America’s WASP-Jewish ruling alliance

Kevin MacDonald is very good at finding articles on his favorite subject.  Here is David Samuels interviewing Benjamin Ginsberg, author of How the Jews defeated Hitler.  Excerpts with shocking levels of honesty follow.  Samuels in bold.

I think the fetishization and appropriation of European Holocaust survivors as communal symbols by the American Jewish community had less to do with the recognition that these people deserved good medical care and housing—which many elderly survivors shamefully lack—than with the desire to compete in the great historical victimhood Olympics which has been so important in American law, politics, and culture since the 1960s. Jews have trouble with the idea that, in the American context, they are simply another wealthy and privileged white-skinned minority. After all we’ve been through, that’s unfair! It’s not us—even if we are wealthy and privileged. So, to negate this discomfort, the community built a gleaming museum to commemorate the suffering of European Jews during the Holocaust on the Mall in Washington, D.C….

In America today, the major East Coast ruling class faction is a fusion of Jews and WASPs. I call it the Judeo-Episcopate, and its manners are kind of fascinating….

I vaguely located the formation of this group sometime in the 1970s and imagined that once you’ve eliminated quotas at Harvard and Yale, all these Jewish kids came in and they had money and they were smart and then the WASP ruling class picked off the bright ones and let them into their finals clubs and other institutions. But you located the formation of the WASP-Jew alliance much earlier, in the Second World War, back when the quotas still existed, and the moment you suggested that in your book I thought, “Oh my God, he’s right.” So, what I want you to do is to flesh out that argument.

The relationship goes back even further, to the period after the Civil War, when you had the“Our Crowd” group, the German Jewish families who were very closely allied financially and even socially with WASP industrialists. They all stole together and built railroads and whatnot.

Then there was this horrible influx of filthy Eastern European Jews.

Yeah, that was one factor—the Yids. So, the old aristocracy accuses the WASP robber barons of being no better than the Jews. This, after a series of political struggles, leads the WASP part of the first WASP-Jewish alliance to cast the Jews off and to ally themselves instead with the old WASP aristocracy. They create a system of “exclusive” institutions, meaning no Jews—exclusive clubs, exclusive hotels, and exclusive boarding schools—which are sort of run by the old aristocrats but funded by the new ones. So, it takes the Jews a long time to recover. During the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, the Jews, even if they have some money, are very much at the social margins. But then just before the beginning of the Second World War, the Jews and the WASPs re-ally again—against the Nazis.

They re-ally not just against the Nazis, but internally they form an alliance against the American masses, who want no part of saving either European Jews or England.

Right. And they find they also have other things to agree about. This is solidified in the 1950s, when you have two strands of anti-Communist crusading. You have the HUAC strand, which was created to investigate Nazism but was seized by Southern Democrats who used it to investigate the liberal wing of the Democratic Party—labor unions, urban machines—and there were a lot of Jews in that part of the Democratic Party. So, the HUAC hearings are very anti-Semitic. They list all the Jews, the real names: “Edward G. Robinson, well his real name is … Goldenberg!”

Then there’s the McCarthy strand. McCarthy is the weapon of the Taft wing of the Republican Party against the East Coast Establishment, and there are no Jews in the East Coast Establishment. McCarthy has no anti-Semitic rhetoric, and in fact his chief assistant is Roy Cohn. But when you put HUAC and McCarthy together, the Jews and the WASPs once again had a common enemy, and this is when they re-coalesced, more or less permanently. And they did so in the media campaign against the witch hunters. People argue that the media is controlled by the Jews. Well, not exactly, but the Jews and the WASPs together did control the media. Then, in the civil rights movement, the Jews and the WASPs also had common enemies, namely the Southern conservatives. And after that, they let you into Harvard.

One of the things that’s fascinating about my WASPy friends and compatriots is that so many dislike the State of Israel, to varying degrees. It bugs them. What interests me is trying to suss out the underlying or psychological impetus or sense of injury beneath these feelings, which are frankly less common in general among American gentiles than they are among American Jews. When I’ve asked them, “Why does this particular injustice bother you so much – why not Tibet?” the answers are very interesting. They come down to something like, “Why on one hand do you Jewish people come to us and say we have to be democratic and inclusive because otherwise we’re anti-Semites, and then back in the old country, where you go on your family vacations or Birthright trips, you get to strut around with automatic weapons and oppress everybody else, which isn’t fair, and is probably what we would want to do here, in some secret corner of our WASPy brains.”

That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.

