The ADL: Managing
White Rage
Kevin MacDonald
December 7, 2009
A recent Haaretz
article on the state of the Jewish world contained the
following:
In general today, one of the long-term challenges for the
American Jewish community is evident in demographic forecasts
that predict that in two or three decades, certain minority
groups are expected to become a majority in the United States. A
recent ADL poll showed that 12 percent of Americans hold
anti-Semitic views - but among African-Americans, the figure is
28 percent, and among foreign-born Hispanics it is 35 percent.
"If 20 years from now the largest caucus in Congress is
Hispanic, they will have a great deal to say about where foreign
aid goes," says [ADL head Abraham] Foxman. "On church-state
issues and all kinds of social issues - some of which impact
directly on the Jewish community and some indirectly - they will
have a great influence. We are working on it now, so as they
become the majority force, there is a sensitivity, a
relationship. It's a major challenge."
Jews tend to have a
very large blind spot when it comes to immigration. Norman
Podhoretz recently published a book titled Why are Jews
Liberals? The basic pitch is that American Jews should support
the Republican Party because it's better for Israel. Podhoretz
never proposes that Jews should actually become conservative -
just support Republicans because they're better for Israel. It
never occurs to Podhoretz to oppose immigration for the same
reasons alluded to by Foxman, his fellow Jewish activist and
unregistered agent for a foreign government - to wit, that a
future America with a non-White majority may well have much
higher levels of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment than an
America with a White majority.
Podhoretz claims that American Jews have a religious devotion to
liberalism - religious in the sense that it is wonderfully
impervious to empirical reality or even a reasonable view of
Jewish interests. But Podhoretz's pro-immigration brand of
"conservatism" is open to the same charge - that it's not in the
interests of Jews.
Is Jewish support
for immigration really irrational? Stephen Steinlight certainly
thinks it is, stating, for example,
"Privately [American Jewish leaders] express grave concern that
unregulated immigration will prove ruinous to American Jewry, as
it has for French Jewry, and will for Jews throughout Western
Europe. There's particular fear about the impact on Jewish
security, as well as American support for Israel, of the rapid
growth of the Muslim population. At the conclusion of meetings
with national leaders, several told me, 'You're 1000 percent
right, but I can't go out and say it yet.'"
In fact, Steinlight
even argues that massive immigration in general is bad for Jews:
"Massive immigration will obliterate Jewish power by shrinking
our percentage of the population - to a fraction of 1% in 20
years." And he points out that there is also a problem with
Latinos because they are steeped in a culture of theological
anti-Semitism that's defied the post-Vatican II enlightenment of
European and North American Catholicism. Nor have they a
mitigating history of familiarity with Jews, little knowledge
and no direct or familial experience of the Holocaust, and
regard Jews simply as among the most privileged of white
Americans. An ADL study found 47 percent of Latinos hold
strongly anti-Semitic attitudes.
The idea that Jewish
support for immigration is irrational fits well with the
hostility that even Jews like Steinlight have toward the
traditional people and culture of America. Steinlight's
hostility toward the restrictionism of 1924-1965 is palpable.
This "pause" in immigration is perceived as a moral catastrophe.
He describes it as "evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic," "vilely
discriminatory," a "vast moral failure," a "monstrous policy."
Jewish interests are his only consideration, while the vast
majority of pre-1965 Americans are described as a "thoughtless
mob" because they advocate a complete moratorium on immigration.
Such hostility is likely to be blind to rational calculations of
self-interest - at least for most Jews. Just as the vast
majority of Jews can't bring themselves to vote Republican
because of fear and loathing of all those conservative
Christians - a major theme of Podhoretz's book, Jews can't bring
themselves to oppose immigration because of fear and loathing of
Europeans and their culture.
Nevertheless, the fact that Jews are doomed to follow their gut
hostility about Europeans and their culture doesn't mean that
they aren't making rational calculations about the future.
Foxman's comments indicate what is doubtless the mainstream
Jewish attitude about a non-White future: It presents problems,
but the problems are manageable if the organized Jewish
community makes alliances with the looming non-White majority.
