April 30, 2009

Gang of 'barbarians' accused of torturing Jew to death

A SELF-PROCLAIMED Muslim barbarian shouted his contempt for his judges yesterday at the start of a racially-charged trial in Paris. He is accused, with 26 others, of torturing and murdering a young Jewish man.

Youssouf Fofana (28) -- who led a gang of youths from an immigrant housing estate -- swaggered into court and shouted "Allah will conquer" as the court began hearing a case that horrified France in 2006.

Mr Fofana and most of his alleged accomplices have admitted their roles in the kidnapping of Ilan Halimi (23), an assistant in a Paris telephone shop, who was held for ransom for 24 days.

Fofana -- whose parents came to France from Ivory Coast -- denies killing the victim, who was tied up in a cellar and tortured with acid, cigarettes and knives. He died in an ambulance after Mr Fofana dumped him by a railway line and allegedly set him alight.

The crime symbolised the violent anti-Semitic culture among many youths on the immigrant estates. It shocked France because many residents, including parents of gang members, were alleged to have been aware that Mr Halimi was being held. Some allegedly took turns in guarding the captive for a few euro.


Half the defendants, mainly teenagers at the time, face charges of failing to render assistance or alert police.

The trial proceeded in camera because two of the accused were minors in 2006, including Emma (19), of Iranian background, who is alleged to have lured Mr Halimi to his doom by visiting his shop and inviting him on a date.

Ruth Halimi, the victim's mother, accused the police of bungling the inquiry. She attacked the government -- including Nicolas Sarkozy, then the Interior Minister -- for playing down its anti-Semitic aspect.

After thousands demonstrated, Mr Sarkozy promised Jewish leaders that everything would be done to bring all those involved to justice.

Mr Fofana faces life imprisonment if convicted of kidnapping, torture and murder, aggravated by anti-Semitic motives, a specific charge in French law.

Mrs Halimi sat praying in court as Mr Fofana, bearded and in a white tracksuit, grinned at her and jokingly told the judges that his name was "Arabs African revolt barbarian Salafist army". Salafism is a fundamentalist movement espoused by many young immigrant radicals.

Know Thine Enemy: The “Collaborators” Of The Religious Left

Some interesting points are made in this article. Some I agree with, some I don't, but worth reading never the less.

By Peter Gadiel

My parents were German—my father Jewish, my mother Protestant. Their families were strong supporters of the democratic Weimar Republic established after the First World War and were strongly anti-Communist and anti-Nazi.

In 1931, two years before Hitler came to power, my father, foreseeing the collapse of civilized government in Germany, persuaded his parents to emigrate with him. But his sister Lotte, a naïve woman who incapable of believing anyone could be so evil as to want to harm her, refused to join them in France until 1934.

My mother, a Protestant as yet unmarried, was not in danger and remained in Germany. But she refused to obey the ban on Protestants shopping at Jewish-owned stores until that became too dangerous. Then she slipped across the border to France in 1936. The very next day the Gestapo came to arrest her for her resistance to the "New Order." (Her mother was once saved from arrest for her anti-Hitler remarks only because neighbors lied on her behalf.)

In 1939, violating Nazi race laws carried the death penalty. Nevertheless, my parents married in France. When the Germans conquered France in 1940 they escaped again. They and many like them survived the War only because they could recognize evil, fought it as long as they could, and escaped when that became necessary.

But naïve Aunt Lotte refused to leave her village in what was now Nazi-occupied France, believing that as a law abiding German, no fellow German would bother her. She duly registered her domicile with Nazi officials and lived peacefully in the town of Bains Les Bains. According to neighbors interviewed after the War, she was very happy being able to speak German to Occupation troops, and they were very nice to her.

Then one morning before dawn in November 1942 the Krauts rousted her out of bed, sent her to the infamous transit camp at Drancy and, according to the Germans’ own precise records, on November 11, 1942 put her on Transport # 42 and shipped her to Auschwitz.

Nothing further of her is known, but from what we know of her it is likely she remained innocent and docile right to the moment she was herded into the gas chambers.

Aunt Lotte was a collaborator in her own death. Not actively of course, but—like millions of others—her refusal to wake up and resist allowed Hitler to commit the mass murder of which she became a victim.

In America today we’ve got a lot of Aunt Lottes, and the modern threat they refuse to recognize is the massive invasion of illegal aliens. But there’s an important difference between my Aunt Lotte and many of her modern counterparts: the latter aren’t just passive, they are militant activists in the promotion of this evil. They “collaborate” with this invasion, just as quislings all over Occupied Europe collaborated with the Nazis. Their collaboration has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans at the hands of criminal aliens—including my own son, who died on 9/11—and the permanent physical, emotional and financial ruin of hundreds of thousands of others.

You’ll find these collaborators in control of the religious groups which form an essential part of the Illegal Alien Lobby. They include the United Church of Christ (Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s outfit); United Methodists; Quakers; Unitarians; Presbyterian Church; and, influenced by the radicals who have infiltrated its bureaucracy, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Church.

Sadly, among the collaborators are Jews, especially members of the liberal Reform Jewish organizations such as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. Typical of these is the so-called "Anti-Defamation League" which mocks its own name by defaming as "racist" anyone who dares oppose illegal immigration. Considering the vicious anti-Semitism of the Moslems and many of the Hispanics taking advantage of our open borders it appears that these American Jews are just as eager as Aunt Lotte to conspire in their own disappearance.

These religious types are distinct from the cynical crowd in Congress, La Raza, US Chamber of Commerce, ACLU, or the Communist Party who support illegal immigration for reasons of financial or political profit. The people in these churches are Believers.

They, like Aunt Lotte, know only what they want to know. They do not care that illegal immigration results in suffering and death for innocent Americans as the result of violent crimes. They are fanatics who, having convinced themselves they are doing God’s work, feel entitled to ignore or justify the violence and death that results from following what they see as The Holy Word.

It used to be said that the Episcopal Church was the Republican Party at prayer. But study the website of the Episcopal Church and you’ll see that this should be updated: "The Episcopal Church is the Far Left at prayer."

Except for the God talk, these religious denominations are near clones of the ACLU, Center for American Progress, or MoveOn.org. Name the political issue and these politicized churches have a position on it and a lobbying effort nearly always identical to that of the Far Left. They have a fanatical adherence to this radical political agenda and the zeal to spread the Revealed Word through political activism.

Don’t take my word for it; look at their websites: United Church of Christ, www.ucc.org; www.episcopalchurh.org; Quakers, www.afsc.org; United Methodists, www.umc.org; www.uua.org; Union of Reform Judaism, www.urj.org; Presbyterian church USA, www.pcusa.org.

About that last URL: for if you type in "www.CPUSA" instead of "www.PCUSA" you’ll get the Communist Party USA instead of the Presbyterian Church USA. However, not to worry; the mistake isn’t serious, since on most issues there isn’t much difference.

On those websites under the letter "I" you’ll see "Immigration," or "Immigrants’ (sic) Rights." There you’ll see the Religious Left does acknowledge that the United States has a right to have borders, but for these people the full extent of that "right" is to put a line on a map; there appears to be not a single concrete step they support that would in any other sense create a border between the US and Mexico.

Increased enforcement? Nope, God’s against it. More Border Patrol officers? No; that’s against the will of God. A fence? No, God is opposed to walls. Denying to any illegal alien benefits such as access to jobs, housing etc.? No; the word from God is that this is wrong.

And they have it on good authority that God favors amnesty for all.

It’s a curious thing. According to the ACLU, a kid can’t say his prayers in school, because that breaches the wall between church and state. However, the ACLU seems to have no concerns whatsoever about that "wall" when it comes to liberal churches lobbying.

We could dismiss these people as easily as Aunt Lotte ignored the forces of darkness that gathered around her. But to do so is just as dangerous for us as it was for her.

I can tell you from personal experience that these people lobby. They are lobbying Congress, the legislatures, the city councils, county commissions. They probably have their lobbyists at meetings of sewer commissions. And always for more benefits and "rights" for illegals.

Speak to the Religious Left of the victims of violent crimes committed by illegal aliens or "legal" aliens improperly allowed to enter the US due to the failure to enforce our laws (for example the 9/11 terrorists) and you cannot pierce the wall of denial, the faith that Open Borders are more important than the murder victims, the rape victims, the gang victims, drug distribution.

It matters not to them that real people are the victims of real violence by people from other countries. These Church people speak of "human rights" and "social justice," but by their actions they demonstrate their belief that these concepts do not apply to innocent Americans.

Until a few decades ago such a large percentage of Americans were members of these "mainline" denominations that their numbers made these churches an influential part of American life.

But those days are long gone. As radicals such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ assumed leadership positions and pushed the churches far to the left, membership fell drastically.

Still, though their membership in large part abandoned them for more conservative denominations the radical leadership inherited control of vast untaxed wealth provided by earlier members who would be appalled by the causes their money supports today. That money will remain the source of great power in the hands of the Jeremiah Wright as these churches recruit new members from among the illegal alien population they have helped to import.

Americans have a choice. They can either resist like, my parents. Or they can ignore reality like my Aunt Lotte.

We know what path Reform Jews and liberal Protestant sects are following.

Time will tell what the rest of America will do.


By Rev. Ted Pike
29 Apr 09

Despite compelling and passionate testimony by House Republicans, the federal hate crimes bill, HR 1913, passed today in the House of Representatives by a vote of 249 to 175.

In what Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R, VA) called "an atrocity," the House Rules Committee on Tuesday imposed a "closed rule" on debate and amendments, limiting debate to 120 minutes. However, contest of the rule was permitted between both sides for one hour, giving Republicans a preliminary opportunity to lay out objections to the hate bill. They failed in their attempt to lengthen the debate, and the original 120 minutes of debate ensued.

Here are highlights of the Republican opposition:

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R, NC) said HR 1913 will open a new category of "thought crimes" in America, moving us "down a slippery slope" to loss of freedom. She said such has happened under hate laws in Canada and Europe.

Rep. Trent Franks (R, AZ) warned HR 1913 will end equality in America, giving special rights to federally favored groups such as homosexuals.

Rep. Roy Blount (R, MO) echoed Foxx's admonition that hate laws have taken away free speech in Canada and Europe.

Rep. Steve King (R, IA) repeated the warning of his amendment in Judiciary last week, saying pedophiles and many other deviants will obtain special rights and protection under HR 1913.

Rep. Mary Fallin (R, OK) referenced loss of free speech in Canada and Great Britain but also how the "Philly 11" Christians were persecuted under Pennsylvania's hate law.

Rep. Foxx returned, saying a federal hate law would preempt the 10th Amendment which delegates most law enforcement to the states. She said the claim that Matt Sheppard was murdered because he was a homosexual was a "hoax;" he was killed, she said as the victim of a robbery.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R, TX) charged HR 1913 will divide America into groups of more favored versus less. He again cited USC Title 18, Section 2a, the foundation of HR 1913, which says anyone who through speech "induces" commission of a violent hate crime "will be tried as a principal" alongside the active offender. He said there is no "epidemic" of hate in America.

Rep. King cited the American Psychiatric Association which lists 547 different kinds of paraphilia, or sexual deviancies. King said all of these would merit special federal protection under the class "sexual orientation" enshrined in HR 1913.

Rep. Foxx testified, "This bill itself will spread fear and intimidation." She was referring primarily to Christian/conservative critics of homosexuality, Islam, illegal immigrants, etc. Such critics from the pulpit or airwaves would be increasingly silenced under the hate law's chill on free speech.

Rep. Hastings (D, FL), a proponent of the hate bill, brazenly agreed that HR 1913 would give a galaxy of sexual perverts special protection. He said that under hate bill protection they will not "live in fear because of who they are."

One particularly striking argument was made by Rep. Randy Forbes (R, VA). He said if Miss California had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage (and across the internet) under HR 1913 she could be indicted as a "violent hate criminal," facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under HR 1913. His act would have been simple assault, a misdemeanor.

The testimony of Rep. Todd Akins (R, MO) was also unique. He said HR 1913 would actually increase hate in America. He said the American people, including young people, recognizing that they are now second-class citizens, with homosexuals receiving special federal rights, can only resent (hate?) those who have rights and privileges above them. He also said that with the legal system already backed up, the federal hate law will create havoc within our legal system, requiring judges to also become "psychologists," divining motives of offenders.

Rep. Mike Pence (R, IN) said the FBI statistics show that, far from hate crimes increasing, they have steadily declined over the past 10 years. There is also no evidence that states are lax in hate law enforcement.

Democrat testimony concluded with a special entry, followed by CSPAN camera, of Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA). He pooh-poohed the arrest of the Philly 11 Christians in 2004, saying that, although it was unjust, Republicans were irresponsible in not pointing out that the Christians were acquitted. Fortunately, Rep. Gohmert had the last word, indicating that the very fact that persons can and have been arrested for speech under state laws has a chilling effect on free speech.

Gohmert tried to send the hate bill back to Judiciary for amendments but was overridden.

It is now time for all who love freedom to turn their full attention to defeat of the hate bill in the Senate, where Sen. Edward Kennedy just yesterday introduced his federal hate bill, S. 909, which is certain to be moving rapidly to a vote.

Call 1-877-851-6437 toll free or 1-202-225-3121 toll. Names of Senate Judiciary members are posted here at www.truthtellers.org.

Tell all members of the Senate: "Please don't vote for the pedophile-protecting federal hate crimes bill, S. 909. Please insist on Judiciary hearings to debate this very dangerous, freedom-threatening legislation."

Watch the dynamic 10-minute educational video How to Kill the Hate Bills at www.truthtellers.org which explains how the hate bill, S.909, ends freedom. Please tell the offices of members of Congress to watch it! Also at www.truthtellers.org, watch our gripping 82-minute documentary Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians.

Let the Anti-Defamation League teach you how they have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians, and spearhead attempts to pass the federal hate crimes bill: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.

A Culture Of Surveillance

by Chuck Baldwin
April 28, 2009

It is truly amazing how much news the American news media chooses to ignore. If one wants to discover what is actually going on in the world, he or she often has to go to the foreign press. This has again been the case with a story that every American should be extremely interested in, but which has been totally ignored by the American news media. I found this story in Russia Today.

According to RussiaToday.com, "The personal computer may soon be not-so-private, with the U.S. and some European nations working on laws allowing them access to search the content held on a person's hard drive.

"President Obama's administration is keeping unusually tight-lipped on the details, which is raising concerns among computer users and liberty activists."

The report also states, "In extreme secrecy from the public, the United States is hammering out an international copyright treaty with several other countries and the European Union. Under the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (or ACTA), governments will get sweeping new powers to search and seize material thought to be in breach of copyright. But why all the secrecy?"

Russia Today quotes Richard Stallman, prominent American software freedom activist, as saying, "Democracy gets bypassed and they can do to us whatever they want. I can only guess that it's going to be nasty, because if it weren't going to be nasty, they wouldn't need to keep it a secret."

The report also said, "Up until now, the breach of copyright has been a civil matter. The Obama administration seems to now want to criminalize it."

The report continued saying, "Some say modern America is being overtaken by a culture of surveillance."

A culture of surveillance indeed. What began in earnest under former President George W. Bush is now sharply escalating under President Barack Obama.

According to Ecommerce Journal, President Obama and his Big Brother fellow travelers in Congress are seeking power to "cut the whole world off the Internet." The report says, "Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe proposed the Cybersecurity Act that would create the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor. Its powers are detailed in the The Cybersecurity Act of 2009.

"If the President so chooses, he can call a 'cybersecurity emergency' and shut down or limit any 'net traffic or a 'critical' network 'in the name of national security,' though the bill fails to provide concrete definitions on what is 'critical' or what constitutes an 'emergency.'"

The report goes on to say, "This new legislation seeks to give even more power to the government to regulate the Internet and, in future, the possibility to regulate content and usage. What begins as a method of defeating terrorism and protecting telecommunications, can quickly become a method to regulate 'hate speech' to assign 'motive' or 'intent' to harm and even to regulate and legislate the flow of information that is deemed by the 'thought police' to be inflammatory or counter-productive to their cause."

The report says that the new cybersecurity legislation can be a "framework for future, more invasive legislation. It is a first step to the loss of internet privacy, free speech and the free flow of information."

So, once again, the passing of a Republican Presidential administration and the advent of a Democratic Presidential administration have resulted in zero change in the overall direction of the ship of state. In the name of "national security," the federal government of this country continues to deepen its commitment to what can only be described as a police-state mentality. And, once again, the national news media in America chooses to ignore the story, and by so doing, shows willful compliance with this disturbing phenomenon.

I wonder how many Obama supporters are paying attention?

During the Bush years, my "conservative" brethren (especially the ones calling themselves Christians) repeatedly turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the myriad foibles and falsehoods, and frequent fraudulence of President Bush because he was a Republican. Now we will see how many Obama supporters will look the other way in order to protect President Obama because he is a Democrat. I suspect most of them will show themselves of no better character than the Bush supporters.

Consider: Obama promised to end the war in Iraq. But what has he done since being elected? He merely moved the major combat theater to Afghanistan. He is even in the process of escalating the war in Afghanistan to possibly include Pakistan. So, where are the "peacenik" liberals who supported Obama? Why do they not loudly proclaim their opposition, as they did when Bush was in office?

Furthermore, Obama criticized Bush's undisciplined deficit spending, but what has he done since becoming President? He has deeply expanded Bush's failed financial policy of excessive deficit spending. Again, where are all the loud voices of protest?

George Bush wanted amnesty for illegal aliens. Barack Obama wants amnesty for illegal aliens. George Bush supported the assault weapons ban. Barack Obama supports the assault weapons ban. George Bush wanted to limit the legal rights of certain people charged with crimes. Well, friends, Barack Obama also wants to limit the rights of people charged with crimes.

Just last week, an Associated Press report stated, "The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

"The administration's action--and several others--have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign."

So, where are Obama's supporters who thought they were voting for change? Will they do nothing, as did Bush's supporters, and accept this abridgment of personal liberty, simply because "their man" is in the White House? Probably.

In addition, George Bush created a Big-Government monster known as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Can there be any doubt that DHS is in the process of manufacturing a ubiquitous surveillance society that eavesdrops, snoops, and monitors virtually our entire lives? And what does Barack Obama do immediately after assuming office? He multiplies and expands the surveillance society to even greater degrees. So again I ask, where are all the Bush critics to denounce Barack Obama's draconian anti-privacy, anti-freedom policies?

The Internet is the last best source of free and independent information left. Think where the liberty movement would be without the Internet. But even as we speak, President Obama and his allies in Congress are attempting to obtain the authority to censor information on--and curtail access to--the Internet. Plus, in the name of "cybersecurity," they are plotting to obtain the authority to monitor and seize anyone's personal computer at will.

The Russia Today report is right: we do have a culture of surveillance. We also have a culture of cowardice by people from both sides of the political aisle who, in the name of partisan politics, are willfully accommodating and facilitating the demise of this constitutional republic.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:


Freedom Watch Napolitano, Ron Paul, Daniel Hannan, Rockwell, Schiff

For part 2-6 click the video responses.

Ministry of Truth's Broadcast Networks Devote Half Their Nightly Propaganda to Obama

Earlier on Monday, my colleague Tim Graham previewed a study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs finding that Barack Obama received more television coverage in his first 50 days in office than George W. Bush and Bill Clinton did through similar points in their presidencies combined.

The final report has now been published, and the results are even more absurd.

For instance:

During his first 50 days in office, the three broadcast network evening news shows devoted 1021 stories lasting 27 hours 44 minutes to Barack Obama’s presidency. The daily average of seven stories and over 11 minutes of airtime represents about half of the entire newscasts. By contrast, at this point in their presidencies George W. Bush had received 7 hours 42 minutes and Bill Clinton garnered 15 hours 2 minutes of coverage, for a combined total airtime five hours less than Mr. Obama’s.

Wow. So the three broadcast network evening news shows have basically devoted on average about half of their entire newscasts to Obama.

Astonishing. But there's more:

CBS led the coverage with 365 stories and 10 hours 46 minutes of airtime, followed by NBC with 327 stories and 9 hours 38 minutes, and ABC with 329 stories and 7 hours 20 minutes. Thus, CBS has given more coverage to the Obama administration than all three networks combined gave to the first 50 days of George W. Bush’s presidency.


Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?

Where is the Justice for Channon and Christopher?

Pro-Western College Group Ruffles the Marxist's Feathers.

A student group that bills itself as "America's right wing youth movement" focused on countering radical multiculturism, socialism and mass immigration is causing a stir on a growing number of college campuses across the country.

The conservative political group Youth for Western Civilization is currently organized on at least seven university campuses. According to its Web site, the group hopes to inspire Western youth on the "basis of pride in their American and Western heritage," counter and ultimately defeat "leftism on campus" and create a social movement in which a right-wing subculture is an alternative to what it calls a "poisonous and bigoted" campus climate.

"A great part of college is definitely meeting people of different backgrounds, but a multicultural ideology teaches that we should appreciate things just because they're different from our culture with no regards to the quality of the culture and that all cultures are inherently equal," said Trevor Williams, president of YWC's Vanderbilt chapter. "I absolutely disagree."

But students who lean left are not welcoming their new neighbor. Those opposed to YWC say its message teeters on hate speech and has no place at institutions of higher learning.

"'Western' is a veiled term that means 'white,'" University of North Carolina graduate student Tyler Oakley wrote in an e-mail to FOXNews.com. "I believe that our democracy is strong enough to allow extreme forms of speech, but YWC's message is essentially a negative one, an assault on not being white or non-Western, and is therefore hateful, if not blatant hate speech."

While its numbers are small, YWC members hope a well-publicized April 14 event featuring the group's honorary chairman — former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo — at UNC's Chapel Hill campus, will help mobilize conservative students and attract new members.

Tancredo's speech opposing in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants was shut down after a window was smashed and a banner reading "No One Is Illegal" was unfurled across the former Republican lawmaker's face. One UNC student, Helen Elizabeth Koch, was arrested for disorderly conduct in the incident, which was widely distributed on YouTube and is also featured on Youth for Western Civilization's home page.

Officials at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which identifies and tracks hate groups in the U.S., told FOXNews.com that the YWC is not currently on its list, but some of the group's views are "suspect," including the notion that Western civilization is somehow superior.

In February, following YWC's debut at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, SPLC linked the group's founder, Kevin DeAnna, to several posts on the Spartan Spectator, the Web site of Michigan State University's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom.

SPLC identified MSU-YAF as a hate group in 2007; DeAnna vehemently denies posting the material attributed to him.

"We're definitely monitoring them," said SPLC spokewoman Heidi Beirich. "We will look at them for hate group status."

DeAnna, a deputy field director for the Leadership Institute, a conservative education group that paid Tancredo $3,000 for his UNC appearance, said YWC has roughly 10 active members at each of its college chapters. Aside from UNC, DeAnna said YWC has a presence at Vanderbilt University, American University, Elon University, the University of Rhode Island, the University of Connecticut-Storrs and Bentley University.

"It's kind of a loose thing right now," said DeAnna, a 26-year-old graduate student in international relations at American University. "But we're concerned with issues of mass immigration, curriculum, racial preferences and multiculturism on college campuses."

The group will sponsor another speech by Tancredo on Wednesday just off campus from Providence College, where school officials recently denied a request from the still unsanctioned group to host the former congressman, who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican Party's presidential nomination in 2008.

Tim Dionisopoulos, president of YWC's unofficial Providence chapter, said Tancredo plans to speak "right in front of the gates" at the 4,000-student university and to head to a Veterans for Foreign War event. Providence officials say YWC has not sought formal recognition as a student group and thus cannot host an event at the Rhode Island college. But Dionisopoulos says the college is hiding behind protocol.

"We've been unfairly targeted," the political science major told FOXNews.com. "The content scares administrators because this is a group that will stand up for what they believe in. I don't think they're opposed to our mission statement, I think they're moreso afraid of what the opposition will do to us and have done to us elsewhere. Eventually, someone's got to come out and say this has got to stop."

Jesse Jones, a freshman at Vanderbilt, where YWC hosted former U.S. Treasurer Bay Buchanan last month, acknowledged the group's right to organize and share its views.

"But their fascist-like logo, their name echoing 'Hitler Youth,' and Tom Tancredo's call of 'this is your country — take it back' all quite frankly scare me," Jones wrote in an e-mail to FOXNews.com.

Jones said he's also disturbed by the group's call to restore a "curriculum that focuses on Western history, not political correctness," according to its Web site.

"They want to change the curriculum to emphasize 'classical learning' and get rid of 'trendy multiculturalism,'" Jones continued. "In practice this means firing professors with the wrong views and hiring those with the 'right' views.

"Even assuming there is a 'right' view on a given issue, the point is to get students to come to this opinion on their own, given the facts. In this way, YWC's views on education are inherently anti-intellectual."

Tancredo, meanwhile, says he'll continue to appear at colleges as an invited guest of YWC. Its mission to "promote the survival of Western civilization and pride in Western heritage" is all about celebration, he says.

"It's got nothing to do with racism, it's got nothing to do with extremism," Tancredo told FOXNews.com. "It has to do with celebrating the benefits Western civilization has brought to mankind, not the least of which is the concept of law. It's designed to bring attention to the issues, discussions and points of view that aren't readily available in the typical classroom on liberal colleges run by left-wing loonies."

Zionist Lobby Targets Another Tenured Professor


Doug Henwood: We're now joined by William Robinson, who is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California in Santa Barbara, someone I met about six or seven years ago at a conference and, although I've disagreed with him on some issues, I though he's a serious and thoughtful guy. I was very distressed to learn, reading Insider Higher Ed, the website, today that he's being persecuted by the Zionist lobby for an e-mail that he sent around to some of his students. Welcome William Robinson, tell us the story of what you sent and what's been happening.

William Robinson: Yes, good afternoon to everyone. I included some material which was highly critical of the Israeli invasion of Gaza as part of the reading material for a course on globalization and global affairs, and this was in January. And I am now facing charges, here at the university, of anti-semitism and violating the faculty code of conduct because two students in the course - there were eighty students - these two submitted a formal letter of complaint that they found offensive the material condemning the invasion of Gaza. The students immediately withdrew from the course, I don't even know them personally. And what is particularly egregious about this case is not that the students submitted a complaint - any student is allowed to do that - but rather that the university took the complaint seriously and is actually prosecuting me...

DH: You have tenure right?

WR: Yes, I am tenured, I am a full time professor...

DH: So in theory you're protected against persecution for your beliefs.

WR: No, in theory, I have total, I and even if I don't have tenure, have academic freedom, and this is in total violation of my academic freedom and of all of the principles of academic freedom, and of the university's own charter on academic freedom, and the American Association of University Professors principles and procedures on academic freedom, so there is absolutely no basis for any of this. What's going on, and I want to explain, behind the scenes we have been able to find out - students on campus and faculty have formed a Committee to Defend Academic Freedom which is taking up this issue, and by the way, there is a blog that they put up with all of this information, which at some point I would like to give your listeners - but we have found out that the Anti-Defamation League, which, as you know, and your listeners probably know, is an organization which, at one time, did very good and very important work in denouncing anti-Semitism, but since then has become a, basically, a mouthpiece for the Israeli government, a defender of the policies and practices of the Israeli state, and goes after and attacks anyone that criticizes those policies. So these students did not even accuse me of doing anything which we would consider anti-Semitism - discrimination against Jews, against the Jewish religion and so forth - they said openly and outright that the professor introduces material which criticized the state of Israel and that equals anti-semitism.

DH: Now, I think some people found offensive that you had likened Israeli behavior to the Nazis. Is that an issue?

WR: Well I didn't do that. What I did was I forwarded several items from the world media, from the internet media. One item was an article written by a Jewish journalist in a Jewish newspaper here in the United States, and it was criticizing the invasion of Gaza...

DH: So you didn't endorse this position?

WR: I didn't endorse it but I did include, I said, in presenting this material, I said that Gaza is Israel's Warsaw and I explained the context. That's because in Warsaw the Nazi's surrounded Warsaw, concentrated Jews in Warsaw, wouldn't let anyone in, wouldn't let anyone out, wouldn't let supplies in, wouldn't let supplies out; as a result there was famine and disease and so forth...

DH: Which is exactly what's...

WR: ...exactly and precisely what the Israeli's are doing in Gaza. And that's been denounced by the Red Cross, the United Nations, the international human rights organizations, and moreover, academic freedom totally allows me to present such controversial material and that's part of what the university is all about. We academically debate these controversial issues. I want to explain though what happened. We got some inside information in the last week. The president of the Anti-Defamation League Abraham Fox-...

DH: Foxman

WR: Foxman, he arrived here in Santa Barbara and he called a meeting with a select group of faculty, and he called the meeting for no other reason than to say that we want Professor Robinson prosecuted, and this is explosive. We have just learned about this; we're going to go public with it. And so there is this outside Israel lobby which has come on to campus, and which is accusing me of anti- Semitism and of doing all of these terrible things in order to create an atmosphere of complete intimidation. You know that anyone who criticizes the policies of the state of Israel is silenced, and is given that label of anti-smitism; that's a way of creating this atmosphere of intimidation, that no one can speak out about what's going on in Israel-Palestine, and so forth. That's the larger context.

DH: Ok, I'm sorry to make this so rushed, but this is a last minute addition and the rest of the show is full, just let me conclude...What can people do?

WR: [Go to] sb4af.wordpress.com. That's the blog that the Committee to Defend Academic Freedom has set up, and a lot of this information is on there, a lot of the documents are on there.

DH: All right, well thank you William Robinson and best of luck in your fight and we'll be back to look at this in the future.

WR: Thank-you, thank-you very much.

DH: I've been speaking with William Robinson, who is a professor of sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, under persecution by the intellectual police at the Zionist lobby, the Anti-Defamation League.

Another One Caught Red Handed

April 27, 2009

The Rooted and the Rootless

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Does Barack Obama understand the people he leads? Do his aides?

These may seem cheeky questions to ask of a team that just won the presidency. But there is something in their cool, insouciant, blasé demeanor, in the face of insults to their country, that suggests there yet exists a chasm—between them and us.

Now, the change since the 1960s in the character of the nation has been great. The moral and social sappers spawned by that decade have done their work well. But Middle America yet remains a blood-and-soil, family-and-faith, God-and-country kind of nation.

We are not Europe—yet.

Most Americans remain visceral patriots. It's in the DNA.

What almost cost Bill Clinton the presidency in 1992 was not that he had opposed the Vietnam War, but that, it was said, he marched against his country while in a foreign country.

When Barack confided to friends in San Francisco that he was having trouble in Pennsylvania because these folks "get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them ... as a way to explain their frustrations," he revealed that he does not really understand a part of the nation he now leads.

It is this part of America that does not comprehend how the president could sit in Trinidad and listen to the scrub stock of the hemisphere trash our country—and say nothing.

To Obama's supporters, he may have behaved as a rational leader ought: Be pleasant and friendly, smile, ignore taunts and insults, rise above all that, communicate, seek common ground.

That is who Obama is, friends say. On a personal level, there is surely nothing wrong with so conducting oneself. But Obama is now president of the United States. He represents our country, not just himself.

The other America is hardwired another way. It believes, as Merle Haggard sang, "If you're running' down my country, man, you're walkin' on the fightin' side of me."

At Columbia, Harvard Law and the University of Chicago—where Barack, the son of a single mom, shuttled from Hawaii to Indonesia and back—a black kid in a strange Muslim world, then in a white world, by his own admission unrooted, learned how to get along. And he is surrounded by aides with advanced degrees from elite colleges who react just like him.

But if they don't wish to lose the country, they had better begin to understand the rest of America—as the 1960s' liberals never did.

When columnist Tom Wicker famously wrote, after the riots at the 1968 Democratic Convention, "These were our children in the streets, and the Chicago police beat them up," a Gallup poll recorded that 56 percent of Americans interviewed approved of the Chicago cops.

To most Americans, it was the cops who were "our children," and the country was delighted the obnoxious and over-privileged brats had gotten what they deserved.

When students marched down Wall Street in 1969 to protest the "dirty immoral war" in Vietnam, the construction workers of Pete Brennan's building trades waded in. Liberals could not understand how the working class—the proletariat, for Pete's sake!—so detested them.

Ever since the Social Democrats voted to a man for the Kaiser's war credits in 1914, the left has felt itself repeatedly betrayed by the economic class in which they have always invested so much hope.

This divide here is not Republicans versus Democrat, so much as it is NASCAR versus The New York Times.

When the Dubai Ports deal became public and America exploded, Times neocon columnist David Brooks was as stunned as his neoliberal colleague Tom Friedman. The "pitchfork-wielding xenophobes" were out of their cages, and a new Dark Age was upon us.

When during the Panama Canal debate Ronald Reagan declared: "We bought it. We paid for it. It's ours. And we're gonna keep it," and crowds came roaring to their feet, the elites could not comprehend it, because they do not understand what Pascal meant when he said, "The heart has reasons that the mind knows not."

Rooted people love the things of the heart: God, country, family and faith. The weapons of the mind have been given to us, they believe, to defend the things of the heart.

Knowledge follows love; it does not precede it.

Most Americans have grown to love America long before they read the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers. There are heroes in Arlington who never learned to read. A true nation is an extended family. If fathers or sons do not defend it, it is their conduct that is indefensible.

Obama may be popular today, but he will lose the country and his presidency if he lets the perception take hold that he, the personification of American sovereignty, does not react as a normal patriot.

The Obamaites may not like Sarah Palin's phraseology. But they need someone in their councils who is rooted in the Real America.

April 26, 2009

For American Ears.

QFiles 2 hour special with Dr. Steve Pieczenik, the man who the Tom Clancy character Jack Ryan was based on. The discussion is on patriotism, treason, psy-ops, our current financial woes, national security and the coming revolution.

Part 1: http://www.stevequayle.com/qf_april_22_2009_hour_1.mp3

Part 2 : http://www.stevequayle.com/qf_april_22_2009_hour_2.mp3

April 24, 2009

Decommunization: The Unrealizable Project in Croatia

Tom Sunic

April 13, 2009

Following the end of the Cold War and the end of communist repression, the need for decommunization of the public sphere became widespread among wide segments of the East European population. Citizens who were once victims of Communism in Eastern Europe use the word ‘lustracija’ — a Latin derivative often wrongly translated into English as ‘lustration’ but which does not have the connotation of a political purge that it has in English-speaking countries. In the Croatian, the Serbian, or the Czech languages, ‘lustracija’ refers to a much-desired need to remove or punish former communist officials, many of whom are still active as public servants, diplomats, or correspondents. They often continue to play a prominent role in the higher echelons of power in Eastern Europe.

The best word to use when describing the current judicial and political debate in Eastern Europe is 'dekomunizacija' (decommunization), because it specifically denotes the grievances of former victims of communism, while clearly targeting the still-present post-communist cadres and their fellow travelers.

Understanding the concept of lustracija or decommunization in Croatia is fairly easy. But its legal implementation is well nigh irresolvable. Why?

The desire among many Croat victims of communism for removing ex-communist officials from public life is partly based on horrific discoveries of countless mass graves of Croat and German anti-communist soldiers and civilians killed by the victorious Yugoslav communists in 1945 and after.

The proponents of decommunization in Croatia often quote the European Council resolution (#1481) of February 3, 2006, which sharply condemned past communist crimes. But this resolution is not legally binding, and its adoption was far from unanimous (99 European deputies in favor, 42 opposed). There was quite a bit of unofficial criticism regarding the phrasing of the resolution, especially in Russia, although the resolution drew equally sharp criticism from many left-leaning politicians and journalists in Western Europe.

Croatian identity: Political schizophrenia

Small nations that appeared on the geographic map after the end of communism have troubles in reasserting their identity. One of these is tiny Croatia. Before every possible entry into a supranational community, such as the much craved EU and NATO, official Croatia needs to recognize her identity. Should her identity be embedded in the principles of antifascism, or the principles of anticommunism?

In Croatia, the current public debate today points to a schizoid country. On the one hand, the Croatian constitution stipulates the antifascist heritage of the country — while prudently avoiding any mention of the anticommunist legacy. On the other hand, ever since the rebirth of the country in 1990, Croatia and its politicians have been loudly boasting anticommunist insignia and decorations, and even using figures of speech which resemble the discourse of former anticommunist and pro-fascist and pro-Nazi Croatia (currency, medals, some archaic expressions, etc.) of World War II.

Should Croatia decide to introduce anticommunist clauses in its constitution, as many of its citizens now publicly advocate, the whole of Croatia's political class, regardless of it party affiliation, would face international isolation. In today's neo-liberal, global system it is highly desirable to declare oneself "antifascist," but not "anticommunist."

Obviously the most consistent supporters of anticommunism all over Europe were fascists and pro-fascist intellectuals and politicians during the first half of the 20th century. Despite their hastily acquired neo-liberal stance and their pro-Israeli and pro-American verbal escapades, Croat politicians are under close scrutiny of the EU and under the watchful eyes of diverse Jewish groups based in America and Israel. These groups never tire of warning the Croatian ruling class against sliding into "right-wing nationalism."

This points up the remarkable fact that, as noted quite often in TOO, in the eyes of the hostile elites who dominate the politics of the West, ethnic nationalism is legitimate for Jews and many other human groups, but not for Europeans.

In any case, it is clear that for the EU and for Jewish organizations, dredging up the horrors of communism comes too close to vindicating Croatia’s fascist past. Therefore, it is not surprising that the new Croatian political class must be (metaphorically) more Catholic than the Pope and (literally) more pro-Jewish than the Knesset. But such attitudes hamper decommunization and only lead to further trivialization of crimes committed by Yugoslav communists.

A similar mindset also prevails in nearby Germany, albeit on a far more massive and more sophisticated scale. Because National Socialism has become the ultimate icon of evil in the post-World War II era, Germany must constantly show its democratic credentials by combating any signs of resurgence of fascism. In Germany, over the last decade, a strong campaign has been conducted by the federal government against "right wing militancy," to the point that even the German word ‘Rechtsradikale’ (‘radical right winger’) has acquired a quasi-criminal significance in German legal vernacular .

In today's international environment little is being said about crimes of communism. For such silence there are objective reasons. During World War II, the communist guerillas in Eastern Europe were the main Western allies in the fight against National Socialism and fascism. Today, however, in the postmodern victimological bargaining by different ethnicities and races, any mention of communist mass graves in Eastern Europe would likely eclipse the mandatory narrative of Jewish victimhood. It would also challenge the quasi-religious veneration of the word ‘antifascism.’ This is especially so in Croatia because of its ties with Germany during World War II.

In addition, critical examination of communism would also bring to the fore the names of the disproportionate number of Jewish intellectuals who played a prominent role in the intellectual legitimization of the communism (see Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein, "Jüdischer Bolschewismus." Mythos und Realität, 2003).

Politics: The Art of the Accident

Postwar antifascist purges or "lustrations" did not start with the victorious Soviets, but were initiated by the Western allies prior to the official end of World War II. Beginning in the late summer of 1944, the American provisional military authorities in France, aided by the communist-based French Resistance, started implementing draconian laws against writers, journalists, professors, and public intellectuals who were suspected of collaboration with the defeated pro-fascist regime of Petain-Laval.

A year later in Germany, the first target of the American military government, prior to the trial of National Socialist dignitaries at the Nuremberg tribunal, were teachers, journalists, and professors who were obliged to fill out special questionnaires (Fragebogen). Millions of people, especially highly educated Germans, lost their jobs — only to be quickly reinstated at the beginning of the Cold War in 1948 (see Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing, Charakter-Wäsche, 1963).

During the Cold War the Americans were smart enough to tap into the Wannseeinstitut SD, a top-level intelligence office affiliated with the SS. The Institute was under the guidance of a very young lawyer, Major General Walter Schellenberg (1910–1952). During World War II, Schellenberg used the skills of many highly trained European academics and intellectuals whose task was the study of the communist mindset. Later, after the war, the US-based think thanks dealing with Sovietology and Kremlinology were mostly patterned along the success of the National Socialist German Wannseeinstitut SD.

Similar methods of administering "questionnaires" and "surveys" to former pro-fascist suspects were introduced by victorious communist authorities in Yugoslavia in late 1945, albeit on a far more repressive level. This resulted in mass executions of top Croat academics and intellectuals suspected of collaboration with the National Socialists (See Zoran Kantolic, Review of Croatian History, 2005, # 1).

In view of this history, the US and the European Union favor dealing with recycled communist apparatchiks turned liberal officials who now hold office from the Baltic states to the Balkans, including Croatia. Politicians in Washington and Brussels are more at ease dealing with former Yugoslav communists than with unpredictable Serbian and Croatian nationalists who are proverbially at odds with each other.

Hypothetically speaking, had the Cold War ended in a hot war between the US and the USSR in 1989, America would have used all available anticommunist and nationalist forces to overthrow Communism. If this had happened, all former Croatian communists and their acolytes in the media, academia, and higher education would have experienced a fate similar to the intellectuals of the Baath Party of former President Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2002: They would either lose their heads or their jobs.

But for an accident of history, the right-leaning intellectuals and academics might have been in power.

The phenomenology of the accident in history was described by the first Croat president, the late Franjo Tudjman in his book The Wasteland of Historical Reality. However, Tudjman's revisionist writings made him a persona non grata in Western chancelleries and earned Croatia to this day the suspicion of being a paleo-fascist and anti-Semitic country. A hero in history often becomes a scoundrel.

The Psychology of Homo iugoslavensis.

There is hardly any Croat nationalist today who does not have at least one cousin who fought with the communist partisans during World War II. How then to initiate the process of decommunization if this inevitably means affecting the lives of the same people who would initiate the process of decommunization? The number of ex- communists who now sit in the so-called conservative ruling and nationalist party, the Christian Democratic Party (HDZ)), or who make up the largest opposition party, the socialist Social Democratic Party in Croatia, is huge.

The highest-ranking diplomats in Croatia are former Yugoslav communist journalists and diplomats. There is a joke in the corridors of the Croat Ministry of Foreign affairs that the modern Croat diplomacy has become an "ideal refuge for the recycled former Yugoslav communist journalists, snitches, or rats” — or, to put it more lyrically, for former "foreign correspondents."

Ironically, these individuals have high stakes in endorsing the independence of nationalist Croatia. This sounds contradictory, but it makes sense because under communism they could have never dreamed of the perks they now enjoy as part of the Croatian elite. Under communism, all Croatian communist party members knew deadly well that even the smallest favor needed to be blessed at the federal level in Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia — even a minor travel order to a Western capital or being allowed to write an inoffensive political editorial in the former communist journals or on the state-run TV. Today, despite harsh anticommunist rhetoric, unequaled anywhere else in the West, a large number of the Faculty of Philosophy and the Faculty of Political Sciences in Zagreb (the main centers of public opinion) are men and women whose parents were communist stalwarts. How can they be purged? It is fairly easy to point them out, but it is impossible to "lustrate" them.

A case in point: In 1984 my father, Mirko Sunic, a former Catholic lawyer and my sister, Mirna Sunic, a professor, were sentenced to 4 years and 10 months of prison respectively, pursuant to Article 133 of the Criminal Code of communist Yugoslavia a law that criminalized “hostile propaganda.” The charges had been filed by the state communist attorney Ante Nobilo. Subsequently, Mirko Sunic was adopted by Amnesty International and 15 US Congressmen as a prisoner of conscience. At the same time, I was granted political asylum while living in the United States.

Today Nobilo is a high-ranking advisor to the new left-leaning President of Croatia Stipe Mesic, as is Budimir Loncar who was Federal Secretary of the Ministry Foreign Affairs in communist Yugoslavia at the time my father and sister were imprisoned. Nobilo and Loncar frequently host foreign NGO's and are responsible for assessing Croatia's human rights record and its tolerance toward non- European immigrants.

Similar cases can be counted in the thousands if not in hundreds of thousands if the time span of communist terror from 1945 to 1990 is taken into account (see Mirko Sunic, Moji inkriminirani zapisi [My Incriminated Writings], 1996).

If one were to follow the same logic, one should not forget that the anticommunist and revisionist president, the former Franjo Tudjman himself held the high position of a communist general in Belgrade in the late 1950s — at the time of the worst communist repression. If he did not know of the mass murders carried out by the communists, then who was supposed to know about them? And how then to judge Tudjman or evaluate his revisionist work?

Putting the blame on “the Other" is a typical trait of the totalitarian spirit. It is alive and well in the public and business life of Croatia today, as well as in the Croatian judiciary. But that same pattern occurs throughout post-communist Eastern Europe. There is an expression that has characterized communism throughout its history: "No, not me! He is guilty! He is guilty! Not me! He!"

It is often forgotten that communism was not a departure from democracy, but democracy brought to its pinnacle — the "terror of all against all in all instances" (terreur totale de tous contre tous à tous les instants (Claude Polin, L'Esprit totalitaire, 1977).The Yugoslav communists did not have their worst enemy in the Catholic Church or in the always proverbial Croat nationalists, but within their own rank and file. Witness the eternal mutual slaughters and purges among the leftists from the Spanish Civil War all the way down to the incessant Stalinist purges in the Soviet Union.

There is a serious thesis one can propose. Was the war in 1991 in the former Yugoslavia masterminded by former communist officials in Croatia and Serbia? Was it prompted by the feud among regional communist intelligence officers? How does one explain the fact that both the nationalist Croat Franjo Tudjman and his Serb counterpart, Slobodan Milosevic, had a staggering number of former communist intelligence officers surrounding them — let alone that they had both been staunch members of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia? What would have been the development in communist ex-Yugoslavia if both Serbia and Croatia had highly educated expatriate non-communist politicians at the helm of the Yugoslav state? This is a good question for historians, sociologists and futurologists.

The biggest mistake was committed by strongly nationalist and anticommunist Croatian expatriates. In fact, they made a fatal mistake. Their enormous financial and military assistance to Croatia — worth billions of dollars — should have been discretely linked to the removal of old communist Croat cadres and the return en masse of these expatriates to the old homeland. This would have created a favorable sociological balance and would have significantly diminished today's tensions between communist-bred Croats and nationalist Croats.

But since these anticommunist Croatian nationalists did not return, any possible decommunization or as Croats call it 'lustracija' seems morally and logistically unfeasible because it would necessitate huge shifts of population and would result inevitably in a civil war. Nevertheless, this very violent scenario cannot be ruled out.

The whole phenomenon of the so-called purges or “lustration” is nothing new in history. After the fall of Napoleon, during the period of the Restoration, the French King Louis XVIII had co-opted his former adversaries by providing them with some form of "half subsistence" (demi soldes), because he knew that otherwise he would be facing chaos and terrorism in France. Similarly, the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco shrewdly handed out meager pensions to his former foes, the defeated Spanish Republicans.

Yet the phenomenon of the haphazard and the vagaries of the historical accident have their own cosmic laws that remain impenetrable to human reason. The Romanian-French essayist and philosopher Emile Cioran wrote that there is more truth and justice in medieval alchemy or in the entrails of wild Roman geese, than in the palaver about democracy, justice, happiness and prosperity.

Tom Sunic (see www.tomsunic.info; http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com/) is a writer, a translator, and a former professor of political science in the United States and a former Croat diplomat. Recently his book The European New Right (2009) was translated into Croat with a foreword by Alain de Benoist. His new book, La Croatie: un pays par défaut?, will be published this year.

April 16, 2009

Democrats vs Republicans (Joke)

Democrats vs Republicans ........IN REAL LIFE

I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up.

She said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what
would be the first thing you would do?'

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed.

'Wow... what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that.
You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my sidewalks,
and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you
can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked,
'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

April 2, 2009

Comments on "Memories of Madison": White ethno-nationalism and Zionism

Kevin MacDonald

March 27, 2009

I received many positive responses to my VDARE.com article “Memories of Madison: My life in the New Left” — quite a few from people who went through similar experiences. I hope that some of these people would write up their experiences. They are very valuable as a firsthand account of history. Another column based on others’ experiences would certainly have quite a bit of interest.

A lot of us are still “getting over” those days, and there can be little doubt that the sensibilities of the 1960s are a major ingredient in our current cultural malaise. The big story of the 20th century in the US is a struggle for influence by the Jewish-dominated left. The Jewish Old Left was contained during the 1950s by the influence of McCarthyism. But the breakthrough of the New Left into the mainstream culture in the 1960s has had a very large influence on current cultural norms, especially on elite attitudes toward immigration and multiculturalism. As I mentioned in the article, the implicit agenda of the Jewish left has been the general displacement of non-Jewish whites.

Two comments bear an extended discussion. Mark A. Mendlovitz asks why I “oppose Zionism. Is not what Israeli Jews are doing analogous to what you and I are seeking to do here in the U.S.?”

I certainly do not oppose the principle that it is legitimate for people to carve out a piece of real estate so that they can develop their own form of ethnic nationalism. Indeed, in a previous VDARE.com article, I emphasized the legitimacy and benefits of universal ethnic nationalism, based on the work of Jerry Z. Muller and Frank Salter.

Mendlovitz writes “Yes, supporting Israel is trouble for the U.S., but as is often the case, doing what is right is troublesome.” As he suggests, the problem is that Jewish ethnic nationalism has resulted in a very large cost to the United States for all the reasons that writers like Mearsheimer and Waltand I — describe.

Frankly, I do not believe that it is in my ethnic interests nor is in the interests of the United States to antagonize the Arab and Muslim world in the interests of an expansionist, ethno-nationalist Israel. It’s simply not our fight. And now there is a real danger that the Israel Lobby will persuade the US to go to war against Iran. This would be yet another enormously costly effort. There can be no question at all that the hostilities between Iran and the US are centered around US support for Israel.

I completely agree that Arabs and other Muslims should be excluded from Western countries, but I don’t single them out in this regard. As an ethnic nationalist, I would like to see Western countries committed to preserving European peoples and their cultures. Let the Arabs continue to fester in their failed, undemocratic societies, with veiled women, clans, polygamy, and cousin marriage. I certainly do not blame Israel for their failures, any more than I blame the West for Africa’s problems. The neocon dream of converting the Arab nations into democratic, republican states was always nothing more than a bit of utopian propaganda that was aided and abetted by staunchly Zionist academics like Bernard Lewis and his neocon publicists. (Yet the ADL and the SPLC claim that I am the dishonest one who attempts to use his academic position to spread falsities.)

I would be willing to make a quid pro quo with the organized Jewish community: If you support white ethno-nationalism in the US and provide intensive, effective support for ending and reversing the immigration policy of recent decades (i.e., something approaching the support you presently provide Israel), I would be willing to go to the wall to support Jewish ethno-nationalism in Israel, even at substantial cost for the US. The fact that a miniscule number of Jews — none of them part of the main Jewish activist organizations that have been so destructive to white ethno-nationalism — are immigration patriots and see value in America as a European civilization is certainly not a reason for someone like me to support Jewish ethno-nationalism.

As a humorous aside (we can't always be serious!), Philip Weiss reports that Abe Foxman made the following argument for why just about everyone should support Zionism. It is a reductio ad absurdum of the argument that white ethno-nationalists should support Jewish nationalism:

Can you be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite? Almost never. Unless you can prove to me you're against nationalism. If you're one of those unique individuals in this world that's opposed to American nationalism, French nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, then you can be opposed to Jewish nationalism. Is it racist? You bet it is. Every nationalism is racist. It sets its laws of citizenship, it sets its own capital... It sets its songs, it sets its values. It is, if you will, exclusive, and you can even call it racist. But if the only nationalism in the world that is racist is Jewish nationalism, then you're an anti-Semite.. I don't want to make any apologies for it.

Hmmm, racism means excluding anyone from anything? In practice, Jewish nationalism means, among other things, erecting an apartheid society and enacting racialist marriage laws in Israel (see below). On the other hand, mainstream forms of American "proposition-nation" nationalism — led by the ADL — seem resolutely committed to a post-European America. If sing the Star Spangled Banner at a baseball game, I must logically support Jewish nationalism as it exists in Israel? I think not.

As I argued previously, white people must be less principled and more self- interested. This implies that they should support others' nationalism only when it is in their self-interest.

I must agree with Weiss that Foxman is "a loud man with reality issues."

I agree with Mendlovitz that “while many Jews still vote largely Democrat and have a soft spot for liberal causes, the number of Jewish ‘radicals’ is vastly less than it once was, partly because of the general affluence of the Jewish population, and partly because of a number of other factors.” The problem is that the Jewish defection from the far left has not really altered the fundamental conflicts of interest between the organized Jewish community and white Americans.

1. A major factor easing the defection of Jews from the radical left (in addition to concerns about anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and Soviet support for the Arabs against Israel in the Cold War) was the leftist critique of Zionism. Mark Rudd’s comments, quoted in my article are typical of the leftist critique: Israel is “militarized, racist, religio-nationalist, corporate, riven with so many internal splits and hatreds that only the existence of a perpetual enemy keeps the nation from exploding.” Whereas Rudd remained a leftist, Jews deserted the left in droves when it became impossible to reconcile their leftism with their commitment to Jewish ethno-nationalism and the state of Israel.

2. Neocons — really the only significant group of “conservative” Jews — are no help on issues like immigration. Their main concerns are to organize US support for Israel and to keep the conservative wing of American politics safe for Jews. Neocons only adopt conservative social policies as positions of convenience in order to appeal to the Republican base. As Peter Brimelow noted, “[William] Kristol will return to immigration enthusiasm once he has helped persuade Bush to attack Iran.” (Kristol failed to persuade Bush, but he is now hard at work trying to persuade Obama.)

3. Even though the organized Jewish community is now best described as liberal rather than radical, it is still deeply committed to a post-European America, and that is really the only important issue. A recent spectacle illustrating this is the “Progress by Pesach” campaign to promote open borders immigration reform. Even Lawrence Auster, whose role as a Jewish activist seems to be to advance the cause of Israel within what he calls the “traditionalist, politically incorrect Right” (see below), sees this as a Jewish problem:

What they are explicitly saying, as a national Jewish coalition, is that as Jews, they are required by their Jewish tradition to seek to undermine American law and sovereignty and allow America to be invaded by a mass immigration of illegal aliens.

I have said before that when Jews declare that as Jews they are required to strive for open borders, when as Jews they demand U.S. national suicide, that allows critics to criticize Jews as Jews, and not just as generic “liberals.” This is the strongest case of that nature I've ever seen. [italics in text]

Well, I thought I made a pretty good case for that over a decade ago. Anyway, even the prospect of millions of Muslim immigrants is not enough to diminish the enthusiasm for massive non-white immigration by the organized Jewish community — a sure sign that the decades-old emotional commitment of the organized Jewish community to a post-European America trumps rational considerations altogether.

Mendlovitz’s comments are interesting and reflect fairly widespread Jewish concerns. On the other hand, Lawrence Auster’s comments, posted on his website, are first and foremost an attempt to place me beyond the realm of legitimate discourse. By titling the article “The idiocy of Kevin MacDonald,” Auster is saying, “Don’t go near MacDonald—he is off limits.”

This is the same sort of thing that Jewish activists like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Chait have tried to do with Mearsheimer and Walt. Dershowitz called The Israel Lobby a “hate-filled screed against Jewish participation in American politics.” Chait chimed in with “Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book that, even by the account of fair-minded and even ideologically sympathetic critics, is a shoddy, paranoid screed.”

Certainly no respectable person would want to publicly sympathize with screed writers — or idiots.

Auster is clearly living in an alternate universe — a universe in which Israel is a “post-Zionist” state dominated by “soft-hearted liberals.” Whereas everyone else is pondering the horrific brutality of the Israeli invasion of Gaza under a Kadima government and the specter of a Likud government organized by Benjamin Netanyahu with Avigdor Lieberman as Foreign Minister apparently with a secret agreement for expansion of a critical settlement near Jerusalem, in Auster’s world Israel has already ceased to exist as a Zionist state.

The connections between the racialist Jabotinskiist wing of Zionism and the current politics of Israel are straightforward. The Likud party and its leaders — people like Ariel Sharon (who later formed the Kadima Party), Menachem Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir — have been open in their allegiance to Jabotinskyism. (Here’s a photo of Sharon speaking to a Likud Party convention in 2004 under a looming photo of Jabotinsky.) Jabotinsky believed that Jews were shaped by their long history as a desert people and that the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state would allow the natural genius of the Jewish race to flourish, stating, for example: “These natural and fundamental distinctions embedded in the race are impossible to eradicate, and are continually being nurtured by the differences in soil and climate.” As Geoffrey Wheatcroft recently pointed out, at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”

One knows that racial Zionism has completely won the day in Israel when Kadima — the party of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and the Gaza invasion — was described by Benjamin Netanyahu during the recent election campaign as the party of the left. (The LA Times dutifully calls it “centrist” but, as Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery writes, Livni “cries to high heaven against any dialogue with Hamas. She objects to a mutually agreed ceasefire. She tries to compete with Netanyahu and Liberman (sic) with unbridled nationalist messages.”) Indeed, Netanyahu’s only worry during the election was that the openly racist Lieberman — a disciple of the notorious Meir Kehane — would take away too many votes from Likud. Avnery analogizes the election to a joke where a sergeant tells his men: “I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that you are going to change your dirty socks. The bad news is that you are going to exchange them among yourselves.”

Now, if Israeli politics was dominated by people like Avnery, Auster would be quite correct. But Avnery’s Gush Shalom movement has no power in Israel. Even labeling the Labor Party as “soft-hearted liberals” is a huge stretch given that Labor has supported all of Israel’s wars, including the expansionist 1967 war when it held power and the recent Gaza invasion which was implemented by Defense Minister Ehud Barack — leader of the Labor Party.

Labor is dwindling away to nothingness, its only role to provide cover for the far right. Labor won only 13 out of 120 seats in the Knesset in the February election. Parties to its left (including Arab parties) won another 15 seats. Labor has opted to join Netanyahu’s government, or, as Avnery describes it, “Ehud Barak decided that the Labor Party must join the ultra-right government, which includes outright fascists.” This move is seen by many as providing the government with a fig leaf of respectability (see also here) that will appeal to European governments and others who have been critical of Israel’s behavior while nevertheless allowing the government to pursue its ethno-nationalist agenda.

Even excluding Kadima, the right wing nationalist and religious nationalist parties form a majority of the Israeli electorate — a percentage that is sure to increase because of the high fertility of religious and ethno-nationalist Jews and because intensified troubles with the Palestinians tend to make other Israelis more sympathetic to their cause. And if one makes the reasonable conclusion that Kadima is part of the ethno-religious-nationalist right, this faction holds 92 of the 120 seats in the Knesset.

Another phenomenon illustrating the ethno-religious-nationalist bent of current Israeli politics is that some of the rabbis accompanying the Israeli Defense Force during the Gaza invasion lectured soldiers that the purpose of the invasion was to banish non-Jews from the biblical land of Israel. Nationalist rabbis turned the invasion into a religious, messianic — “war against an entire people, not against specific terrorists.” Particularly noteworthy is that religious nationalists have taken over senior positions in elite combat brigades.

In other words, the army has become much more like what Auster wants it to be.

Although (as usual) there are conflicting accounts of the role of the role of religious fundamentalists in the atrocities committed in Gaza, J. J. Goldberg’s account does not dispute the general finding that religiously Orthodox soldiers form a substantial percentage of soldiers in infantry combat brigades and officers training programs. Moreover, 'some of them appear to be a sub-rosa part of the unfolding story of the ethical standards upheld by the military, which Israelis praise routinely as 'the most moral army in the world.'” Avnery’s account detailing the atrocity allegations is a must-read.

Over a decade ago Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky noted that Gush Emunim — a religious group that believes that a greater Israel was allotted to Jews in the Book of Deuteronomy — already constituted a significant percentage of the elite units of the Israeli army. (By “Greater Israel” they mean all the land promised to Abraham in Genesis: From the Nile to the Euphrates. Americans who support Israel should prepare themselves for a very long series of wars indeed.) The Gush Emunim are quite willing to treat the Palestinians in a savage and brutal manner. Their ideology is what one might call “theological racism”: A founder of Gush Emunim, Rabbi Abraham Kook taught that “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews—all of them in all different levels—is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”

Just another soft-hearted liberal fuzzball.

Finally, Avnery also discusses the recently enacted law barring Arab citizens of Israel from marrying someone who lives on the West Bank. The law contains the following remarkable sentence: “The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.” That means that the State of Israel has declared itself to be at war with all Palestinians, including the ones living in Israel. The purpose is to create a homogeneous Jewish state: “The inherent aim of the Zionist enterprise was and is to turn the country — at least up to the Jordan River — into a homogeneous Jewish state. Throughout the course of Zionist-Israeli history, this aim has not been forsaken for a moment. Every cell of the Israeli organism contains this genetic code and therefore acts accordingly, without the need for a specific directive.”

Whatever else one might say, Israel has definitely not entered into a post-Zionist era.

Rather than condemning me for telling the truth, Auster should be happy that things are going his way in Israel. I wish that a similarly powerful (but not similarly brutal) ethno-nationalist European movement was on the horizon in the US and other countries of the European diaspora.

Permanent URL: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/articles/MacDonald-Madison.html

Letter from Mark A. Mendlovitz, Ph. D.:

Dear Prof. MacDonald:

I am trying to understand your thinking a little better, so I hope you can enlighten me with a response. As a conservative Jewish American who, like you, is opposed to our current mass immigration with every fiber of my being, I can agree with you on lots of things, e.g., our current immigration inflow threatens the country's long term stability, cohesiveness, etc. Fine.

But what I am trying to understand also is why you oppose Zionism. Is not what Israeli Jews are doing analogous to what you and I are seeking to do here in the U.S.? We want liberty, and so do they. They wish to keep out those whose culture and politics are an anathema to their culture and liberty, and so do we. What is wrong with that?

Yes, supporting Israel is trouble for the U.S., but as is often the case, doing what is right is troublesome. Frankly, there is no case to be made for Arab/ Muslim culture. It is an unmitigated disaster. While some on the Left and Right blame Israel for those failures, the truth is that a tiny country of 6 million with few natural resources (surrounded by 100's of millions of miserable, hostile people with MANY resources) cannot be responsible for that failure. (One would think that even anti-Semites would support Zionism because it actually seeks to concentrate the Jewish population AWAY from those anti-Semites - in Israel! Where would they prefer the Jews to go?)

I also think that Paleo-Conservatives like you and Pat Buchanan fail to understand that, while many Jews still vote largely Democrat and have a soft spot for liberal causes, the number of Jewish "radicals" is vastly less than it once was, partly because of the general affluence of the Jewish population, and partly because of a number of other factors. While it is still true that many radicals are Jewish, that does NOT mean, of course, that many Jews ARE radicals.

By the way, it may or may not surprise you to know that no one in my large extended Jewish family is by any means a liberal, one cousin excepted, and a majority are actually conservative Republicans (not neo-cons as you define them, except in their support for Israel.) The truth is, many other Jewish Americans appear to be liberal Democrats because of social pressures and public pressures from a small groups of so-called Jewish leaders, but in fact, they vote quite differently. There are much larger percentages who think like Dennis Prager than like, say, Saul Alinsky.

I look forward to hearing your response.


Mark A. Mendlovitz, Ph.D.