Is that what I’m saying? I actually think that American Jews are in this sense way too quick to label such feelings as anti-Semitism, even when the effects may be anti-Semitic.

I think you’ve characterized it very well. It’s not 1930s anti-Semitism, but it’s a resentment. It’s a resentment of a particular evil that the Jews have done, which is the Jews have undermined WASP America but refuse to do the same thing in their own country.

You know, there’s an old joke: Three elderly Jewish Communists in the Bronx are talking. They’re in their eighties. One is in a wheelchair. So they say, “Abie Cohen, have you heard from him lately?” “Abie, he’s had some health problems but he’s living in Los Angeles in a nursing home, still working for socialism.” “All right, what about Mike Abramowitz, have you heard from him?” “Well, you know Mike is in rehab, he fell, he broke his hip, a lot of problems. But even in the nursing home he’s fighting for socialism!” So someone says, “What about Moe Goldberg?” “Oh, Moe, he moved to Israel, didn’t you know that?” “Well, is he fighting for socialism?” The guy answers, “In his own country? What kind of man do you think he is?!”

So I think as Jewish humor often does, that captures the point that you made. I’ve actually had students say exactly this. They say, “How come in my high school we couldn’t sing Christmas carols; however, in Israel they can establish a religion?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.

25 Responses

  1. The second WASP-Jewish alliance dates to Rockefeller’s use of Kuhn Loeb as his financier rather than the house of Morgan. This created a split in the establishment between the Rock-Jewish alliance and the Anglo-Morgan alliance which the former eventually won in large part by the Glass-Steagall Act, taking over Chase Bank, inventing the Social Science Research Council and placing its members in positions of power under the New Deal. Of course, in the late 30s it seems the old Morgan boys came pouring into the New Deal. I’ve long wondered if the business plot had anything to do with this.

  2. @Bonald – But, but, but… these people are ‘Jewish’ only by descent – in the same sense that those American’s of European descent are ‘Christians’.

    It is necessary to distinguish those who practice real (ie Orthodox) Judaism from those who variously have some Jewish ancestors, or are apostate.

    Practicing Orthodox Jews are certainly Good Guys (on the whole) – e.g. ex Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (in the UK), David Goldman (Spengler) of the Asia Times, or my penfriend the journalist Sam Shulman.

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/SchulmanGayMarriage.php

    It is wrong to conflate the likes of them, with secular Leftist radicals who have rejected real Judaism, and those who are merely descended from real Jews.

  3. Bruce, they are also Jewish in the sense that they actually call themselves Jewish.

  4. @josh – the analogy holds. After all, the Archbishop of Canterbury calls himself a Christian.

  5. It’s somewhat different, because we are talking about an ethnic group. My father is a Jew in some meaningful sense of the word even if he doesn’t attend temple (I think he believes in God, but we don’t really discuss it). His oldest friends are Jewish and all their friends are all Jewish (my father has non-Jewish friends since he married a shiksa).

    If you would like to coin a new term for these people (though they call themselves Jewish) go right ahead, but you can’t simply call them progressives and lump them in with WASPs (another non-religious ethnic group) without losing a great deal of information.

  6. IIRC, the Zionist pioneers were not very religious-they were secular ethno-nationalists/socialists.

    The forgotten WASPs:

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/08/paul-gottfried-hates-wasp-people.html

    Brewster [Sr.], described by one acquaintance as “a crustacean McKinleyite Republican,” entertained many members of Congress at his Catoctin retreat. [. . .] Brewster’s politics, however, were too extreme to be openly expressed in the mainstream GOP. His anti-Communism was so rabid and sweeping that his son remembered that “if I were considerate enough to visit him in Washington with a friend whose parents were somehow associated with the Roosevelt administration, it was natural that he should refer quite regularly to my ‘Communist friends.'” [. . .] Brewster’s political opinions and his business contacts with Germany led the FBI to start a file on him. While various information testified that he admired the Nazi system and claimed to have met personally with Hitler on visits to Germany, the FBI’s investigation revealed little aside from the fact that “BREWSTER possessed a great hatred for Jews and regarded them with suspicion at all times.”

    Brewster’s views on race and religion were perhaps most fully expressed in the works of his good friend the eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard, who believed that Anglo-Saxon civilization and America’s ancestral purity were under threat from inferior races. Stoddard was, like Brewster, a Harvard Law School graduate and sometime resident of Brookline, Massachusetts. (Brookline was, not coincidentally, the location of the nation’s first country club.) Stoddard’s works included evocative titles such as The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy and The Revolt Against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-Man.

