NYT: Campus Debates on Israel Drive a Wedge Between Jews and Minorities

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* But without BDS, how else will the ADL extort money form elderly Holocaust survivors who are worried that they’re Boycotting the Jews again? You’re assuming this is a bad thing.

* American Jews will distance themselves even more from Israel as the try to stay on the correct side of political correctness. A tenant of PC is selling out and betraying anyone who is not in line. There goes Israel into the dumpster. Truth is Jews like most people are more concerned with money and prestige than principle. They can’t believe their favored status is in jeopardy. Look for a lot of posturing and self abasement.

* Why would Jews ever join with Christian Whites? Protection from the political and economic non-entities comprising NAMs? I just don’t see it.

* “The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.”

– Raab, E. (1993). Jewish Bulletin, February 19.

* But what would happen if the irresistible force of the Holocaust met the immovable victimhood of campus grievance groups? My guess? The browns don’t own the newspaper, and may find themselves less useful idiots than previously.

And did anyone see the article on Rubio’s billionaire sponsor today? He’s not Sheldon Adelson, but rest assured, he is pro-Israel. Does this explain Rubio’s gang-of-eight amnesty participation?

* The sooner the Jews figure out the Progressives are going to dump them, and worse, then the sooner the Jews will dump the Progressives. We may actually get a border fence out of this. My favorite quote in the above: “There are so many students who now see Israel as part of the establishment they’re against“. The establishment they are against? Until when? How many of these social justice warriors are going to put on their resume when applying for that law firm opening or an investment banking analyst position or even that job as a Hollywood intern: “BDS Chairman, UCLA?” Good luck at the commune in Oregon.

* Jews are White. Lee Kwan Yew was right. In a multi-racial society, your skin color is your uniform.

* White Westerners are supposed to feel massive guilt over shit that happened in our countries long before we were born, but people from Egypt and other Turd World countries aren’t blamed for the shit that happened in their home countries five minutes ago, while they were alive, and against which they have quite often not uttered a peep of protest.

“Check my privilege”? If you feel so oppressed in the USA, or in Europe, get the hell back to your own country, where I’m sure you were treated like a superstar by folks who look and believe just the same as you.

* JPOST: When we grew up in England of the 1960s and 1970s, the majority of the country’s Jews voted for the Labour Party. This was the party that represented Jewish values of welfare and social responsibility. It was also the party which stood up for minorities, ethnic groups and immigrants….

But if a recent poll of The Jewish Chronicle is to be believed, it appears that, for the first time in British political history, a majority of British Jews will vote for the Conservative Party of David Cameron in this week’s national elections, turning their backs on the first ever Jewish candidate to run on behalf of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband.

* Beverly Hills is full of the families that cashed in on such a criminal scale during the 1970s oil boom in Iran that the Shah was overthrown and the Ayatollah came to power. Do they ever feel guilty?

* Have you ever met a black person who spoke well of Jews? I haven’t.

Barry’s dissing of Israel (not visiting, for instance) was not only to curry favor with the Arab world but also to keep his black base happy and proud (“Lookie–our man not bowing down to those Jews”).

* What does it matter if Jewish Americans have nine million opinions? What matters is the small, elite minority that controls the piggy banks! Those elites do not have nine million different opinions, when it comes to “Is it good for the Jews?”

* Jews are way over-represented in a mainstream media that pretty clearly has a deep, burning hatred for straight white goy men. Especially Christians and Southerners. Especially strong, masculine ones. Personally, I’ve got nothing against Jews. But I can’t help but think that a lot of them have a whole lot against me and people like me.

* The truly privileged are those who may not be criticized, so the campus jews are really complaining about a loss of privilege. They want to maintain their privilege of being deemed “un-privileged.” This is important because the Left redefined the word “privilege” like the word “racism” to signify its the opposite of its original meaning– so that politically-correct use of the word signals group membership and befuddles ordinary people. The campus jews correctly understand the argument over how they will be labeled as a surface manifestation of a more serious dispute, which is whether jews will remain leaders of the Left movement in America or be cast out, as their ancestors were once purged from Eastern European Communist leadership.

Posted in Holocaust, Jews | Comments Off on NYT: Campus Debates on Israel Drive a Wedge Between Jews and Minorities

Can I Listen To Lectures Critical Of Jews Without Losing My Temper?

I can usually keep a cool head but then suddenly I’ll get triggered and my chest will flush and I am angry.

I’ve read a lot of stuff about the Institute for Historical Review (its detractors call is Holocaust denial), almost all of it negative, but several Jewish friends tell me it is worth hearing IHR make its case. This is hard for me to do because I have been so Jewishly educated that the IHR crowd is evil and should be shunned.

Over the past year, I’ve changed from primarily viewing the world in terms of good and evil (with my group, the Jews, the quintessence of good and our enemies the quintessence of evil) to instead primarily viewing the world in terms of clashing group interests (while maintaining my beliefs about good and evil, God and the divine origins of the Torah, but putting them aside at times to get clarity on clashing group interests).

I am not a historian, but in these three lectures below, Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review, seems to stick to the facts. I disagree with many of his interpretations but I respect his fidelity to facts.

I have not made a study of Mark Weber’s work so I can only comment here on these three lectures.

I may be way off base here, but it seems that Weber is simply a proponent for the interests of his people (whites aka goyim) and that his love of whites necessitates negative views of those groups that hurt the interests of his people. So when Jewish groups push for more non-white immigration into the West, this hurts the solidarity and strength of whites, and thus Weber opposes Jews on this.

Every nationalism, be it Jewish nationalism, white nationalism, black nationalism, Chinese nationalism, Arab nationalism, etc, contains a victimology and negative views of out-groups. The more Jewish/Christian/American/black/asian you get in your identity, the more likely you are to feel suspicion and contempt and even hatred for out-groups.

As far as I am aware, Jews tend to have negative views of every type of nationalism but Jewish nationalism because every other type of nationalism contains dangers for Jews. From the perspective of the major Jewish groups, Jews are safest in cosmopolitan, individualist, atomistic societies such as the US, Australia, England, Canada, France, etc.

As I listened to Mark talk, I thought, what if what is good for my group (Jews) is bad for his group and vice versa? Are Jews and goyim fated for tragic conflict?

For the past 25 years, I’ve thought that what is good for the Jews is good for the world. What is good for the Jews is good for America. What is good for the Jews is good for the Middle East. What is good for the Jews is good for England, France, Germany, Australia, etc.

Since reading Kevin MacDonald and Mark Weber and company, I’m tending more towards a view that different groups have different interests and that what is good for the Jews is not necessarily good for every other group. Resources are finite. If Jews get more of finite resources such as land and water, does that not mean that other groups get less? On the other hand, if Jews create wealth and prosperity, is that not good for non-Jews? Jews gave the world Google and Facebook and many medical advances. Who can complain about that?

In one lecture, Mark Weber makes clear that nobody in the audience, including him, wants Jews as individuals hurt. They simply want Jewish power reduced so it does not hurt white people.

I remember going to a TV talkshow in Orlando circa 1993 where my rabbi was going up against a guy who was criticizing the Talmud. At the taping, I walked over to a couple burly KKK members in the audience and asked them how they felt about Jews. One guy said, “We have nothing against Jews, we just think they have too much power.” Then my Jewish friends told me to stop talking to the KKK guys and to just ignore them.

So perhaps this marks me as a bad man, but I did not get angry listening to Mark Weber. I did not sense that he wanted to put me in a concentration camp. I did not get the sense he was making stuff up to hurt Jews. I simply got the sense that he loved his people as much as I love Jews and just as an identifying Jew may have some fear and contempt for the goyim, so too his people may feel similarly towards Jews.

* Shermer, Michael. “Proving the Holocaust: The Refutation of Revisionism & the Restoration of History,” Skeptic, Vol. 2, No. 4, Altadena, California, June, 1994. Published by the Skeptics Society, 2761 N. Marengo Ave., Altadena, CA 91001, (818) 794-3119:

Deborah Lipstadt’s 1993 history of the early revisionist movement is enlightening and I refer the reader to it for a more detailed narrative than space allows here. Since revisionists argue vehemently against Lipstadt’s claim that they are neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, and anti- Semites, and in my last editorial (Vol. 2, #3) I stated we would “avoid ad hominem attacks,” I met and interviewed them personally in order to allow them to present their claims in their own words. In general, I found them quite pleasant and willing to talk about the movement and its members, as well as supply me with a large sampling of their published literature. In history, however, as in all scientific endeavors, the facts never just speak for themselves. They are interpreted through colored lenses, and thus it is constructive to know something about the backgrounds and motivations of the revisionists in order to understand how their bias has influenced their interpretation of the historical data.

The present Holocaust revisionist movement primarily centers around the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) its Journal for Historical Review (JHR), and a handful of eccentric personalities, including IHR Director Tom Marcellus, JHR Editor Mark Weber, author and biographer David Irving, pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zuendel, and, curiously, Jewish revisionist David Cole.

The IHR. In 1978 the IHR was founded and primarily supported by Willis Carto, who published the virulently anti-Jewish newsletters Right and American Mercury, and runs Noontide Press, all part of the ultra- right-wing organization, Liberty Lobby. In 1980, the IHR made headlines with its $50,000 challenge for proof that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz. When Mel Mermelstein attempted to meet this challenge, headlines (and a television movie) also detailed his collection of the award and an additional $40,000 for “personal suffering.” The IHR’s first director, William McCalden (AKA Lewis Brandon, Sondra Ross, David Berg, Julius Finkelstein, and David Stanford), resigned in 1981 due to conflicts with Carto, and was followed by Tom Marcellus, a Field Staff Member for the Church of Scientology who had been an editor for one of its publications. According to David Cole, if the IHR ever folded, “there would be jobs aplenty waiting for him at the Church of Scientology” (1994).

Mark Weber. The editor of the JHR since 1991 and, with the possible exception of David Irving, the most knowledgeable of history (he has a Master’s degree in Modern European history from Indiana University), Mark Weber arrived on the revisionist scene with his appearance as a defense witness at Ernst Zuendel’s “free speech” Holocaust trial. Weber denied to me any racial or anti-Semitic feelings, and claimed that “I don’t know anything more about the neo-Nazi movement in Germany than what I read in the papers” (1994b). Weber was once the news editor of the National Vanguard, the voice of William Pierce’s neo-Nazi, anti- Semitic organization, the National Alliance. Weber also does not deny his comments in a 1989 interview for the University of Nebraska Sower, regarding his fear that the U.S. was becoming “a sort of Mexicanized, Puerto Ricanized country” due to the failure of “white Americans” to reproduce adequately. And on February 27, 1993, Weber was the victim of a Wiesenthal Center sting operation when researcher Yaron Svoray, calling himself Ron Furey, met with Weber in a cafe to discuss The Right Way, a bogus magazine created to trick neo-Nazis. The meeting was secretly filmed by CBS but Weber quickly figured out that Svoray “was an agent for someone” and “was obviously lying.” Weber left not realizing that the Wiesenthal Center would make an ordeal out of this event.

Such deceitful actions are certainly questionable, but one must wonder why Weber, if he is trying to distance himself from the neo-Nazi fringe of revisionism (as he claims), would even agree to such a meeting. Even David Cole, who is his friend, confesses that “Weber doesn’t really see any problems with a society that is not only disciplined by fear and violence, but also where a government feeds its people lies in order to keep them well-ordered.” Ironically, says Cole, “revisionists criticize the Jews for lying to its people or the world, and yet a lot of these same revisionists will speak very complimentarily of what the Nazis did in feeding their people lies and falsehoods in order to keep morale up and to keep this notion of the master race” (1994). Too bad, since Weber is extremely bright and very personable, and one could believe that he might be capable of good historical scholarship if he ended his fixation on the Jews and the Holocaust. This, I suspect, is not likely to happen…

David Cole. The most paradoxical of all the revisionists is the 25- year old Jew (his mother “was raised as a secular Jew” and his father “was raised Orthodox in London during the Blitz”) who proudly displays his heritage while simultaneously denying its most significant modern historical event. As he says (1994), he is “damned if I do and damned if I don’t. That is, if I don’t mention the Judaism I will be accused of being ashamed. If I mention it up front I will be accused of exploiting it.” For his views he was physically beaten at UCLA in a debate on the Holocaust; he has received regular death threats from “a small group of people that genuinely hate me with a passion;” and the JDL, the ADL, and Jewish organizations in general “are a little harder on me because I am Jewish.” He has been called a self-hating Jew, anti-Semitic, a race traitor, and compared to Hitler, Hussein, and Arafat in an editorial in The Jewish News. Though Cole’s personality is affable and his attitude sanguine, he sees himself as a rebel in search of a cause. Where the other revisionists are political and/or racial ideologues, Cole’s interests run at a deeper level. He is a meta-ideologue–an existentialist on a quest to understand how ideologues invent their realities. In the process, Cole has joined every conceivable organization, including the Revolutionary Communist Party, the Workers World Party, the John Birchers, Lyndon LaRouchers, the Libertarians, the atheists, the humanists, and yes, even the Skeptics Society. Revisionism, then, is just one in a long line of ideologies that has fascinated Cole since he was expelled from Hamilton High.

