The Problem With ‘Racism’

Right, the starting place for any serious look at the word and concept ‘racism’ has to be loaded language. Why is that? Because ‘racism’ is a carefully and deliberately designed piece of such language.

So what is loaded language? Loaded language is language which attempts to persuade by appealing to your emotions. ‘Racist’ is very likely the preeminent example of such a word in modern discourse. ‘Fascist’/’Nazi’/’anti-Semite’/’White supremacist’, etc. are others that modern ethno-nationalists of European descent will be all too familiar with.

So how does it actually work? That’s simple. Human beings are adept at learning. One way we learn is through conditioning – when two stimuli are experienced together repeatedly, we learn to unconsciously associate them with one another, so that experiencing one on its own triggers the other. This goes with language, whereby we learn to associate particular things with particular sounds, so that the sound itself comes to trigger in us the memory or sensation of the thing it’s paired with. But words don’t just have explicit meanings – they also have connotations (including very strong emotional responses!) And so it’s very easy to see how this can be and is routinely used in propaganda to influence you at the pre-rational level. All the Cultural Marxists need to do is to repetitively associate a word like ‘racism’ with an extremely negative emotional response (by, for example, constantly using the word ‘racism‘whilst describing genocide, ethnic cleansing, racially motivated violence, etc.) and then constantly use the same word – ‘racism’ – to describe tangentially related phenomena which the Cultural Marxist wishes to stigmatise (e.g. ethnic pride or loyalty on the part of European descended people). In this way it’s possible to transfer the understandably negative reaction we have towards genocide over to perfectly innocuous (and perfectly necessary!) things such as looking out for one’s ethnic interests if you’re of European descent. Et voilà! The Cultural Marxist has got people running scared from the very intellectual positions they most need if they’re going to defend themselves against ethnic displacement (or worse…)

As for the word itself, ‘racism’ is deliberately misleading and its purpose is to confuse two quite distinct phenomena:

1. Actively doing harm to somebody because of their race, and
2. Merely refraining from doing good to somebody because of their race.

Only the former is considered wrong for non-Whites, but both are considered wrong when it comes to Whites. And that really is the whole point of the term ‘racism’; it serves to convince White people that they are under a moral obligation to let non-Whites into their countries, give them a portion of their wealth, provide services for them and get nothing in return, etc.

It’s also dubious from the point of view that ‘racism’ – in the sense of actively harming someone because of their race – is wrong because it involves harming somebody for no good reason; not because somebody has been treated differently because of their race – which is something people do all the time, much like we treat people differently according to their gender or their age, for example. Clearly, Cultural Marxism is complete and utter nonsense to anyone with at least a single brain cell on active duty.

And that’s the crux of it: our continuing inability to differentiate different forms of ethnic and racial discrimination enables the Left to carry out its long-lived campaign to systematically distort language and its accompanying meaning, specifically in order to stigmatise any sense of ethnic loyalty or kinship on the part of European descended peoples. It also leads to such inanities as Whites who claim a preference for the company of members of their own group(s) being met with cries of “racial hatred” (?!?)

In conclusion, it must be said: it’s imperative for those us concerned with ethnic survival, as well as the survival of our very civilisation, that we systematically deconstruct and destroy such malignant, Cultural Marxist newspeak.

The 5 Switches of Manliness: Nature

 

A quick detour from the usual politicking:

 

In this Switches of Manliness series, we’ve been talking about those unique parts of a man’s psyche that have fallen into disuse in the modern world and need to be reactivated. But there’s likely some overlap between the needs of men and the needs of women; for example, primitive women used to be quite physical too, and I think modern women need to have an element of physicality in their lives as well. But with this switch, there’s definitely more than a little overlap. The Switch of Nature is for everyone. Men. Women. Children. Squirrels. Well, I think squirrels have it down pretty well. But it’s for everyone and their mom. Literally—your mom needs it too.

