speaking, just about the only country in the West upholding some elements of free speech. By contrast, the much vaunted constitutional provisions stipulating freedom of speech and expression in other European countries stand in blatant contradiction to their individual penal codes which stipulate a prison sentence for a written comment or an uttered word that minimizes the Jewish Holocaust or trivializes the dogma of multiculturalism. Revisionist authors, or for that matter authors and academics critical of modern liberalism, are obliged to resort, more and more, to marginal publishing companies or strictly to the internet in order to have their words heard. The impression prevails that an author sympathetic to the legacy of right-wing conservatism must be mentally disturbed. At the beginning of the 21st century, the whole intellectual climate in America and especially in Europe came to resemble the medieval period by forbidding critical inquiry into “self evident truths” of liberal democracy and its chief mentor, America.

The case in point is postmodern Germany. Following the end of communism in the East, the German Criminal Code appears in its substance more repressive than the former Soviet Criminal Code. When silencing their critics, the German authorities do not need to resort to violent means. They usually create a cultural smearing campaign whereby a cultural heretic is portrayed as a funny, pseudo-scientific crank that does not merit a place in mainstream publishing houses. Moreover, the heretic is often induced into self-muzzling behavior, thereby disabling himself from being portrayed as a victim of state repression.

This postmodern mimicry of political rectitude has attained the same mendacious proportions regarding the relationship between America and Europe. In Germany, for instance, the country’s perception of the USA must coincide with its own self- perception as a self-flagellating pupil labeled once by the Frankfurt School as “a chronically sick patient state”. Day after day Germany has to prove that it can perform self-educational tasks better than its American tutor. It must show signs of being the most servile disciple of the American hegemon, given that the “transformation of the German mind (was) the main homework of the military regime.” If one wishes to grasp the concept of modern political correctness, one must study in detail the political psychology of the traumatized German people.

In Germany, contrary to England and America, there is a long legal tradition that everything is forbidden that is not explicitly allowed. In America and England, legal practice presupposes that everything is allowed that is not specifically forbidden. This may be the reason why Germany adopted after the Cold War stringent laws against independent minded intellectuals, often [clumsily] dubbed as “right-wingers,” or “Neo-Nazis.” In addition to frequent media vilification of local intellectual trouble makers, Germany also requires from its civil servants, pursuant to the Article 33, Paragraph 5, of its Basic Law, the obedience to constitutional commands, and not necessarily their loyalty to the people or to the state of Germany. Germany’s looming constitutional agencies, designed for the supervision of the constitution, have the task to control the purity of American imported democracy and the appropriate usage of the democratic meta-narrative. The famed “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” (”Verfassungschutz”), as the German legal scholar Josef Schüsselburner writes, “is basically an internal secret service with seventeen branch agencies (one on the level of the federation and sixteen others for each constituent federal state). In the last analysis, this boils down to saying that only the internal secret service is competent to declare a person an internal enemy of the state.

Given that all signs of nationalism, let alone racialism [even the faintest semblance of the pursuit of ethnic interests], are reprimanded in Germany, on the ground of their real or purported unconstitutional and undemocratic character, the only patriotism allowed is “constitutional patriotism.” “The German people had to adapt itself to the constitution, instead of adapting the constitution to the German people,” writes the German legal scholar, Günther Maschke. This new form of German secular religion, i.e. “constitutional patriotism,” which has now become mandatory for all citizens in the European Union, encompasses a belief in the rule of law and so-called open society. Under cover of tolerance and civil society, it is considered legally desirable to hunt down European heretics who voice doubts in the legal premises of parliamentary democracy or who criticize some aspects of modern historiography.

Furthermore, in view of the fact that Western societies have also changed their social and ethnic profile, the interpretation of existing laws must also be subject to the political circumstances on the ground. German constitutionalism, continues Schüsselburner, has become “a civil religion,” whereby “multiculturalism has replaced Germans with citizens who do not regard Germany as their homeland, but as an imaginary “Basic Law Land”(…). As a result of this new civil religion, Germany, along with other European countries, has now evolved into a “secular theocracy.

Since the end of the Cold War, all over Europe, the social arena has been designed as a replica of a huge market. In America and Europe, the free market itself has become a form of an additional secular religion whose principles must be encompassed in the judiciary of each country. In a similar fashion, raising critical questions about the viability of the market can also cause an author professional troubles. It is considered conventional wisdom that any flaw of the market can and must be cured by the infusion of more free market principles and more “invisible hand” friendly policies. Economic efficiency is seen as the sole criterion for any social interaction. Hence, individuals, who may have some second thoughts about the founding myths of liberal economy, are seen as enemies of the system.

