by E. Michael Jones
Dorothy Rabinowitz recently announced the death of multiculturalism in the Wall Street Journal. Citing the pronouncements of the prime ministers of England, France, and Germany, she crowed: “Who would have believed that in the space of a few weeks the leaders of the three major European powers would publicly denounce multiculturalism and declare in so many words that it was a proven disaster and a threat to society?”
Rabinowitz claimed that multiculturalism had “led to segregated communities”; it had also “helped nurture radical Islam’s terrorist cells.” Rabinowitz goes on to claim that multiculturalism, which she describes as “the unofficial established religion of the universities,” is, in fact, “a faith whose requirements have shaped every aspect of cultural, economic and political life in Western democracies for the last 50 years.”
Twenty years ago Rabinowitz was worried about Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran. Twenty years ago she was writing to the editors of papers like the Philadelphia Inquirer demanding that that paper drop Joe Sobran as one of its columnists. Now she’s worried about Major Hasan. For those of you who have trouble keeping mass murderers straight in your mind, in November 2009 Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire in Fort Hood killing 12 fellow soldiers and wounding 32 others. Rabinowitz attributes this attack to a combination of “Hasan’s well-documented jihadist sympathies” and multiculturalism. She ends her piece by claiming that when Major Hasan goes on trial, “The forces of multiculturalist piety, which played so central a role in advancing this Army major and concealing the menace he posed, will be the invisible presence on trial with him.”
Associating multiculturalism with Islam is a daring rhetorical move, especially when that rhetorical move is made by a Jew, because Dorothy Rabinowitz must know, even if the dumb goyim who read her columns in the Wall Street Journal do not, that multiculturalism has been a completely Jewish creation from start to finish. For over 100 years now, Jews in America have been promoting multiculturalism as a strategy for weakening the dominant culture and thereby enhancing Jewish power.
In his essay “Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration policy, 1881-1965: A Historical Review,” University of California at Long Beach Professor Kevin MacDonald shows in exhaustive detail how Jewish organizations supported multiculturalism almost from the moment when eastern European Jews arrived in significant numbers on these shores. According to MacDonald, the “historical record supports the proposition that making the US into a multicultural society has been a major goal of organized Jewry beginning in the 19th century.” The main way in which Jews promoted multiculturalism is by changing this nation’s immigration laws. “Jews,” according to MacDonald, “have been ‘the single most persistent pressure group favoring a liberal immigration policy’ in the US in the entire immigration debate beginning in 1881.” MacDonald goes on to cite one Jewish authority after another to back up his case. According to Neuringer:
Immigration had constituted a prime object of concern for practically every major Jewish defense and community relations organization. Over the years their spokesmen had assiduously attended congressional hearings and the Jewish effort was of the utmost importance in establishing and financing such nonsectarian groups as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons.
According to Nathan C. Belth:
In Congress, through all the years when the immigration battles were being fought, the names of Jewish legislators were in the forefront of the liberal forces: from Adolph Sabath to Samuel Dickstein and Emanuel Celler in the House and from Herbert H. Lehman to Jacob Javits in the Senate. Each in this time was leader of the ADL and of major organizations concerned with democratic development.
Indeed, writing in 1914, the sociologist Edward A. Ross had a clear sense that liberal immigration policy was exclusively a Jewish issue.
The Jewish promotion of multiculturalism in America had two main goals: 1) “maximizing the number of Jewish immigrants” and 2) “opening up the US to immigration from all of the peoples of the world.” Both goals paradoxically used “diversity” as a stalking horse to advance Jewish ethnocentrism. This is so because the whole point of multiculturalism is not so much the promotion of diversity as it is the demographic dilution of homogeneity. Jews wanted to weaken the majority culture because they always felt uncomfortable in unified coherent cultures. The defenders of immigration restriction during this period made it clear that America was a country which had been settled and was then inhabited by Christians from northwestern Europe. This implied racial superiority in the minds of the Jewish proponents of restrictionism but not the legislators, who claimed that “the northern European, and particularly Anglo-Saxons, made this country. . . . It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.” Representative Leavitt saw through the diversity ploy when he complained that the Jews were “the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals.”