And that is exactly
what they have done. As I noted elsewhere, Jewish organizations
have made alliances with other non-white ethnic activist
organizations. For example, groups such as the AJCommittee and
the Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington have formed
coalitions with organizations such as the National Council of La
Raza and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). A
prominent aspect of this effort is Foundation for Ethnic
Understanding, co-founded by Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of
the North American Boards of Rabbis. The Foundation is closely
tied to the World Jewish Congress which co-sponsors the
Foundation's Washington, DC office and several of its programs.
Typical of the Foundation's efforts was a meeting in August,
2003 of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, the Jewish Congressional Delegation, and the
Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; the meeting was
co-sponsored by the World Jewish Congress. The Foundation's many
programs include organizing the Congressional Jewish/Black
Caucus, the Corporate Diversity Award, given to "a major Fortune
500 company committed to building a diverse work force," the
Annual Latino/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, the Annual
Black/Jewish Congressional Awards Ceremony, and the Annual
Interethnic Congressional Leadership Forum. The latter project
organizes an annual meeting of the NAACP, the National Council
of La Raza, the World Jewish Congress, and the National Asian
Pacific American Legal Consortium. Quite clearly the various
non-European ethnic groups are developing close ties and Jewish
organizations are taking the lead in this effort. Jews, Blacks,
and Race; Ch. 14 of Cultural Insurrections)
Besides making
alliances with non-White groups, Jewish groups may well have a
reasonable fear that any movement to restrict immigration is
bound to bring White racial consciousness to the fore. Calls to
restrict legal and illegal immigration would inevitably be met
by anguished hostility and cries of "racism" by Latinos and
others who are the main beneficiaries of current immigration
policy. This would increase White racial consciousness. One only
has to recall the high-profile marches in Los Angeles and other
cities during the 2007 Congressional battles over illegal
immigration. Whites around the country were treated to open
displays of hostility by Latinos and others.
And of course,
support for immigration restriction would come from many of the
same groups that Jews fear the most: Whites and Christians. (Podhoretz's
book is a good primer on Jewish hostility toward Christianity
and the culture of the West.) Moreover, it would applauded by
the racialist right - some of whom at least have explicitly
anti-Jewish views. It would also tend to legitimize the
racialist right because undoubtedly their main concern is the
dispossession of White America via immigration.
The campaign to
manage White discontent is multipronged. A good recent example
is the ADL report, Rage Grows in America: Anti-Government
Conspiracies." It begins thus: "Rumors about gun confiscations.
Angry protests about the government's tax policies, replete with
Nazi comparisons. A resurgent militia movement. Rage at the
election of a president deemed to be illegitimate and
threatening. Distrust and anger toward the government fueled by
paranoia and conspiracy theories."
Yikes! The peasants are getting their pitchforks.
But then the report
shifts into management mode. Particularly important is to keep
any vestige of "extremism" out the mainstream media,
particularly anything that would legitimate White anger and
concerns about the future. Because of the bothersome First
Amendment, Jewish organizations cannot simply outlaw all the
speech that they dislike, although they would certainly like to
do exactly that. We know this because Jewish organizations have
been strong advocates of laws against speech around the world
whether or not the speech is connected to a violent crime. The
ADL was the major force behind the recent Hate Speech law in the
US, but that is pretty weak tea for them, since it only
criminalizes speech in connection with other crimes.
Since the enactment
of police-state controls on speech remains an unfinished task
for the ADL, it necessarily resorts to other strategies.
Recently Lou Dobbs resigned his show in CNN. Over the years, the
ADL has targeted Lou Dobbs several times, including a 2007
article claiming that Dobbs "broadcasts an anti-immigrant
message and supports the views and activities of other
anti-immigrant activists. [including] Peter Brimelow, who runs
VDare, a Website that publishes racist, anti-Semitic, and
anti-immigrant articles."The ADL was especially upset about the
following statement in particular, from Dobbs' book,Independents
Day:
Socioethnocentric special interest groups, meanwhile, join in
the assault on our borders, demanding multiculturalism rather
than assimilation into American society. America's elites have
embraced corporatism, globalism, and mulitculturalism as the
unholy trinity of a twenty-first-century orthodoxy that is now
at work to deny our traditions, values, and way of life and to
render impotent even the idea of America's national sovereignty.
Dobb's invention of the word 'socioethnocentric' presumably
functions to blunt his charge: An important force for open
borders is the ethnocentrism of non-European Americans. The ADL
is a perfect example. Their ethnocentrism is aimed at helping
their own people - a biological imperative, not a sociological
one.
The ADL article also
targets Pat Buchanan, radio personality Lynn Woolley, former
Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Congressman Steve King (Rep-IA).
None of these individuals, with the exception of Buchanan, has
spoken out against legal immigration. None has taken an
explicitly racial view of White identity and interests.
The latest
mainstream media target of an ADL hate campaign is Glenn Beck.
The ADL complains that Beck is "fearmonger in chief" - the
"intersection of the mainstream and the extreme." The ADL
complains that Beck compared Obama to Hitler and called Obama "a
dangerous" man.
The power of the ADL
can be seen from the fact that its fatwah against Beck was
immediately picked by the MSM. Tim Rutten of the LA Times
snapped to attention and chimed in on Beck, citing the ADL
report and comparing Beck to Father Charles Coughlin, the radio
personality of the 1930s. And just as Coughlin was removed from
the air waves because of his views, Rutten wants Rupert Murdoch
to get rid of Beck:
Is [Fox] willing to become the platform for an extremist
political campaign Š? CNN recently parted ways with its resident
ranter, Lou Dobbs - who now confirms he's weighing a
presidential bid.
Does Fox see a similar problem with Beck - and, if not, why?
The campaign against Glenn Beck is still in its early stages,
and it's certainly not at all clear that Beck would actually
contribute to a real change in a racialist direction. Like other
mainstream conservatives, he is at best an advocate of implicit
Whiteness - his supporters are overwhelmingly White but he does
not explicitly advocate White identity and interests.
In his recent TOO
column, Charles Dodgson notes that Nick Griffin's performance on
Question Time "was not adequate to impress the educated classes"
- a critical constituency among Whites. The ADL's campaign to
set strict limits on what can be said on TV is really a campaign
to manage elite-level discourse aimed at the educated classes.
The effectiveness of Jewish influence stems from the veto power
it has over all the high ground in American society,
particularly the mass media and the academic world. In the ADL's
ideal world, explicitly racialist rhetoric and anti-government
attitudes and behavior by Whites would exist only among
"extremists" far from the center of political discourse.
Purveyors of these ideas would be objects of derision - little
more than reliable cash cows to fill the coffers of Jewish
activist organizations like the ADL and the $PLC.
The fact is that the domination of the mass media and the
academic world by elites that are hostile to White identity and
interests makes it very difficult for educated Whites to sign on
to a racialist movement. Such people are often vulnerable to
economic pressures where they work, and, as college-educated
people, they have a respect for mainstream academic and media
institutions. Having been treated fairly in general, they trust
the integrity of the basic institutions of the society. They
identify with its basic ideology - America as emerging from its
long dark night of evil into the glorious goodness and virtue of
the multicultural future.
This is not so much the case with less-educated Whites. These
people often have fewer inhibitions and far less to lose by
adopting explicitly racialist views. They don't pay attention to
the New York Times. Most importantly, 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.
Dodgson directs his
readers to this compelling video of a working-class British
woman of the type that is the heart of the BNP. These people are
former supporters of the Labour Party. They have been completely
abandoned by their party which, like the Democrats in the US, is
seeking to keep itself in power by enabling a permanent majority
of non-Whites. They rightly fear a future in which the White
working class will have no power at all.
It may well be the
same in America. As I noted previously, the enraged Whites who
are expressing themselves in the tax revolts and town hall
meetings of 2009 are middle- and lower-middle class. They are
very angry - but they can't discuss the real reason they are
angry: mass immigration and the dispossession of people like
themselves and their culture.
Eventually, all the
phony implicit White issues will run out. And when that happens,
these people won't be overtly concerned about health care plans
or even about Obama and his radical proclivities. All that will
be ancient history. And it will have to get right down to it -
that it is indeed about race.
=====
Kevin
MacDonald is editor of The Occidental Observer and a professor
of psychology at California State University-Long Beach
.
Controversial CSULB professor
MacDonald
is director of new political party
1-5-2010
Kevin MacDonald, CSULB, Department of Psychology
LONG BEACH - A Cal State Long Beach professor whose views
have been criticized as anti-Semitic and white ethnocentric
is the director of a newly formed political party whose mission is
"to represent the political interests of White Americans,"
according to the party's web site. |