The problem with intellectually insecure whites
By Kevin MacDonald
January 19, 2009

America will soon have a white minority. This is a much desired state of 
affairs for the hostile elites who hold political power and shape public 
opinion. But it certainly creates some management issues — at least in the long 
run. After all, it’s difficult to come up with an historical example of a 
nation with a solid ethnic majority (90%
white in 1950) that has voluntarily decided to cede political and cultural 
power. Such transformations are typically accomplished by military invasions, 
great battles, and untold suffering.

And it’s not as if everyone is doing it. Only Western nations view their own 
demographic and cultural eclipse as a moral imperative. Indeed, as I have noted 
previously, it is striking that racial nationalism has triumphed in Israel at 
the same time that the Jewish intellectual and political movements and the 
organized Jewish
community have been the most active and effective force for a non-white 
America. Indeed, a poll in 2008 found that Avigdor Lieberman was the second 
most popular politician in Israel. Lieberman has advocated expulsion of Arabs 
from Israel and has declared himself a follower of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the 
leading pioneer of racial
Zionism. The most popular politician in the poll was Benjamin Netanyahu — 
another admirer of Jabotinsky. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister 
Tzipi Livni are also Jabotinskyists.

The racial Zionists are now carrying out yet another orgy of mass murder after 
a starvation-inducing blockade and the usual triggering assault designed to 
provoke Palestinian retaliation — which then becomes the cover for claims that 
Israel is merely defending itself against terrorism. This monstrosity was 
approved by
overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. The craven Bush 
administration did its part by abstaining from a UN resolution designed by the 
US Secretary of State as a result of a personal appeal by the Israeli Prime 
Minister. This is yet another accomplishment of the Israel Lobby, but one they 
would rather not have
discussed in public. People might get the impression that the Lobby really does 
dictate US foreign policy in the Mideast. Obviously, such thoughts are only 
entertained by anti-Semites.

But I digress.

In managing the eclipse of white America, one strategy of the mainstream media 
is to simply ignore the issue. Christopher Donovan  (“For the media, the less 
whites think about their coming minority status, the better”) has noted that 
the media, and in particular, the New York Times, are quite uninterested in 
doing stories that
discuss what white people think about this state of affairs.

It’s not surprising that the New York Times — the Jewish-owned flagship of 
anti-white, pro-multicultural media — ignores the issue. The issue is also 
missing from so-called conservative media even though one would think that 
conservatives would find the eclipse of white America to be an important issue. 
Certainly, their audiences
would find it interesting.

Now we have an article “The End of White America” written by Hua Hsu, an 
Assistant Professor of English at Vassar College. The article is a rather 
depressing display of what passes for intellectual discourse on the most 
important question confronting white people in America.

Hsu begins by quoting a passage in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby in 
which a character, Tom Buchanan, states: “Have you read The Rise of the Colored 
Empires by this man Goddard?” … Well, it’s a fine book, and everybody ought to 
read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be—will be 
utterly submerged.
It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.”

Buchanan’s comment is a thinly veiled reference to Lothrop Stoddard’s The 
Rising Tide of Color which Hsu describes as “rationalized hatred” presented in 
a scholarly, gentlemanly, and scientific tone. (This wording that will 
certainly help him when he comes up for tenure.) As Hsu notes, Stoddard had a 
doctorate from Harvard
and was a member of many academic associations. His book was published by a 
major publisher. It was therefore “precisely the kind of book that a 1920s man 
of Buchanan’s profile — wealthy, Ivy League–educated, at once pretentious and 
intellectually insecure — might have been expected to bring up in casual 

Let’s ponder that a bit. The simple reality is that in the year 2009 an Ivy 
League-educated person, "at once pretentious and intellectually insecure,"  
would just as glibly assert the same sort of nonsense as Hsu. To wit:

The coming white minority does not mean that the racial hierarchy of American 
culture will suddenly become inverted, as in 1995’s White Man’s Burden, an 
awful thought experiment of a film, starring John Travolta, that envisions an 
upside-down world in which whites are subjugated to their high-class black 
oppressors. There will
be dislocations and resentments along the way, but the demographic shifts of 
the next 40 years are likely to reduce the power of racial hierarchies over 
everyone’s lives, producing a culture that’s more likely than any before to 
treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or 
identity group.

The fact is that no one can say for certain what multicultural America without 
a white majority will be like. There is no scientific or historical basis for 
claims like “the demographic shifts of the next 40 years are likely to reduce 
the power of racial hierarchies over everyone’s lives, producing a culture 
that’s more likely than any before
to treat its inhabitants as individuals, rather than members of a caste or 
identity group.”