The restrictionists complained that the Jews were attempting to shape U.S. immigration policy according to Jewish interests and not in the interests of the country which welcomed them as immigrants:
Hence the endeavor of the Jews to control the immigration policy of the United States. . . . The systematic campaign in newspapers to break down all arguments for restriction and to claim nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. . . . literature that proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in America emanates from subtle Hebrew brains.
The reference to “subtle Hebrew brains” probably excludes Dorothy Rabinowitz from our discussion, but the purpose of multiculturalism has remained constant, as has the Jewish support for it. The purpose of multiculturalism has always been to subvert coherent cultures, weaken the majority, and thereby enhance the Jews’ power. Or, as MacDonald puts it,
ethnic and religious pluralism serves external Jewish interest because Jews become just one of many ethnic groups. This results in the diffusion of political and cultural influence among the various ethnic and religious groups, and it becomes difficult or impossible to develop unified, cohesive groups of gentiles united in their opposition to Judaism. Historically, major anti-Semitic movements have tended to erupt in societies that have been, apart from the Jews, religiously and/or ethnically homogeneous.
The restrictionists included organized labor, who feared competition from the new immigrants who were a perennial source of cheap labor.
“During this period, the immigration issue was also economic. Native businesses feared cutthroat Jewish business practices.” Jewish factory owners, the group most likely to be the backers of Jewish organizations favored immigration as a source of cheap labor. During this period  Edward A. Ross described gentile resentment for “being obliged to engage in a humiliating and undignified scramble to keep his trade or his clients against the Jewish invader—suggesting a rather broad-based concern with Jewish economic competition.”
The early opponents of multiculturalism also feared Jews as agents of cultural subversion: “Our whole system of amusements has been taken over by men who came here on the crest of the south and east European immigration. They produce our horrible film stories; they compose and dish out to us our jazz music, they write many of the books we read, and edit our magazines and newspapers.”
Jewish immigrants were also “widely perceived to be ... disproportionately involved in radical political movements,” a fact often acknowledged by the Jewish press. In one of its editorials, The American Hebrew pointed out that “we must not forget the immigrants form Russia and Austria will becoming from countries infested with Bolshevism, and it will require more than a superficial effort to make good citizens out of them.”
The fact that Jewish immigrants form Eastern Europe were viewed as “infected with Bolshevism. . . unpatriotic, alien, unassimilable” resulted in a wave of anti-Semitism in the 1920s and contributed to the restrictive immigration legislation of the period. Almost a decade after the immigration debate ended with the triumph of the restrictionists in 1924, Jewish immigration was still having consequences for American identity. As MacDonald points out, “In Philadelphia in the 1930s, fully 72.2 percent of the Communist Party members were the children of Jewish immigrants who came to the US in the late 19th and early 20th century.”
During the 1920s, Franz Boas, the Prussian Jewish anthropology professor from Columbia University, turned the social sciences into a form of ethnic warfare. Arguments from anthropology, no matter how absurd, could then be marshaled as “scientific” refutation of restrictionist immigration policies:
Carl Degler notes that Boas’s professional correspondence “reveals that an important motive behind his famous head-measuring project in 1910 was his strong personal interest in keeping America diverse in population.” The study, whose conclusions were placed into the Congressional Record by Representative Emanuel Celler during the debate on immigration restriction . . . concluded that the environmental difference consequent to immigration caused differences in head shape.
The Battle over multiculturalism continued unabated after World War II. Senator Pat McCarran, a Catholic from Arizona, was subjected to psychoanalysis on the pages of Commentary magazine, published by the American Jewish Committee, as a way of explaining his opposition to the progressive Jewish view on immigration. As before the war, the opposition to McCarran’s bill—which became the McCarran-Walter act—“was led by Jewish members of Congress, including Celler, Javits and Lehman, all of whom . . . were prominent members of the ADL.”