Also, books dealing with themes that critically examine parliamentary democracy, or the role of America in World War II, or authors questioning antifascist victimology, are less and less accessible in mainstream publishing companies. Books or journals challenging the [“]official[“] number of fascist crimes during the Second World war or disputing the body-count in the Jewish Holocaust, are banned and their authors often end up in prison. Similar to Communism, historical truth in Western Europe is not established by an open academic debate but by state legislation. In addition, scientists whose expertise is in genetically induced social behavior, or who lay emphasis on the role of I.Q. in human achievement, while downplaying the importance of education and social environment, are branded as racists. **The entire West, including America itself, has become a victim of collective guilt which, strangely enough, is induced more by intellectual self-denial and by Christian inspired atonement, and less by state repression.**

In politically correct America, the academic language is also subject to hygienic rules. New qualifiers emerge among would-be heretics serving as disclaimers for their controversial thoughts. In the eyes of new inquisitors an intellectual right-wing heretic must be monitored – not on the basis of what he has said or wrote, but on the basis of whom he saw and met. “Guilt by association” hampers someone’s career and ruins the life of a diplomat, a politician, or an academic who ventures as a speaker into some right-wing or racialist literary circle, or who attends a venue where the contents of a revisionist book are discussed. Any idea critically examining the foundations of egalitarianism, democracy, and multiculturalism becomes suspicious. Declaring oneself a “conservative” is also dangerous. Even the mildest forms of cultural conservatism are gradually pushed into the category of “right-wing extremism,” or “white supremacism.” And these qualifiers are disarming enough to silence even the most vocal heretic. “There is a typical European form of political correctness, which consists of seeing fascism everywhere,” writes the French Jewish philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, although with his former endorsement of the previous antirevisionist laws in France, from 1990, it is questionable whether Finkielkraut always means what he writes. In November 2005, Finkielkraut was himself called to account by the French antiracist agency MRAP for his alleged deprecatory statements against rioting French blacks and Arabs in France, an event which the author described in an interview to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Thy irony is that Finkielkraut, along with many French and American court historians and philosophers of postmodernity, and very similar to American neoconservatives, was once upon a time a supporter of Marxist-inspired multiculturalism. Now, wearing his neo-con skin, he seems to be the victim of his own theories. The “Finkielkraut syndrome” is quite common among former communist sympathizers, who became ardent anticommunists and liberals when Marxism ran out of fashion. The only problem is that a lot of people have died in the process – as a result of their erstwhile intellectual Marxist and antifascist fantasies.

As much as American imported liberalism rejects and punishes racial stereotypes, it does not hesitate to use stereotyping when depicting its own cultural or political enemies. When Muslims and Islamists residing in America or Europe become the perpetrators of street riots or terrorism, the modern system tolerates name calling and the sporadic usage of anti-Arab slurs. Conversely, a Muslim American resident or a Muslim living in Europe can often get away with anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli remarks, which a Gentile citizen, or a scholar, cannot even dream about – for fear of being called by the dreaded word “anti-Semite.” Thus, the ruling class in America and Europe successfully resorts to the scarecrow of debate-stopping words, such as “anti-Semitism” and “Neo-Nazism,” as an alibi for legitimizing its perpetual status quo. **The specter of a projected catastrophic scenario must silence all free spirits.** Naturally, if fascism is legally decreed as absolute evil, any aberration in the liberal system will automatically appear as a lesser evil. The modern liberal system, which originated in America, functions as a self-perpetuating machine of total mind control.

Paul Gottfried, The Strange Death of Marxism (Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2005), p.108.

Caspar Schrenck Notzing, Characterwäsche (Stuttgart: Seewald Verlag, 1965), p.115.

Caspar Schrenck Notzing, p.120.

Manfred Heinemann und Ulrich Schneider, Hochschuloffiziere und Wiederaufbau des Hochschulwesens in Westdeutschland, 1945-1952) (Editon Bildung und Wissenschaft, 1990), pp. 2-3 and passim. Also, Die Entnazifizierung in Baden 1945-1949 (Stuttgart: W Kohlhammer Verlag, 1991), regarding the process of purging German teachers and professors by French occupying forces in the occupied German province of Baden. Approximately 35 to 50 % of teachers in the American occupied parts of Germany were suspended and barred from teaching and other research activities. The percentage of suspension in the French occupied parts of Germany was between 12- 15%. See Hermann Josef Rupieper, Die Wurzeln der westdeutschen Nachkriegesdemokratie (Westdeutscher Verlag), p.137.