 

Man’s Separation from Nature: The Third “Frontier”

With the rest of the switches, there was a good amount of theorizing going on as we looked back in time and tried to uncover the life and perspective of primitive man. But with this switch, we don’t have to speculate—we can say this with 100% certitude: primitive man spent a lot more time outside in nature than modern man does. Primitive people were surrounded by nature all day, every day. Their lives revolved around it: they supped from it; they created with it; they protected themselves from it; they even worshiped it.

 

Read the rest of it at the following. Enjoy!

The 5 Switches of Manliness: Nature

Bourgeois Liberalism as Moral Fraud

One of the main reasons liberals want to give away their country to others is because they feel it makes them look good in the eyes of others – that it makes them appear supremely generous and altruistic.

The problem here, of course, is that what they’re giving to others (their country) is not actually theirs to give away. It not only belongs to the nation as a whole – the majority of whom don’t actually want to lose their lands – but also to their ancestors and descendants.

I’m sorry, but our ancestors did not bleed and die on battlefields defending their country just so a small segment of the current population could throw it away in order to bump themselves up the social ladder according to the bourgeois fashions of the day.

What exactly do they think will come of our descendants? What kind of a world will they be brought up in? What are they going to think, coming into a world where nobody trusts anybody else, to give just one example? And let’s get this straight; ethnic diversity doesn’t merely cause lower trust between different ethnic groups but lower trust and bonding between individuals of the same ethnic group i.e. all people slowly withdraw into themselves, not feeling any sense of connection to the wider community. In short: alienation.

So, as is now apparent, what liberals are in fact doing – by seeking the benefits of altruism in giving away the inheritance of others – is committing an act of moral fraud. Nobody under any circumstances should let these people take a solitary inch of the moral high ground. For that belongs to them neither.

Is Hollywood Anti-White?

As we showed in Killing Whitey, people who identify as liberals harbour a significant anti-White bias – to the point, in fact, that when asked under what conditions they would kill one person to save many more, the race of the people involved affected their choice. Yes, liberals were significantly more likely to agree to kill a White person than a Black person.

So here’s the deal. Can it be said that there is a liberal bias in certain institutions, etc. which in turn would translate as an anti-White bias? What about Hollywood, for example? Its cultural fare has an enormous reach – literally influencing the beliefs, values and behaviour of millions upon millions of people all over the world on an on-going basis.

Well, establishing that there is indeed a liberal bias in Hollywood is actually quite straight-forward. They’ve said so themselves. Not too long ago an American conservative called Ben Shapiro went and simply interviewed various Hollywood personnel, and as they apparently assumed he too was liberal, they casually agreed that Hollywood has a strong liberal bias. Which according to the research we looked at in Killing Whitey means that Hollywood possesses an anti-White bias.

Listen below as Hollywood insider Leonard Goldberg points out that Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal.

 

Killing Whitey

 

 

Nice, huh?

If this sort of stuff exists on the far left – and it certainly does – then what’s the likelihood that a milder version is suffused throughout the Left in general? And what would that mean for White people? (Given that the Left dominates academia, politics and the media in most Western countries.)

So, what do you think? Do leftists generally harbour an anti-White bias? Well interestingly enough that’s precisely what the following piece of research discovered in a study jokingly referred to as the ‘Kill Whitey’ study. Let’s have a look shall we?

 

Given the Choice, Liberals Would Rather “Kill Whitey”

Recent work by David Pizarro at Cornell is shedding light the role that race and ethics play in politics, by asking people to sacrifice the lives of either Tyrone Payton or Chip Ellsworth III.

OK, they didn’t really have to sacrifice anyone, but each participant in the study was faced with a variation of the classical ethical dilemma called the “trolley problem.” The trolley problem asks the question: Would you push someone on to the tracks (and kill them) to stop a trolley holding 100 people from crashing (and killing them all)?

The paper describes the twist that Pizarro and colleagues put on the trolley question when they asked it to California undergraduates:

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra.

While the study didn’t specifically mention each person’s race, the researchers reasoned that “Tyrone” would be stereotyped as black, while “Chip” would be stereotyped as white. On the saving end, they assumed that the Philharmonic would be thought of as white, while the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed black.

When faced with this choice, each individual in the study group showed different reactions based on their political leanings–the liberals were more likely to sacrifice “Chip” to save the Orchestra, while conservatives were more likely to sacrifice “Tyrone” to save the Philharmonic. When describing the findings in a recent talk Pizarro explained his interpretation of the findings:

If you’re wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.

 

So now we have a deeper insight into why things are the way they are. The all-pervading double standard which privileges non-Whites at the expense of Whites starts to make a lot more sense in light of this…

 

“I call an animal, a species, or an individual corrupt when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers, what is disadvantageous for it.” – F.W. Nietzsche

Good Fences Make Good Neighbours…

Seeing as before an apparently abrupt 180° turn, multiculturalism was political dogma here in the UK it might be informative if we actually take a look at what happens when we try to mix different ethnic groups into the same territory (spoiler: it isn’t good…)

 

To cut a long story short, where political boundaries fail to coincide with ethnic boundaries, you tend to find ethnic conflict.

For example, according to the United Nations there were 82 conflicts between 1989 and 1992 which caused 1,000+ fatalities. Out of these 82 conflicts, 79 (96%) were fought between different ethnic and/or religious groups within the borders of the same state. A mere 3 (4%) were fought across state borders.

 

Take a look at the following graph taken from a book titled Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism, by Finnish political scientist Professor Tatu Vanhanen. He conducted extensive work on the relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and ethnic conflict (and published his results in said book).

 

 

As Prof Tatu Vanhanen says in the book,

“In ethnic conflicts, people seem to follow a similar behavior pattern across all existing developmental, civilizational, and cultural boundaries. The more the population is divided into separate ethnic groups, the more they seem to become organized along ethnic lines in interest conflicts, and the more often they tend to resort to violence in ethnic conflicts.”

Indeed.

He also goes on to say,

“Ethnic nepotism belongs to human nature and … it is independent from the level of socioeconomic development (modernization) and also from the degree of democratization.”

 

And to include another (unrelated) quote – though at this point quite superfluous:

“Diverse peoples worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent.”

This is actually from Dick Lamm, an American Democratic politician and three time governor of Colorado. It’s from a speech he gave arguing against multiculturalism, in favour of assimilationism (but we’ve already seen what that involves: a complete disintegration of community and social capital.)

 

Now, on to the next piece of research; this one looks at how to actually prevent ethnic conflict (hint: it doesn’t involve multiculturalism.)

Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

Abstract

We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing [ENR-NW: again see ‘On Diversity’ to see the desirability of going down that road.] to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world

…which corresponds to what we previously said in Why Ethno-Nationalism? Best policy involves separating people out along ethnic lines, and handing them a certain degree of autonomy. Good fences make good neighbours…

Feminists: Not Pro-Women… Just Anti-People

OK, a quick clarification is in order here: original feminism came from classical liberalism; modern feminism comes from Marxism. When we talk about feminism here, it should be understood that we’re talking about modern, post-Marxist feminism.

 

Now, one of the primary (and strangest) ideas of feminism is that men and women are not really different, that the psychological and behavioural differences between us are entirely down to culture and socialisation. Some might say that’s quite a plausible hypothesis, and I’d possibly be inclined to agree… if it weren’t for the veritable mountains of evidence against it!

So why don’t we actually take a look at how science effectively steamrollered this bizarre aspect of modern feminism?

This our a summary of just some of the main evidence gathered by scientists which demolishes the claims of the feminists; this information is taken from a book called The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker, Harvard cognitive scientist and professor of psychology (his explanation of the findings goes into greater detail than mine).

 

• The differences between the sexes are universal – they’re found in all known cultures. This includes artificial cultures deliberately set up to avoid the existence of sex differences (e.g. Israeli Kibbutz)

• The psychological differences between the sexes are easily predicted from our physical and biological differences e.g. when the male of a species is physically larger than the female, it suggests an evolutionary history of greater physical competition between males than between females. From this fact you would expect men to possess more of an innate psychological tendency towards physical competition – as we do in fact see in all human cultures.

• The same psychological sex differences are often found in other mammals – especially the primates e.g. in many mammalian species, the males are more adept at navigating territory based on the geometric layout of the territory itself – as opposed to relying on specific landmarks, which in turn is more common amongst females.

• The modern study of genetics demonstrates greater human variation in mitochondrial DNA – passed down from mother to daughter – than in Y chromosomes – passed down from father to son. And as Pinker states, “These are precisely the conditions that cause sexual selection, in which males compete for opportunities to mate and females choose the best-quality males.”

• Biologically induced differences in hormone levels – most notably testosterone and oestrogen – between the sexes are known to have a significant effect on the development of the human brain. This effect is present in the womb, in the months following birth and during puberty. The respective hormones also have temporary effects throughout life.

• There are significant differences in the anatomical structure of the brain. ‘Socialisation’ or the acquisition of culture is not known to cause such alterations in the gross physical structure of the brain. These sex differences in the anatomy of the brain have been implicated in behavioural differences between the sexes.

• Testosterone differences between men, or the same man at different times, are known to cause many of the same psychological and behavioural differences that differentiate men from women.

In addition, although no healthy woman has higher testosterone levels than any healthy man, women with high testosterone levels for their sex display traits and characteristics we might describe as masculine.

Also, when women undergoing a ‘sex-change’ are given testosterone injections, they actually get better at tests of mental rotation and worse at tests of verbal fluency.

• Women’s cognitive abilities are different at different times of their menstrual cycle: when they are at the point when their oestrogen is highest, they get even better at things like verbal fluency; on the other hand, at the point when their oestrogen is lowest, they close the gap somewhat on men at things like mental rotation.

• There is a medical disorder called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which results in the over-production of a male hormone (androstenedione) in girls. Even though their hormone levels are normally put right soon after they’re born, they still develop into ‘tomboys’ displaying traits and characteristics deemed more typically masculine. This is because of the long-lasting effects hormones have on the developing brain of a foetus prior to birth.

• There have actually been studies of children raised as the opposite sex for ‘medical reasons’:

One study looked at 25 boys who were raised as girls after having been born without a penis. Despite being raised as girls, they all developed typically masculine personality traits and patterns of behaviour, and in addition to this, more than half of them spontaneously declared themselves to be boys.

The most famous case of this nature was a boy called David Reimer who lost his penis in infancy due to a botched circumcision. As a result he was raised as a girl, and although the experiment was initially reported as successful, he never actually identified as female, consistently behaved in a boyish manner, opted for a sex-change back to being a boy aged 15, and tragically committed suicide aged 38. In short, the entire experiment couldn’t have been more of a failure.

Then we can look at a medical condition known as Turner’s syndrome. This syndrome is caused because the child only inherits a single X chromosome from either parent – and as a consequence is neither male nor female. However, as the default plan for a developing foetus is female, people with Turner syndrome look and behave like girls. Now, these individuals will have inherited their X chromosome from either their mother of their father (obviously), but a father’s X chromosome is designed for a girl; whereas a mother’s X chromosome is intended for either a boy or girl – although in actuality it’s designed for a boy, since it will only act unopposed in a boy. The interesting thing in all of this is that girls with Turner’s Syndrome think and act differently depending on whether they get their X chromosome from their mother or their father – as you might have guessed, those with the X chromosome from their mother (designed for a boy) are more boyish than are those who get their X chromosome from their father.

 

Now watch this fantastic little YouTube vid:

 

And here’s a great article by Roy F. Baumeister, professor of psychology at Florida state university, which does a good job of refuting the central line of argument advanced by feminism:

Is There Anything Good About Men?

 

You could also do worse than to watch this neat little YouTube video series on feminism. Obviously ENR(NW)’s posting of this young lady’s video series should be taken as us agreeing with the majority of her views on feminism – not her views in general (which we may or may not agree with) :

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Diversity

We won’t bother commenting too much on this topic, as the research really does speak for itself. So, read, enjoy, and arm yourself with the basic facts!

 

The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders by Dr. Frank Salter:

“[Increased immigration] will harm national interests in ways documented by scholars in economics, sociology and related disciplines. Much of the harm is predictable from what is known about the dysfunctions of diversity. They include growing inequality in the especially invidious form of ethnic stratification. No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.

Diversity has also been associated with reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.

The loss of social cohesion bears emphasis. Disapproving of birds flocking together is beside the point; it is a biological fact that needs to be taken into account. Rising diversity within human societies tends to drive people apart, causing them to take sanctuary in individual pursuits and ethnic communities. The practical consequences are reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”

 

E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century by Dr Robert Putnam:

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.

On this theory, the more we are brought into physical proximity with people of another race or ethnic background, the more we stick to ‘our own’ and the less we trust the ‘other’ (Blumer 1958; Blalock 1967; Giles & Evans 1986; Quillian 1995, 1996; Brewer & Brown 1998; Taylor 1998; Bobo 1999; Bobo & Tuan 2006).

The evidence that diversity and solidarity are negatively correlated (controlling for many potentially confounding variables) comes from many different settings:

• Across workgroups in the United States, as well as in Europe, internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, professional background, ethnicity, tenure and other factors) is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover (Jackson et al. 1991; Cohen & Bailey 1997; Keller 2001; Webber & Donahue 2001).

• Across countries, greater ethnic heterogeneity seems to be associated with lower social trust (Newton & Delhey 2005; Anderson & Paskeviciute 2006; but see also Hooghe et al. 2006).

• Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden, Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods (Poterba 1997; Alesina et al. 1999; Alesina & La Ferrara 2000, 2002; Costa & Kahn 2003b; Vigdor 2004; Glaeser & Alesina 2004; Leigh 2006; Jordahl & Gustavsson 2006; Soroka et al. 2007; Pennant 2005; but see also Letki forthcoming).

• Among Peruvian micro-credit cooperatives, ethnic heterogeneity is associated with higher default rates; across Kenyan school districts ethnolinguistic diversity is associated with less voluntary fundraising; and in Himalayan Pakistan, clan, religious, and political diversity are linked with failure of collective infrastructure maintenance (Karlan 2002; Miguel & Gugerty 2005; Khwaja 2006).

• Across American census tracts, greater ethnic heterogeneity is associated with lower rates of car-pooling, a social practice that embodies trust and reciprocity (Charles & Kline 2002).

• Within experimental game settings such as prisoners-dilemma or ultimatum games, players who are more different from one another (regardless of whether or not they actually know one another) are more likely to defect (or ‘cheat’). Such results have been reported in many countries, from Uganda to the United States (Glaeser et al. 2000; Fershtman & Gneezy 2001; Eckel & Grossman 2001; Willinger et al. 2003; Bouckaert & Dhaene 2004; Johansson-Stenman et al. 2005; Gil-White 2004; Habyarimana et al. 2006).

• Within the Union (northern) Army in the American Civil War, the casualty rate was very high and the risks of punishment for desertion were very low, so the only powerful force inhibiting the rational response of desertion was loyalty to one’s fellow soldiers, virtually all of whom were other white males. Across companies in the Union Army, the greater the internal heterogeneity (in terms of age, hometown, occupation, etc.), the higher the desertion rate (Costa & Kahn 2003a)”

 

 

“Diversity seems to trigger not in-group/out-group division, but anomie or social isolation. In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ – that is, to pull in like a turtle.

In areas of greater diversity, our respondents demonstrate:

• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.

• Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in their own influence.

• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.

• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).

• Less likelihood of working on a community project.

• Lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.

• Fewer close friends and confidants.

• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.

• More time spent watching television and more agreement that ‘television is my most important form of entertainment’.

Diversity does not produce ‘bad race relations’ or ethnically-defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

 

 

“In our ‘standard model’ we have included simultaneously controls at both the individual and the census tract level for:

Age  –  Affluence/poverty  –  Citizenship

Ethnicity  –  Language  –  Commuting time

Education  –  Residential mobility  –  Homeownership

In addition, we control for region of the country; the respondent’s gender, financial satisfaction and work hours; the population density and the Gini index of income inequality in his or her census tract; and two measures of the crime rate in the respondent’s county. Obviously, it is impossible here to present the full array of statistical evidence for each of the dozens of dependent variables we have examined.

Does the relationship between diversity and sociability vary between men and women, upscale and downscale neighbourhoods, liberals and conservatives, whites and non-whites, young people and older generations?

The short answer is basically ‘no’. The same pattern appears within each of these demographic groups.”

 

So there you have it. Ethnic diversity basically wrecks communities. We can’t help but wonder what the Left makes of all of this, because obviously, if they did in fact genuinely care about increasing social cohesion and people’s general well-being they wouldn’t be leftist at all; they’d be on our side.

Decadence and Renaissance

Western leftism by its very nature believes in inevitable progress; that’s why you always get told, for example, that the mixing of the world’s racial and ethnic groups is “inevitable” (much like the world-wide takeover of communism used to be inevitable!)

We here at ENR – North West know better than this. We’re fully aware of history’s cyclical nature – peaks and troughs, rising and falling, growth and decay, zeniths and nadirs, Golden Ages and Dark Ages…

And…

Decadence and renaissance.

 

Here we present for you two videos contrasting the decadence of modern Western life with what life in the West could be if a cultural, socio-political and spiritual renaissance were to occur. The following two videos, like the Racism is Natural series, are the work of one MrHerrIQ:

 

 

Britain: Israel’s Rottweiler’s Lapdog?

This really is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the wars in Iraq and, more recently, Libya; or more specifically why they even took place at all. Your eyes will definitely be opened after reading this, we promise you.

This is a report on the Israel lobby’s influence over American (and consequently British) foreign policy. Its authors are two highly-rated American academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt; their facts are well-accepted and their conclusions are absolute dynamite!

 

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

“U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration’s attempt to transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many, all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.

The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.

This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries is based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives. As we show below, however, neither of those explanations can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel.

Instead, the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the region is due almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the “Israel Lobby.” Other special interest groups have managed to skew U.S. foreign policy in directions they favored, but no lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical.

In the pages that follow, we describe how the Lobby has accomplished this feat, and how its activities have shaped America’s actions in this critical region. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East and its potential impact on others, both Americans and non‐Americans need to understand and address the Lobby’s influence on U.S. policy.

Some readers will find this analysis disturbing, but the facts recounted here are not in serious dispute among scholars. Indeed, our account relies heavily on the work of Israeli scholars and journalists, who deserve great credit for shedding light on these issues. We also rely on evidence provided by respected Israeli and international human rights organizations. Similarly, our claims about the Lobby’s impact rely on testimony from the Lobby’s own members, as well as testimony from politicians who have worked with them. Readers may reject our conclusions, of course, but the evidence on which they rest is not controversial.

THE GREAT BENEFACTOR

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing the amounts provided to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct U.S. economic and military assistance since 1976 and the largest total recipient since World War II. Total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $140 billion in 2003 dollars. Israel receives about $3 billion in direct foreign assistance each year, which is roughly one‐fifth of America’s foreign aid budget. In per capita terms, the United States gives each Israeli a direct subsidy worth about $500 per year. This largesse is especially striking when one realizes that Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain. …”

 

 

There are, of course, serious questions that need to be asked in light of this. Such as how is it that the British government can wage pointless wars on behalf of Israel, when our educational system is failing, the NHS is collapsing and order can’t even be maintained on the streets of our own cities?

How much money have we wasted on this? How many of our soldiers have been maimed or worse? How much hostility has this created towards us in the Middle East? And all for what exactly?

As for America, they really need to be doing more to free themselves from the yoke of Israel, seeing as many of their cities are in varying states of decline and post-apocalyptic decay. (For example: Failing dreams: California faces its own Great Depression)

and…

 

ENR(NW) demands that British foreign policy should seek to serve the interests of the indigenous nation(s) of the British Isles, and not those of a foreign nation!