There is a direct link between Jewish anthropology as practiced by Franz Boas during the 1920s and Jewish immigration policy as implemented by Senator Jacob Javits in 1965. In other words, if New York City resembles Mogadishu these days, we have Dorothy Rabinowitz and her co-religionists to thank for this. The main reason people like Major Hasan are American citizens and serving in the United States Army is the immigration bill of 1965, which was a Jewish operation from start to finish. It turns out that the Jewish organizations that promoted multiculturalism all shared the view of America proposed by Philip Roth in his recent paranoid fantasy novel The Plot against America. America, in spite of waging war on Hitler’s Third Reich, was always in Jewish eyes a country waiting to be taken over by Nazi extremists. Multiculturalism was the Jewish way of ensuring that that would not happen. As MacDonald points out:
Earl Raab . . . remarks very positively on the success of revised American foreign policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States since 1965. Raab notes that the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy, and he has also maintained that one fact inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary US is “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop.” Or more colorfully: “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.” . . . Indeed the “primary objective” of Jewish political activity after 1945 “was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States.”
Charles Silberman notes that “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups. It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stand on most other so-called ‘social’ issues.”
Silberman’s testimony leads MacDonald to conclude that:
The 1965 law is having the effect that it seems reasonable to suppose had been intended by its Jewish advocates all along: the Census Bureau projects that by the year 2050, European-derived peoples with no longer be a majority of the population of America. Moreover, multiculturalism has already become a powerful ideological and political reality.
In promoting their multicultural agenda, the Jews claimed that it would lead to collaboration and brotherhood. Writers like Boas protégé Israel Ehrenberg, who wrote under the name of Ashley Montagu, claimed that human beings were “innately cooperative.” Any evidence that increasing ethnic diversity led to ethnic conflict, i.e., violence, was ignored by the Boasian social science establishment, which had an a priori and overriding commitment to Jewish universalism. Conflict and violence, however, were inevitable, especially since the dominant philosophy of post-Christian America was then and is now Capitalism, which is the economic version of the war of all against all:
If one adopts a cultural pluralism model in which there is free competition for resources and reproductive success, difference between ethnic groups are inevitable, and history suggests that such differences would result in animosity from the groups that are losing out. . . . Under present policies, each racial/ethnic group in the world is encouraged to press its interest in expanding its demographic and political presence in America and can be expected to do so if given the opportunity.
According to MacDonald, the American Jewish Committee, the main proponent of both multiculturalism and unrestricted immigration, succeeded in changing the ethnic make up of the United States by a combination of “strong leadership [particularly Louis Marshall], internal cohesion, well-funded programs, sophisticated lobbying techniques, well-chosen non-Jewish allies and good timing.”
If timing is everything the timing was all wrong in Rabinowitz’s attack on the connection between Major Hasan, Islam and multiculturalism. One the one hand, Islam was changing the political face of the Middle East through non-violent, pro-democracy rallies. Egypt had just toppled its dictator in a bloodless revolution. (Paradoxically, the same pro-democracy forces that neocons like Rabinowitz had promoted as agents of change in the Middle East were finally having their day, and the neocons were upset being pro-democracy in the Middle East means invariably being anti-Israel.) On the other hand, at the very moment when the Islamic world was becoming a paradigm of non-violent democratic revolution of the sort that the neocons all claimed they desired in the mid-East, Americans were treated to a spate of mass murders perpetrated by Jews.
That you may not have noticed this is not surprising. Ever since the Leo Frank trial in America, the Dreyfus case in France, and the Mendil Beilis case in Russia, the Jewish-dominated press has adopted a policy of 1) suppressing the evidence whenever a suspect in a crime turns out to be a Jew and 2) accusing anyone who brings up this fact of anti-Semitism. In addition to that, the Jewish dominated media work for the exoneration of any Jew brought to trial. The pattern had already been established in the 19th century. Once Jews gained significant control over the press, they instituted a policy which suppressed the identification of Jews as criminals, or as a fallback position, once the Jewishness of the perpetrator was inescapable, of proclaiming the suspect as an innocent victim of anti-Semitism. The trial of Leo Frank is a good case in point, and it has served as a template for the Jewish press ever since. As one writer put it in 1892:
It is a strange phenomenon which otherwise is evident in no other religious group that the Jewish public opinion in the Austrian press always shows solidarity with Jewish criminals. Every time a Jew is convicted of a crime, it is take as new proof for pervasive anti-Semitism. Every conviction is evidence of anti-Semitism.