Hermann Josef Rupieper, p.137.

Ernst von Salomon, Der Fragebogen (1951 Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1999).

Tomislav Sunic, “L’Art dans le IIIème Reich: 1933-45,” Ecrits de Paris (July-August, 2002), pp.30-36. Women were quite active in the Third Reich. A famous German Olympic female athlete, the Olympics champion, Tilly Fleischer (1911-2005); two famous women pilots, Elly Beinhorn (1907) and Hanna Reitsch (1912-1979); a Head of the League of National Socialist Woman Gertrud Scholtz-Klink (1902-1999), etc.

Caspar Schrenck Notzing, p.11.

Patrick Buchanan, The Death of the West (New York: St Martin’s Press, 2002), pp.82-83.

Serge Thion, Historische Wahrheit oder politische Wahrheit? (Berlin: Verlag der Freunde, 1994). The book discusses the fate of the French professor of literature, Robert Faurisson, who has been since 1977 in social and academic disgrace due to his skeptical accounts regarding the number of Holocaust victims.

In the age of electronic media and due to anti-revisionist laws, prominent European and American historians, but also some racialists, resort to the use of different web sites.

Caspar Schrenck Notzing, p.140.

Josef Schüsslburner, Demokratie-Sonderweg Bundesrepublik (Lindenblatt Media Verlag. Künzell, 2004), p.631.

Schüsslburner, p.233.

Günther Maschke, Das bewaffnete Wort (”Die Verschwörung der Flakhelfer”) (Wien und Lepzig: Karolinger Verlag, 1997) p. 74.

Schüsslburner, p.591.

Marc Perelman, “Europe Seen Cracking Down on Holocaust Revisionists,” in Forward, November 25, 2005.

Alain Finkielkraut, “Résister au discours de la dénonciation” in Journal du Sida, April 1995. Also “What sort of Frenchmen are They?” interview with Alain Finkielkraut in Haaretz, November 17, 2005. As was to be expected, there was an outcry in leftist journals in France following his interview. In his subsequent interview in Le Monde, under the title “J’assume,” of November 26, 2005, Finkielkraut resorts to new wordings and disclaimers in order to justify his earlier critical remarks about the Arab youth rioting in France.

Alain de Benoist, “Die Methoden der Neuen Inquistion,” in Schöne vernetzte Welt (Tübingen: Hohenrain Veralg, 2001), pp.190-205.

Article printed from The Civic Platform – A Political Journal of Ideas and Analysis: http://www. thecivicplatform. com

URL to article: http://www. thecivicplatform. com/2008/03/22/brainwashing-the-germans/

URLs in this post:
[1] Dr.

Tom Sunic’s: http://doctorsunic. netfirms. com/
[2] Homo americanus; Child of the Postmodern Age : http://www. amazon. com/Homo-americanus-Child-Postmodern-Age/dp/1419659847

Read Full Post »


Stalin’s Jews
We mustn’t forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish
Sever Plocker
Source: Ynet News

Here’s a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, “opposition members” who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.

In his new, highly praised book “The War of the World”, Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University’s Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined “terror officials,” cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.

All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union’s archives have not yet been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD’s and KGB’s service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of “How could it have happened to us?” As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the “bloodthirsty dwarf.”

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book “Stalin: Court of the Red Star”, Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

Stalin’s close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the “first Stalinist” and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao’s terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and “Soviet people.” Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and “play dumb”: What do we have to do with them? But let’s not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.

Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of “our hangmen,” who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.
By Rev. Ted Pike
11 Jun 07

As the Christian-persecuting federal hate bill dangerously waits in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Jewish Forward says most of the American Jewish community has mobilized to get it passed. They are pressuring President Bush not to honor his pledge to evangelicals to veto it. (See, Jews Pressure Bush to Sign Hate Bill)

You may ask, “What’s the problem? Jews are an infinitesimal one and a half percent of the American population. What can they do?”

Plenty. A Jewish population of exactly that percentage brought communism to Russia. The most murderous system the world has ever known (having starved to death or slaughtered about 110 million) was overwhelmingly inspired and birthed by a tiny minority of Jews.*

The Jewish Encyclopedia (Socialism, p. 418) frankly points out that “Jews have been prominently identified with the modern Socialist movement from its very inception.” “Scientific socialism,” or what we call communism, says the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia in its article on socialism, “originated in the combination of Jewish Messianic feeling with German philosophy…” 1 Marx, of course, was Jewish. But, just as important, Jews at all levels, from high financiers like the Warburgs, Schiffs and Rothschilds to rugged revolutionaries like Trotsky, Kamenev, Sverdlov and Zinoviev, made the success of communism possible.