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that we are proceeding to a color blind 
future. The election results continue to show that white people are coalescing 
in the Republican Party, while the Democrats are increasingly the party of a 
non-white soon-to-be majority.

Is it so hard to believe that when this coalition achieves a majority that it 
will further compromise the interests of whites far beyond contemporary 
concerns such as immigration policy and affirmative action? Hsu anticipates a 
colorblind world, but affirmative action means that blacks and other minorities 
are certainly not treated as
individuals. And it means that whites — especially white males — are losing out 
on opportunities they would have had without these policies and without the 
massive non-white immigration of the last few decades.

Given the intractability of changing intelligence and other traits required for 
success in the contemporary economy, it is unlikely that 40 more years of 
affirmative action will attain the outcomes desired by the minority lobbies. 
Indeed, in Obama's America, blacks are rioting in Oakland over perceived racial 
injustices, and from 2002
–2007, black juvenile homicide victims increased 31%, while black juvenile 
perpetrators increased 43%. Hence,  the reasonable outlook is for a continuing 
need for affirmative action and for racial activism in these groups, even after 
whites become a minority.

Whites will also lose out because of large-scale importation of relatively 
talented immigrants from East Asia. Indeed, as I noted over a decade ago, "The 
United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic 
elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite."

Hsu shows that there already is considerable anxiety among whites about the 
future. An advertizing executive says, “I think white people feel like they’re 
under siege right now — like it’s not okay to be white right now, especially if 
you’re a white male. ... People are stressed out about it. ‘We used to be in 
control! We’re losing
control’” Another says, "There’s a lot of fear and a lot of resentment."

It's hard to see why these feelings won't increase in the future.

A huge problem for white people is lack of intellectual and cultural 
confidence. Hsu quotes Christian (Stuff White People Like) Lander saying, "I 
get it: as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth." A professor 
comments that for his students "to be white is to be culturally broke. The 
classic thing white students say when
you ask them to talk about who they are is, ‘I don’t have a culture.’ They 
might be privileged, they might be loaded socioeconomically, but they feel 
bankrupt when it comes to culture … They feel disadvantaged, and they feel 

This lack of cultural confidence is no accident. For nearly 100 years whites 
have been subjected to a culture of critique emanating from the most 
prestigious academic and media institutions. And, as Hsu points out, the most 
vibrant and influential aspect of American popular culture is hip-hop—a product 
of the African American
urban culture.

The only significant group of white people with any cultural confidence centers 
itself around country music, NASCAR, and the small town values of traditional 
white America. For this group of whites — and only this group — there is  "a 
racial pride that dares not speak its name, and that defines itself through 
cultural cues instead—a
suspicion of intellectual elites and city dwellers, a preference for folksiness 
and plainness of speech (whether real or feigned), and the association of a 
working-class white minority with 'the real America.'”

This is what I term implicit whiteness — implicit because explicit assertions 
of white identity have been banned by the anti-white elites that dominate our 
politics and culture. It is a culture that, as Hsu notes, "cannot speak its 

But that implies that the submerged white identity of the white working class 
and the lack of cultural confidence exhibited by the rest of white America are 
imposed from outside. Although there may well be characteristics of whites that 
facilitate this process, this suppression of white identity and interests is 
certainly not the natural
outcome of modernization or any other force internal to whites as a people. In 
my opinion, they are the result of the successful erection of a culture of 
critique in the West dominated by Jewish intellectual and political movements.

The result is that educated, intellectually insecure white people these days 
are far more likely to believe in the utopian future described by Hsu than in 
hard and cautious thinking about what the future might have in store for them.

It's worth dwelling a bit on the intellectual insecurity of the whites who 
mindlessly utter the mantras of multiculturalism that they have soaked up from 
the school system and from the media. Most people do not have much confidence 
in their intellectual ability and look to elite opinion to shape their beliefs. 
As I noted elsewhere,

A critical component of the success of the culture of critique is that it 
achieved control of the most prestigious and influential institutions of the 
West, and it became a consensus among the elites, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. 
Once this happened, it is not surprising that this culture became widely 
accepted among people of very
different levels of education and among people of different social classes.

Most people are quite insecure about their intellectual ability. But they know 
that the professors at Harvard, and the editorial page of the New York Times 
and the Washington Post, and even conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh 
and Sean Hannity are all on page when it comes to racial and ethnic issues. 
This is a
formidable array, to the point that you almost have to be a crank to dissent 
from this consensus.

I think one of the greatest triumphs of the left has been to get people to 
believe that people who assert white identity and interests or who make 
unflattering portrayals of organized Jewish movements are morally degenerate, 
stupid, and perhaps psychiatrically disturbed. Obviously, all of these 
adjectives designate low status.

The reality is that the multicultural emperor has no clothes and, because of 
its support for racial Zionism and the racialism of ethnic minorities in 
America, it is massively hypocritical to boot. The New York Times, the academic 
left, and the faux conservatives that dominate elite discourse on race and 
ethnicity are intellectually
bankrupt and can only remain in power by ruthlessly suppressing or ignoring the 
scientific findings.

This is particularly a problem for college-educated whites. Like Fitzgerald's 
Tom Buchanan, such people have a strong need to feel that their ideas are 
respectable and part of the mainstream. But the respectable mainstream gives 
them absolutely nothing with which to validate themselves except perhaps the 
idea that the world
will be a better place when people like them no longer have power. Hsu quotes 
the pathetic Christian Lander: "“Like, I’m aware of all the horrible crimes 
that my demographic has done in the world. ... And there’s a bunch of white 
people who are desperate — desperate — to say, ‘You know what? My skin’s white, 
but I’m not one
of the white people who’s destroying the world.’”

As a zombie leftist during the 1960s and 1970s, I know what that feeling of 
desperation is like — what it's like to be a self-hating white. We must get to 
the point where college-educated whites proudly and confidently say they are 
white and that they do not want to become a minority in America.

This reminds me of the recent docudrama Milk, which depicts the life of gay 
activist Harvey Milk. Milk is sure be nominated for an Oscar as Best Picture 
because it lovingly illustrates a triumph of the cultural left. But is has an 
important message that should resonate with the millions of whites who have 
been deprived of their
confidence and their culture: Be explicit. Just as Harvey Milk advocated being 
openly gay even in the face of dire consequences, whites need to tell their 
family and their friends that they have an identity as a white person and 
believe that whites have legitimate interests as white people. They must accept 
the consequences
when they are harassed, fired from their jobs, or put in prison for such 
beliefs. They must run for political office as openly pro-white.

Milk shows that homosexuals were fired from their jobs and arrested for 
congregating in public. Now it's the Southern Poverty Law Center and the rest 
of the leftist intellectual and political establishment that harasses and 
attempts to get people fired. But it's the same situation with the roles 
reversed. No revolution was ever
accomplished without some martyrs. The revolution that restores the legitimacy 
of white identity and the legitimacy of white interests will be no exception.

But it is a revolution that is absolutely necessary. The white majority is 
foolish indeed to entrust its future to a utopian hope that racial and ethnic 
identifications will disappear and that they won’t continue to influence public 
policy in ways that compromise the interests of whites.

It does not take an overactive imagination to see that coalitions of minority 
groups could compromise the interests of formerly dominant whites. We already 
see numerous examples in which coalitions of minority groups attempt to 
influence public policy, including immigration policy, against the interests of 
the whites. Placing
ourselves in a position of vulnerability would be extremely risky, given the 
deep sense of historical grievance harbored by many ethnic activists and 
organized ethnic lobbies.

This is especially the case with Jews. Jewish organisations have been unanimous 
in condemning Western societies, Western traditions, and Christianity, for past 
crimes against Jews. Similar sentiments are typical of a great many African 
Americans and Latinos, and especially among the ethnic activists from these 
groups. The
“God damn America” sermon by President Obama's pastor comes to mind as a recent 
notorious example.

The precedent of the early decades of the Soviet Union should give pause to 
anyone who believes that surrendering ethnic hegemony does not carry risks. The 
Bolshevik revolution had a pronounced ethnic angle: To a very great extent, 
Jews and other non-Russians ruled over the Russian people, with disastrous
consequences for the Russians and other ethnic groups that were not able to 
become part of the power structure. Jews formed a hostile elite within this 
power structure — as they will in the future white-minority America; Jews were 
“Stalin’s willing executioners.”

Two passages from my review of Yuri Slezkine's The Jewish Century seem 
particularly appropriate here. The first passage reminds me of the many 
American Jews who adopt a veneer of support for causes of leftist versions of 
social justice and racial tolerance while nevertheless managing to support 
racial Zionism and the mass
murder, torture, and incarceration of the Palestinians. Such people may be very 
different when they become a hostile elite in a white-minority America.