Dorothy Rabinowitz could have bolstered her case against multiculturalism if she had cited the story of Maksim Gellman. One week before her article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Maksim Gelman, a recent Ukrainian immigrant, who became an American citizen in 2005, went on a two-day killing spree from February 11 to February 12, 2011, which resulted in the stabbing deaths of four people, including his girlfriend’s mother, and the wounding of five others. The only problem in this scenario, at least from Rabinowitz’s point of view, is that Gelman is a Jew. He was certainly a product of Jewish-inspired multiculturalism which opened this country’s borders in 1965, but it is unlikely that he was inspired by jihadism, especially since his father drove an ambulance for a Jewish organization. If Rabinowitz were interested in understanding the psychology of mass murderers, she should have focused on the Jews because it was they who were making the news as mass murderers in early 2011, not the Muslims.
The story of Jared Loughner is another case in point. Roughly one month before Maksim Gelman’s homocidal rampage in New York, on January 8, 2011, Loughner went on a shooting spree that resulted in the death of six people and left 14 wounded. One of the people whom Loughner shot but did not kill was United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who is Jewish. The response to the killings was both predictable and immediate. Loughner was accused of being a right-wing anti-Semite whose actions had been set in motion by right-wing talk radio and politicians like Sara Palin, whose website featured a picture of Giffords in the cross hairs of a gun sight. The hate crime story circulated widely until the facts started to emerge. Loughner, it turns out, was a Jew himself. In fact, according to some reports, he was a member of the same synagogue that Giffords attended. To make matters more complicated, his favorite book was Mein Kampf. Loughner was, in other words, a Jewish Nazi. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency:
Bryce Tierney, a friend of Loughner from high school, told Mother Jones magazine that the alleged gunman posted “Mein Kampf” as a “favorite book” on a social media site in part to provoke his mother, who Tierney says is Jewish.
Once it became apparent that Loughner was Jewish, and once it had become clear that it was going to be impossible to maintain the right-wing, anti-Semite story line, the story began to change. The ADL then released an “analysis of the messages written by Arizona shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner” which “revealed Wednesday that the he may not have been motivated by anti-Semitism when shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but rather by a profound mistrust of government.”
“While there is still much we don't know about Loughner, his online footprint offers one window into his mindset in the months leading up to the killings,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. “The writings that have come to light so far suggest someone who probably was not associated with any extremist group or movement, but who has a generic distrust of government and a vague interest in conspiracy theories.”
In other words, the ADL was telling us that the fact that Mein Kampf was Loughner’s favorite book had nothing to do with his attempted assassination of a Jewish member of Congress. The only way this makes sense is if we look at the already mentioned pattern of Jewish organizations and newspapers, who exonerate automatically any suspect who happens to be Jewish. But even granting that, it’s probably just as accurate to say that the concept of a Jewish Nazi is simply too difficult for the media to process.
The historic precedent of Jewish Nazis assassinating Jewish politicians, however, has already been established, no matter how alien it seems to 21st American media categories. Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley was a Jewish Nazi in the most literal sense of the term. In February 1919, he assassinated Kurt Eisner, the Jewish premier of the Bavarian soviet republic. Arco Valley had served in the German army during World War I and upon his return to civilian life in Munich he was appalled at what he saw as the Jewish influence which took over German culture in the wake of their defeat. Some speculate that he decided to kill Eisner to prove himself to his nationalist friends in the Thule Society, but the mystery remains. Why would a Jew other than Groucho Marx want to be part of an organization that would not accept him as a member? Politics may have had something to do with it. Arco Valley is reported to have said that “Eisner is a Bolshevist, a Jew; he isn’t German; he doesn’t feel German; he subverts all patriotic thoughts and feelings. He is a traitor to this land.” Once Arco Valley killed Eisner, the students at the university which he was attending proclaimed him a hero. Hitler was grateful to his Jewish supporter because Eisner’s death led to the creation of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, under another Jew, Eugen Levine, and this convinced groups like the Bavarian Freikorps that things had gone too far and caused them to intervene and put an end to the Communist, i.e., Jewish takeover of Bavaria. Arco Valley was sentenced to death for his crime, but a sympathetic judge overturned the ruling and commuted it to a five-year prison sentence. Four years into his sentence, he was evicted from his cell to make room for Adolf Hitler, who wrote Mein Kampf during his stay there.
Jewish mass murderers remain invisible in America in the 21st century because the concept of the hate crime was created with a political purpose in mind. Murder as already a crime in every state in the union; hate crimes were created to demonize a certain group of people. As a result, the hate crime went on to become a self-fulfilling prophecy because it is only applied when the perpetrator fits a certain profile. As the late Tom Herron pointed out in these pages, the Jew who deliberately set fire to the church of the little flower in Royal Oak, Michigan as retaliation against Father Coughlin, could not be construed as the perpetrator of a hate crime because he was Jewish.
Needless to say, the Rabinowitz theory that mass murders came about when jihadism mixed with multiculturalism was looking less plausible by the minute. On February 10, 2010, which is to say one year before Rabinowitz discovered the key to mass murder in a combination of jihadism and multiculturalism, a white professor walked into a faculty meeting of the biology department at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and murdered the African-American department chairman and other persons of color in the department. This would seem to constitute the quintessential hate crime. That’s how the media would have played the story had they not discovered that the mass murderer in this instance turned out to be a woman and Jewish. Once those facts were established, the story, deprived of its political usefulness, disappeared from the headlines.
Amy Bishop, the Jewish lady who gunned down her black department chairman, had murdered her brother a few years earlier but had never been prosecuted because her parents were both wealthy and members of powerful Jewish organizations. Once it becomes apparent that a mass murderer is Jewish the story changes dramatically. Suddenly, we are out of the realm of hate crime and into the realm of dynamic silence, or back to the ‘60s therapy explanation of why basically good people do bad things when under stress because they have not been granted tenure, etc.
Just as the recently deceased Bernard Nathanson found that he ceased to exist as a person in the public record when the became a Jew who opposed abortion (there is not such thing as a pro-life Jew according to the categories of the New York Times) so there is no such thing as a Jewish Nazi or a Jewish mass murderer. The category simply doesn’t exist.
Unless, of course, you read Israel Shahak’s account of Baruch Goldstein, yet another Jewish mass murderer, and how he murdered 29 men, including children, at the Patriarch’s cave in Hebron on February 25, 1994. Goldstein was born into an Orthodox Jewish family from Brooklyn, where he attended the Yeshivah of Flatbush, Yeshiva University and Albert Einstein College of Medicine. One of Goldstein’s boyhood friends was Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League, and so it came as no surprise when Goldstein joined that organization.
Goldstein emigrated to Israel in 1983 and served as a physician in the Israeli Defense Force, where he refused to treat Arabs, even if they were members of the IDF. The IDF ignored his disobedience of a direct order and sheltered him instead of punishing him until the day he died at the hands of the Palestinians he had failed to kill in his attack.
According to the Wikipedia entry under his name, “Goldstein was immediately denounced with shocked horror even by the mainstream Orthodox,’ and most in Israel classified Goldstein as insane.” Israel Shakak tells a different story in his book Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, which documents Goldstein’s apotheosis as a Jewish saint, complete with monument and pilgrimages to his gravesite. The canonization procedures started at Goldstein’s funeral when Rabbi Yaacov Perrin announced that the lives of one million Arabs were “not worth a single Jewish fingernail.” Goldstein had become a Jewish saint because he was a Jewish mass murderer:
While the government seemed determined to play down the magnitude of the massacre, the Jewish masses had turned Goldstein into a saint. . . . In 2010, Jewish settlers were criticized that during celebrations of Purim they sang songs praising Baruch Goldstein's massacre demonstratively in front of their Arab neighbours. A phrase from the song reads "Dr. Goldstein, there is none other like you in the world. Dr. Goldstein, we all love you… he aimed at terrorists' heads, squeezed the trigger hard, and shot bullets, and shot, and shot.”
According to Shahak and Mezvinsky, “Goldstein’s behavior had deep roots in the Jewish religion, and that religion had a profound influence on political culture in Israel.” The main connection between Goldstein’s act of mass murder and the Jewish religion lay in the halachic teaching that “the killing by a Jew of a non-Jew under any circumstances is not regarded as murder.” Hence, in the ensuing discussion, “the terms ‘murder,’ ‘massacre’ or ‘killing’ were avoided; instead the terms used were ‘deed,’ ‘event’ or ‘occurrence.’”
The fact that “at least 50 percent of Israeli Jews” approved of the massacre led Katz to claim that “the most obvious conclusion” is that “we, the Jews . . . have been programmed by the same racist computer program that is shaping the majority of the world’s nations.”
Mention of Jewish racism then led to a discussion of Jewish Nazism. Goldstein was a Jewish Nazi because, unlike Christians who believed in conversion of the Jews, he, like Hitler and Goebbels, believed in exterminating his enemies because of ineradicable racial characteristics. The esteemed Israeli journalist Teddy Preus made the Jewish-Nazi connection in article which appeared in Davar on March 4, 1994:
Compared to the giant-scale mass murderers of Auschwitz, Goldstein was certainly a petty murderer. His recorded statements and those of his comrades, however, prove that they were perfectly willing to exterminate at least two million Palestinians at an opportune moment. This makes Dr. Goldstein comparable to Dr. Mengele; the same holds true for anyone saying that he [or she] would welcome more of such Purim holiday celebrations. [The massacre occurred on that holiday.] Let us not devalue Goldstein by comparing him with an inquisitor or a Muslim Jihad fighter. Whenever an infidel was ready to convert to either Christianity or Islam, an inquisitor or Muslim Jihad fighter would, as a rule, spare his life. Goldstein and his admirers are not interested in converting Arabs to Judaism. As their statements abundantly testify, they see the Arabs as nothing more than disease-spreading rats, lice or other loathsome creatures; this is exactly how the Nazis believed that the Aryan race alone had laudable qualities that were inheritable but that could become polluted by sheer contact with dirty and morbid Jews. [JDL founder Meir] Kahane, who learned nothing from the Nuremberg Laws, had exactly the same notions about the Arabs.
Shahak and Mershinzky conclude their book with a condemnation of “those who are silent and do not condemn Jewish Nazism, as exemplified by the ideologies of Goldstein and Ginsburgh, especially if they are Jews, [because they] are guilty of the terrible consequences that may yet develop as a result of their silence.”
Seven years after Baruch Goldstein murdered 29 Palestinians in the cave of the patriarch in Hebron, and less than 5 years after Shahak and Merzinsky explained how Goldstein was a Jewish Nazi, The Believer, a film written and directed by Henry Bean about an orthodox Jew who becomes a neo-Nazi won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2001 Sundance film festival. The film is based loosely on the life of Daniel Burros, a neo-Nazi who committed suicide in the mid-‘60s after a New York Times reporter wrote an article exposing him as a Jew. According to Bean:
Burros was staying at a camp in the Poconos with the neo-Nazis when the story in the New York Times claiming that he was Jewish came out. The Nazis weren’t upset. They were saying just sit down; we can talk about this. But Burros went up to his room, put on a Wagner record and shot himself. He killed himself within an hour of the story coming out.
Bean began discussing the Danny Burros story in the ‘70s when he was a writer living on the West Coast. He began to see Burros as typifying a particular kind of Jew. “He was a rabbi manque. Antisemitism is a form of practicing Judaism. He’s sort of a rabbi after all. A Jew by day, a Nazi by night. . . . He was desperately hiding something and compulsively trying to bring it out at the same time. People are drawn to contradiction. He undergoes a conversion, but not back to the Torah.” By telling the story of the Jewish Nazi, Bean concluded, “I began to understand what Judaism was.”
Bean’s explanation of how a Jew can become a Nazi is at root theological. Through a series of flashbacks, the viewer sees Danny Balint, as he is called in the movie, arguing with his Yeshiva teacher about whether Abraham spared Isaac’s life, as recounted in the Genesis account, or whether, as Danny maintains, he died on Mt. Moriah. Danny’s problems with religion stem from the fact that he takes the Torah much more seriously and literally than his fellow Yeshiva bokkers. When one of them tells Danny that “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” he becomes rhapsodic: “Fear of the Lord,” he responds, “makes you afraid of everything. Do you even believe in God? I’m the only one who does believe. I see Him for the power-drunk madman that he is. And we’re supposed to worship such a deity? I say never.”
At this point the teacher tells one of the students “to ask Rabbi Singer remove Danny from my class,” something which prompts Danny to turn his eyes upward and say to God, “Then let Him destroy me now. Let Him destroy me like the conceited bully that He is. Go ahead.”
Like Jared Loughner, Danny Balint is a Jew who has read Mein Kampf and thinks it’s a great book. “Did you ever read Mein Kampf?” Danny asks his fellow skinheads when they end up in jail after a fight with two blacks. “Hitler had some of his best ideas in prison.” Danny admires Hitler, especially his views on race. In the middle of a meeting of more moderate right-wingers at an upscale Manhattan apartment, Danny, who is wearing a red T-shirt emblazoned with a black swastika, interrupts the speaker to opine that “race is central to everything we’re talking about tonight. Race is the source of religion.” When the speaker objects that this would mean “Germany all over again.” Danny responds by saying, “Isn’t that what we want? Germany all over again but done right this time?"
When Danny gets a call from a New York Times reporter, he gives an eloquent articulation of anti-Semitism. Judaism “is a sickness. . . . The real Jew is a nomad and a wanderer. He has no roots and no attachments. He universalizes everything. All he can do is buy and sell and manipulate markets. It’s all mental. Marx, Freud, Einstein: what have they given us? Communism, infantile sexuality and the atom bomb. They want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end.”
The main issue in The Believer is theological. Danny has penetrated to the heart of the Jewish religion by understanding that the Jew worships Nothingness. As he says to the Times reporter, the Jews “want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end.”
The Times reporter is impressed, but as we have come to expect from reporters, at the moment when the real issue is framed, the reporter changes the subject. “Wow,” he tells Danny, “You’re incredibly articulate, but how can you believe all this when you’re a Jew yourself?”
When confronted by the contradiction at the heart of his identity, Danny becomes violent. At first he denies he’s Jewish, then he threatens to sue the Times if the reporter publishes the article: “It’s reckless disregard. I’m going to sue your fucking Jew paper.” Finally, he takes out a gun and puts it into the mouth of the reporter and announces, as if unaware of the contradiction: “If you publish that article, I will kill myself.”
All of the themes we have been discussing—Jews, racism, Nazism, nihilism, and violence—are all present in this powerful scene. At this point, they begin to coalesce into a coherent picture. The Jewish Nazi is a political terrorist, but he is, first of all, a Nazi, which is to say a particular kind of socialist. Jews were drawn to socialism and communism throughout the 19th century. In fact Jews made up the backbone of those movements. Jews were drawn to those movements because they provided both an antidote and a way to give political expression to the Jewish nihilism which came into being when the Enlightenment arrived in the shtetl and destroyed rabbinic Judaism. Deprived of a coherent worldview, the Jew still had a sense of himself as a member of the chosen race which could now only find expression in revolutionary violence. The best way for the shtetl Jew to bring about tikkun olan was via dynamite and the Colt revolver.
Because Danny lives in an age in which socialism has failed, he is unsure of how to focus the revolutionary violence that is going to deliver him from the strong pull toward non-being which Jewish nihilism creates. Should he kill the reporter from the Jew newspaper or should he kill himself? Actually, the question needs to be reframed in light of what Danny actually said, namely, “If you publish that article, I will kill myself.” Should Danny the Nazi kill Danny the Jew? In a fantasy he picked up after hearing a holocaust survivor describe how a Nazi soldier killed his son, Danny plays the role of both Jew and Nazi soldier.
JUDAISM IS NIHILISTIC
Judaism, according to the theology proposed by The Believer, is essentially nihilistic. The Jews “want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end.” This theme gets developed throughout the film. When Danny’s girlfriend asks him to explain the difference between God’s apophatic character and “Him not existing at all,” Danny replies, “there is no difference.” When she tells him that “Christianity’s silly but at least there’s something to believe in,” Danny responds by saying, “Judaism is nothing. Nothing but nothingness.” Then as if reconsidering the issue, Danny says, “Judaism isn’t really about belief. It’s about doing things.”
“And belief follows?” his girlfriend asks.
Eventually his girlfriend catches on. After setting out a seder meal for Danny, she says he should sit down and take part in the meal because God “commands it whether he exists or not.”
Like Jacob, Danny’s girlfriend concludes that there is no point in fighting God. “We can fight Him and be crushed. Or we can submit.”
“And be crushed,” says Danny.
After their rejection of Christ, the Jews confected a religion which is based on the absence of Logos, which is to say, the absence of Being, which is to say, nothing. If the Eucharist in the tabernacle in the Catholic Church can be termed “the real presence,” then what the Jew who rejected Christ worships in his synagogue can be termed “the real absence,” which is another word for nothing. The Jew worships nothing; or better, the Jew worships nothingness. The Jew, as Jacques Derrida has pointed out malgre lui but amply in his deconstructive literary criticism, is obsessed with the absence of presence or the presence of absence.
Nihilism leads inevitably to violence because violence, which is a manifestation of the arbitrary and autonomous will, is the only way that the acting person can assert his existence in a world without Logos. Violence is an extreme form of self-assertion, and only extreme forms of assertion are powerful enough to prevent the slide into non-being to which the Jewish nihilist is exposed by the very fact that he is Jewish. That is so because Jews worship the absence of being and as a result “want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end.” Judaism is about doing things because nihilism is ultimately about doing things, because action is the only thing that prevents dissolution into non-being in a universe based on nothingness.
Nihilism, in other words, leads inevitably to violence. So to get back to the plot of The Believer, when Danny goes to a Jewish bookstore, he meets one of his former Yeshiva classmates, who invites him to the synagogue for services--the same synagogue, it turns out, where Danny planted a bomb, which failed to go off. This time he plants another bomb, timed to go off during Sabbath services, at which he decides to read the Torah. When Danny goes to the synagogue, he meets one of his former Yeshiva classmates, who calls him a “Jewish Nazi.” By showing up to davin at the synagogue where he has planted a bomb, Danny the Nazi finally succeeds in killing Danny the Jew. But since he dies reciting the Torah, it is equally accurate to say the Danny the Jew ends up killing Danny the Nazi.
At the end of the film, after Danny blows up the synagogue in which he is praying, we next see him running up a flight of stairs at the Yeshiva. At the top of one flight, Danny sees his former teacher, who now agrees with Danny, claiming now that “Isaac died on Mt. Moriah and was reborn in the world to come,” but Danny runs past him up yet another flight of steps, causing the teacher to ask, “Danny, where are you going. Don’t you know? There’s nothing up there.” Jewish nihilism, in other words, leads to Jewish violence. To be continued.
This excerpt from the e-book Jewish Nazis ran in the April 2011 issue of Culture Wars.
Jewish Nazis by E. Michael Jones. The Believer, a film about Danny Balint, an orthodox Jew who becomes a neo-Nazi, won the 2001 Sundance film festival Grand Jury Prize. It's based loosely on Daniel Burros, a neo-Nazi who committed suicide in the ‘60s after the New York Times exposed him as a Jew. When Danny Balint is called by a Times reporter, he gives an eloquent articulation of anti-Semitism. Judaism "is a sickness. . . . The real Jew is a nomad and a wanderer. He has no roots and no attachments. He universalizes everything. All he can do is buy and sell and manipulate markets. It’s all mental. Marx, Freud, Einstein: what have they given us? Communism, infantile sexuality and the atom bomb. They want nothing but nothingness, nothing without end." Balint penetrates to the heart of Judaism, understanding that the Jew worships Nothingness. If Hitler is chief Nihilist of the 20th century, he is chief rabbi of the religion that worships "nothing but nothingness, nothing without end," attaining that position by default when the Catholic Church stopped working for conversion of the Jews. e-book for Kindle. $2.99. Read More/Buy
 Dorothy Rabinowitz, “Major Hasan, ‘Star Officer’” WSJ, 2/18/11
 Georg Ratzinger, Juedisches Erwerbsleben: Skizzen aus dem sozialen Leben der Gegenwart (Passau: Verlag von Rudolf Abt, 1892). p. 30. All translations from the German are mine.
 Wikipedia, Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley
The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones. Jews for Jesus versus Jews against Jesus; Christians versus Christians versus Jews. This book is the story of such contests played out over 2000 turbulent years. In his most ambitious work, Dr. E. Michael Jones provides a breathtaking and controversial tour of history from the Gospels to the French Revolution to Neoconservatism and the “End of History.” $48 + S&H, Hardback. [In ordering for shipment outside the U.S., the book's price will appear higher to offset increased shipping charges.] Read Reviews
| Top of Page |
Culture Wars • 206
Marquette Avenue • South Bend, IN 46617 • Tel: (574) 289-9786 • Fax: (574)