    American society, according to Brewster and Stoddard, was a racial aristocracy under threat [. . .] Many upper-class East Coast gentlemen shared the view that snobbery and racial exclusion were necessary to preserve their elite culture, even if they stopped short of Stoddard’s conclusion that “race cleansing is the obvious starting-point for race betterment.” Although Brewster’s virulent racial opinions were welcome in polite society, most of his peers expressed themselves in more decorous terms. [. . .]

    Brewster Sr. was a strikingly handsome man, with a magnetic appeal to women. He was married five times, although the legality of several of those unions was questionable. [. . .] Kingman Jr. recalled that at his father’s funeral, it was his role to keep the wives apart; they were all still fond of him.

    Kingman Jr. once told an interviewer that he had been “terrified” of the father who had given him “a stepmother in every port.” [. . .] The son detested his father’s fascism and ultraconservatism, and so kept some distance. [. . .]

    Kingman Sr.s paranoid racism, extreme anticommunism, and unbridled hatred of Franklin Roosevelt reflected an entire class’s inability to cope with drastic change.

    Some members of Kingman Jr.’s generation adopted the reactionary outlook of their fathers. Others turned against their class and toward communism and other radical philosophies. But Brewster and his cohorts in the liberal establishment would seek to change in order to preserve, in FDR’s well-known formulation.

  7. @josh – “If you would like to coin a new term for these people” – but that is precisely what I did! This is getting a bit silly. It sounds like you actually *want* to lump everybody of Jewish ancestry together, regardless of truly enormous differences in beliefs, lifestyle and aspirations. For the sake of a word or two of clarification, I would rather be accurate. I wouldn’t want to end up fighting my natural allies – after all, there aren’t many of them.

  8. I’m not interested in lumping for the sake of fighting or for politics, I am interested in lumping because ethnic Jews are indeed a natural lump and even consider themselves as such.

  9. Practicing Orthodox Jews are certainly Good Guys

    That is completely insane.

    Where, exactly, d’ya think former Yeshiva student and current rational atheist dingbat Eliezer Yukdowski got the idea that calling the Blessed Virgin Mary a whore was a good plan? I’m thinking Yeshiva. Actually, it is certainly Yeshiva. Same place Israeli Orthodox learn what a good idea it is to spit on Christians in the street.

    Read that thread and comments. His head got that way somehow. “To express my discontent with my Orthodox Jewish upbringing, I’ll go on the internet to say `The Blessed Virgin Mary was a whore.'” There’s not much exceptional about Yudkowski, either. First generation Orthodox apostates tend to express their hatred of religion by hating, specifically, Christianity (there are a very few, noble exceptions, of course). Non-apostate ones are different in that they believe in Judaism and hate Christianity.

    They haven’t really come for the Mormons yet, but, well, you know what Niemoller said.

  10. Bruce,

    Don’t you think it’s funny that you object to generalizations about Jews (even, as in this case, in a conversation between two Jews) but not about our fellow Christians, the WASPs? Surely some white anglo-saxon protestants are good guys too? It is in fact much more justifiable to generalize about Jews than about Protestants, because the former really are pretty monolithic in their support of the sexual revolution and antipathy to public Christianity (as shown in the survey quoted a few posts back) whereas the latter are all over the place.

  11. That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.

    This is the line of the article. The shameless, routinized dishonesty it epitomizes is dizzying. When the WASPs express, very quietly and rarely, a little discomfort with Jews’ routine, violent, shouted-from-the-rooftops hyper-hypocrisy, that’s how we know they are secret anti-semites. Ilion should be dispatched immediately!

  12. Yes, but what was unexpected is that Samuels called him on it, and then Ginsberg in a roundabout way concedes the point. At least, that’s one way of reading the last exchange. However, they stop before drawing the final conclusion, that not only is WASP resentment of Jewish hypocricy not anti-semitism; it’s actually justified. I’m not at all surprised that they didn’t carry their logic that far, but they carried it farther than I expected.

  13. Bruce,

    Orthodox Judaism isn’t “real” Judaism, certainly not in the sense of authenticity or originality. Even the antecedents of Orthodox Judaism didn’t develop until well into the modern era (<500 years ago).

    My definition of "real Judaism" is that which is most in line with a straightforward, in-context reading of Torah. Karaites take the cake on that one as far as I'm concerned.