Many of the commentators on Jewish Bolsheviks noted the “transformation” of 
Jews [after the Bolshevik Revolution]. In the words of [a] Jewish commentator, 
G. A. Landau, “cruelty, sadism, and violence had seemed alien to a nation so 
far removed from physical activity.” And another Jewish commentator, Ia. A. 
Bromberg, noted

the formerly oppressed lover of liberty had turned into a tyrant of  
“unheard-of-despotic arbitrariness”…. The convinced and unconditional opponent 
of the death penalty not just for political crimes but for the most heinous 
offenses, who could not, as it were, watch a chicken being killed, has been 
transformed outwardly into a
leather-clad person with a revolver and, in fact, lost all human likeness. ...

After the Revolution, ... there was active suppression of any remnants of the 
older order and their descendants. ... The mass murder of peasants and 
nationalists was combined with the systematic exclusion of the previously 
existing non-Jewish middle class. The wife of a Leningrad University professor 
noted, “in all the
institutions, only workers and Israelites are admitted; the life of the 
intelligentsia is very hard” (p. 243). Even at the end of the 1930s, prior to 
the Russification that accompanied World War II, “the Russian Federation…was 
still doing penance for its imperial past while also serving as an example of 
an ethnicity-free society” (p. 276).
While all other nationalities, including Jews, were allowed and encouraged to 
keep their ethnic identities, the revolution remained an anti-majoritarian 

The difference from the Soviet Union may well be that in white-minority America 
it will not be workers and Israelites who are favored, but non-whites and 
Israelites. Whites may dream that they are entering the post-racial utopia 
imagined by their erstwhile intellectual superiors. But it is quite possible 
that they are entering into a
racial dystopia of unimaginable cruelty in which whites will be systematically 
excluded in favor of the new elites recruited from the soon-to-be majority. 
It's happened before.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State 
University–Long Beach.

URL with hyperlink sources:


Jewish extremist power once again raises its head in Eric Holder hearings

Preface commentary by David Duke — The following article just appeared in Salon 
Magazine and it shows the real reason why Obama’s Attorney General designate, 
Eric Holder,  approved the unprecedented pardon of a fugitive from Justice, the 
Zionist big shot Marc Rich (shown at left). Once again, America is shown how
Jewish extremists and the interests of Israel are treated in “chosen manner” 
over ordinary Americans. Barack Obama of course is just like Eric Holder, he 
has long put the powerful interests of Jews and Israel first and has a Jewish 
extremist chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, to prove it. As the article shows, the 
Israeli cover up
continues with the confirmation hearings of Eric Holder.

The real reason Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich

During Eric Holder’s confirmation hearing, Arlen Specter scolded the attorney 
general-designate, but no one mentioned Israeli pressure. By Joe Conason

Eric Holder is sworn in at his confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill.

| Jan. 16, 2009 | From beginning to end, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing 
on Eric Holder's nomination as attorney general observed the ban on candid 
discussion of the main objection to confirming him. The forbidden topic: the 
real reason behind the pardon of Marc Rich eight years ago, a controversial 
action that Holder
reviewed as deputy attorney general -- and that he failed to oppose for reasons 
he did not mention.

In an editorial that appeared on the morning of the hearings, the Washington 
Post urged the Senate to question Holder "closely" on the Rich matter. But it 
is difficult for senators (and editorial writers) to ask pertinent questions 
when they are completely ignorant of the real background and motivations of the 
players in the case.
Even now, the true machinations behind the Rich pardon cannot be discussed 
honestly -- perhaps because they implicate the government and the security 
services of the state of Israel.

Sitting quiet and grave before the committee, Holder listened as Sen. Arlen 
Specter, R-Pa., one of the leading windbags of our time, held forth on how 
dreadful Rich is and how awful the pardon was. The fugitive trader, who still 
lives in Switzerland, had "a reprehensible record," Specter said -- alluding to 
reports that Rich did
business in Iraq and Iran. The Pennsylvania Republican demanded to know how 
Holder could possibly have recommended a pardon for such an odious figure.

No doubt Holder was advised by the president-elect's transition team not to 
argue with Specter or anyone else about Rich. He must have been told not to 
talk about the foreign-policy issues that heavily influenced his view of the 
Rich decision. So he offered a meek mea culpa, took his lumps from Specter, and 
promised that his
mistakes had made him a better man. Considering that his objective is to get 
through the hearings without undue stress, that was probably the wisest course. 
Telling the truth would only have inflamed the Republicans and the press, while 
creating unwanted drama for Obama.

Still, it would have been a refreshing change from the usual confirmation 
minuet if instead of humbly apologizing, Holder had tartly instructed the 
buffoonish Specter, his fellow senators, the press, and the public about the 
actual circumstances of the Rich affair. He might have started with the fact 
that continuous lobbying on
Rich's behalf from the highest Israeli leaders and their American friends -- 
among whom Specter no doubt counts himself -- became even more intense in the 
days before Clinton left office. He could have noted that such pressures 
coincided with Clinton's efforts to conclude a peace agreement between the 
Israelis and
Palestinians. And he could have explained to Specter that Rich's deals in Iran 
and Iraq were often related to his other role -- as an asset of the Mossad who 
gathered intelligence and helped to rescue endangered Jews from those regimes.

It is clear that Holder and his colleagues in the Justice Department had ample 
reason for concern over the proposed pardon, in part because pardoning a 
fugitive violated precedent. But for the Post to call him "the pardoner" in a 
front-page headline directing readers to the editorial was grossly unfair. 
Clinton had sole
constitutional discretion to grant the pardon, and he would have done so 
whether Holder liked it or not.

But Holder understood that there were deeper reasons why the pardon was likely 
to be approved, which had nothing to do with the political and charitable 
contributions of Rich's ex-wife, the Manhattan socialite Denise Rich. The New 
York Times offered just a hint in a front-page story that appeared shortly 
after the Holder
nomination was announced. Only at the very end did the Times mention the 
pressure from "the Israelis" that had persuaded Holder not to oppose the pardon 
-- as he told Beth Nolan, then the White House counsel.

Placed in its international context, that remark puts an entirely different 
coloration on Clinton's decision and on Holder's forbearance.

As the president mulled Rich's application, he was preoccupied with his final 
and most ambitious efforts to revive the Mideast peace talks that had imploded 
at Camp David during the summer of 2000. He was talking virtually every day 
with Ehud Barak, then Israel's prime minister, trying to persuade the Jewish 
state's leader to
approve concessions to the Palestinians. That was only weeks before national 
elections were to take place in Israel, with Barak trailing in polls and 
heading toward defeat.

Echoing Barak's pleas on behalf of Rich were Clinton's old friend Shimon Peres, 
former Mossad director general Shabtai Shavit, and a host of other important 
figures in Israel and the American Jewish community. Winning the pardon was a 
top priority for Israeli officials because Rich had long been a financial and 
asset of the Jewish state, carrying out missions in many hostile countries 
where he did business. Although commentators in the mainstream and right-wing 
media have discounted this aspect of the controversy, they often seem as 
unfamiliar with critical facts as the average senator.

Following weeks of preparation by Clinton, the last round of serious peace 
talks opened in Taba, Egypt, on Jan. 21, 2001, the day after he signed the Rich 
pardon. Those negotiations eventually failed, yet they came closer to achieving 
a workable settlement than any before or since.

Meanwhile the fugitive financier, as he is still known, has never returned from 
his lair in Zug, Switzerland, to the United States. (The mainstream press never 
mentions that, either.) In other words, he has never used the pardon -- perhaps 
because he would first have to pay up tens of millions of dollars he owes in 
back taxes, a
condition set by Clinton.

Clinton's decision is subject to harsh criticism in both substance and 
appearance, even by smart people who know the truth. But the pardon power 
exists so that presidents will be free to make such hard choices for reasons of 
state. As a lame duck, Clinton had no other means to induce his Israeli partner 
to take any risk for
peace. All of this has been ignored ever since by the likes of Arlen Specter 
and the Washington Post -- and was obscured once more because Holder didn't 
want to start an argument with the Washington establishment, which forgets 
nothing and, even more reliably, learns nothing.

HTML source with hyperlinks:


 The Israel Lobby Takes Off the Gloves
Posted by Taki Theodoracopulos

So what’s a few hundred dead Palestinian children when Tzipi and Ehud have 
gained eight to ten points in the polls? They were terrorist babies, anyway. So 
what if the Egyptians and Saudis are ignoring them while spending millions on 
hookers, palaces and yachts? The Gazans don’t deserve such goodies, certainly 
not palaces on the Riviera. My favourite is Yigal Palmor, an Israeli spokesman, 
who took umbrage when Cardinal Renato Martino, a high-ranking Vatican official, 
compared Gaza to a concentration camp. The Israeli whined that World War II 
imagery was below the belt. I suppose the Cardinal should have called it a 
beach resort. Oy veh, one can’t trust these Wops, they’re all a bunch of 

The best is Tony Blair. The great peacemaker demanded that the West bomb the 
Kosovo Serbs in order to save the lives of innocent Muslim women and children 
back in 1999. Now he’s busy collecting medals for having killed thousands of 
Iraqis: 900 Gazan dead and close to 4,000 wounded are small change to the great 
Middle East negotiator.

Uri Avnery, an Israeli so-called ‘peacenik’, calls his country a “blood-stained 
monster.” The dreadful self-publicist Alan Dershowitz uses that old canard of 
Hamas using Gazans as human shields ad nauseam, which is like saying that 
Churchill used Londoners as shields against the Blitz in order to rally the 
West and his people. Better yet, the grotesque Dershowitz invokes Article 51 of 
the United Nations charter to stop armed attacks against civilians. In Israel’s 
favour. What in God’s name has happened to decency? To truth?

I’ll tell you. The rows of boys and girls in white shrouds, the blinded 
children and babies, the white phosphorus bombs, the killing of medics and UN 
drivers trying to help innocent civilians, the 110 people forced into a house 
that Israel shelled the next day, the 12 corpses of the Samouni household which 
four tiny children cowered next to, that’s what happened to decency and to 

And where’s Obama while this is going on? Listening to Rahm Emanuel, his chief 
of staff and son of an Irgun terrorist, that’s where. Obama promised “change.” 
He is a man of his word. Here is his new line-up for the Middle East: Dennis 
Ross, of Clinton infamy, Jim Steinberg, Dan Kurtzer (former U.S. ambassador to 
Israel), Dan Shapiro and Martin Indyk, another former ambassador to the moral 
insanity that is Israel today. If you thought black humour was dead, just look 
at this list. What is an Arab, especially a Palestinian, supposed to think when 
Obama comes up with five men, all with close ties to Israel, to advise him on 
the Middle East? Mind you, there’s always Hillary. We can count on her to 
ignore political expediency and to play with a full deck.

And it gets better. Only an American Congress could declare that Israel is 
defending itself against terror while slaughtering hundreds of Palestinian 
children. American politicians know the score. Fail to back Israel and AIPAC 
will target you out in the next election by pouring funds to your opponent.

Obama is not yet in office and he’s already changing his tune. “An unwavering 
pro-Likud approach to Israel can’t be the measure of our friendship with 
Israel.” That was then. Now it’s the economy, and that of course comes before 
the killing of civilians.

Beware of answered prayers, I believe, is a mordant ancient Greek proverb. Bush 
insisted on elections in Gaza and he got them. Yet the slaughterhouse that is 
Gaza is still a sideshow, however senseless. It does not deal with the 
fundamental cause of the conflict, which is Israel’s continuing occupation of 
Palestinian lands. When will the US and Israel figure out that it’s not Hamas 
ideology that keeps the Palestinian group in power, but Hamas’s resistance to 
the cruelty of the occupiers. Why is Fatah a laughing stock among all 
Palestinians not in the pay of the US or the EU? Give Palestinians their 1967 
borders with land swaps and equitable treatment of refugees and I will show you 
who will be the first to be denounced and renounced by the Palestinian people. 
The hard men of today. Hamas and Hezbollah will be irrelevant almost 

And who are the Israelis who are blind to this? That’s an easy one: 500,000 
settlers, many of them Americans, the followers of a small number of right-wing 
zealots, and, of course, the Likudists. Israelis are supposed to be an 
intelligent people but I have yet to see dumber moves than theirs since 1967. 
The West keeps harping on about Syria and Iran. I don’t think half of the 
American Congress even knows where these countries are. But neither Syria nor 
Iran created the violence, racism and colonisation that have been the hallmarks 
of Israeli policies since day one. Syria and Iran did not create the policies 
of resistance. Israel did. After 60 years of bombs and violence that have only 
brought more bombs and violence, surely it’s time to change a losing game. 
Personally, I blame America more than I blame Israel. All it needs to do is to 
halt military and economic aid until Israel returns to its 1967 borders, and to 
hell with AIPAC and the political blackmail on Congress. Obama can do it in a 
jiffy. But that’s like expecting to read the obituary of an African leader 
without ‘whose years in power left his nation mired in poverty and corruption’ 
following his name.


Lawrence Auster,
238 W 101 St Apt. 3B
New York, NY 10025

vcs-pkg-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to