 |
 |
|
|
RACIAL
SEGREGATION, INTEGRATION, THE US AND ISRAEL:
REFLECTIONS
ON THE TRENT LOTT AFFAIR
By
Paul Grubach
20
December 2002
Near the
beginning of December at the centenary celebration for retiring South Carolina
Senator Strom Thurmond, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said that
Mississippians were proud to have voted for Sen. Thurmond in 1948 on his
pro-segregationist Dixiecrat ticket. Precipitating
an uproar, Lott added “if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we
wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.”1
The
mainstream media, Republican and Democratic Congressman, and even President Bush
himself, joined in chorus to condemn Lott comments.
As
everyone knows by now, Lott subsequently apologized for his comments.
“Let me be clear: segregation and racism are immoral,” the regretful
Lott asserted. Continuing to echo
the “moral” sentiments of our time, Lott further claimed, “segregation is
a stain on our nation’s soul. There is no other way to describe it.”2
If
there ever was an issue that demonstrates the double standard and hypocrisy that
plagues our nation’s “moral judgments” in regard to racial segregation, it
is the clamor and uproar that surrounds the statements of Senator Lott.
Israel
is a racially segregated state where Jews lord over, dominate and oppress
Palestinian Arabs. The Jewish
scholar Uri Davis wrote a book with a title that says it all—ISRAEL: AN
APARTHEID STATE. Ninety percent of
Israel’s territory has been legally defined as land, which can be leased and
cultivated only by Jews—“Israeli” Arabs need not apply.
Key institutions such as the kibbutz are reserved exclusively for Jews.3
Adel Qa’adan is an Israeli Arab who in the 1990s wanted to move his family into the Jewish town of Katsir, Israel. Jewish officials told him that Katsir does not accept Arabs into the community, and the Katsir local council informed him that they would not sell homes or land in Katsir to non-Jews. In an attempt to find a remedy to this discriminatory racial segregation, Mr. Qa’adan took his case to the Israeli Supreme Court where he attained a judgment in his favor.4 The Jewish state’s highest court ruled the Arab family could not be barred from living in a community built solely for Jews, overturning a 52 year-old state policy of excluding Israeli Arab citizens from Jewish communities. Nevertheless, the kibbutzim, or communal farms, would remain closed to Arab residents, and the government was considering legislation that would circumvent the Supreme Court ruling.5
The
New York Times is the most powerful and influential newspaper in the
United States. To a significant
extent, all news in America is what the Times calls news.
Although the seemingly anti-racist, ant-segregationist TIMES
carried a short article on the Qa’adan affair (possibly in order to give the
appearance of impartiality), they never issued an editorial condemning racial
segregation in the Zionist state, nor did they condemn Israel’s other racist
practices or the fact that the kibbutzim would still exclude Arabs.6 Yet, this
same Jewish-owned, pro-Zionist newspaper issued two high-profile, pious sounding
editorials that condemned Lott for his pro-segregationist sentiments, and
suggested that he should be fired from his position as Senate Republican
leader.7 In their “This Week in Review,” there was another pious
sounding article that condemned segregation in the US.8
There was no similar article condemning racial segregation in Israel in
the aftermath of the Qa’adan affair. It
was simply quietly forgotten about.
The
Jewish owned, pro-Zionist, Cleveland PLAIN DEALER—Ohio’s most
important newspaper-- is another mainstream newspaper that published a
short article on the Qa’adan affair.9 Although they issued an editorial
condemning Trent Lott for his pro-segregationist statements, they never
editorially condemned Israel for their segregationist practices.10
The
sociopolitical agenda of the Jewish dominated New York Times and Jewish
owned Plain Dealer seems to be this—racial integration and
multiculturalism here in the United States, but ethnic segregation and Jewish
domination in Israel. Why the
double standard and hypocrisy? More
on this in a moment.
In
1992, a Jewish professor of sociology and ordained rabbi, Hillel Levine, and the
Jewish editor of the BROOKLINE CITIZEN, Lawrence Harmon, published a
study that showed some of the negative effects of racial integration.
THE DEATH OF AN AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY: A TRAGEDY OF GOOD INTENTIONS
is a book that should give “food for thought” for all those who think that
there “are no problems with racial integration.”11
Let us quote directly from the book’s dust jacket.
It begins: “In 1967, members of the Boston establishment…decided that
the time had come to integrate Boston’s still largely segregated
neighborhoods. The method they chose was to make mortgage loans available to
blacks who wanted to build or buy homes in middle-class neighborhoods. However, this admirable goal, conceived in the optimistic,
liberal spirit of the time, included a ‘private’ agreement that in fact the
mortgages would be made available to blacks only in Dorchester, the city’s
well-established Jewish neighborhood. The
agreement was based on the assumption that Jewish tolerance would more easily
permit integration, in contrast to Boston’s Irish and Italian neighborhoods,
where black inroads would not be welcome.”
Levine
and Harmon then go on to describe the negative consequences of increasing racial
integration. Tensions mounted, neighborhood crime dramatically increased, and
Jews wanted to move elsewhere. The
authors show how as a result of this policy of encouraging integration, “a
population of 90,000 Jews [were] displaced within a few short years from
Dorchester, Roxbury, and Mattapan—today the home to Boston’s 120,000 black
residents—and a long-standing Jewish community, with its synagogues, schools,
businesses, and life-sustaining network of relationships was utterly
destroyed.”
The
message of the book was summed up with these words: “This is a bizarre and
revealing tale of contemporary urban history and American race relations gone
wrong. Above all, it is a story of
the betrayal of the Jewish community by its own nominal leaders, who colluded in
the destruction of a tightly knit neighborhood with deep historical roots. As
such, the story holds important lessons for all those concerned with the ongoing
struggle to balance self-determination with racial harmony in today’s urban
communities.”
When
Sen. Thurmond ran against Truman in 1948, one of the formers campaign platforms
was that racial integration would lead to the destruction of the Southern way of
life. For this, Thurmond has been
incessantly condemned. Yet, the
message of the study of Jewish intellectuals Levine and Harmon is that racial
integration did in fact lead to the destruction of the Jewish way of life for a
whole Boston Jewish community.
The
problem is of course is that our society “allows” Jews to expose the
negative side of racial integration when it adversely affects their own
brethren, and Jews can openly express support for the ethnically segregated,
apartheid state of Israel where Jews lord over and oppress Palestinian Arabs.
Yet, a white American Gentile “has no such right.”
Any white gentile claiming that racial integration has some negative
consequences for his fellow whites is usually immediately and swiftly condemned
by our pro-Zionist media. Why the double standard and hypocrisy?
We shall return to this question in a moment.
The
statistics on interracial crime are another area that the mainstream media
usually makes a concerted effort to hide. A
1992 study pointed out that when whites commit violence, they do it to blacks
2.4% of the time. In contrast,
blacks choose white victims more than 50% of the time.
Blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Black-on-white
robberies and gang assaults are twenty-one times more common than white on
black.12
In
the 1950s, when the US was a largely racially segregated society, the vast
majority of rapes were same-race offenses.
Since that time, the proportion of black-on-white rapes has skyrocketed.
In general, through the 1970s, black-on-white rape was at least ten times
more common than white-on-black rape. In 1988, there were 9,406 reported cases
of whites being raped by blacks; in contrast, there were fewer than 10 reported
cases of blacks being raped by whites. Is the vast increase of black-on-white rape a negative
consequence of increased racial integration? 13
In
Israel, segregation between Jews and non-Jews is firmly established in the
social order—and the mainstream media, the US Congress, and US government
ardently support the state. In the
United States, however, the mainstream media and government ardently castigates
anyone who dares to suggest that racial integration in this country has a
negative side to it.
So
the question remains: why do American power elites promote racial integration
here in the United States, and racial segregation in Israel?
Why is any form of white nationalism immediately and incessantly
condemned by a media that just as ardently supports the segregated, Jewish
nationalist state of Israel?
The reasons are many and complicated, too numerous and complex to discuss in
this brief essay. However, we will discuss one of the major reasons for this
state of affairs.
It
was the social philosopher, Karl Mannheim, that pointed out that much of what a
society considers to be “moral, good, right and just” is in reality simply a
reflection of the sociopolitical needs and interests of that society’s power
elites and controlling elements.14 The US is no exception to this generality.
It too has its power elites and controlling elements.
One of the most powerful groups in America today is the Jewish-Zionist
power elite.15 Definite forms of social consciousness derive from the fact that
this Jewish elite controls a significant slice of the power structure in the
U.S., making it relatively easy for Jews to impose their “morality” on the
country at large.
Enter
Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University (Long
Beach). In his studies of the
Jewish question, he explains how Jews have profoundly shaped American society,
politics, culture and mores in conformity with Jewish group interests.16
MacDonald
goes on to show that in a predominantly gentile society, Jews view themselves as
aliens and permanent outsiders. Judaism
has been characterized by genetic and cultural separation from others, and an
explicit double standard of morality—altruism and cooperation among Jews, but
competition with non-Jews.
MacDonald
observes that Jewish organizations view white nationalism as their greatest
potential threat and they have tended to support Black-white integration
policies presumably because such policies dilute Euro-American power and lessen
the possibility of a cohesive, nationalist Euro-American majority that stands in
opposition to the Jewish community.17
In
a racially integrated, multicultural society with numerous different and
competing ethnic groups with divergent interests, it is very unlikely the
surrounding gentiles can ever develop a united and cohesive majority to oppose
the very cohesive Jewish community. “Tolerant”
gentile populations that have only a week and feeble sense of their own
racial/cultural identity are less likely to identify the Jewish community as an
alien element against which they must defend themselves.
Gentile populations that have a strong racial/cultural identity are more
likely to identify certain groups of Jews as alien outsiders, against which they
must compete with. Thus, a racially
integrated, multicultural society (outside of Israel) is the type of society
that most Jewish-Zionist groups prefer, because in such a society they can gain
tremendous power and influence.
This
is certainly one of the reasons why the pro-Zionist, heavily Jewish influenced
mass media and government promote a double standard of “morality”—racial
integration and multiculturalism here in the US, but racial segregation and
Jewish dominance in Israel. Such a double standard serves their long-term sociopolitical
agenda.
The
reader should not misunderstand me. There was indeed a legitimate side to the
Black American civil rights movement. Surely
there is no question that Black Americans have suffered discrimination and
oppression, and given that American Blacks are citizens of a country that their
ancestors have inhabited for centuries, the civil rights movement was often
motivated by legitimate concerns. But what is almost totally overlooked by the
heavily Jewish influenced, pro-Zionist mainstream media is the negative side of
racial integration and some of the negative effects that it has had upon the
white community.
In
the United States of the future, Blacks, Jews and Whites are going to have to
come to some type of agreement and understanding regarding racial/ethnic
integration—an agreement that somehow respects the collective and individual
rights of all parties involved.