    Though I do agree that people like Abe Foxman, for instance, are the "fakest" Jews. Sure, they identify as Jews and have Jewish blood, but they have severely transgressed against the core requirements of membership in God's chosen nation (i.e. the so-called "10 Commandments", actually 11 declarations).

    Bonald,

    Statistics about Jews as one big group are misleading. For example, support for Zionism will show up as very high because that's how it averages out, but there are a number of Jewish factions in which support for Zionism is very low, and in fact active opposition to Zionism is high. One of those is ultra-Orthodox Judaism, for instance.

    I happen to know that young secular Jews in the US are very much like other young secular people in this country: they take the side of whoever has darker skin in a given conflict. So, a surprising number of them support Palestinians over Israel.

    The numbers also get skewed for generational reasons:

    The Golden Generation of Jews was for the most part very assimilationist and got along well with their Christian neighbors. Many of the Boomer and Gen-X Jews are very secular but still quite Zionist (especially the Boomers), and it's they who really got the ball rolling on the whole anti-Christian thing. And now, the Millennial Jews are just dopey kids who grew up in a PC world and for the most part haven't questioned it.

  14. the former really are pretty monolithic in their support of the sexual revolution

    I don’t think you’ve shown any such thing.

  15. Bruce is entirely correct here.

  16. Allow me to repeat myself:

    “A 2012 poll found that 93% of American Jews supported legalized abortion in most cases, 80% supported gay marriage, and they are more favorably disposed to Muslims than to conservative Christians.”

    What does it take to meet your definition of “monolithic”?

  17. Bonald, they seem to want to say that those Jews aren’t Jews despite whatever they and whoever did the survey say.

    Of course, its not clear what make the Orthodox the real Jews considering the extent to which Orthodox was a reaction *against* Judaism as it was practiced in the time of say the Sabbatai Zevi episode.

  18. Bonald,

    Imagine that a poll was given to all Americans calling themselves some form of Christian, and the headline read something like “Christians Believe 60-30% in Human Evolution”. Would that make Christians decisively pro-evolution? Or might evangelical Protestants still have something to say about that?

    For me at least, the problem is that I do not see how the typical respondent to the poll you cited belongs in the same box as an observant Jew–let alone a righteous one–any more than you belong in the same box as, say, Pope Francis, except in the most general sense, which is also the least meaningful one.

    By the way, Pew Research has been consistently pumping out polls whose headlines declare most Catholics support Pope Francis, that they see him as a change for the better, etc.

    Another thing Pew Research found is that among Jews asked whether religion was important in their daily lives, 58% said No–the highest for any single religious identity by 28 percentage points. (Next highest: Catholic.)

  19. “By the way, Pew Research has been consistently pumping out polls whose headlines declare most Catholics support Pope Francis, that they see him as a change for the better, etc.”

    Does that mean that most Catholics are liberals? Or does it mean that most Catholics are sycophants?

  20. Obviously most Catholics are liberals and reject the clear teachings of the Church. It’s just as clear that they are not as far Left as most Jews.

  21. Jews are a religious group and an ethnicity. We should always remember to talk about both groups. Saying that atheistic/reform Jews “aren’t really Jews” is missing the point. Jews as an ethnicity are more interesting and important than Jews as a religious group, from a gentile perspective at least. The nation of Israel seems to agree with us, by the way, as they give citizenship to ethnic, not religious Jews. Trotsky would be able to become an Israeli citizen more easily than Sammy Davis jr., for example.

    Frankly, the only reason that we are interested in Jews one way or another is that they are such a consistent source of problems for gentile societies. Probably no ethnic group has ever done as much net harm to our societies as Jews have. The more atheistic Jews are, the more of a problem they seem to be. So if Jews are noteworthy primarily as a problem, and if the most atheistic ones are some of the most reliable troublemakers, then one could argue that these are the most authentic Jews of all.

    Like it or not, modern Jews have succeeded either in redefining Jewishness or in revealing the true character it had all along. We can debate which of these things they have done, but the conclusion as to how we must understand Jewishness now is the same in either case: it is an ethnic supremacist ideology of the most militant sort. Furthermore, it is especially significant since the preferred methods of the Jews align almost perfectly with the great weaknesses of gentiles. Just as native Americans were especially vulnerable to smallpox and alcohol, so gentiles appear to be uniquely vulnerable to Jewish victim-mongering and rabble-rousing. There is a reason that Jews are not wasting time advocating mass third world immigration in China. There simply are no comparable beliefs in equality and freedom among the Chinese to prey upon and exploit.

    So talking about whether Karaites or Orthodox Jews are the “real” Jews is rather absurd. So far as it matters to gentile civilizations, the Trotskys, Alinskys, and Sheldon Adelsons of the world are the most “real” Jews of all.

  22. If there are obstacles in the path of some objective, it does no good to generalize or distort the obstacles. Instead, obstacles need to be defined clearly and accurately.

    Simplifying down to “Jews” is counterproductive in the long term. Distinguishing between different types of Jews is important for virtually all the same reasons it’s important to distinguish between different types of Christians in other contexts.

    In fact, it’s must simpler than that because one need make only one distinction between Jews: the righteous and the unrighteous. God’s set-aside people will be recognizable by their righteousness. If a Jew is not righteous then he is cut off from those people, but if he is righteous then he is still one of the chosen and to turn against him is to turn against God.

    People who accept and trust in the saving grace of Jesus Christ are joined with, but do not supplant, God’s set-aside people. I think this can be plainly observed in the world regardless whether you agree with the underlying mechanisms, but hey, maybe I’m just seeing what I want to see. And if that is ethno-supremacism, then I’d say as a non-Jew you couldn’t ask for better terms.

    Equally important as distinguishing righteous from unrighteous is to not redefine words such as “real”, because muddying the language, even if we can all kind of nod and understand what you’re getting at now, will lead to confusion, poor outcomes, and unintended consequences later on.

  23. So essentially you are saying “I’m not an ethno-supremacist, I’m one of God’s chosen people.” I don’t think I really need to add anything to that.

    “And if that is ethno-supremacism, then I’d say as a non-Jew you couldn’t ask for better terms.” What logical reason is there for gentiles to concede our inferiority and then start looking for a more favorable set of terms in the first place? Is there any need for us to do this? I’d rather not.

    I do agree that maybe the world “real” is inaccurate. Probably I should have said “typical,” or “representative.”

  24. So essentially you are saying “I’m not an ethno-supremacist, I’m one of God’s chosen people.”

    I’m not in the habit of denying the natural ethno-supremacism that all healthy people feel. I made no such denial of Jews in general nor myself in particular. (Though inasmuch as I’ve thought about it, I think my own feelings of ethno-supremacism are pretty benevolent, and also well-tempered by outside perspectives–I read Bonald’s blog, for instance.)

    I applaud white gentiles who have overcome the PC cultural Marxist ethnomasochistic poison that’s in our drinking water and, in good health, have embraced their natural ethno-supremacism too.

    However, this ethno-supremacism business is a separate matter from God’s covenant with the Jews. This covenant says nothing about them being better or worse than other groups, only that they are set aside by God. Set aside for what depends on your interpretation, but usually the term that goes there is “redemption”.

    What I said earlier, but maybe not clearly enough, was that if this Biblical set-asideness of the Jews is something you believe qualifies as ethno-supremacism, then it is the best kind you could want to see in a group you don’t belong to, since you have an open invitation to join in their redemption.

    What logical reason is there for gentiles to concede our inferiority and then start looking for a more favorable set of terms in the first place?

    Of course, my previous statements kind of break down if you’re a secular individual interested primarily in logic rather than God’s laws. Here’s response to the secular argument anyway:

    A white gentile society, even if Jew-free, would have serious issues to deal with if it had a significant secular/atheist population. Consider two such possible societies:

    1. A white gentile society that is also secular
    2. A white gentile society that is Christian-based

    In society #1, what you have is either something that would devolve into what much of northwest Europe looked like before the spread of Christianity (i.e. barbarianism, in which case I hope you’re Built Ford Tough), or something that would devolve into what much of northwest Europe will look like in 50 years if the nationalist parties are all put down. This is because in their own right, gentile atheists A) support abortion, gay marriage, mass immigration etc. at very high (can we say “monolithic”?) levels, and B) often have high IQs and advanced degrees that get them into positions of influence. [Pew research, again.]

    Regarding society #2, I remind you that, ironically, one of the ways unrighteous Jews have poisoned our present society is by making it very safe to be openly atheist. I don’t know what Christianity authoritatively says about the proper treatment of atheists, but Christian societies historically considered atheists a threat and treated them as such. Even in today’s debauched America, atheists are one of the most poorly-regarded groups. So, if you think society would be better off both Christian-based and without Jews, you’d better become a Christian yourself.

    But then that brings us back to the point I made earlier, which is that if you are a Christian and have turned against all Jews, unless you know for a fact that there are no righteous Jews then you have turned against God.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: