By Michael O'Meara | 17 Comments | 
Print
The Cold War on Whites, Part 4
Lyndon B. Johnson proved to be the most ardent proponent of racial equality to occupy the White House. He put civil rights at the top of his domestic agenda and went out of way to cultivate relationships with mainstream civil rights leaders.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both of which he shepherded through Congress, would eliminate the remaining legal barriers to racial equality and commit the federal government to its insurance.
His State Department also put its entire weight behind these acts, warning members of Congress that the failure to embrace this legislation would severely hamper America’s Cold War effort.
Johnson then appointed numerous blacks to executive positions in his administration — more than all former presidents combined — and, worse, announced a “War on Poverty” to address black economic grievances.
In October 1965, he pushed through an immigration reform bill to eliminate the “discriminatory” national origins system created in 1924. For once segregation had been outlawed, the old immigration law appeared as an embarrassment to a nation now committed to multiracialism and anti-Communism.
Johnson’s radical reforms were the dramatic climax of the complicated relationship that had existed between race relations and foreign policy since 1945, for it was plainly evident after their passage that the US government was now fully committed to racial equality.
When Johnson left office in 1968, overwhelmed by the social-racial chaos his administration had caused, the series of factors that had earlier promoted the “Cold War on whites” also shifted.
Both decolonization and desegregation had, in effect, been achieved by 1968.
Nixon’s administration would then establish diplomatic relations with China and detente with the Soviet Union, demoting the significance of the Cold War (even though the Soviets continued to link imperialism and the “oppression of American blacks” in their anti-Vietnam rhetoric).
The nature of race relations and the problems associated with them also changed. No sooner had Johnson’s landmark bills been passed than a black rebellion broke out in Watts, leaving thirty-four dead and causing millions of dollars in property damage.
Here was the unwelcome shape of things to come, for racial conflict, it was now clear, was not a purely Southern problem, but no less a national one.
Throughout the remainder of the decade, virtually every major American city would be scared and seared by similar riots/rebellions, as the black masses, signaling their rejection of white liberalism and its gradualist approach to racism and discrimination, took to rioting and looting to promote the “Black Liberation” advocated by “the angry children of Malcolm X.”
Other sorts of protests also emerged — against poverty and war — further overshadowing the struggle against discrimination.
At the same time, increased urban violence and the revolutionary demands of the Black Power movement alienated much of the Establishment and set off a white “backlash” in the electorate, which demanded “law and order” and eventually brought Richard Nixon to power.
Though racial conflict would continue after 1968s and in some cases became more violent and vocal, its effect on US foreign policy seemed to wane.
Part of this was due to the ensuing white backlash, part to the fact that the legal basis of Jim Crow had been dismantled, and part to the Vietnam war, which re-focused international attention away from American race relations and toward American militarism.
Then, as Vietnam eclipsed civil rights as a defining issue of US prestige abroad and as the government continued to introduce domestic programs designed to promote not just black rights, but black employment, housing, and welfare, the linkage between race and foreign relations snapped.
Once it did, a different order of forces — associated with the rise of Jewish influence, the Cultural Revolution, and the new anti-white system of race relations — was mobilized against white interests.
The story of race and equality also became more complicated after 1968, for, internationally, it was now obvious that the US government was committed to eliminating the remaining racial barriers and, domestically, that economic and class problems were as integral to black failure as were legal barriers — economic and class problems that lacked the international resonance of legal segregation.
In such a situation, critics found it increasingly difficult to charge that things hadn’t changed and weren’t continuing to change — as we on the other side well know.
***
The Second World War had thrust the United States into a position of world leadership.
Though race played no part in determining US relations to the Soviet Union or shaping its global capitalist system, it did affect the way they were approached.
The crusade against Europe and the subsequent emergence of various nationalist movements in the Third World after 1945 changed the dynamic of the international arena and compelled the United States to reconsider its traditional system of race relations. This put the US civil rights movement and anti-Communism on parallel tracks.
At the same time, the international projection of US power brought new scrutiny to the character of American society. Racial incidents in the South ceased, thus, to be local events and became potential international headlines, detrimental to US global concerns.
As the boundaries between domestic and foreign affairs blurred, US officials, as was made clear to every president from Truman to Johnson, realized that they would not be able to maintain their world leadership, if American domestic affairs alienated the overwhelming majority of the world’s nonwhite population. Race relations at home were here again linked to US prestige and influence abroad.
The great changes that have reshaped America’s racial hierarchy in the last half-century, especially in subordinating white interests to blacks, are, I would argue, virtually incomprehensible apart from the international context of the Cold War.
One might even argue that, in world historical terms, the destruction of America’s former white-centric racial hierarchy represents a more consequential outcome than the collapse of Soviet Communism. For by the end of the Cold War, European-America had been transformed into a multiracial nation and the very idea of “white supremacy” exiled to the US equivalent of the Gulag.
The result is the present prospect of extinction — not unrelated, of course, to American-Jewish machinations, yet hardly dependent on them.
Michael O'Meara
Michael O’Meara, Ph.D., studied social theory at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris and modern European history at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe (Bloomington, Ind.: 1stBooks, 2004).
This is an important move to the right direction and well researched article.
I also hope that it signifies the beginning of the end to monomaniacal “Jew thing” and extremism among some pro-Whites.
The article is also plausible, because government-legislature- bureaucracy complex decides the rules of the societal game and upholds the foundation of other societal functions, and can enforce it’s will with force and punishments. When government sends such strong change signals to the environment, it means that established institutions are in a state of flux and thus the power relations will change. Power is up for grabs, and various interest groups and opportunists (especially those favoured by the government) will exploit the situation competitively and ruthlessly. Different businesses, bureaucracies, ethnic groups, political groups, extremists (sometimes in the friendly lamb disguise), religious groups, different medias, etc.
If this rule change is rotten to begin with and is not intelligently controlled, like happened in the Usa, the new established status quo power will be exploitative, free riding and in the end self destructive.
My earlier comments on power in this site connects seamlessly to that narrative.
Enlarged range of power/ knowledge (Foucault) gives power advantages in influence and politics:
* The more fields power covers, generally the more power one has. It also enables more complex political combinations and thus more complex manoeuvres.
* Different contexts (times, places, situations, arrangements, etc.) inside fields decrease or increase power. E.g. someone might have considerably more power in times of crises in in the field of state transportation, thus it is in this respect context dependent. When one can search large variety of fields and their contexts where to use power, one can find those contexts where power is maximum. One can also increase the context independence of power.
* Large range of power increases the unintended consequences of power. Unitended consequences generally increases power. Other people might become more compelled to negotiate about them with those who cause them. Unintended consequences cause changes and disruptions in the system and institutions, which create possibilities to power grab (see above). Etc.
* Large range of power, after sufficient time, generally reduces the energy needed in any one field to exert power. People start to do or not do things in a way that they know is according to the wishes of those who have power and/or influence. Inactive enjoyment vs. active exercise.
Ps. 1. I think it is an understatement to say that national socialists are merely “anti-liberal”.
2. Anti-communism would have been good thing throughout, if US leaders would have not been so horribly stupid in their policy choices.
Very well presented in part 3; and throughout
Very nice, all of it.
One thing that stands out for me while reading each part was the behavioral aspect of it all. Namely behavior in relation to language.
Behavior is linked to the world by language. Science being the highest institutionalized, ritualized expression of this. A more day to day manner of putting it would be to say that someone does what they say, or, walks the talk.
But what we, the West, have experienced increasingly over the last 200 plus years has been a growing gap between language and behavior at all of the centers of power, namely, Government, Business and Education.
For them language was, and continues to be, linked to the world with yet more language. That’s why none of the behavior of those imposing legislation or social theories (ie; language) was effected by those theories, or legislation, and why those at the empirical frontier (behavior) or, more baldly, the firing lines, had to be silenced and demonized, ie; exactly because theirs was!
The result was a gradual moving away, further and further, from Reality itself.
As I followed the four parts of Mr. O’Meara’s piece, and because it coincides with my life as one of the millions of Whites born in and growing up during the sixties, seventies, etc, I could almost literally feel the disconnect taking place between the language emanating from these power centers and the behavior of these same people.
This is not exactly insignificant. Because though the gap between their language and behavior was growing, so too was their power, meaning, their ability to level one or all of the four sanctions of economic deprivation, imprisonment, torture, and death, on those who refused to live by the rules they were making.
Rules that they themselves had no intention of following, at all, if they could help it.
Considering that the history of the West is the history of moving away from the ready application of the four sanctions and toward the development of a society built on the inversions of those sanctions (economic ease, the privileges of freedom, respect for the individual, and life), what their behavior amounts to is a betrayal of the very values that put them in power in the first place.
I believe it was VDARE, or possibly Takimag, where I read someone relating a story about how Ted Kennedy, in a private context, pretty much admitted to just how disastrous this would be, but everyone present in the room knew not to go there.
In any event, I think this disconnect from language and reality accounts for the feeling many have today. That feeling that the world has lost its mind, literally.
It’s certainly a subject worth exploring for those who haven’t completely lost theirs, yet.
After signing those “civil rights” and “war on poverty” bills into law, LBJ reportedly turned to his advisers and crowed, “We (Democrats) just locked up the nigger vote for the next 100 years!” If true, then those programs were enacted at least as much for partisan political ends as for national security or foreign policy ends.
Ditto the 1965 “immigration reform” law. It was essential for the Democrats to import poverty from abroad, in case their new welfare state didn’t create enough home-grown poverty to cement their voter base.
One final point.
I hope no one reading this piece comes to think, because of it, that the Jews are not our enemy. They are — in a terrible way. But there are other forces afflicting our people that also need to be considered.
Once white nationalists realize this, their criticism of the Jews will become more realistic . . . and more convincing.
“The result is the present prospect of extinction — not unrelated, of course, to American-Jewish machinations, yet hardly dependent on them.”
The concluding sentence of this essay – in fact summing up the thesis of the essay – is supportable only within an intentionally narrowed historical perspective. If, as is contended, the all important fulcrum as counterpoint to the traditional American racial hierarchy is the Soviet Union, and it can be shown that the Soviet Union could not have come into being but for the actions of Jews, then the thesis of this essay is exploded by that fact alone. The heavy and persistent involvement of Jews in the set-piece events of American White racial decline are likewise air-brushed of said. One is not unjustified in wondering if this has been done intentionally (it is obvious that it has been done, and it is further obvious that the author is aware of Kevin MacDonald’s work on the matter, so ignorance of the facts is an unlikely explanation) to accommodate the psychological needs of men like the esteemed commentator a Finn whose knees may well buckle at the gruesome prospect of a single people – the Jews – being so inherently noxious as to wreak so much destruction and thereby be turned away from racialism – and yet it is no less true.
I am baffled by much of the hostility toward O’Meara’s essay. Much of this hostility seems to be based simply on incomprehension. The fact that Jews played a leading role in the decline of the white race does not mean that they are the sole cause. What is so hard to grasp about that?
The fact that Jews played a role in the Cold War, does not mean that it is reducible to Jewish machinations. The fact that Jews played a leading role in the Second World War does not make it reducible to Jewish machinations. The fact that Jews played a leading role in the creation of the Soviet Union does not mean that the USSR can be reduced solely to Jewish motives and activities.
The Cold War, like capitalism, like liberal universalism, like Christian universalism has a logic that was inimical to the preservation of white racial dominance in the US. That logic would have continued to work even in the absence of Jewish power.
The best evidence of this thesis is that nobody seriously believes that the American Civil War and abolitionism can be reduced to Jewish machinations. Instead, they were products of white egalitarianism, universalism, ethnomasochism, and suicidal altruism.
The appeal of simple explanations is that they point to simple solutions. But if the US were returned to 1789, with all Jews removed and banned from coming here in perpetuity, we probably would still be celebrating MLK day or the equivalent.
However, although the Jews are not the sole cause of the white race’s decline, we have to deal with them first, because — as John Tyndall pointed out so brilliantly — even if we simply ignored Jews and tried to implement the changes we need to save our race, we would find Jews popping up everywhere working to oppose us. Therefore, as someone said on VNN, there is no way out but through the Jews.
The fact that Jewish power is a symptom, not a cause, of the white man’s decline, does not therefore imply that we must first treat the causes.
That is analogous to a doctor treating lung cancer by lecturing the victim to stop smoking. Yes, like the smoker, we whites need to make some fundamental lifestyle changes. But none of that matters unless we FIRST treat the cancer.
Re: Captain Chaos.
My friendly advice;
More and more new facts contradict the one-dimensional national socialist vision you have (among other things, concerning Jews) and the public commitments you have made for it. It might be hard for you to renounce it after all these years, but you might consider adjusting it here and there.
It might be helpful to think that your ultimate commitment is to the whites, not to this or that ideology. Ideologies are ultimately vehicles for some goals and they should have room for necessary changes.
As you well know, my position has nothing to do with psychological needs.
Re: Michael O’Meara
I think that “enemy” is a wartime description. As we are in a political situation, that consideration alone could point to more suitable descriptions.
The events in this series were very much dependent on American-Jewish machinations. Gunmar Myrdal’s American Dilemna was ghostwritten by Jewish sociologist Louis Wirth. Expert WASP cold warriors like George Marshall and George Kennan also opposed recognition of Israel. In that case, they were overruled by political considerations. The final arbiter of policy (then as now) was not the Cold War but Jewish power. Then there’s the question of why there was so little opposition to the agenda of the liberal internationalists from American conservatism. The answer is William Buckley, who decided to accept totalitarianism at home in order to fight totalitarianism abroad. Buckley was of course the Catholic front man for Jews like Frank Meyer, Willi Schlamm and Marvin Liebman. The Gulag has been Jewish every step of the way.
The result is the present prospect of extinction — not unrelated, of course, to American-Jewish machinations, yet hardly dependent on them.
Nothing you have written supports such a conclusion.
If, as is contended, the all important fulcrum as counterpoint to the traditional American racial hierarchy is the Soviet Union, and it can be shown that the Soviet Union could not have come into being but for the actions of Jews, then the thesis of this essay is exploded by that fact alone.
Exactly. The “Cold War” was not a weather event. It began and continued because of the actions of humans, including Jews. Since Jews were involved in the Cold War, the Cold War cannot constitute an independent causative force for our decline.
Captainchaos,
Excellent example.
By your reasoning, I gather that all world history, beginning with “Adam and Eve,” was the work of those omnipotent Jews.
I don’t know why I bother to read, when the key that opens every door is there, right in front of me.
The view that western culture has been nothing but a procession towards liberal democracy is false and it does a great disservice to the reactionaries, non-conformists, artists, and all the sensitive men willing to dream and die for a better world – for us. Why don’t you pen that history? It would serve us better then the one we are spoon fed daily.
Captainchaos I was thinking the same thing. I think the key point is that Omeara is only looking at current reactions to events in a context set up by deeper and wider and more long-term Jewish machinations over the years –and even for literally thousands of years before that. Everything from jews having been kicked out of every nation of Europe at one time or another for their incessant chicanery to their 100% responsibility for the overturning of the 1924 immigration law in the USA which Kevin Macdonald talks about shows their intense motivations and disregard of other peoples interests. Kevin Macdonald does not cover their takeover of the media here (and in other countries) in his books, but that alone is a powerful story. You can get started by watching the A&E video about their interesting takeover history in the Hollywood movie business called “An Empire of their Own”. The shaping of public opinion, finance, politics, wars, academia, etc. each alone is extremely powerful. Together they are a massive, multifront-war on our people and their culture. Those things ARE power and control over minds. The Jews constantly do the same things every time in whatever country they are in — a recent example is the Jewish “oligarchs” in Russia who took over their resources and industries of the Russian people to become overnight billionaires selling them off. When one of the Oligarchs fled to England, one of the first things he did was to buy one of the largest newspapers with his ill-gotten gains. What we need to see is that Jews do have an overall strategy flowing from who they are and how they perceive the world. Truth and ideals have nothing to do with it. It is apparently against the civilization-builders and their ways when you look at their history — even stretching back to Egypt. Since their actions through time seem the same everywhere, like birds building a nest, that speaks louder than any song they might learn… or song and dance they might sell us. Unfortunately, their callous disregard for other peoples, and their universally destructive and massively genocidal manipulations of nations and cultures, is wiping us quickly off the map as a people. Our people alone were developing our sciences and information about the world to assure our long-term survival in the face of Jews and other races encroaching on us. Jews put a stop to that via communism, politics, and academia (Franz Boas was just one instance of that). It is a war on a grand scale that people have a very hard time seeing because it is so big and crosses many generations, power sectors like academia and media, and national boundaries. All regular people tend to see is what is right in front of us — for example, the Jews may start a war behind the scenes, but all we see is the “evil German” we have learned all about in front of us when we are sent to war… or volunteer to fight “evil”. We naturally respond to our culture around us because when left to ourselves it was built in our own interests by our own people, our own leaders, in the long history of our race. We did not let anyone else in way back when. Since Jews have power politically, financially, in the press and movies etc we get this: shaping of public opinion, and lock-step policy and verbiage/spin to match this Jewish deceptive matrix of what is really going on in the world. They have displaced our true leaders — sometimes with violence, by blinding them and confusing them, with money, politics, turning public opinion against them, etc. They have made themselves kings — and “rule the world by proxy” as the prime minister of Malaysia so aptly put it. The whole point is that we are living in the “Jewish Century” as Slezkine puts it in his book. We are immersed in a world which they have shaped around us, unable to think outside of it. The only hope we have is to wake up and see this — not from any ill-will toward Jews originating in our fundamental “badness”, as they would have people think, but so that we can make good decisions and think clearly about our own future. I personally think THAT is the most basic and fundamental moral right. Our basic motives and values are so different from Jews, our world views are so different, that all we get is misunderstanding and grief between our peoples. Some people are so inured, have so much intellectual investment in this Jewish death-machine, that they are hopelessly blind to it. It gives them money, power, prestige — as long as they play along. You can be a congressman as long as you do not criticise Jews. A movie star. A famous journalist. A financier. A professor (or get tenure like Dr. Macdonald). If people wake up and see how bad this is for our people, how immoral on a grand scale, then we can have people resist the temptations of the Jews and deliver ourselves from destruction. Once we get many to do this, we can move back onto the path of our destiny as a people. We can thrive and bring our ideas of truth and freedom to the world, giving us all hope and a much brighter future.
Readers,
I examined this four part series very appreciatively, because it read for me as the American version of thoughts I have had about the Australian situation.
There was never any defense of the former White Australia Policy (which was abandoned here in 1966) in the Establishment’s anti-communism, nor in the hysterical anti-communism of the numerous satellite auxiliary organizations permitted by the regime to confront the Left.
Michael O’Meara’s article was timely in that it assisted me to conceptualise the broader picture of change from conservatism to liberalism in the regime with the matter of race the crucible for change.
Perhaps not so oddly, some of the very characters involved in satellite anti-communism in the 1960′s and 1970′s here, have now returned with a so-called ‘anti-Islamism’, yet their conduct reminds me so much of the earlier period of anti-communism (a subject I intend to write about). There is certainly no real advantage in the new Establishment-driven cause (a smoke-screen?) either. Are there American examples of this?
I am giving a talk in Sydney on Thursday night on some of thesee broad themes and I intend to refer listenders to Occidental Quarterly Online for this valuable series.
Dr. Jim Saleam
A Finn, Dedalus, Greg Johnson, and Jim Saleam have each made arguments for a nuanced view of our dispossession that are more eloquent and convincing than any I could make.
Here, let me just say a few words about several minor points:
Steven’s Darwinism, what Martin Heidegger and his generation of NS intellectuals referred to as “biological liberalism,” is, as I’ve said in numerous earlier comments, almost entirely irrelevant to the subject here.
More seriously, Ben Tillman says “nothing you have written [in this article] supports such a conclusion [i.e., that Jewish influence does not alone suffice to explain white dispossession].”
He is right. My essay was simply an effort to show how anti-Communism and other international exigencies affected US race relations between 1945 and 1965. I could have written a similar article about “Corporate Capitalism’s War on Whites,” just as I could have written one on “The Jews’ War on Whites.” Each would have traced a major influence, but there’s nothing absolutist about any of these narratives.
The point here is that historical reality is multilayered and that almost every major historical turn is explainable by a convergence of forces rather than by a single “cause.”
This point, moreover, is not something I made up, but comes to us through the larger European heritage of which we are the heirs and of which too many in our ranks know so little. Even Kevin MacDonald, in his treatment of the Transcendentalists’ non-Jewish ‘culture of critique,’ acknowledges this.
If you want, Ben, to adhere to a monocausal explanation infused with certain ideological assumptions, fine – but why limit the rest of us – and why make our tendency look simple-minded in the eyes of those we seek to win to the cause of European-America?
Captainchaos, I would make a similar point with you. A butterfly might flap its wings in a Brazilian rain forest, but that doesn’t necessarily account for the hurricane winds that then beat against our SE coast. If you argue that everything is connected, I would agree, but in that case you are forced to acknowledge that Jewish power is no less connected to other things.
There’s also another point – one that goes beyond questions of knowledge and touches on our loyalty to certain traditions.
I come out of the heritage of European NS.
Hitler’s NSDAP was one expression of that heritage and certainly its most consequential one.
That heritage, though, is richer and more empowering than most of its contemporary proponents understand.
Later this year I hope to write a long survey article for the print version of TOQ that looks at recent French and German studies of NS’s formative history and explains this in greater detail.
Here let me simply mention that NS first emerged in France in the 1890s, as the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the labor movement converged with the revolutionary anti-liberal wing of the nationalist far right. This convergence soon touched all the major European countries.
Anti-Judaism was a common feature of this movement, but hardly its core component – which was, instead, anti-liberalism.
And unlike the caricature of NS that exists today, the Jews were fought by these early NS because they were seen as the embodiment of the liberalism then destroying their European world.
As such, the Jews were a danger because they had become a vehicle, perhaps the most important vehicle, of larger, more menacing forces. NS’s early anti-Judaism was, as such, an expression of an anti-liberal metaphysics – not the other way around, as you assume.
In any case, my own anti-Jewish sentiments, linked as they are to the larger anti-liberal struggle, in no way demotes the struggle against Jewish power, but rather seeks to give this struggle a more realistic understanding of the enemy — in all the enemy’s many manifestations — so as to prepare us for a more effective resistance.
By what possible standard can you oppose this?
Greg, Jim, Michael, why bother answering these people? It goes in one ear and out the other.
Also Michael, how long can you make the excuse for them that they just don’t know about the anti-liberal tradition we are heirs to. What has TOQ been the last few years but the dissemination of said tradition?
It seems to me that some deracinated New Worlders turned racialists can’t ditch their deracinated mindset with its Enlightenment causality. I’m not one for dogmatic ideological purity; I won’t attack anyone for liberalistic mindsets for it’s to be expected. However, I won’t stand for said people to attack those that are more patient than I in trying to show them their errors.
In the Table Talk Hitler states that referring to Jews as race was “a matter of convenience”, because “properly speaking” “there was no such thing.” Instead he claims that the threat they pose comes from being “a reservoir of Bolshevism.” Since these were AH’s private thoughts they are a more likely guide to his motivations than
public pronouncements and state propaganda.