With no college background, and a parental stipend for self- education, Cole’s personal library houses thousands of volumes, including a considerable Holocaust section. He knows his subject and, as he says, can “debate the facts until the cows come home.” Where other fringe claims only held his attention for a few months to a year, the Holocaust “is more about real physical things than some abstract concept that requires faith. We are talking about something for which much of the evidence still exists.” And much of that physical evidence has been filmed by Cole on a fact-finding mission over the summer of 1992, financed by revisionist Bradley Smith. “I figured I needed $15,000 to $20,000, and Bradley set to work–it took him about a month and a half to raise that amount.” Cole’s stated goal in his research (discussed in detail later) “is to try to move revisionism away from the fringe and into the mainstream.” To do so he has tried to reach professional historians, but has shot himself in the foot by associating so closely with revisionists, despite his claim to the contrary:

I want to get people who are not right-wingers or neo-Nazis. Right now it is in a very dangerous position because there is a vacuum created by mainstream historians denouncing revisionism. The vacuum has been filled with the likes of Ernst Zuendel. Zuendel is a very likable human being, but he is a fascist and he is not the person I would like to see recognized as the world’s leading Holocaust revisionist.
But there is another side to Cole that goes beyond intellectual curiosity. He likes to stir things up, and not just for historians. Cole, for example, might attend a revisionist social event where white supremacists will be present, with an African-American date, “just to watch them squirm and stare.” Even though he disagrees mightily with many revisionists’ beliefs and most of their politics, he will introduce himself to the media as a “revisionist” knowing it will draw scorn and sometimes physical abuse. He wants his video footage to be studied by professional scholars (and he has offered it to his Israeli contact), but will probably end up editing it down to a marketable product to be sold through the IHR and their right-wing mailing list, as he did his first video of Auschwitz, which sold over 30,000 copies.

What is an outsider like Cole to do? He is angry that he has been locked out by historians who, he says, “are not gods, are not religious figures, and are not priests. We have a right to ask them for further explanations. I am not ashamed to ask the questions I am asking.” One wonders, however, why such questions are being asked?

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Holocaust, Whites | Comments Off on Can I Listen To Lectures Critical Of Jews Without Losing My Temper?

Accept A Syrian Into Your Home?

REPORT: “The Norwegian people should take Syrian refugees into their own homes, says deputy leader of the Norwegian Christian Party (KrF), Bjørg Tysdal Moe.”

Chaim Amalek writes: “Once again, the Jews are NOT to blame for the impulse of European WASPS to commit suicide. It is a weakness in the genes of the goy and goyella that leads especially the goyella to sleep with a large dog and dream of her savior as a Somali with a scimitar. White goyim are simply undeserving of the space they take up on this planet, as they themselves would be the first to admit.”

* Swedish politicians agree: “Of course Ramadan is a Swedish tradition”

Chaim Amalek writes: “A doomed race. What a pity, as their women are among the most attractive on the planet. I know one such woman, or did. Mid forties and no kids, now or ever. A death wish.”

Posted in Immigration, Norway | Comments Off on Accept A Syrian Into Your Home?

‘Germany Abolishes Itself’

This 2010 book by Thilo Sarrazin has sold nearly two million copies in Germany. Why hasn’t it been translated into English? Is there something in English-language publishing that does not want to publish some books? Are there people who still hold a burn against Germany? I would love to read this book if it were translated into English.

From Wikipedia :

Sarrazin advocates a restrictive immigration policy (with the exception of the highly skilled) and the reduction of state welfare benefits. There were severe reactions to his statements on economic and immigration policy in Berlin, which were published in September 2009 in Lettre International, a German cultural quarterly. In it he described many Arab and Turkish immigrants as unwilling to integrate. He said, among other things:

“Integration requires effort from those that are to be integrated. I will not show respect for anyone that is not making that effort. I do not have to acknowledge anyone who lives by welfare, denies the legitimacy of the very state that provides that welfare, refuses to care for the education of his children and constantly produces new little headscarf-girls. This holds true for 70 percent of the Turkish and 90 percent of the Arab population in Berlin.”[23][24][25]
He has also said regarding Islam, “No other religion in Europe makes so many demands. No immigrant group other than Muslims is so strongly connected with claims on the welfare state and crime. No group emphasizes their differences so strongly in public, especially through women’s clothing. In no other religion is the transition to violence, dictatorship and terrorism so fluid.”[26]

Sarrazin’s statements were criticized by the chairman of the Interior Committee of the German Bundestag, Sebastian Edathy (SPD), the ver.di union and the political scientist Gerd Wiegel. The Central Council of Jews in Germany has strongly criticized Sarrazin, condemning him as racist.[27][28][29] Sigmar Gabriel, the General Secretary of the SPD, condemned Sarrazin for his eugenic approach.[30]

Sarrazin’s book came under criticism for claiming that Germany’s immigrant Muslim population is reluctant to integrate and tends to rely more on social services than to be productive. Moreover, he calculates that their population growth may well overwhelm the German population within a couple of generations at the current rate, and that their intelligence is lower as well. He proposes stringent reforms for the welfare system to rectify the problems.[31][32] The first edition of his book sold out within a few days. By the end of the year, the book had become Germany’s number 1 hard-cover non-fiction bestseller for the year and was still at the top of the lists.

Chaim Amalek: “Let’s see if Sheldon Adelson won’t prepare a special translation of these works.”

Why was the greatest writer of the past 60 years (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) unable to find an English-language publisher for his history of Jews & Russians?

Posted in Germany, Immigration | Comments Off on ‘Germany Abolishes Itself’

‘By Way Of Deception’

I’m reading this 1990 book by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky. There’s a debate about how much of it is true. Much of it has the ring of truth to me.

Ostrosvky writes:

* They did in Sri Lanka, however. Amy Yaar made the connection,
then tied the country in militarily by supplying it with substantial
equipment, including PT boats for coastal patrol. At the same
time, Yaar and company were supplying the warring Tamils with
anti-PT boat equipment to use in fighting the government forces.
The Israelis also trained elite forces for both sides, without either side knowing about the other, and helped Sri Lanka cheat the World Bank and other investors out of millions of dollars to pay for all the arms they were buying from them.

The Sri Lankan government was worried about unrest among the
farmers — the country has a long history of economic problems —
so it wanted to split them up somewhat by moving them from one
side of the island to the other. But it needed an acceptable reason
to do this. That’s where Amy Yaar came in. He was the one who
dreamed up the great “Mahaweli Project,” a massive engineering
scheme to divert the Mahaweli River from its natural course to dry
areas on the other side of the country. The claim was that this
would double the country’s hydro-electric power and open up
750,000 acres of newly irrigated land. Besides the World Bank,
Sweden, Canada, Japan, Germany, the European Economic
Community, and the United States all invested in the $2.5 billion
(U.S.) project.

From the beginning, it was an overly ambitious project, but the
World Bank and the other investors did not understand that, and
as far as they are concerned, it’s still going on. Originally a 30-year
project, it was suddenly escalated in 1977 when Sri Lanka’s
president, Junius Jayawardene, discovered that with a little help
from the Mossad, it could become most significant.

In order to convince the World Bank especially (with its $250
million commitment) that the project was feasible — and would
also serve as a convenient excuse for moving the farmers from
their land — the Mossad had two Israeli academics, one an
economist from Jerusalem University, the other a professor of
agriculture, write scholarly papers explaining its importance and
its cost. A major Israeli construction company, Solel Bonah, was
given a large contract for part of the job.

Periodically, World Bank representatives would go to Sri Lanka for
spot checks, but the locals had been taught how to fool these
inspectors by taking them on circuitous routes… (67-68)

* It got so that we couldn’t start any conversation without dropping our hooks. When you said hello, you were already planting those hooks. Normally, when recruiting, it is best to act wealthy, but you couldn’t be too specific; then again, you couldn’t be too vague or you might look like a crook.

The course in reality was a big school for scam — a school that
taught people to be con artists for their country. (79)

* These attitudes were engraved in our minds. We were to do what
was good for us and screw everybody else, because they wouldn’t
be helping us. The further to the right you go in Israel, the more
you hear that. In Israel, if you stay where you are politically, you’re
automatically shifting to the left, because now the whole country
seems to be rapidly heading right. You know what Israelis say: “If
they weren’t burning us in World War II, they were helping, or if
they weren’t helping, they were ignoring it.” Yet I don’t remember
anybody in Israel going out to demonstrate when all those people
were being murdered in Cambodia. So why expect everybody to
get involved just for us? Does the fact that Jews have suffered give
us the right to inflict pain and misery on others? (Pg. 81)

* So much of our training was based on forming relationships with
innocent people. You’d see a likely recruit and say to yourself: “I’ve
got to talk to him and get another meeting. He may be helpful.” It
built a strange sense of confidence. Suddenly everyone in the
street became a tool. You’d think, hey, I can push their buttons.
Suddenly it was all about telling lies; telling the truth became
irrelevant. What mattered was, okay, this is a nice piece of
equipment. How do I turn it on? How can I get it working for me —
I mean, for my country? (83)

* Alan told us he had many friends in U.S. intelligence. “But I always remember the most important thing,” he said, pausing for effect. “When I am sitting with my friend, he’s not sitting with his friend.” (86)

* Sayanim — assistants — must be 100 percent Jewish. They live abroad, and though they are not Israeli citizens, many are reached through
their relatives in Israel. An Israeli with a relative in England, for
example, might be asked to write a letter saying the person
bearing the letter represents an organization whose main goal is to
help save Jewish people in the diaspora. Could the British relative
help in any way?

There are thousands of sayanim around the world. In London
alone, there are about 2,000 who are active, and another 5,000 on
the list. They fulfill many different roles. A car sayan, for example,
running a rental agency, could help the Mossad rent a car without
having to complete the usual documentation. An apartment sayan would find accommodation without raising suspicions, a bank sayan could get you money if you needed it in the middle of the night, a doctor sayan would treat a bullet wound without reporting it to the police, and so on.

The idea is to have a pool of people available when needed who
can provide services but will keep quiet about them out of loyalty
to the cause. They are paid only costs. Often the loyalty of sayanim
is abused by katsas who take advantage of the available help for
their own personal use. There is no way for the sayan to check
One thing you know for sure is that even if a Jewish person knows
it is the Mossad, he might not agree to work with you — but he
won’t turn you in. You have at your disposal a nonrisk
recruitment system that actually gives you a pool of millions of
Jewish people to tap from outside your own borders. It’s much
easier to operate with what is available on the spot, and sayanim
offer incredible practical support everywhere. But they are never
put at risk — nor are they privy to classified information…

The one problem with the system is that the Mossad does not seem to care how devastating it could be to the status of the Jewish people in the diaspora if it was known. The answer you get if you ask is: “So what’s the worst that could happen to those Jews? They’d all come to Israel? Great.”

They don’t understand that the Mossad regards the whole world outside Israel as a target, including Europe and the United States. (86-88)

* …there are three major “hooks” for recruiting people: money; emotion, be it revenge or ideology; and sex. (91)

* If you have a guy who doesn’t drink, doesn’t want sex, doesn’t need money, has no political problems, and is happy with life, you can’t recruit him. What you’re doing is working with traitors. An agent is a traitor, no matter how much he rationalizes it. You’re dealing with the
worst kind of person. We used to say we didn’t blackmail people.
We didn’t have to. We manipulated them. (98)

* For a person with a Hebrew name to associate with foreign diplomats in Israel was very suspicious. All diplomats in this country are considered spies. That’s why an Israeli soldier who is hitchhiking can’t accept a ride from someone with diplomatic plates; he’d be court- martialed if he did. (102)

* There was one simple question asked when anything happened: “Is it good for the Jews or not?” Forget about policies, or anything else. That was the only thing that counted, and depending on the answer, people were called anti-Semites, whether deservedly or not. (122)

* They used to tell the story of the “kerplunk machine” to illustrate
some of the weird and useless things the Africans would spend
their money on. Someone asked an African leader if he had a kerplunk machine. He didn’t, so they offered to build him one for $25 million. When a huge arm, nearly 1,000 feet long and over 600 feet high, hovering over the water, was complete, its creator went back to the leader and said he’d need another $5 million to finish it. He then devised an elevator apparatus under the arm that held a huge stainless steel ball more than 60 feet in diameter. All the leader’s subjects and visiting dignitaries from other African countries gathered at the river bank on “launch” day to see the wonderful machine in action. When it
was turned on, the elevator moved slowly along to the end of the
arm, it opened, and the giant ball fell into the water and went
It’s just a joke, but it’s not so far from the truth. (131-132)

* We were now also learning about Tsafririm and the “frames” set
up as a defense mechanism by Jews around the world. In this
area we had a problem, or at least some of us did. I just couldn’t
agree with this concept of having guard groups everywhere. I
thought frames in England, for example, where kids learn how to
build slicks for their weapons to protect their synagogues, were
more dangerous than beneficial to the Jewish community. I
brought up the argument that even if a group of people had been
oppressed, with attempts made to exterminate them — as with the
Jews they had no right to act obstructively in democratic
countries. I could understand this happening in Chile or
Argentina, or any other country where people disappear off the
streets, but not in England or France or Belgium.
The fact that there are anti-Semitic groups, whether real or
imaginary, is definitely not an excuse, because if you look into
Israel’s own backyard, you’ll see anti-Palestinian groups. Did this
mean we thought the Palestinians therefore had the right to store
weapons and organize vigilante groups? Or would we call them
Of course, any talk of this sort within the Mossad was not
regarded as smart, especially within the context of the Holocaust. I
know the Holocaust was one of the gravest things ever to happen
to Jews: Bella’s father, for one, spent four years in Auschwitz and
most of her family was eliminated by the Germans. But remember that close to 50 million other people died, too. Germans tried to
eliminate Gypsies, various religious groups, Russians, and Poles.
The Holocaust could have been, and I think should have been, a
source for unity with other nations rather than a tool for
separation. (140)

* There is an area along the beach north of Tel Aviv called Tel
Barbach, not far from the Country Club, where all the hookers
hang out waiting for men to come along in their cars, pick them
up, go behind the sand dunes, do their thing, and drive off. Pinhas
decided to take his night photography equipment and set up on a
hill by the sand dunes, photographing men in their cars with the
hookers, and thereby collecting some explicit photos, thanks to
the high-quality equipment and powerful telescopic lenses. We
had already been taught how to invade the police computer —
plugging into it without police knowledge or permission — so
Maidan simply ran the car license plates through the computer to
find the owners’ names and addresses, and began blackmailing
them. He’d phone, say he had some compromising photos, and
ask for money.
He boasted that he was making quite a bit. He didn’t say how
much, but eventually someone complained and he was
reprimanded. I thought he’d be kicked out. But apparently
somebody regarded this as showing initiative.

Of course, to the Mossad’s way of thinking, the production of such
photos could sometimes be a powerful persuader in recruiting —
and sometimes not. A story was told of one senior Saudi Arabian
official who was photographed in bed with a hooker who had been
given instructions to situate herself and her bedmate in such a
way that the camera recorded both his face and the actual
penetration. Later, the Mossad confronted him with the evidence
of his sexual escapades, spreading the photos on a table and
saying, “You might want to cooperate with us.” But instead of
recoiling in shock and horror, the Saudi was thrilled with the
photos. “This is wonderful,” he said. “I’ll take two of those, three of
that,” adding he wanted to show them to all his friends. Needless
to say, that particular recruiting effort failed. (149)


The American Jewish community was divided into a three-stage action team. First were the individual sayanim (if the situation had been reversed and the United States had convinced Americans working in Israel to work secretly on behalf of the United States, they would be treated as spies by the Israeli government). Then there was the large pro-Israeli lobby. It would mobilize the Jewish community in a forceful effort in whatever direction the Mossad pointed them. And last was B’nai Brith. Members of that organization could be relied on to make friends among non-Jews and tarnish as anti-Semitic whomever they couldn’t sway to the Israeli cause. With that sort of one-two-three tactic, there was no way we could strike out…

It was Uri who enlightened me regarding the Nes Siyyona facility. It was, he said, an ABC warfare laboratory — ABC standing for atomic, bacteriological, and chemical. It was where our top epidemiological scientists were developing various doomsday machines. …. The Palestinian infiltrators came in handy in this regard. As human guinea pigs, they could make sure the weapons the scientists were developing worked properly and could verify how fast they worked and make them even more efficient. What scares me today, looking back at that revelation, is not the fact that it was taking place but rather the calmness and understanding with which I accepted it…

Years later I met Uri again. This time he was in the Mossad, a veteran katsa in the A1 department, and I was a rookie. He had come back from an assignment in South Africa. I was then a temporary desk man in the Dardasim department in liaison, helping him prepare for a large shipment of medication to South Africa to accompany several Israeli doctors who were headed for some humanitarian work in Soweto, a black township outside Johannesburg. The doctors were to assist in treating patients at an outpatient clinic for the Baragwanath hospital in Soweto, a few blocks away from the houses of Winnie Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu. The hospital and the clinic were supported by a hospital in Baltimore, which served as a cut-out for the Mossad. Uri was on a cooling-off period from the United States. “What is the Mossad doing giving humanitarian assistance to blacks in Soweto?” I remember asking him. There was no logic to it; no short-term political gain (which was the way the Mossad operated) or any visible monetary advantage. “Do you remember Nes Siyyona?” His question sent shivers up my spine. I nodded. “This is very much the same. We’re testing both new infectious diseases and new medication that can’t be tested on humans in Israel, for several of the Israeli medicine manufacturers. This will tell them whether they’re on the right track, saving them millions in research.”

When they first met, Jonathan Pollard was an American Jew who believed wholeheartedly that there was a holy alliance between the United States of America and the state of Israel. He did not see a conflict between total loyalty to the United States and total loyalty to the state of Israel; to him it was one and the same.

This ideology did not spring out of itself; it was a result of a long process of indoctrination many Jewish youths are put through with the generous help of the state of Israel in the form of shlichim, or, as they are known, messengers of Alia. These are people who work within the Jewish community to instill a love of Israel in the hearts of the Jewish youth. In Jonathan Pollard’s case, they were extremely successful.

The young man had volunteered in 1982 to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israeli lobby group, another link in the chain of organizations manacling the Jewish community to Israel in general and to the Israeli right wing in particular.

Pollard, already a member of the American intelligence community, had volunteered his services for the benefit of the state of Israel. As is the procedure, his name was passed to the security section in the Israeli embassy in

Washington and from there on to the Mossad as a potential sayan. After thorough checking, including using the Mossad’s connection in the Anti-Defamation League, the Mossad decided that he was a good candidate and would fit in well, since he was both a Zionist zealot and well placed in the American intelligence research community, with ample access to vital information about the Middle East and Africa. And since he was Jewish, there was no thought of making him a paid spy. In fact, he was perfect for Operation Reindeer, which was meant to reestablish the ties between the American intelligence establishment and that of South Africa. Not that the two didn’t have a link of their own, but this one would be monitored by the Mossad and would be much more secure and lucrative.

There was no hesitation on Pollard’s part once Uri made contact with him, bringing in a reference from a friend Pollard had in Israel. The AIPAC was notified that the Mossad was not interested in Pollard, and Pollard was instructed not to contact the Jewish organizations again. He was now a sayan for the Mossad or, as he was told, for the security organization of Israel.

At the time, Pollard was not getting any money for the work he was doing, since it is a clear Mossad policy not to pay Jewish helpers. That way it could never be said that what they’re doing is for any reason other than love and concern for Israel.

Uri had supplied the South Africans with photos (which the Mossad had received from the Danish intelligence) of the SSC-3 Soviet weapons system that the Americans were eager to get at the time. This was all part of Operation Reindeer, in which the South African intelligence was endeared to the Americans using Pollard’s school contacts. (Apparently, someone with whom Pollard had gone to school and remained friends with afterward had subsequently become a senior South African intelligence officer.)

For some time, Uri went on using Pollard for obtaining various pieces of information, never overstraining the relationship to the point where the man might be placed under suspicion. In his reports, Uri constantly warned – just for the record – that he was not sure if Pollard was telling him all of the truth all of the time. Uri thought that Pollard might be getting himself into trouble, trying to get information he wasn’t asked to get. If he was, Uri couldn’t help him, because Uri wouldn’t be aware of the danger.

Sometime in 1984, Uri had decided with the agreement of his bosses that Pollard was too volatile to handle, since he was always trying to do more than he was asked, taking unnecessary risks, and generally becoming more of a liability than an asset. Therefore, he was put on the dormant list as a sleeper. Pollard was informed that he’d been of great help to Israel and that for his own safety, the Israeli intelligence had decided he needed a cooling-off period. Should they decide at a later date that it was again safe for him to work, they’d contact him and revive the activity.

Pollard was not thrilled at the prospect, but according to Uri, he didn’t make a fuss. It must be remembered that up to that point, he hadn’t been paid one red cent and was doing it all because of sheer ideology.

Not long after the file was rendered dormant, Rafi Eitan got his hands on it. Even though he was no longer a Mossad officer at the time, as the saying goes, once a Mossad always a Mossad. He had access to Mossad files, both because of his past in the Mossad and because he was the adviser on terrorism to the prime minister and also the head of the LAKAM.

For him, finding the dormant Pollard file was like striking gold. Not bound by Mossad rules of conduct regarding Jewish helpers, he activated Pollard through his reviving code word and arranged to create a so-called natural setting for him to meet his new operator, Avian Sellah. Sellah, a decorated Israeli pilot who’d taken part in the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear plant in Osirak, was a natural for the job. He wanted to study in the United States and would be working for the LAKAM at the same time. He didn’t have to recruit Pollard, only activate him, and the meeting between the two was set up by Eitan to look like a coincidence brought about by a third party, a relative of Pollard’s who had attended a speech by Sellah. Sellah was chosen to be the operator because he was an expert in targeting and could talk shop with Pollard, who was an intelligence analysis expert. The fact that Sellah was not a trained intelligence man also contributed to the fall of Pollard, who, in this new phase, was now getting paid and was in fact almost running himself.

The Mossad had heard from sources in the CIA that they were closing in on Pollard, but the Mossad preferred to stay out of the picture, hoping the affair would be settled quietly, behind closed doors, putting the LAKAM out of the game. To buy time once things started to go haywire, the Israeli ambassador to the United States was sent on a lecture tour to France, and the running of the embassy was left in the hands of a lower-ranking diplomat, Eliyakim Rubinstein, who couldn’t make a policy decision on his own. Once all the LAKAM people had fled the United States, Pollard was left behind to fend for himself. He fled to the Israeli embassy in Washington. Once he was inside, the security people turned for instructions to Rubinstein, who then turned to the Shaback representative to see what he had to say. That man turned to the Mossad representative, who, without checking back with headquarters and assuming things hadn’t changed, told the Shaback man that Pollard was not Mossad and therefore was none of his business. The Shaback man then said that his people had no claim over Pollard, and since all the LAKAM people had left the country and were not to be found, it was up to Rubinstein. He also mentioned the fact that the embassy was surrounded by the FBI.

Rubinstein was not able to contact Israel on the secure channels that were controlled by the Mossad liaison, who said they were down. So Rubinstein decided to take the initiative. He had Pollard and his wife sent out of the embassy into the hands of the stunned FBI. Much later, I learned from FBI people involved in the Pollard investigation and capture that they were almost as surprised as he was that he was sent out; at that point, they’d been ready to negotiate some sort of compromise with Israel. It was also learned later that a large portion of the information that Pollard had handed over to Israel made its way to the Eastern Bloc in exchange for the release of Jews from those countries. That knowledge, and the fact that admitting it would verify the information that was now in the hands of the Soviets, was the reason Caspar Weinberger, the American secretary of defense, asked for the maximum sentence for Pollard and was not able to explain why publicly.

Uri was forced to leave the United States then, since the Mossad was worried that Pollard, to get a shorter sentence, would expose the Mossad connection. But Pollard, because he knew that doing so would open up a whole new can of worms that would make his situation worse, kept quiet about it. This was why the Justice Department did not feel obligated to fulfill its side of the plea bargain with Pollard, in which he was promised a reduced sentence and no jail time for his wife, who was sentenced as his accomplice, in exchange for a full disclosure of all the relevant facts. (188-191)

* But since we were not yet ready to set up the Israeli spy ring for the Jordanians as I’d promised, I couldn’t put Ephraim off much longer. He felt that there was a need to inoculate Egyptian intelligence against the Mossad. That had to be done before some incident occurred that would expose the Mossad’s assistance (mainly logistical) to the Muslim fundamentalists through contacts in Afghanistan.

The peace with Egypt was pressing hard on the Israeli right wing. In itself, the peace, so vigilantly kept by the Egyptians, was living proof that the Arabs are a people with whom peace is possible, and that they’re not at all what the Mossad and other elements of the right have portrayed them to be. Egypt has kept its peace with Israel, even though Israel became the aggressor in Lebanon in 1982 and despite the Mossad’s warnings that the Egyptians were in fact in the middle of a ten-year military buildup that would bring about a war with Israel in 1986-87 (a war that never materialized).

The Mossad realized that it had to come up with a new threat to the region, a threat of such magnitude that it would justify whatever action the Mossad might see fit to take.

The right-wing elements in the Mossad (and in the whole country, for that matter) had what they regarded as a sound philosophy: They believed (correctly, as it happened) that Israel was the strongest military presence in the Middle East. In fact, they believed that the military might of what had become known as “fortress Israel” was greater than that of all of the Arab armies combined, and was responsible for whatever security Israel possessed. The right wing believed then – and they still believe – that this strength arises from the need to answer the constant threat of war.

The corollary belief was that peace overtures would inevitably start a process of corrosion that would weaken the military and eventually bring about the demise of the state of Israel, since, the philosophy goes, its Arab neighbors are untrustworthy, and no treaty signed by them is worth the paper it’s written on.

Supporting the radical elements of Muslim fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad’s general plan for the region. An Arab world run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West, thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the region. And if the Mossad could arrange for the Hamas (Palestinian fundamentalists) to take over the Palestinian streets from the PLO, then the picture would be complete.

Mossad activity in Egypt was extensive. Now that there was an Israeli embassy in Cairo, the walk-in traffic was heavy. Egypt was being used both as a source of information and as a jumping-off point to the rest of the Arab world. It would be much easier and much less suspicious to have an Egyptian who was recruited under a false flag in Cairo and had never set foot outside the Middle East carry out intelligence gathering in other Arab countries than Arabs who had been to Europe and therefore might be suspected.

That in itself was a “legitimate” part of the game, but once the Mossad began trying to undermine the fiber of Egyptian society by supporting the fundamentalists, also under false flags, it was something completely different. It was more like cutting off the branch on which you’re sitting…

“You have to get in there and point out the connection with the fundamentalists. I’m getting some bits of information from time to time, and I need a way to let them have that information from a source they will trust.”

“Are you going to plant information to make a point?” I had to know; if he was planning to use me as a tool for spreading disinformation, he could count me out. I had no special feelings for the Egyptians; it was just that I didn’t believe in the Mossad’s way of doing things. I didn’t think that what was bad for the goose was okay for the gander.

He assured me that this was not the case; the information that he had would lead to the arrest of several fundamentalists and the exposure of the armaments supply line from the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

“That is a long way to carry arms,” I noted.

As it turned out, it was a complex pipeline, since a large portion of the Mujahideen’s weapons were American-made and were supplied to the Muslim Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads who roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai.

The Mossad could of course also supply Soviet-made equipment from the spoils of the PLO stores seized in the 1982 war on the PLO in Lebanon. Once it was on Egyptian territory, the materiel was passed to an intermediary who would make the final delivery. As payment for the armaments, the Mossad would contract targets to be hit inside Egypt.

“Destabilize, destabilize, destabilize,” Ephraim said. “That is all they’re doing, all the time. No matter what anyone says, all they can think about is creating a shambles. They don’t understand that this jungle they’re creating will one day swallow them too.”

* He then wanted to hear as much as I could tell him about Robert Maxwell, the British newspaper magnate. His reason was that they were aware of the constant Mossad interest in purchasing media so that it could both influence public opinion and use journalism as a cover for inserting agents into countries.

It seemed my host was as eager to show me how much he knew as he was to hear about things he didn’t know – not a good trait for an intelligence officer. He identified Maxwell as a Mossad agent and also reminded me of other occasions on which the Mossad had been behind the purchase of newspapers in England. As an example, he gave the Eastern African, which was bought with Mossad money by an Israeli businessman. The purchase was made, he said, to assist the South African propaganda machine in making apartheid more palatable in the West.

Suddenly, the sinister nature of what was being done with Maxwell became clear to me. In his zeal to cooperate with Israel, and even though he was not an agent himself (as the British had made clear when I had spoken to them in Washington), Maxwell was a sayan on the grand scale. The Mossad was financing many of its operations in Europe from moneys stolen from the man’s newspaper pension fund. They got their hands on the pension funds almost as soon as he’d made his purchases (initially with money lent to him by the Mossad and on expert advice he received from Mossad analyses). What was sinister about it, aside from the theft, was that anyone in his news organization, anywhere in the Middle East, was automatically suspected of working for Israel and was only one rumor away from the hangman’s noose.

I explained to my host, as I had to the British, that in the beginning the Mossad would help Maxwell purchase the newspapers by lending him money and causing labor disputes and other problems, making the target purchases more vulnerable. Later, the tactics changed; they would target in advance a paper that he was to purchase and start it on a collision course with bankruptcy using all available strategies, starting with workforce agitation and ending with pull-back of funds from the paper through bankers and advertisers sympathetic to the Mossad. Then, once the target was softened, they’d send Maxwell in for the kill.

* It was July 22 that Ali A1 Ahmed, a cartoonist for a Kuwaiti newspaper critical of the PLO leadership, was killed, supposedly by Abd-al-Rahaman and a large team of Palestinian assassins. There was uproar in the Palestinian community. The British woke up from their long sleep and kicked the entire Mossad station out of London. I always wondered after that if they would have made such a big show of anger if the fact that Sawan was a Mossad agent hadn’t made its way to the press as a result of his open trial in June 1988. One thing is sure, British intelligence is just as responsible as the Mossad is for the death of that cartoonist, because they could have prevented it. It reaffirmed what I already knew, that any organization that came into contact with the Mossad was affected in a way that was not to the benefit of the country it served.

After I met the British, I had a strong gut feeling that they were not going to be the source of anybody’s deliverance out of the darkness of the Mossad’s shadow. The task would eventually fall to those who really cared, individuals who would have to take a stand as good men should and expose the monster for what it was-expose it not to the Mossad’s rotating bed partners, but to the public. I had decided, conceited as it may sound, that I would go to the people.

At first, I assumed that the fastest way to do this was to make a movie. Let the public know the truth about the Mossad, and what better way to reach as many people as possible than through a movie?

I did a bit of research, not informing Ephraim of my plans, and eventually I had a meeting with a gentleman in Montreal called Robin Spry, who has a small motion picture company named Telecine. After checking his background, I thought that he was sufficiently far removed from the Jewish community that he could be regarded as relatively safe.

We met in his office in a renovated old building in Montreal. He was very courteous and extremely enthusiastic, but he made it clear from the start that he’d prefer to handle the story as fiction, because he wouldn’t be able to take the kind of heat this project might generate. I asked him to make me an offer and a proposal, and decided that if all else failed, I’d take this route.

My next stop was a publisher in Toronto. I arranged a meeting with two representatives of the publishing house in the Prince Hotel.

Having a temporary case of cold feet, I decided at the last minute to present the idea as fiction based on a real story. It was a bad idea, and the publisher turned me down. “Since you have not written anything before, we’d need to see a full manuscript,” they said, and they were quite right. I abandoned the effort for the time being and decided that I might just as well bring Ephraim in on my idea and take advantage of his vast wealth of knowledge and his well-placed connections.

Ephraim was not enthusiastic about my book idea and at first tried in every way he could to dissuade me. He told me that the Mossad was not going to take such an act lying down. Never before had anyone struck a blow of such proportions against them and succeeded. We had a long history to draw on, and it was full of examples of men who’d tried to go against the grain. Most of them are well planted six feet under, and others are in little bits littering some godforsaken piece of desert. The only person ever to have written a book on the Mossad and to have lived to tell about it was the ex-head of the Mossad, Isar Harel, who was universally regarded as senile. And the only reason he could tell his story was that he’d sterilized it until it became no more than a song of praise for the Mossad. What I was intending to do was completely unheard of.

“They’ll call you a traitor,” Ephraim said. “The name Ostrovsky will be synonymous with the name Benedict Arnold in the United States.”

“And what if they find out what I’ve been doing for the last two years, because of some screwup by you or one of the others? What do you think they’ll call me then?”

“But that won’t happen. You’re not at all at risk. Things are going just great at the moment.”

I looked at him, and I knew he could see the anger in my face. “Are they really so great? We spent over two years playing games your way, and we’ve achieved nothing. I think it’s time to get the real show on the road. Whatever you decide is okay with me. I just want you to know that no matter what you say, I’m going to attempt to do this. If you stick around, I’ll consult you as to what will go into the book and what will be left out, because we have, in the end, the same agenda.”

He sat silently for a moment, his cigarette slowly burning in the ashtray. Then he looked at me and smiled. “What the hell, let’s kick some butt.”

* “The information might come back to us from one of the Jewish organizations we’re tied in to, like B’nai Brith or the UJA. And then there are all the others that are handled by the schlichim [messengers]. I mean, the moment a member of the Jewish community anywhere in North America gets a whiff of this, they will run to their organization and tell them about it. They’ll be sure they are doing their Zionist duty. And Sherf is the one telling them what to do.”

* What the BND brass didn’t know was that these seminars that the Mossad was holding in the friendly environment of the country club were in fact well-oiled recruiting operations that had brought into the Mossad’s bank of manpower hundreds if not thousands of law enforcement personnel from the United States, where they were recruited by the B’nai Brith, and from the intelligence agencies of Denmark, Sweden, and many other countries.

In the intelligence field, what really counts for a possible promotion is the ability to prove that you’ve managed to thwart a terrorist attack. And so with that promise in hand, the Mossad went ahead and manipulated the mid-level of the BND into cooperating, letting them understand that the top brass wanted this to take place but could not sanction the operation officially. Also, the fact that the Mossad had the total cooperation of the local intelligence agencies (each state in West Germany has its own intelligence service usually attached to the state police and is totally separate from its federal counterpart) helped convince the BND mid-level personal that what the Mossad said was true.

The shipments were occurring as scheduled, and there were no problems with them for a long time. From Germany, the trucks would make their way to Denmark, where they’d be loaded onto Danish ships under the watchful eye of the Danish intelligence and their liaison to the Mossad, Paul Hensen Mozeh. From there, they’d be delivered to Iran. Emboldened by the success of these equipment transfers, the Iranians asked their BND connection to see what could be done with regard to training Iranian pilots, preferably outside the war zone. The BND contact then turned to the Mossad contact and asked the same question. At first, there was a proposal in Mossad to carry out the training in South America, in either Chile or Colombia, where the Mossad could obtain both the necessary airfields and the local approval for such an operation. But the proximity to American activity in that hemisphere caused the Mossad to have a change of heart.

After the Mossad and the STT conferred with experts from the Israeli air force and obtained more information from STT about the skill level of STT pilots, they decided that most of the training could be carried out in simulators and therefore could be done in Germany. The same abandoned airfield with the large empty hangars used for checking parts on their way from Israel to Iran could be used to house the five
simulators and all the related equipment needed. The Iranians were to purchase the simulators outright and pay for all the installation and other expenses, including the training itself.

A team of at least twenty Israelis would have to be on hand to train the Iranian pilots, and they would live independently in both Kiel and Hamburg while the Iranian pilots (whom the Germans were afraid would draw attention) would stay at the airfield for the duration of the training.

The BND contact man worked directly with the Mossad liaison in Bonn, who in turn passed the information to the Mossad clandestine station, also located in the Bonn embassy. At one point, the Germans suggested that, for security and the smooth running of the operation, the prime minister of Schleswig Holstein be brought in on the secret. This man’s name was Uwe Barschel, and he happened to be a close friend of Helmut Kohl’s. To guarantee his cooperation, the BND would use its influence to secure a commitment of federal moneys to save a faltering shipping company, which would be a feather in Barschel’s cap. Then there was the matter of a large new international airport in the area, which he was promised would be helped. The Germans also made several other promises that were not of any interest to the Mossad or to Ran H., who was now running the operation.

When I left the Mossad, the training of the pilots was in full swing. In addition to the simulators, several specially modified Cessna planes were being used to train the Iranian pilots at a second airfield some forty-five minutes from Kiel. I remember very well that as I was on my way out of the Mossad, Ran was becoming a star. Fluent in German, he’d been in charge of El A1 security in Germany and Austria before joining the Office.

At the Four Seasons suite, Ephraim filled me in on what had happened since. According to him (Uri added several details while Eli voiced his dissatisfaction), Ran had realized at some point in mid-1987 that trouble was on the horizon. There was growing dissatisfaction in the Mossad and in the right-wing elements of the Israeli government regarding the behavior of Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who was defying direct Israeli warnings regarding his relationship with the Austrian leader Kurt Waldheim, who’d been branded a Nazi.

* It was important that we not include things in the book that might nurture anti-Semitism – at least, that was the way we saw it. We all agreed, for example, that the subject of testing medications on blacks in South Africa was too much and would strike too hard a blow against Israel, since the medical personnel who’d been sent to Africa would be associated with the state and not understood as being totally controlled by the Mossad.

The same treatment was given to the direct links the Mossad had with the Kahane people, the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai Brith, the AIPAC, and the UJA.

The only subject that we decided needed airing was the Frames [44] and the youth camps called Hets va-keshet (meaning “bow and arrow”) that the Mossad organizes to bring young Jewish kids to Israel for the summer. After filling the kids with a large dose of militant Zionism, the Mossad sends them back as the spies of the future.

* “If I had to choose one thing people will focus on, I’d say it will be the cooperation the Mossad gets all over the world from the Jewish community and the way it takes advantage of that trust.”

* Uri visited me several times and informed me that as far as the Mossad was concerned, I was occupied making T-shirts in Canada and that was all. They were extremely busy at the time preparing for what they called Operation Brush-Fire. This was an all-out LAP (Israeli psychological warfare) attack aimed at getting the United States involved militarily in the Middle East in general and the Gulf area in particular.

The Iran-Iraq war was over. It seemed that the Iranians had had enough and were happy to agree to end the war as the Iraqis wanted. The Mossad, for their part, pretended to the Americans that they wanted to topple Saddam Hussein, while at the same time passing on information to his Muchabarat from the Israeli embassy in Washington, warning him about various attempts on his life and on his regime.

The Mossad regarded Saddam Hussein as their biggest asset in the area, since he was totally irrational as far as international politics was concerned, and was therefore all the more likely to make a stupid move that the Mossad could take advantage of.

What the Mossad really feared was that Iraq’s gigantic army, which had survived the Iran-Iraq war and was being supplied by the West and financed by Saudi Arabia, would fall into the hands of a leader who might be more palatable to the West and still be a threat to Israel.

The first step was taken in November 1988, when the Mossad told the Israeli foreign office to stop all talks with the Iraqis regarding a peace front. At that time, secret negotiations were taking place between Israelis, Jordanians, and Iraqis under the auspices of the Egyptians and with the blessings of the French and the Americans. The Mossad manipulated it so that Iraq looked as if it were the only country unwilling to talk, thereby convincing the Americans that Iraq had a different agenda.

By January 1989, the Mossad LAP machine was busy portraying Saddam as a tyrant and a danger to the world. The Mossad activated every asset it had, in every place possible, from volunteer agents in Amnesty International to fully bought members of the U.S. Congress. Saddam had been killing his own people, the cry went; what could his enemies expect? The gruesome photos of dead Kurdish mothers clutching their dead babies after a gas attack by Saddam’s army were real, and the acts were horrendous.

But the Kurds were entangled in an all-out guerrilla war with the regime in Baghdad and had been supported for years by the Mossad, who sent arms and advisers to the mountain camps of the Barazany family; this attack by the Iraqis could hardly be called an attack on their own people. But, as Uri said to me, once the orchestra starts to play, all you can do is hum along.

The media was supplied with inside information and tips from reliable sources on how the crazed leader of Iraq killed people with his bare hands and used missiles to attack Iranian cities. What they neglected to tell the media was that most of the targeting for the missiles was done by the Mossad with the help of American satellites.

The Mossad was grooming Saddam for a fall, but not his own. They wanted the Americans to do the work of destroying that gigantic army in the Iraqi desert so that Israel would not have to face it one day on its own border. That in itself was a noble cause for an Israeli, but to endanger the world with the possibility of global war and the deaths of thousands of Americans was sheer madness.

Toward the end of January, the British called and wanted to talk to me. They said it was urgent and asked if they could come the following day. I agreed. I decided that I’d take advantage of the meeting to convey the information about Saddam I’d gotten from Uri, and request that they pass it on to the Americans.

We met in the dining room of the Chateau Laurier Hotel in downtown Ottawa. “What can I do for you?” I asked the man, whom I’d met once before.

“I have only one question for you, and even though you might think it’s off the wall, I was told to ask you.”

“Go ahead.”

“Do you believe or think or know if the Mossad may have had any involvement in what happened to Flight 103 over Lockerbie?”

I was dumbfounded. It took me several seconds to realize what the man had asked me. I responded almost automatically. “No way.”


“No reason. Just no way, that’s all. Up to this point, every time Israel or the Mossad has been responsible for the downing of a plane, it’s been an accident, and related directly to the so-called security of the state, like the shooting down of the Libyan plane over the Sinai and the Italian plane (thought to carry uranium) in 1980, killing eighty-one people. There is no way that they’d do this.”

“Are you speaking out of knowledge or are you guessing?”

“Wait right here.” I said, leaving the table. “I’ll make a phone call, and we’ll talk after that.”

I made a collect call from the lobby of the hotel, and after a few minutes got Ephraim on the line. “Did we have anything to do with Pan Am 103?”

“Why are you asking?”

“Just tell me. I have to know, because if we did, this will be the end of the Mossad.”

“No,” he answered without hesitating. I knew he was telling me the truth. He wouldn’t pass up such an opportunity to taint the Mossad leadership.

“Thanks. I’ll call you later.”

I got back to the table and told the man what Ephraim had told me.

“So you’re still connected?” the Brit said, smiling.

“Which is probably why I’m still alive,” I said, smiling back. “Since we’re here, there’s something I think you should know about. It’s called Operation Brush-Fire.” I spent the next half-hour giving the man the rundown on what I knew, asking him to pass the information on to the Americans too. He made no promises but said that he would do his best. That was enough for me.

* On March 15, 1990, Farzad Bazoft, who’d been held in the Abu Ghraib prison some twenty kilometers west of Baghdad, met briefly with the British ambassador to Iraq. A few minutes after the meeting, he was hanged. His British girlfriend was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. His body was delivered to the British embassy in Baghdad, and the official spokesman noted that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher “wanted him alive and we have just delivered his dead body to her.”

Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction scam

The world was shocked, but the Mossad was not done yet. To fan the flames generated by this brutal hanging, a Mossad sayan in New York delivered a set of documents to ABC television with a story from a reliable Middle Eastern source telling of a plant Saddam had for the manufacturing of uranium. The information was convincing, and the photos and sketches were even more so. It was time to draw attention to Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.

Only three months before, on December 5, 1989, the Iraqis had launched the Al-Abid, a three-stage ballistic missile. The Iraqis claimed it was a satellite launcher that Gerald Bull, a Canadian scientist, was helping them develop. Israeli intelligence knew that the launch, although trumpeted as a great success, was in fact a total failure, and that the program would never reach its goals. But that secret was not shared with the media. On the contrary, the missile launch was exaggerated and blown out of proportion.

The message that Israeli intelligence sent out was this: Now all the pieces of the puzzle are fitting together. This maniac is developing a nuclear capability (remember the Israeli attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981) and pursuing chemical warfare (as seen in his attacks on his own people, the Kurds). What’s more, he despises the Western media, regarding them as Israeli spies. Quite soon, he’s going to have the ability to launch a missile from anywhere in Iraq to anywhere he wants in the Middle East and beyond.

* Then there was the Larry King Show, by which time the gag order was lifted, where I received somewhat rougher treatment. To build some contentiousness into the hour, the show’s producers had invited Amos Perelmuter, a professor from the American University in Washington, D.C., to join King and me. From the start, it was clear that Perelmuter was an enthusiastic supporter of the state of Israel, and that what he’d heard about my book – he admitted he hadn’t read it – he didn’t like.

There was never enough time on such shows to put Perelmuter and other “designated champions of Israel” on the spot. How did they know that everything I was saying was lies? I was the one who’d served in the Mossad, not they. Why was it that these loyal Americans were willing to accept any mud thrown at the CIA without even giving it a second thought, but insisted on defending to the hilt an intelligence agency of a foreign country that had been known to spy on the United States (as in the Pollard case) and hadn’t refrained from attacking American interests (as in the case of the Lavon [49] affair in Egypt, among others)?

The first wave of fury the book caused was due to its revelation that the Mossad had advance knowledge of the notorious suicide bombing in Beirut (including the make and color of the car) but didn’t pass on that information to American intelligence. In October 1983, two hundred and forty-one U.S. marines were killed when the car, rigged with explosives, rammed their barracks in Beirut. In many instances, this story from the book was taken out of context and told as if I’d said that the Mossad knew Americans were the target, which was not the case.

This and numerous other headline-making revelations helped propel the book to the number one spot on the By Way of Deception made the best-seller list in almost every one of the twenty-odd countries where it was published. It was published in some fifteen different languages (although it’s still not available in Hebrew), and by the year’s end had sold well over a million copies worldwide.

* I knew I was about to hand the Mossad another painful punch on the nose-that is, if it didn’t get smart on me and pull out of whatever it was doing in Norway at the time. But as usual, the Mossad just went on doing what it did best, which was to abuse the friendship of a good ally and, when the time came, leave it holding the proverbial baby.

I told my new friend that the Mossad could be expected to have a close relationship with the local intelligence, mainly dealing at the intermediate level. He could find the links by obtaining the names of people from the police and intelligence communities who’d gone on various seminars to Israel. The second avenue I suggested was taking a closer look at Palestinian refugees who were seeking asylum in Norway. Just as in Denmark, and as I’d described in my book, the Mossad would offer the local intelligence agency a service that, in its words, would guarantee security and the weeding out of potential terrorists from the waves of incoming refugees.

The Mossad would offer to send experts to Norway, who, upon arrival, would receive Norwegian identity cards from the Norwegian secret service. These experts would interrogate the asylum seekers in a language they understood (meaning both Arabic and brute force). The Israelis would then translate the conversations and hand the Palestinians over to the Norwegians. This process would prevent the country from being infiltrated by troublemakers, and in a more general way, keep Norway out of the bloody Middle East game.

I also told him that there was no doubt in my mind that the police and intelligence service were sure they were doing the right thing. For the sake of protecting the safety of their Mossad friends, they’d have to keep it all secret from the politicians, who weren’t to be trusted in matters of security.

The story had exposed what could only be described as the Mossad’s intimate relations with the Norwegian secret service and police. The Norwegian secret service had provided Mossad personnel with Norwegian papers and brought them into the interrogation room to interrogate Palestinians who were seeking asylum in Norway.

The Mossad officers interrogated the Palestinians in Arabic, although most of the Palestinians were fluent in English, as were the Norwegian police. However, none of the Norwegian police spoke Arabic, and therefore they had no idea what was being said. The Mossad officers threatened the Palestinians with deportation if they wouldn’t cooperate with Israel – all this in the presence of Norwegian police, or in some cases without that presence, in which cases the interrogations took on a much more violent aspect.

As a result of the story, the Norwegian minister of justice, Kari Gjesteby, called for a full investigation of the matter. This was of course to appease the citizenry – some of whom saw the whole affair as Israel’s second violation of the sanctity of Norway (the first “violation” occurred in Lillehammer in 1974 and involved the Mossad’s killing of a Moroccan waiter whom they’d mistaken for Ali Hassan Salameh…

* I had already realized for some time that I no longer shared that ideology, that for me the state of Israel was no longer the fulfillment of an ancient dream. For me, it was more a nightmare of prejudice, wallowing in racism and waving the white and blue flag as a banner of oppression. I wanted no part of it. What I was doing now was showing the carriers of the banner their vulnerability, so that they would stop and reappraise their own purpose. Maybe then they could join the family of nations on an equal footing.

* This love affair with a vice president was not a new thing; it had been almost standard procedure ever since the creation of the state of Israel. Any time a president was not on the best of terms with Israel, the Jewish organizations were instructed to cozy up to the vice president. That was the case with Dwight Eisenhower, whom Israel regarded as the worst president in history (although, ironically, the vice president they regarded as a friend, namely Richard Nixon, himself became an enemy once he was president). It was what lay behind the strong support Israel and the Jewish community gave to Lyndon Johnson, who almost doubled aid to Israel in his first year as president, after John Kennedy had come down hard on the Israeli nuclear program, believing it was a first and dangerous step in the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region.

That strategy was behind their hatred for Nixon and their admiration for Gerald Ford. And then there was Jimmy Carter, whose whole administration was regarded as a big mistake as far as Israel was concerned, a mistake that had cost Israel the whole of the Sinai in return for a lukewarm peace with Egypt.

* Ephraim called me on Tuesday, October 1. I could sense from the tone of his voice that he was extremely stressed. “They’re out to kill Bush,” he said. At first, I didn’t understand what he was talking about. I thought he meant that they were going to ruin the president. I’d already heard of several books that were in the making on the man, and there was a smear campaign regarding his alleged involvement in the Iran-Contra affair (which I knew personally to be fake).

“What’s new about that? They’ve been out to get him for a long time.”

“I mean really kill, as in assassinate.”

As it happened, I was invited to be a speaker at a luncheon held at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa for a group called the Middle East Discussion Group. It’s a loosely formed think tank supported by the National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations, headed by a former Liberal MP named Ian Watson. The aim of this group is to inform members of Parliament and the diplomatic community on issues that might not be freely accessed by the media and to promote dialog on the Middle East.

The luncheon was attended by some twenty members of the think tank and a few MPs. I made a short presentation in which I explained the goals of the Mossad and the danger it presented to any peace initiative in the region. I also said that in my opinion, as things stood, the only chance the Middle East had for peace would be the cutting off of financial aid to Israel by the United States. I emphasized that a large chunk of this aid finds its way to the West Bank and the settlements, which were probably the biggest stumbling block to the peace initiative. Then I opened the floor to questions.

I was asked what the Mossad would do to stop the process that was now taking place. I said that from sources I had, and based on my knowledge of the Mossad, I would not be at all surprised if there was a plot right at this moment to kill the president of the United States and to throw the blame on some extreme Palestinian group.

Later, I learned that one of the people at the luncheon had called an ex-congressman from California, Pete McCloskey. The substance of what I’d said was conveyed to him, and since McCloskey was an old and close friend of the president’s, the caller felt that he might want to take some action.

On October 15, McCloskey called me and introduced himself. He said that he’d heard from a friend what I’d said about the president and wanted to know if in my opinion there was a real threat, or was this only a metaphor of some kind, to make a point? I made it clear to him that there was no metaphor involved and that I was dead serious regarding the threat to the president. I also said that I believed that exposing this threat might be enough to eliminate it, since to carry it out would then become too risky.

* Robert Maxwell’s contact was not in the best of moods when he received a call on a special secure line at the Israeli embassy in Madrid. Maxwell was phoning from London, saying it was imperative that a meeting be set up. He was willing to come to Madrid.

The ties between Maxwell and the Mossad went back a long way. Elements within the Mossad had offered to finance Maxwell’s first big business ventures, and in later years Maxwell received inside information on global matters from the Office. Maxwell was originally code-named “the Little Czech,” and the sobriquet stuck. Only a handful of people in the Israeli intelligence community knew who the Little Czech was, yet he provided an unending supply of slush money for the organization whenever it ran low.

For years, Maxwell would hit financial lows whenever the Mossad was in the midst of expensive operations that could not be funded legitimately and when other less legitimate sources were unavailable, as was the case after the American invasion of Panama in 1990, which dried up the Mossad’s income from drug trafficking and forced Maxwell to dig deep into his corporate pockets.

But the Mossad had used its ace in the hole one time too many. Asking Maxwell to get involved in a matter of secondary importance (namely, the Vanunu affair) had been a big mistake, for which the media mogul would be made to pay the price.

That involvement caused suspicion in the British Parliament that there was no smoke without fire, particularly after the publication of a book by an American reporter claiming Maxwell was a Mossad agent. Maxwell retaliated in a lawsuit, but the ground was starting to burn under his feet. The Mossad was late in giving him back his money, and the usual last-minute rescue of his financial empire was looking less and less feasible.

For Maxwell, what was already bad was about to get worse. His call couldn’t have been more poorly timed. Israel was participating in a peace negotiation process that the Mossad top clique believed would be detrimental to the country’s security. At the same time, news was reaching the Office of a growing scandal caused by Mossad involvement in Germany. This scandal was a result of Uri’s having made a call to the Hamburg River Police informing them that a shipment of arms was about to be loaded onto an Israeli ship.

* What he was referring to (and in doing so, he sealed his fate) was a meeting that he’d helped arrange between the Mossad liaison and the former head of the KGB, Vladimir Kryuchkov, who was now jailed in Number Four Remand Center in Moscow for his role in the Soviet Union’s August coup to oust Mikhail Gorbachev.

At that meeting, which took place on Maxwell’s yacht at anchor in Yugoslav waters, Mossad support for the plot to oust Gorbachev was discussed. The Mossad promised to bring about, through its political connections, an early recognition of the new regime, as well as other logistical assistance for the coup. In exchange, it requested that all Soviet Jews be released, or rather expelled, which would create a massive exodus of people that would be too large to be absorbed by other countries and would therefore go to Israel.

Certain right-wingers within the government had believed this meeting with the coup plotters was a necessity. They knew that if the Soviet Union were to stop being the enemy, there’d no longer be a threat from the East, and the strategic value of Israel to its greatest ally, the United States, would diminish. Alliances between the United States and the Arab nations in the region would then be a realistic prospect.

It was Maxwell who’d helped create the ties with the now-defunct KGB. The right-wingers realized it would be a devastating blow to Israel’s standing in the West if the world were to learn that the Mossad had participated in any way, as minute as that participation might be, in the attempted coup to stop the democratization of the Soviet Union. It would be perceived as treason against the West. Maxwell was now using the Mossad’s participation as a threat, however veiled, to force an immediate burst of aid to his ailing empire. His contact asked him to call back in a few hours.

A small meeting of right-wingers at Mossad headquarters resulted in a consensus to terminate Maxwell. At first, the participants thought it would take several weeks to put together a plan, but then someone pointed out that the process could be accelerated if the Little Czech could be made to travel to a rendezvous where the Mossad would be waiting to strike.

Maxwell was asked to come to Spain the following day. His contact promised that things would be worked out and that there was no need to panic. The mogul was asked to sail on his yacht to Madeira and wait there for a message.

Maxwell arrived in Gibraltar on October 31, 1991, boarded his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine, and set sail for Madeira, as instructed. There he waited for directions. Meanwhile, the Mossad was getting read to strike. On Friday, November 1, a special Mossad troubleshooting team that was in Spain to cover the peace talks was dispatched. The team flew to Morocco, where they were met by a confederate who’d
already taken care of all the necessary equipment and other arrangements.

At first, Maxwell was told that the meeting would take place in Madeira and that he’d receive as much money as he needed to calm the situation. Additional moneys would be advanced to him later. All this was to be kept completely quiet, since there was no point in providing more fodder for his enemies, who would have liked nothing better than to show his direct connection to the Mossad.

On November 2, the Mossad learned that Maxwell had called his son in England and scheduled a meeting with him on the island. Maxwell was told to cancel the meeting. He was also told that the meeting with the money people would now take place on the island of Tenerife.

When he reached Santa Cruz on the island of Tenerife, he headed for a meeting in the Hotel Mency. As he dined alone in the hotel restaurant, someone walked over to him and gave him a message indicating that he should be in Los Cristos on the other side of the island the next morning. He was to make his way there in his yacht, sailing around the island of Grand Canary.

I learned all this in a phone conversation with Ephraim. He had no idea how the Kidon team had managed to get to Maxwell at sea while the yacht was cruising at fifteen knots, but making it look impossible was part of the Kidon magic. Some time during the night of November 4-5, the Mossad’s problem was laid to rest in the salty waters of the Atlantic.

After an autopsy that raised more questions than it answered, a second autopsy was held in Israel under the watchful eye of the security apparatus. Whatever was not detected then was buried forever on Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, the resting place for the nation’s most revered heroes.

“He had done more for Israel than can today be said,” Prime Minister Shamir eulogized at Maxwell’s burial.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Holocaust, Israel, Jews | Comments Off on ‘By Way Of Deception’

NYT: ‘Forbidden Films’ Exhumes Nazi Poison From the Movie Vaults

NYT: “The Third Reich was not only a totalitarian state but also a total multimedia regime. Seven decades after its fiery collapse, the embers remain — including some 1,200 feature films produced under Joseph Goebbels’s ministry of propaganda. Are they historical evidence, incitements to murder, fascist pornography, evergreen entertainments, toxic waste or passé kitsch? All of the above?”

Are there other films that are poison? Surely, certain films are poison for some groups while they are nutritious for other groups.

I don’t understand why a healthy country would allow outsiders to dominate its media. Israel would never put up with non-Jews running its media and framing its narratives. Israel would never put up with non-Jews financing its elections, buying its politicians, and shaping its foreign policy and its national myths. So why would America put up with this? Lobbying for foreign powers should be illegal. The Saudi Lobby is more of a threat to America than the Israel Lobby but it would be in America’s interests for all such lobbies to be illegal.

America’s interests have nothing to do with Israel nor Saudi Arabia nor any country in the Middle East. Even if Iran goes nuclear, it is no threat to America. It is a threat to Israel. Because I am Jewish, I am hyper-concerned about Israel, but I don’t see why this need concern the United States.

Every group has a different agenda. The agenda of Christians is different from that of Jews, the agenda of blacks is different from that of whites, Jews, Muslims, Latinos, etc. Jews/blacks/Muslims aren’t bad for pursuing their group interests. Whites are stupid for not pursuing their group interests. From a white perspective, anti-white films are poison. From a Jewish perspective, anti-Jewish films are poison (or films that criticize cultural pluralism). From a black perspective, anti-black films are dangerous. From a Muslim perspective, anti-Muslim films are poison.

I came to America in 1977 and I have noticed for near 40 years a steady stream of anti-white poison pouring forth from western media but nobody outside of white nationalists seems to care.

Posted in Israel, Jews, Nazi | Comments Off on NYT: ‘Forbidden Films’ Exhumes Nazi Poison From the Movie Vaults

Prospects For Black America

From Amren:

Miss Mac Donald began by pointing out that the entire “black lives matter movement” is based on the crazy assumption that the biggest threat facing black men today is the police. “In fact,” she said, “no government agency is more dedicated to the proposition that blacks lives matter than the police.” She added that black homicide victimization in New York has declined largely because of data-based policing that tries to predict where and when crime will occur so that police can stop it. “If precinct commanders do not save black lives their jobs are in jeopardy,” she said.

Miss Mac Donald supports the “broken window” approach to crime control, according to which even petty criminality must be controlled if neighborhoods are to be made livable. She is dismayed by the increasingly common argument that this puts an unfair burden on non-whites, and that the solution is “depolicing.” This will only make things worse. She said that blacks want loiterers and dope smokers off the street, and are furious when they reappear the day after they are arrested. “Policing low-level offenses is a moral imperative,” she said, and is the only way to give poor people anything like the crime-free ambience the middle class takes for granted.

She concluded that rebuilding the black family–if it could be done–would be a huge step in the right direction. America has made no real, concerted effort to promote fatherhood, and part of the problem is feminism, with its refrain that “strong women” can rear children without men. “Fathers,” she said, “should not be seen as an optional add-on or frill.” Illegitimacy, she added, is such a disadvantage to children that we should come to grips with the idea that “it is not true that everybody has the right have a child.”

Posted in Blacks | Comments Off on Prospects For Black America

The Second Most Powerful Man In America Is A Jewish White Nationalist

Matt Drudge.

Posted in Matt Drudge | Comments Off on The Second Most Powerful Man In America Is A Jewish White Nationalist

Whither Judaism & The West?

Kevin MacDonald writes in his book Culture of Critique:

One conclusion of this volume is that Jews have played a decisive role in
developing highly influential intellectual and political movements that serve their
interests in contemporary Western societies. These movements are only part of
the story however. There has been an enormous growth in Jewish power and
influence in Western societies generally, particularly the United States. Ginsberg
(1993) notes that Jewish economic status and cultural influence have increased
dramatically in the United States since 1960. Shapiro (1992, 116) shows that
Jews are overrepresented by at least a factor of nine on indexes of wealth, but
that this is a conservative estimate, because much Jewish wealth is in real estate,
which is difficult to determine and easy to hide. While constituting
approximately 2.4 percent of the population of the United States, Jews
represented half of the top one hundred Wall Street executives and about 40
percent of admissions to Ivy League colleges. Lipset and Raab (1995) note that
Jews contribute between one-quarter and one-third of all political contributions in
the United States, including one-half of Democratic Party contributions and onefourth
of Republican contributions.
The general message of Goldberg’s (1996) book Jewish Power: Inside the
American Jewish Establishment, is that American Judaism is well organized and
lavishly funded. It has achieved a great deal of power, and it has been successful
in achieving its interests. There is a great deal of consensus on broad Jewish
issues, particularly in the areas of Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries,
immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil
liberties (p. 5). Indeed, the consensus on these issues among Jewish activist
organizations and the Jewish intellectual movements reviewed here despite a
great deal of disagreement on other issues is striking. Massive changes in public
policy on these issues beginning with the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s
coincide with the period of increasing Jewish power and influence in the United
Since the 1950s empirical studies of ethnic hierarchy in the United States
have tracked changes in ethnic group resources, including elite representation
(e.g., Alba & Moore 1982; Lerner, Nagai & Rothman 1996). These studies have
often emphasized the overrepresentation of Protestant whites in corporate
hierarchies and the military, but have failed to take into consideration group
differences in commitment and organization. Salter (1998b) provides a
theoretically based assessment of Jewish influence relative to African Americans
and gentile European Americans based on Blalock’s (1967, 1989) model of
group power as a function of resources multiplied by mobilization. Jews are far
more mobilized than these other ethnic populations (one hesitates calling gentile
European Americans a “group”). For example, while specifically ethnic
organizations devoted to the ethnic interests of gentile European Americans are
essentially political fringe groups with meager funding and little influence on the
mainstream political process, Salter notes that the America-Israel Public Affairs
Committee ranked second out the 120 most powerful lobbies as rated by
members of Congress and professional lobbyists, with no other ethnic
organization rated in the top 25. Furthermore, AIPAC is one of the few lobbies
that relies heavily on campaign contributions to win allies. As indicated above,
Jews contribute between one-third and one-half of all campaign money in federal
elections, the donations motivated by “Israel and the broader Jewish agenda”
(Goldberg 1996, 275). Jews are thus overrepresented in campaign contributions
by a factor of at least 13 based on their percentage of the population and are
overrepresented by a factor of approximately 6.5 if adjustment is made for their
higher average income. In overseas donations, the Jewish lead is even greater.
For example, in the 1920s, before the post-World War II explosion of Jewish
giving to Israel, Jewish Americans may have given as much as 24 times more per
capita to assist overseas Jews than did Irish Americans to assist Ireland in its
struggle for independence from Great Britain. Yet this was the period of peak
Irish ethnic philanthropy (Carroll 1978). The disparity has become much greater
since World War II. Salter has adopted a preliminary conservative estimate of
Jewish ethnic mobilization as four times that of white gentiles, based on
comparison of per capita donations to non-religious ethnic causes.
In the Blalock equation influence is affected not only by mobilization but
also by the resources held by the group. Salter estimates that Jews control
approximately 26 percent of the “cybernetic resources” of the United States (i.e.,
resources as measured by representation in key areas such as government, media,
finance, academia, corporations, and entertainment). This average level of
resource control reflects both areas of high (> 40 percent) Jewish representation
(e.g., mass media, high finance, the legal profession, the intellectual elite,
entertainment) and low (≤ 10 percent) Jewish representation (e.g., corporate elite,
military leaders, religious leaders, legislators). The overall estimate is
comparable to that made by Lerner et al. (1996, 20) based on data gathered in the
1970s and 1980s. Lerner et al. arrive at a 23 percent overall Jewish representation
in American elites. The results also parallel levels of Jewish overrepresentation in
other societies, as in early twentieth-century Germany where Jews constituting
approximately one percent of the population controlled approximately 20 percent
of the economy (Mosse 1987, 1989) and also had a dominating influence on the
media and the production of culture (Deak 1968, 28; Laqueur 1974, 73).
Substitution of these resource and mobilization values into the Blalock
equation yields an estimate that Jewish influence on ethnic policy (immigration,
race policy, foreign policy) is approximately three times the influence of gentile
European Americans. The results are highly robust for different weightings of
resources. Only an “extreme neo-Marxist” weighting of resources (i.e., one that
weights only the corporate elite, the legislative branch of government, the
military elite, foundations, and total group income) brings Jewish influence down
to approximate parity of influence with gentile European Americans.
As indicated above, there is a broad Jewish consensus on such issues as
Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy,
church-state separation, abortion rights, and civil liberties. This implies that
Jewish influence and Jewish interests dominate these issues—a result that is
highly compatible with the discussion of Jewish influence on immigration policy
discussed Chapter 7 as well as the fact that all of these areas have seen enormous
swings in public policy in accordance with Jewish interests that coincide with the
rise of Jewish influence in the United States. Salter’s estimate that Jewish
mobilization may be conceptualized as several times greater than that of gentile
European Americans is well illustrated by the history of Jewish involvement in
immigration policy: All of the major Jewish organizations were intensively
involved in the battle over restrictive immigration for a period lasting an entire
century despite what must have seemed devastating setbacks. This effort
continues into the contemporary era. As discussed in Chapter 7, opposition to
large-scale immigration of all racial and ethnic groups by large majorities of the
European-derived population as well as the relative apathy of other groups—even
groups such as Italian Americans and Polish Americans that might be expected to
support the immigration of their own peoples—were prominent features of the
history of immigration policy.
This “rise of the Jews”—to use Albert Lindemann’s (1997) phrase—has
undoubtedly had important effects on contemporary Western societies. A major
theme of the previous chapter is that high levels of immigration into Western
societies conforms to a perceived Jewish interest in developing
nonhomogeneous, culturally and ethnically pluralistic societies. It is of interest to
consider the possible consequences of such a policy in the long term.
In recent years there has been an increasing rejection among intellectuals and
minority ethnic activists of the idea of creating a melting pot society based on
assimilation among ethnic groups (see, e.g., Schlesinger 1992). Cultural and
ethnic differences are emphasized in these writings, and ethnic assimilation and
homogenization are viewed in negative terms. The tone of these writings is
reminiscent of the views of many late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century
Jewish intellectuals who rejected the assimilationist effects of Reform Judaism in
favor of Zionism or a return to a more extreme form of cultural separatism such
as Conservative or Orthodox Judaism.
The movement toward ethnic separatism is of considerable interest from an
evolutionary point of view. Between-group competition and monitoring of
outgroups have been a characteristic of Jewish-gentile interactions not only in the
West but also in Muslim societies, and there are examples of between-group
competition and conflict too numerous to mention in other parts of the world.
Historically, ethnic separatism, as seen in the history of Judaism, has been a
divisive force within societies. It has on several occasions unleashed enormous
intra-societal hatred and distrust, ethnically based warfare, expulsions, pogroms,
and attempts at genocide. Moreover, there is little reason to suppose that the
future will be much different. At the present time there are ethnically based
conflicts on every continent, and clearly the establishment of Israel has not ended
ethnically based conflict for Jews returning from the diaspora.
Indeed, my review of the research on contact between more or less
impermeable groups in historical societies strongly suggests a general rule that
between-group competition and monitoring of ingroup and outgroup success are
the norm. These results are highly consistent with psychological research on
social identity processes reviewed in SAID (Ch. 1). From an evolutionary
perspective, these results confirm the expectation that ethnic self-interest is
indeed important in human affairs, and obviously ethnicity remains a common
source of group identity in the contemporary world. People appear to be aware of
group membership and have a general tendency to devalue and compete with
outgroups. Individuals are also keenly aware of the relative standing of their own
group in terms of resource control and relative reproductive success. They are
also willing to take extraordinary steps to achieve and retain economic and
political power in defense of these group imperatives.
Given the assumption of ethnic separatism, it is instructive to think of the
circumstances that would, from an evolutionary perspective, minimize group
conflict. Theorists of cultural pluralism such as Horace Kallen (1924) envision a
scenario in which different ethnic groups retain their distinctive identity in the
context of complete political equality and economic opportunity. The difficulty
with this scenario from an evolutionary perspective (or even a common sense
perspective) is that no provision is made for the results of competition for
resources and reproductive success within the society. Indeed, the results of
ethnic strife were apparent in Kallen’s day, but “Kallen lifted his eyes above the
strife that swirled around him to an ideal realm where diversity and harmony
coexist” (Higham 1984, 209).
In the best of circumstances one might suppose that separated ethnic groups
would engage in absolute reciprocity with each other, so that there would be no
differences in terms of economic exploitation of one ethnic group by the other.
Moreover, there would be no differences on any measure of success in society,
including social class membership, economic role (e.g., producer versus
consumer; creditor versus debtor; manager versus worker), or fertility between
the separated ethnic groups. All groups would have approximately equal numbers
and equal political power; or if there were different numbers, provisions would
exist to ensure that minorities would retain equitable representation in terms of
the markers of social and reproductive success. Such conditions would minimize
hostility between the groups because attributing one’s status to the actions of the
other groups would be difficult.
Given the existence of ethnic separatism, however, it would still be in the
interests of each group to advance its own interests at the expense of the other
groups. All things being equal, a given ethnic group would be better off if it
ensured that the other groups had fewer resources, lower social status, lower
fertility, and proportionately less political power than itself. The hypothesized
steady state of equality therefore implies a set of balance-of-power
relationships—each side constantly checking to make sure that the other is not
cheating; each side constantly looking for ways to dominate and exploit by any
means possible; each side willing to compromise only because of the other
sides’s threat of retaliation; each side willing to cooperate at cost only if forced to
do so by, for example, the presence of external threat. Clearly, any type of
cooperation that involves true altruism toward the other group could not be
Thus the ideal situation of absolute equality in resource control and
reproductive success would certainly require a great deal of monitoring and
undoubtedly be characterized by a great deal of mutual suspicion. In the real
world, however, even this rather grim ideal is highly unlikely. In the real world,
ethnic groups differ in their talents and abilities; they differ in their numbers,
fertility, and the extent to which they encourage parenting practices conducive to
resource acquisition; they also differ in the resources held at any point in time
and in their political power. Equality or proportionate equity would be extremely
difficult to attain or to maintain after it has been achieved without extraordinary
levels of monitoring and without extremely intense social controls to enforce
ethnic quotas on the accumulation of wealth, admission to universities, access to
high status jobs, and so on.
Because ethnic groups have differing talents and abilities and differing
parenting styles, variable criteria for qualifying and retaining jobs would be
required depending on ethnic group membership. Moreover, achieving parity
between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination
against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to employment
opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish
advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly
overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States. This
would especially be the case if Jews were distinguished as a separate ethnic
group from gentile European Americans. Indeed, the final evolution of many of
the New York Intellectuals from Stalinism was to become neoconservatives who
have been eloquent opponents of affirmative action and quota mechanisms for
distributing resources. (Sachar [1992, 818ff] mentions Daniel Bell, Sidney Hook,
Irving Howe, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Charles Krauthammer, Norman
Podhoretz, and Earl Raab as opposed to affirmative action.) Jewish organizations
(including the ADL, the AJCommittee, and the AJCongress) have taken similar
positions Sachar (1992, 818ff).
In the real world, therefore, extraordinary efforts would have to be made to
attain this steady state of ethnic balance of power and resources. Interestingly, the
ideology of Jewish-gentile coexistence has sometimes included the idea that the
different ethnic groups develop a similar occupational profile and implicitly
control resources in proportion to their numbers. In medieval France, for
example, Louis IX’s ordinance of 1254 prohibited Jews from engaging in
moneylending at interest and encouraged them to live by manual labor or trade
(see Richard 1992, 162). The dream of German assimilationists during the
nineteenth century was that the occupational profile of Jews after emancipation
would mirror that of the gentiles—a “utopian expectation… shared by many,
Jews and non-Jews alike” (Katz 1986, 67). Efforts were made to decrease the
percentage of Jews involved in trade and increase the percentages involved in
agriculture and artisanry. In the event, however, the result of emancipation was
that Jews were vastly overrepresented among the economic and cultural elite, and
this overrepresentation was a critical feature of German anti-Semitism from 1870
to 1933 (see SAID, Ch. 5).
Similarly, during the 1920s when the United States was attempting to come
to grips with Jewish competition at prestigious private universities, plans were
proposed in which each ethnic group received a percentage of placements at
Harvard reflecting the percentage of racial and national groups in the United
States (Sachar 1992, 329). Similar policies—uniformly denounced by Jewish
organizations—developed during the same period throughout Central Europe
(Hagen 1996). Such policies certainly reflect the importance of ethnicity in
human affairs, but levels of social tension are bound to be chronically high.
Moreover, there is a considerable chance of ethnic warfare even were precise
parity achieved through intensive social controls: As indicated above, it is always
in the interests of any ethnic group to obtain hegemony over the others.

Posted in America, Jews | Comments Off on Whither Judaism & The West?


Kevin MacDonald writes in his book Culture of Critique:

The purpose of this appendix is to show that Jewish organizations have
pursued similar policies regarding immigration in other Western societies. In
France, the official Jewish community has consistently been in favor of
immigration by non-Europeans. Recently the French Jewish community reacted
strongly to pronouncements by actress Bridgette Bardot that “my country,
France, has been invaded again by a foreign population, notably Muslims”
(Forward, May 3, 1996, 4). Chaim Musiquant, executive director of CRIF, the
umbrella organization for French Jewry, stated that Bardot’s statement “skirt[ed]
at the edge of racism.”
Jewish attitudes toward anti-immigrant sentiment in Germany can be seen by
the following incident. A common (presumably self-deceptive) aspect of
contemporary Jewish self-conceptualization is that Israel is an ethnically and
culturally diverse society as a result of large scale immigration of Jews from
different parts of the world (e.g., Peretz 1997, 8; Australia/Israel Review [issue
22.5, April 11-24, 1997]), so much so that it should be held up as a model of
ethnic relations and pro-immigrant attitudes for the rest of the world. Recently
B’nai B’rith, acting in response to what it viewed as indications of a resurgence
of neo-Nazism and anti-immigration sentiment in Germany, received a grant
from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization to
bring German representatives to Israel because Israel is “a diverse, formative
society, which, under strains of war, terrorism and massive, deprived,
immigration, has strived to develop a just, democratic and tolerant society”
(“Toleration and Pluralism: A Comparative Study; UNESCO Evaluation Report
Request no. 9926). “Our view was that the multicultural, multi-ethnic, multireligious
and multi-fissured, democratic society of Israel… could provide a
credible and worthwhile point of comparison for others coming from a similarly
highly-charged society.”
In England, as in the United States, there was an ethnic battle beginning
around 1900 in response to the influx of Eastern European Jews fleeing czarist
anti-Semitism. Jewish political activity was instrumental in defeating an
immigration restriction bill introduced by the Conservative government in 1904.
In this case, the Anglo-Jewish political establishment represented by the Board of
Deputies took a moderate stance, presumably because of fears that further
immigration of Eastern European Jews would fan the flames of anti-Semitism.
However, by this time the majority of the British Jewish community consisted of
recent immigrants, and the Jewish Chronicle, the principle newspaper of the
British Jewish community, campaigned vigorously against the bill (Cesarani
1994, 98). The anti-restrictionist forces won when Nathan Laski, president of the
Manchester Old Hebrew Congregation, got Winston Churchill to oppose the bill.
“Later Churchill freely admitted that, in the Grand Committee of the House of
Commons, he had ‘wrecked the Bill.’ Led by Churchill, the Liberals, Evans-
Gordon [a restrictionist Conservative MP] asserted, ‘choked it [the Bill] with
words until the time-limit was reached.’… A jubilant Laski wrote to Churchill: ‘I
have had over 20 years experience in elections in Manchester—& without
flattery I tell you candidly—there has not been a single man able to arouse the
interest that you have already done—thus I am sure of your future success’”
(Alderman 1983, 71). In the following month Churchill won election from West
Manchester, a district with a large Jewish electorate.
Alderman (p. 72) shows that restrictionist legislation was popular except
among the recent immigrants who had quickly become a numerical majority of
the Jewish community, and, as indicated above, were already able to have a
decisive influence on immigration legislation. However, a more moderate bill
passed in 1905 despite Jewish opposition. In this case Jewish pressure succeeded
in securing exemptions for victims of “prosecution” on religious or political
grounds, but not “persecution” (p. 74). Again the Board of Deputies failed to
make a major effort in opposition to the legislation, and Jewish Ministers of
Parliament did not rise in opposition. However, for the recent immigrants, many
of whom were on the electoral registers illegally, this was a major issue, and “at
the general election of January 1906 these electorates wreaked a terrible
vengeance upon those politicians who had supported the passage of the Aliens’
Immigration Act” (p. 74). Jews overwhelmingly supported candidates who
opposed the legislation, and in at least two districts their votes were decisive,
including the West Manchester district that returned Winston Churchill. The new
Liberal government did not repeal the legislation, but enforced it more leniently.
Since the law was directed against “undesirables,” there is considerable doubt
that it prevented any significant number of Jews from entering, although it
probably did encourage many Jews to go to the United States rather than
England. It is noteworthy that in 1908 Churchill lost an election in his
Manchester district when there were defections among his Jewish supporters
displeased about his opposition to repealing the law as a prospective member of
the cabinet and attracted to the Conservative position on support for religious
schools. Churchill nonetheless remained a staunch supporter of Jewish interests
until “in July 1910 Churchill, no longer dependent on Jewish votes, spoke in
glowing terms of the 1905 legislation.”
As in the case of America, there are also indications that Jewish support for
immigration extended beyond advocating Jewish immigration into England. The
Jewish Chronicle, the principle Jewish newspaper in England, opposed
restriction on Commonwealth immigration in an editorial in the October 20, 1961
edition (p. 20). The editorial noted that Jews perceived the 1905 legislation as
directed against them and stated, “all restrictions on immigration are in principle
retrogressive steps, particularly for this country, and a disappointment to those
throughout the world who would like to see the limitations on the freedom of
movement reduced rather than increased. The issue is one of moral principle.”
During the 1970s the Conservative Party opposed immigration into Britain
because, in the words of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Britain was in
danger of being “swamped” by peoples who lacked “fundamental British
characteristics” (Alderman 1983, 148). Conservative politicians attempted to
obtain Jewish support on this issue, but the anti-immigration policy was
condemned by official Jewish organizations, including the Board of Deputies, on
the basis that “Since all British Jews are, or are descended from, immigrants, it
was unethical—even immoral, for a Jew to support immigration control, or at
least tighter immigration control” (Alderman 1983, 148-149). (In its editorial of
February 24, 1978 [p. 22] the Jewish Chronicle supported a non-restrictionist
immigration policy, but was careful to avoid framing the issue as a Jewish issue,
presumably because a Conservative Jewish Minister of Parliament, Keith Joseph,
had appealed to Jews as Jews to support restriction. The Chronicle was most
concerned to deny the existence of a Jewish vote.) Jews who did support the
government policy did so out of fear that increased immigration would lead to a
fascist backlash and therefore increased anti-Semitism.
In the case of Canada, Abella (1990, 234-235) notes the important
contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in particular,
in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies. Reflecting this attitude, Arthur
Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario, was greeted “with thunderous applause” at
a 1935 convention for the Zionist Organization of Canada when he stated that he
looked “forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less severe
than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw down the
restrictions and make of Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed peoples of the
world” (in M. Brown 1987, 256). Earlier in the century, there were conflicts
between Jews and gentiles over immigration that were entirely analogous to the
situation in England and the United States, including the anti-Semitic motivation
of many attempting to restrict immigration (Abella & Troper 1981, 52-55; M.
Brown 1987, 239). As in the United States, Jews have strongly opposed
majoritarian ethnocentric and nationalist movements, such as the Parti
Québécois, while remaining strong supporters of Zionism (M. Brown 1987,
260ff). Indeed, in the very close 1995 vote on Quebec separatism, the
overwhelming support of Jews and other minorities for preserving links with
Canada was blamed by separatist leader Jaques Parizeau for their defeat.
It is remarkable that the sea change in immigration policy in the Western
world occurred at approximately the same time (1962-1973), and in all countries
the changes reflected the attitudes of elites rather than the great mass of citizens.
In the United States, Britain, Canada, and Australia public opinion polls of
European-derived peoples have consistently shown overwhelming rejection of
immigration by non-European-derived peoples (Betts 1988; Brimelow 1995;
Hawkins 1989; Layton-Henry 1992). A consistent theme has been that
immigration policy has been formulated by elites with control of the media and
that efforts have been made by political leaders of all major parties to keep fear
of immigration off the political agenda (e.g., Betts 1988; Layton-Henry 1992,
In Canada the decision to abandon a “White Canada” policy came from
government officials, not from elected politicians. The White Canada policy was
effectively killed by regulations announced in 1962, and Hawkins (1989, 39)
comments, “This important policy change was made not as a result of
parliamentary or popular demand, but because some senior officials in Canada,
including Dr. [George] Davidson [Deputy Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and later a senior administrator at the United Nations] rightly saw
that Canada could not operate effectively within the United Nations, or in the
multiracial Commonwealth, with the millstone of a racially discriminatory
immigration policy round her neck.” In neither Australia nor Canada was there
ever any popular sentiment to end the older European bias of immigration policy.
The primary and identical motivation of Canadian and
Australian politicians in trying to exclude first the Chinese, then
other Asian migrants and finally all potential non-white
immigrants, was the desire to build and preserve societies and
political systems in their hard-won, distant lands very like those
of the United Kingdom. They also wished to establish without
challenge the primary role there of her founding peoples of
European origin… Undisputed ownership of these territories of
continental size was felt to be confirmed forever, not only by the
fact of possession, but by the hardships and dangers endured by
the early explorers and settlers; the years of back-breaking work
to build the foundations of urban and rural life… The idea that
other peoples, who had taken no part in these pioneering efforts,
might simply arrive in large numbers to exploit important local
resources, or to take advantage of these earlier settlement efforts,
was anathema. (Hawkins 1989, 23)
Given the elite origins of the non-European immigration policies that
emerged throughout the West during this period despite popular opposition, it is
of considerable interest that very little publicity was given to certain critical
events. In Canada, the Report of the Special Joint Committee of 1975 was a
critical event in shaping non-European immigration policy of the 1978
immigration law, but “sad to say, since the press failed to comment on the report
and the electronic media had remained uninvolved, the Canadian public heard
little of it” (Hawkins 1989, 59-60).
Looking back on this national debate on immigration and
population which lasted for six months at most, it can be said
now that it was a very effective one-time consultation with the
immigration world, and with those Canadian institutions and
organizations to whom immigration is an important matter. It did
not reach “the average Canadian” for one simple reason: The
Minister and Cabinet did not trust the average Canadian to
respond in a positive way on this issue, and thought this would
create more trouble than it was worth. As a result of this view,
they did not want to commit the funds to organize extensive
public participation, and made only a minimal effort to mobilize
the media on behalf of a truly national debate. The principle
benefit of this approach was that the badly needed new
Immigration Act was on the statute book only a little later than
Mr. [Robert] Andras [Minister of Manpower and Immigration]
and his colleagues [Hawkins emphasizes Andras’ Deputy
Minister Alan Gotlieb as the second prime mover of this
legislation] originally envisaged. The principle loss was what
some would regard as a golden opportunity to bring a great many
individual Canadians together, to discuss the future of their vast
under-populated land. (Hawkins 1989, 63)
Only after the 1978 law was in effect did the government embark on a public
information campaign to inform Canadians of their new immigration policy
(Hawkins 1989, 79). Hawkins (1989) and Betts (1988) make similar points about
the changes in Australian immigration policy. In Australia the impetus for change
in immigration policy came from small groups of reformers that began appearing
in some Australian universities in the 1960s (Hawkins 1989, 22). Betts (1988,
99ff) in particular emphasizes the idea that the intellectual, academic, and media
elite “trained in the humanities and social sciences” (p. 100) developed a sense of
being a member of a morally and intellectually superior ingroup battling against
Australian parochial nonintellectuals as an outgroup. As in the United States,
there is a perception among Jews that a multicultural society will be a bulwark
against anti-Semitism: Miriam Faine, an editorial committee member of the
Australian Jewish Democrat stated, “The strengthening of multicultural or
diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against antisemitism.
The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would
feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian” (in
McCormack 1994, 11).
As in the United States, family unification became a centerpiece of
immigration policy in Canada and Australia and led to the “chaining”
phenomenon mentioned above. Hawkins shows that in Canada, family reunion
was the policy of liberal Ministers of Parliament desiring higher levels of Third
World immigration (p. 87). In Australia, family reunion became increasingly
important during the 1980s, which also saw a declining importance of Australian
development as a criterion for immigration policy (p. 150). Reflecting these
trends, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry passed a resolution at its
December 1, 1996, meeting to express “its support for the proposition that
Australia’s long term interests are best served by a non-discriminatory
immigration policy which adopts a benevolent attitude to refugees and family
reunion and gives priority to humanitarian considerations.” The main Jewish
publication, the Australia/Israel Review, has consistently editorialized in favor of
high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups. It has published
unflattering portraits of anti-restrictionists (e.g., Kapel 1997) and, in an effort at
punishment and intimidation, published a list of 2000 people associated with
Pauline Hanson’s anti-immigration One Nation party (“Gotcha! One Nation’s
Secret Membership List”; July 8, 1998).
It seems fair to conclude that Jewish organizations have uniformly advocated
high levels of immigration of all racial and ethnic groups into Western societies
and have also advocated a multicultural model for these societies.