Gary Allen in his book None Dare Call It Conspiracy, pp. 68-75, fingers those key Jewish financiers, especially Max Warburg in Germany and Jacob Schiff in America, who provided millions to arm and subsidize Jewish revolutionaries returning to Russia under the leadership of Trotsky. Schiff, head of the international banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. (now Chase Manhattan) was particularly influential. Quoting the New York Journal-America of February 3, 1949 out of Allen’s book: “Today it is estimated by Jacob’s grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about $20,000,000 for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.” (Remember, that was when a common wage for adult hard labor was several dollars per day.) 2

Jews Tell Us Communism was Jewish

Let’s ease into this controversial subject by introducing some mild, yet tantalizing quotes from the authoritative Encyclopedia Judaica’s article on Communism.

The Communist movement and ideology played an important part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920’s, 1930’s, and during and after World War II…Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet regime…The great attraction of communism among Russian, and later also, Western, Jewry emerged only with the establishment of the Soviet regime in Russia.

How involved were the Jews? It continues by admitting that the “anti-Semitic” counteroffensive of the White Russian armies in 1918 “drove the bulk of Russian Jewish youth into the ranks of the Bolshevik regime.” The bulk of Jewish youth. This means that the majority of all young Soviet Jews were communists. Jews, it says, found great opportunity within Bolshevism, “occupying many responsible positions in all branches of the party and state machinery at the central and local seats of power.” (pg. 791)

Bolshevism had become the Jewish cause as:

Many Jews the world over therefore regarded the Soviet concept of the solution to the “Jewish question” as an intrinsically positive approach…Communism and support of the Soviet Union thus seemed to many Jews to be the only alternative, and Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist parties and in some cases were even instructed by the Communist international to change their Jewish-sounding names and pose as non-Jews, in order not to confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy… (pg. 792)

Communism – A Jewish Heritage

The article then goes on to enumerate who many of these Jews (most with Gentile Russian names) actually were. Here we find most of the giants of Soviet communism, names we have memorized in college history courses as the kingpins of the Revolution, without dreaming they were Jews. But making sure of their Jewish identity is very important to the editors of the Encyclopedia Judaica, which is not addressed to Gentiles. It is clear that the editors want Jewish youth today to be aware of their communist heritage. To this end, they not only never criticize anything having to do with communism but always describe it as a sincere and timely experiment with the greatest social advantages to Jews in Russia. Many Jewish Bolsheviks, persons who helped make possible the bloodiest regime in the history of the world, are dignified with a separate article.

Keeping in mind that Jews represented only several percent of the Russian population at that time, the disproportion of Jews in the Party hierarchy is further born out:

During the Revolution Jews played a prominent part in the party organs. The politburo elected on Oct. 23, 1917 had four Jews among its seven members. The Military Revolutionary Committee, appointed to prepare the coup, was headed by Trotsky and had two Jews among its five members. In the early years of the Soviet regime, Jews were in many leading positions in the government and party machinery… (page 797, 98)

Thus, 57 percent of the Politburo at the height of the Revolution was Jewish, as well as 40 percent of the Military Revolutionary Committee. In my video The Other Israel I show a photo of the First Peoples’ Commissariat. Its five members are all Jewish. (See, The Other Israel video on Google)

Anti-Communism. . . or Anti-Semitism?

Having informed us earlier that because of “anti-Semitism” the “bulk of Jewish youth” were compelled to join the Bolshevik ranks, the Judaica goes on to inadvertently clarify why the Russian natives were so bent on “anti-Semitic” activities. The article says that movements toward freedom (called “centrifugal nationalist tendencies”) among the nearly enslaved Russian people “inspired the regime to utilize compact, Jewish masses in these areas as a counterweight, which would swing the balance in the centralist regime’s favor.”(pg. 798)

In other words, “the bulk of Jewish youth” in every outlying hamlet of Russia became the “compact Jewish masses” whose task it was to forcibly impose and maintain communist slavery upon freedom-loving peoples. Jews and the Russian populace were locked in a death struggle for survival and the future of Russia. Is it any wonder that the White Russians rose up in rage, even to the point of liquidating their oppressors? Who would not have done the same?

It was at this time that Lenin himself declared capital punishment for any Russian who criticized Jews or identified Jewish leaders with Russian names as Jewish.

Anti-Semitism was branded as being counterrevolutionary in nature, and persons participating in pogroms or instigating them were outlawed (by a special decree issued by the Council of Commissars in July 1918, signed and personally amended by Lenin to sharpen its tone). A statement against Anti-Semitism made by Lenin in March 1918 was put on a phonograph record, to be used in a mass campaign against the counterrevolutionary incitement against the Jews. (pg. 798)

Allied Intelligence Reports

During this period intelligence services throughout the free world were buzzing with reports of Jewish involvement in communism. Since an impeccable Jewish source, the Encyclopedia Judaica, has largely convinced us of the importance of Jews to the success of communism, let us briefly consider a small part of the testimony available from a variety of high-level sources. I will present each without comment, but notice how often they describe Bolshevik leadership in much higher figures than the Encyclopedia Judaica, often to as high as 90 percent.

Report of the American Expeditionary forces to Siberia, March 1, 1919. Captain Montgomery Schyler, speaking of events following the decline of the First Provisional Government, says:

These hopes were frustrated by the gradual gains in power of the more irresponsible and socialistic elements of the population, guided by the Jews and other anti-Russian races. A table made in April 1918 by Robert Wilton, the correspondent of the London Times in Russia, shows that at that time there were 384 “commissars” including 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial government.

Captain Schyler then provides a personal reflection:

It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been in the United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our civilization without having the least understanding of what we really mean by liberty. 3

The Consul General at Moscow (Summers) to the Secretary of State, Moscow, May 2, 1918:

Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population which tends to regard oncoming Germans as deliverers. 4

U.S. State Department Report, Foreign Relations, 1918, Russia, Vol. 11, p. 240:

Fifty percent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type, many of whom are anarchists. 5

Scotland Yard Report to the America Secretary of State, July 23, 1919:

There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England, with a view toward concerted action. 6

Extract of Report from the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd on the 6th of September, 1918, forwarded by Sir M. Findlay, at Christiana, to Mr. Balfour:

I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war that is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things. 7

Mr. Aleston to Lord Curzon, forwarding Report from Consul at Ekaterinburg of February 6, 1919:

From examination of several labourers and peasant witnesses, I have evidence to the effect that the very smallest percentage of this district were pro-Bolshevik, majority of labourers sympathizing with summoning of Constituent Assembly. Witnesses further stated that Bolshevik leaders did not represent Russian working classes, most of them being Jews. 8

The Rev. B.S. Lombard to Lord Curzon, March 23, 1919:

I have been for ten years in Russia, and have been in Petrograd through the whole of the revolution. . . .I had ample opportunity of studying Bolshevik methods. It originated in German propaganda, and was, and is being, carried out by international Jews. . . .All business became paralyzed, shops were closed, Jews became possessors of most of the business houses, and horrible scenes of starvation became common in country districts. 9

Sir Winston Churchill, writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920 agrees with the previous testimony.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.

But to be fair, let the Jews have the last word – words written after millions of “goyim” had already been slaughtered in Russia. Quoting from the American Hebrew of September 8, 1920:

The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, became a reality all over the world.


1 “Socialism,” p. 584.
2 The Jewish Communal Register of New York City, 1917-18, confirms Schiff’s interest in subverting Imperial Russia, “The firm of Kuhn-Loeb & Co. floated the large Japanese war loans of 1904-5, thus making possible the Japanese victory over Russia. . .” (p. 1018). “Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his influence in the best interests of his people. He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia from the money market of the United States.” (p. 1019) (This was written after the Bolshevik Revolution had become an accomplished fact.)
In addition to accounts of Schiff’s direct involvement in financing the Bolsheviks, the U.S. State Department’s three-volume report on the establishment of Communism in Russia, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918, published in 1931, Vol. 1, (p. 371-376) recounts from intelligence reports and intercepted correspondence how Jewish-controlled German banks, under the influence of Max Warburg, originated, even as early as February 1914, a system for the dispersion of large payments to Lenin, Trotsky, and others in their attempts to overthrow the Czar. The syndicate was set up with “. . .very close and absolutely secret relations established between Finnish and American banks,” as well as banking houses in Stockholm and Copenhagen, who were the active intermediaries between Jewish high-finance in the West and revolutionaries inside Russia.
This State Department Report was compiled under the Hoover administration and has since disappeared from active circulation. Reproductions of salient passages of it, however, are presented in Elizabeth Dilling’s The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today.
3 “American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia,” Military Intelligence Report of Capt. Montgomery Schyler, National Archives, March 1, 1919. Declassified, Sept. 21, 1958, pp. 2-3.
4 Included in Foreign Relations, 1918, Russia, Vol. 1, U.S. State Dept., 1931, file No. 861.00/1757, p. 518.
5 Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 240.
6 Scotland Yard, “A Monthly Review of the Progress of Revolutionary Movements Abroad,” July 16, 1919. Declassified, U.S. State Dept., Jan. 8, 1958, p. 1.
7 Nesta Webster, “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements”, p. 385. Concerning the British White Paper on Communism, which included the report from the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd, Oudendyke, Nesta Webster appends this footnote: “It is significant to notice that in the second and abridged edition of the White Paper issued by the Foreign Office these two most important passages marked with an asterisk were omitted and the first edition was said to be unavailable.”
The entire text of the Netherlands Minister, however, turns up among the previously mentioned U.S. State Department report, Foreign Relations, 1918, Russia, published in 1931.
8 “British White Paper,” Webster, p. 386
9 Ibid.

Read Full Post »

Anti-White Crusader Tim Wise

It’s Not the Arguments
By Alex Kurtagic
February 22, 2010

Looked at from a purely rational perspective, it seems incredible that, despite maintaining a sensible position, deploying logical arguments, and having the data on our side, when it comes to the small matter of White people’s right to exist, we find ourselves fighting a losing battle. How can this be? The simple answer is that in attempting to win a debate “scientifically”, the White advocacy movement has been concentrating its efforts on aspects of the debate that are, ultimately, comparatively unimportant. The triumph of the Left during the 20th century has proven conclusively that having a sensible position, logical arguments, and a mass of substantiating data is not what wins a debate: They have none of these and yet it is the Left who occupies the positions of power, who comprise the established order, and whose ideas enjoy the status of legitimate orthodoxy. The reason is that the Left, for all its abstract theory and its idealized conceptions of humanity, not only understands human nature as well as the best sociobiologist, but also knows better than we do how to apply — and are indeed more ruthless in applying — that knowledge to achieve practical aims. The Left understands that humans are more strongly motivated by status than by rational persuasion, and that, therefore, it is status that offers the key to winning a debate, not science or logic or reasonableness: They know that an argument linked to high status will succeed, while one linked to low status — no matter how correct — will fail.

Sigmund Freud: although a fraud, his status was assiduously cultivated. Images of Freud are calculated to signal his eminence. His terminology has become part of everyday parlance

The irony is what the authors on our side have known this for decades, as the process is explained in the scientific literature that informs their writing and general worldview. Status is a cultural invention that responds to a biological need to maximise life chances and reproductive success. Status signifies power, for status both derives it and confers it, and power affords access to resources. The greater the power, the greater the access to more and better resources. Included among the latter is, of course, women. The evolutionary explanation of sexual selection in humans is that females will tend to be drawn to powerful, high status males, as power and status are indicators of fitness, and mate quality. In complex societies this primal process is sublimated in many different ways, and becomes encoded in social norms, social organization, institutions, and so forth. Often, the process will become obscured, even distorted, by intellectual activity. But it is always there, underlying the entire structure of society, language, and knowledge.

Of course, the Left did not always enjoy high status. They were fiercely persecuted by a conservative, elitist establishment that sought to ban, criminalize, and suppress their ideas. Unfortunately, that establishment suffered from the common human malady of egotism and short-sightedness, while the Left benefited not only from their pitiless revolutionary energy, but also from gifted intellectuals who found the way to exploit the characteristics of Western culture to advance the Leftist cause.

It is difficult to portray Susan Sontag in a flattering manner. Nevertheless, images of she who once said “the white race is the cancer of human history” convey status and prestige: she is photographed against book-lined walls, often deep in thought; her younger and older portraits are highly stylised, and she appears serious, distant, iconic.

The Left relied heavily on a very elaborate body of theory, which, because of its radical aims, on the surface differs greatly from that upon which the Left’s inegalitarian opponents tend to rely. Yet, a close study of Leftist theories uncovers surprisingly numerous correspondences of insight between the egalitarian and the inegalitarian factions. The former’s recipes for solving world problems may differ, the former’s concepts and terminology may differ, and the former’s explanations may differ. But when it comes to human nature and the order of things, a number of fundamental verities are found in common with the inegalitarian view beneath the masses of verbiage. That the Left share a number of our key insights with regards to humans and human societies is silently but eloquently demonstrated by the Leftists’ typical choice of neighbourhood: They tend to preach multiculturalism, yet live in all-White communities.

This alone would have been insufficient to guarantee the triumph of the Left. There is no doubt that they benefited from events not entirely in their control, such as the outcome of a number of European wars. However, there is also no doubt that they fought a degenerate establishment: where the conservative, elitist establishment was egotistical, short-sighted, and focused on the past, the radical Left was idealistic, long-sighted, and focused on the future. Antonio Gramsci’s “march through the institutions” did not assume thinking in terms of the next quarterly profit report or the next general election.

Once the Left began gaining acceptability and ascending in status, Leftist activists and intellectuals devoted a great deal of effort to the conferring of social prestige to their luminaries, their vision, and their ideals, while disprivileging — radically critiquing — the luminaries, the traditions, and the ideals of the establishment they sought to replace. In other words, they waged a war of status, and if they became proficient debaters and persuaders in the media, in universities, or in the political campaign trail, they remained focused on the status of their opponents and their opponents’ ideas. Hence, the liberal use by the Left of degrading, shut-up words like “racist”, “Nazi”, and “anti-Semite”; the creation of negative White identities in educational textbooks; and the outrageous promotion of anti-White stereotypes in advertisement and Hollywood films. These words, identities, and stereotypes do not constitute evidence or logical proof of anything: They are simply an attack on an opponent’s status.

The Case of Kevin MacDonald

The $PLC’s campaign against Kevin MacDonald is well known in White advocacy circles. Is it a surprise, then, given what has been said above, that said campaign has focused purely on his status of university professor? It will be noted that Professor MacDonald’s opponents have been less worried about his theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy than about his professional position and title. It will be noted also that the generalized refusal to debate Professor MacDonald is based on the fear that the latter’s status may be enhanced by (a) his being attacked by, or pitted against, a prestigious opponent; (b) his putting himself across as an honest, sensible, and intelligent academic; (c) his proving to have a charismatic or sympathetic character; and (d) his being successful. They fear this because they know that the data are too abundant and complex for most laymen to be able accurately to evaluate it: Sides on a debate are chosen usually on the basis of who the spectator would rather associate with; and, for all practical purposes, the side that is right on a debate is the side that looks better and makes the spectator feel better about himself. A professorship tends to make a spectator more receptive, as an argument articulated by a professor then appears to emanate from an authoritative, high-status source, which in turn infuses the argument with high status. Adopting the intellectual positions of high-status individuals is a proxy method for laymen to signal their own high status.

Kevin MacDonald: the enemy have attacked his status — never sought to debate him.

The ideal outcome for Professor MacDonald’s detractors would be, therefore, to have him fired. Their main source of frustration is the fact that his tenured status protects him from their politically motivated efforts to silence him. (That is what tenure was meant to do, incidentally). And as long as he continues to hold the title of tenured professor, employed by a large state university, enjoying a middle class lifestyle, residing in a respectable part of town, and having high status friends and associates, Kevin MacDonald cannot be dismissed as a crank, a conspiracy theorist, a dysfunctional reprobate, an idiot, or a paranoid nut.

Unable to have him fired and relegated to the dole queue, Professor MacDonald’s enemies have, consequently, attempted to undermine his personal status by traducing him in the media, embarrassing his employers, scaring his colleagues, and sowing antagonism and distrust among his students. Professor MacDonald’s enemies hope that if they create around him visible signs of marginalization and ostracism, of his having a low social status, his ideas will become déclassé, and will therefore scare people off associating themselves with them. No one wants to be scorned.

Professor MacDonald has combated these efforts by defending his position as well as going on the offensive, and escalating that offensive each time his opponents have renewed their campaign against him. His courage and fortitude in the face of adversity, being admirable and difficult qualities, have largely frustrated his attackers. Indeed, judging from the ever-growing internet traffic passing through his website, and the fact that he has even been immortalized in popular fiction, he appears to have increased his readership and support base, and therefore his status as a man. No doubt Professor MacDonald’s enemies are exasperated by his energy. So they should. Personally, I enjoy imagining their fury as they notice how his website thrives, publishing ever more articles, by ever more authors, at an ever increasing pace, to an ever growing audience; I enjoy imaging their banging their heads against stone walls, over and over again, until their foreheads crack open and bleed, as they see their anti-MacDonald campaigns backfire; I enjoy imagining them blasted into lunacy every time they see The Occidental Observer disseminating information they would rather suppress, in articles that bear hallmarks of high social status: erudition, sophisticated syntax, educated diction, tasteful style, and nuanced argumentation.

Money Matters

Professor MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer does occupy a unique place on the internet. It has attracted a high quality roster of authors and it has consistently presented an intelligent alternative perspective to current social, cultural, and political issues and events. But this alone is not enough. While it is true that the information and arguments presented on this website are as accessible to the cybernaut as the disinformation and sophistry presented on establishment internet media, more important than the accessibility and the quality of the information and the arguments is the ability to confer upon these an aura of prestige — the ability to present them in a manner that signals high social status. If the reason we have failed to make progress despite having the arguments and the data on our side is the fact that our side has overlooked the truly crucial role of status, then it is clear that a focus on projecting an aura of prestige while undermining that of the enemy ought to be one of the keys to success. Nothing succeeds like success, the saying goes.

This, however, requires funds.

Modern technology makes it possible for The Occidental Observer to be run on a shoestring, so long as the authors and the technical personnel are able and in a position to donate their labor. I believe that all of them are willing to continue to do so. There comes a point, however, when, in order to take things to the next level, and increase the website’s effectiveness as a weapon of cultural war, additional resources are needed. Establishment internet media typically boast cutting-edge design and features; they run dozens of articles on a daily basis; they are able to pay, and therefore attract and employ, the best, the most ambitious, and the most talented writers; they are fully interactive; they are able to attract corporate advertisers and sponsors, and charge top dollar for a collection of pixels; and they are able to fully staff their operation with the qualified specialists that make it all run smoothly and seamlessly.

1925 Rolls Royce Phantom

All of this both derives from, and confers power to, establishment internet media, enabling them to attract and hold the attention of millions of readers, whose opinions and attitudes they form on a daily basis, year after year, decade after decade. “It was published in mainstream sources,” a reader will often say, knowing that the prestige of establishment media is sufficient to cause the average interlocutor to believe the information. If we are going to do more than bemoan the power of the establishment media, we have to raise our game and compete on the same level. Otherwise, the public will continue to see us as marginal, unimportant, fringe, weird, low status, embarrassing, and best avoided. This is why the Left wages a war of status: by preventing dissidents from attaining qualifications or obtaining gainful employment, and by stripping qualified and gainfully employed dissidents of their sources of status, they limit dissidents’ access to power, and therefore to the resources they need to wage a decisive war.

I have argued before that intellectual honesty is only possible where there is financial security and independence. There are millions of people out there, including thousands of highly accomplished writers and professionals, who privately agree, or at least sympathize, with the positions argued on this website. Most dare not make their opinions public, because they fear that associating themselves with obviously disprivileged ideas may lead to loss of employment and therefore to loss of status. An enormous amount of talent is being wasted this way — wasted, because it is not being put in the service of a good cause (our cause), and is, by default, put in the service of a bad one (the enemy’s cause). If we are to change this, we have to make our side financially secure and financially independent.

Reliable access to funds would make it possible to improve the design of this website (a professional design firm could be hired); it would make it possible to add a variety of modern, interactive features that would keep visitors interested for longer, such as video and audio; it would make it possible for Kevin to give his writers added financial independence (I have my own business ventures, so I do not need to write under a pseudonym, but others do not have that luxury, and yet others will not write even under a pseudonym); it would make it possible for Kevin to hire one or two staff, who can assist him with editorial and other tasks, freeing time for him to devote to writing and campaigning; it would make it possible to line up an able successor (the editor is already 66); it would make it possible to attract new writers and, in time, even create career opportunities, like analogous mainstream websites. Would it not be nice to have a journalistic career where you get paid to kick the enemy and make him squeal day after day? Where pounding the enemy and exposing his perfidy leads to a nice car and a huge house and awards and a high quality mate? (That is how the Left lives! They have it good.)

Most importantly in relation to my discussion of status, it would make it possible for this website not only to be important, but to look important, thus conferring added legitimacy and prestige to our side of the cultural argument. Consider that a great number of those visiting a website will stay for less than one second: it takes that long for them to make up their minds. Status is apprehended very rapidly. From this it follows that whatever those visitors see during that fraction of a second is absolutely vital. Let us not look like losers for lack of pennies. Let us look like winners, and make mainstream types look up at us and drool with envy, and exclaim to themselves, their eyes rolling out of their sockets, “WHOA… I want to be like them!”

The enemy would really hate that.

Alex Kurtagic (email him) was born in 1970. He is the author of Mister (published by Iron Sky Publishing, 2009) and the founder and director of Supernal Music.
Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Kurtagic-Fundraiser.html

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »