When I was finishing The Real National Interest (TRNI), it became clear that a follow-up article would be needed; because there is a complimentary aspect of state policy; common to all nations of the West, whose justification isn't entirely clear from the ethnocentric perspective referred to in the original article.

It might be useful to first restate the hypothesis posited in TRNI: That American Near- and Middle-East policy is logical and comprehensible when viewed from the perspective of its actual purpose: to destroy or marginalize potential threats to the state of Israel. These threats being other nation-states or coalitions thereof. And that “terrorists” are not only not a threat to Israel (or any other state)—they are to a large extent useful catalysts for the aggrandizement of state power. Thus the goal of American policy in this region is to destroy nation-states; and if the dissolution of a given state actually results in the propagation of terrorist activity—all the better.

When a modern, secular state such as Iraq is replaced by a largely anarchistic, proto-feudal and unstable pastiche of clashing religions and ethnicities, sharing nothing in common but a tendency towards religious fundamentalism and intolerance for “the other”, the region (one can no longer refer to it as a state in any meaningful sense) loses the capacity to act outwardly—to project a common will to power—and instead becomes consumed by internal conflicts that feed upon themselves, and that are relatively easy for external forces to influence, inflame, and maintain.

And when readers of the original article suggest that “hand[ing] Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood” is a failure of US foreign policy, they are precisely missing the point. In fact, the spread of Islamic fundamentalism is one of the greatest boons of our adventures over there. People need to consider what Islamic fundamentalism actually is: It is not only a retrograde religion—it is cultural and civilizational retrogression! Islamic fundamentalism creates societies of unemployable men and ignorant and civically “invisible” women, who are collectively incapable of maintaining, much less producing, the level of technological development necessary to create a functioning, modern state. Indeed, Islamic fundamentalism is the indoctrination of teeming masses into a societal model taken en bloc from the first millennium AD.

In Western countries, boys and girls go to school and learn things like math, biology, physics, chemistry, history, and their language. One can argue convincingly about the pathetic state of education in many western countries—but the intent is as described. In Muslim countries dominated by fundamentalists, boys go to madrasas and learn how to recite the Koran forwards and backwards by heart. Girls . . . well, girls get to stay at home and be quiet and out of sight—OR ELSE. The extent to which reciting the Koran can help put a man on the moon (or more to the point—design and build a modern, main battle tank capable of taking on, say, the Merkava) is unknown to me, but I have a feeling it's rather limited.

So in conclusion, the spread of Islamic fundamentalism is an effective means of transforming what might otherwise be a temporary state of political disarray into a permanent state of 6^th century, ineffectual feudalism. That these teeming masses are at times inclined to strap dynamite to their chests and blow up stuff in a futile expression of their inability to accomplish anything on a meaningful, political level is icing on the cake.

This leads me to the larger point about the state policy exhibited throughout the West: wholesale immigration of various, culture enrichers—many of them Muslim. People are often incredulous when they note the current degree of anti-Semitism prevalent in these new arrivals—and they ask the logical question of whether or not this immigration isn't mortally dangerous for the Jewish populations of the countries being culturally enriched. The suggestion being that the Jewish community—by supporting (as they unquestionably have) wholesale Islamic immigration into western countries—is actually engaging in an insane and ultimately self-defeating policy. I do not believe this is the case, and indeed, I think that this policy meshes well with the Zionist project of Greater Israel (which is being facilitated by the foreign policy that was the subject of TRNI). There are three aspects that characterize the successful nature of this external political project—the transformation of the West into a multicultural soup comprised in no small part of Islamic ingredients:

Firstly, there is the “secular” political benefit of destroying ethnic homogeneity of Western states. This being the ability of a group exhibiting high intelligence, an ingroup/outgroup moral code, a strong sense of self, and the willingness to act in its own interests, to control a motley collection of other groups that are lacking one or more of the same characteristics. In order to affect this transformation, one makes use of the materials that are available. Since France is a long swim—even for a Mexican—one turns to France's southern “neighbors” . . . making use of a little, good ole collective guilt over colonialism in the process. Indeed, one can already see this playing off of various parties taking place in Europe – where Jewish, crypto-Jewish, or philo-Semitic politicians like Geert Wilders co-opt nativist movements in a fashion that remains beneficial to Jewish interests, while Leftish Jewish groups join hands with Muslim organizations to condemn European racism.

Secondly, Jews have historically gotten along fairly well with their Semitic cousins. They did well for themselves oppressing the Visigoths in Spain, while acting as agents for their Moorish masters. Sure, there's some bad blood between them right now over the whole Palestinian thing, but that won't last. My personal theory in this regard is that the Zionists figure that giving Europe to Islam is a small price to pay for securing their Biblical homeland in its entirety. If the Jews in Europe are frightened by near-term anti-Semitism, all the better. They're having trouble convincing them to make Aliyah in its absence. And after a century or so, they'll be able to move back to what's left of Paris and enjoy the pleasure of manipulating the various, competing ethnies in the former, romantic capital of the world via petty politics, corruption, and manufactured intrigue.

Thirdly, the infusion of Islamic populations—and Islamic fundamentalism as described above—is part of the dysgenic process by which the populace of the Western world will be transformed into a permanently manageable herd. The Germany of 1933 was an unpleasant lesson (as was the Spanish Reconquista and subsequent Inquisition) of precisely what happens when one visits too much abuse on a homogenous and intelligent host population. Point #1 above deals with the whole “homogenous” part. The second part of this, final solution is to reduce the level of intelligence and knowledge of the host population to the point that it is no longer capable of engendering effective resistance. A friend of mine used to refer to this as the “São Paulo Model”. I used to scoff at it. I'm not so sure anymore. Certainly, the dumbing-down of education and culture is unquestionably useful in making the citizens of Western countries manageable and manipulable. This is a goal that is beneficial not only to alien powers. Limiting access to education is a tool used often and historically to control certain populations; women in Islamic countries being a useful example. But overwhelming intelligent populations with sub-intelligent ones seems like a logical extension of this—and a permanent one at that. No need to worry about controlling “evil” books and ideas when there's no one willing or capable of reading or thinking them.

Some might suggest that this is all too conspiratorial. But it doesn't have to be a “conspiracy” in the sense of an entire ethnic group getting together in auntie Ruth's basement to make plans that they put secretly into motion. More likely, it's an organic movement in a common and commonly beneficial direction, of a people united in their perception of self as “the oppressed outsider”. Some might also suggest that the Jewish community might feel unhappy or disappointed by the end product of these machinations. Aren't they happier within a French France or an English England than they will be in these countries, once the demographic time-bombs they've helped build explode? Maybe. But one of the greatest failures of Western man has been his ridiculous tendency to project his sentiments and sensibilities on others. The idea that the Negro (or the Japanese, or the Indian, and so forth) is just like him—but in a different, physical wrapper—is pathetic and fundamentally wrong. Is it not logical, in fact, that a people who are themselves products of thousands of years of history in crowded, chaotic, multi-ethnic cities would be more at home in such an environment than in the quiet, orderly, homogenous, “boring” communities that we Europeans find most comforting?

In last week’s address on U.S. Middle East policy, President Obama finally unveiled his radical plans to betray Israel. Thankfully, Republican leaders and their AIPAC handlers are onto the administration’s game. They’ve sounded the alarm that Obama is throwing “our only democratic ally in the region” under a runaway bus packed with freedom-hating Islamo-Nazis. So what are the details of this malefic design? The president’s speech outlines the main elements:

• Reaffirmation of “unshakeable” U.S. security guarantees to Israel.
• Warning the Palestinians against a bid for statehood at the UN General Assembly in September.
• The two-state solution: “Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people”.
• A challenge to Fatah on bringing Hamas to the negotiating table and White House insistence that the new Palestinian state be non-militarized.

Under these conditions, it’s only a matter of time before Iranian panzers make their final drive to the shores of the Mediterranean! Of course, the greatest point of contention in the matter was Obama’s call for Israel and the Palestinians to establish borders circa 1967. There is nothing terribly new about this demand, as both the Clinton and Bush II administrations conducted talks under the same basic framework. Washington’s support for Israeli-Palestinian frontiers roughly matching those before the Six Day War has merely become more explicit.

Interesting development at the International Monetary Fund, is it not?

Over the past few days we have seen news reports about IMF head, 62-year-old Dr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, having been embroiled in sex crime allegations. Yesterday we found that he had been charged by the New York police of ‘criminal sex act, unlawful imprisonment, and attempted rape’. The criminal sex act, apparently, consisted of forcing a hotel maid to give him oral sex.

Formerly an academic, Left-wing politician, and French finance minister, he was regarded as a possible Socialist candidate for the French presidency, a position for which he was expected to announce his intention to run soon. He hoped to replace Nicolas Sarkozy as the French head of state.

Now, as per the tradition in Anglo-Saxon countries, a man is innocent until proven guilty (unless, that is, he is facing the tax authorities, in which case he is everywhere and always guilty until proven innocent, and even then he remains under suspicion and kept secretly under the microscope). Yet, when we consider that this gentleman, who is married, was already criticised in 2008 for a steamy affair with Piroska Nagy, a married economist and subordinate member of staff; that the IMF board acknowledged at the time that many female members of staff were unhappy with his behaviour, even after being cleared following an investigation into his role in Mrs. Nagy’s departure and severance package; that around this time the press carried reports about his having acted ‘like a gorilla’ after inviting an unnamed actress to his Paris flat; that in 2007, Tristane Banon, a then 27-year-old French journalist and writer, accused him of attempting to rape her in 2002, an accusation against which he pressed no charges and but which she has now decided to pursue; and that he had to fight charges of corruption in two financial scandals in 1999, related to Elf Aquitaine and a student mutual insurance—when we consider this past history, things do not look very good.

Unless there is a spectacularly rapid denouement in his favour, we can safely consider him finished in French politics. This is the verdict of not only his opponents on the Right, including Marine Le Pen of the Front National, but also those on the Left, who have spontaneously effervesced with theories of a Right-wing conspiracy (Americans who lived through the sordid revelations of Clinton presidency will find this has a familiar ring).

In Europe voters tend to be slightly more forgiving of politicians’ ‘amorous peccadillos’, which I would rather call gross personal betrayals. In the United States, at least until the advent of the Bill and Monica affair, the suggestion of marital infidelity resulted automatically in political fulmination. At least, that is how it was traditionally seen from Europe. But in Europe, a politician could survive revelations of marital infidelity, the latter being regarded, perhaps self-servingly, as a personal matter, unconnected with ability to do the job.

Technically that may be the case in some cases. But my view is that if someone in a position of responsibility cannot at the very least remain faithful to his spouse, despite having sworn eternal honour and fealty in front of family and friends and the law, if that person is capable of this level of betrayal, motivated by nothing more than base instinct and momentary pleasure, how can we expect him to remain faithful to his principles, to put base temptations for the sake of moral rectitude? Irrespective of whether or not he is found innocent now, a man in Strauss-Kahn’s position, one of immense responsibility, involving and affecting thousands of millions of people, would be expected by those of us with a traditional outlook to be of far, far better character than the average man—almost a Hyperborean. Not, in other words, a servant of the Demiurge.

New York Police Department spokesman, Paul Browne,

said the allegations had been made by a 32-year-old woman who worked at the hotel, which has been identified as the Sofitel near Times Square. His accommodation there was described by the New York Times as a luxury suite costing $3,000 per night (£1,900).

"We received a call that a chambermaid in a hotel in midtown Manhattan had been sexually assaulted by the occupant of a luxury suite at that hotel, and that that individual had fled," Mr Browne told the BBC.

"The maid described being forcibly attacked, locked in the room and sexually assaulted," he said.

Speaking to Reuters, Mr Browne gave more details on the allegations against Mr Strauss-Kahn.

"She told detectives he came out of the bathroom naked, ran down a hallway to the [suite] foyer where she was, pulled her into a bedroom and began to sexually assault her, according to her account."

"She pulled away from him and he dragged her down a hallway into the bathroom where he engaged in a criminal sexual act, according to her account to detectives. He tried to lock her into the hotel room."

Mr Strauss-Kahn then made his way to the airport but left his mobile phone and other items behind, Mr Brown said.

"It looked like he got out of there in a hurry."

By the time police established that the occupant of the room was Mr Strauss-Kahn, the IMF chief was on board an Air France plane at John F Kennedy airport, about to depart for Paris.

"Our detectives requested of the airport authorities that they stop the plane from leaving, went to the airport and took him into custody," Mr Browne said.

"If our officers had been 10 minutes later he would have been in the air and on their way to France."

The woman has been treated at hospital for minor injuries, said Mr Browne.

Plato—he who argued for eugenics to breed a better race of leaders—would have stroked his beard and thought, ‘I told you so.’

What strikes me about the BBC’s news reports their sensitivity. In the midst of all the bloodcurdling allegations, we find that they still have time to think about Dr. Strauss-Kahn’s emotional state, and report his lawyer stating that he was ‘tired but fine’. In fact, the reports I have looked at have been extremely temperate and punctiliously balanced, even obscurely sympathetic, given the nature of the allegations and past behaviour.

Who is Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

Of Sephardic and Azhkenazic Jewish origin, he was born in 1949 in a wealthy Paris neighbourhood, son of a legal tax lawyer and member of the Masonic order Grand Orient de France and of a Russo-Tunisian journalist. During the 1970s, Dr. Strauss-Kahn was an academic, having obtained a degree in public law and a PhD and an agrégation in economics.

In his youth he joined the Union of Communist Students (Union des étudiants communistes, UEC), which is part of the Mouvement Jeunes Communistes de France (MJCF, Movement of Young Communists of France), and which is close to the French Communist Party. He subsequently joined the Centre d'études, de recherches et d'éducation socialiste (Center on Socialist Education Studies and Research, CERES), and later became involved with the Socialist Party, led by his friend Lionel Jospin, also founding Socialisme et judaïsme.

He became an elected deputy in 1986, then Chairman of the National Assembly Committee on Finances, and then again Minister for Industry and Foreign trade. Defeated in the elections of 1993, he was appointed Chairman of the Groupe des experts du PS (Group of Experts of the Socialist Party), founded a law firm (DSK Consultants), and worked as a business lawyer.

But not for long. The following year, Raymond Lévy, director of Renault, invited him to join the Cercle de l’Industrie, a Brussels-based industry lobby. Billionaire Vincent Bolloré and Louis Schweitzer entered his circle of friends. Bolloré is a well-known corporate raider and industrialist with media interests and substantial positions in the economies of Ivory Coast, Gabon, Cameroon, and Congo, and also a long-standing friend of Nicolas Sarkozy. Schweitzer was Lévy’s successor at Renault, of which he was CEO until 2005, and also Chairman of AstraZeneca, and non-executive director of BNP Paribas, Electricité de France, Volvo AB, and L’Oréal.

As Minister of Economics he implemented a wide privatisation and a partial deregulation programme, despite this running against the Socialist Party’s official ideology. An increase in GDP and reduction of public debt resulted in personal popularity. In the late 1990s he joined, as finance minister, Lionel Jospin’s socialist government, ‘responsible for steering France towards the era of the Euro’.

He supported the infamous European Constitution of 2005, so arrogantly promoted by bureaucrats and politicians at the time (there was no real examination, just promotion, despite its wide-ranging powers). Said constitution incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which banned eugenics, prohibited collective expulsions, guaranteed the right to asylum, and adopted totalitarian equality and humanism as a core principle.

As head of the IMF, Dr. Strauss-Kahn proposed giving Special Drawing Rights a stronger role as a method of stabilising the global monetary system, and as a possible replacement for the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency. Some have seen this as a move towards a world currency, consistent with Dr. Strauss-Kahn’s earlier championing of the Euro.

The BBC profiles him as a man of ‘easy charm’ who ‘seduce[s] with words’.

No doubt Kevin MacDonald would find Dr. Strauss-Kahn a case worthy of his attention, but, that aside, the picture that emerges here is clearly that of a typical ‘champagne socialist’: a globalist, former communist, who nevertheless stays in luxury hotels; rubs shoulders with powerful industrialists, billionaires, and heads of state; and lives a fabulously privileged and rarefied lifestyle, out of the public purse—a suave, elegant, smooth-talking philanderer, aligned with a political party whose policy is to take from the talented and hard-working in order to give to the talentless and the indolent, who all the same draws a six-figure salary (plus an opaque pension scheme), in a nearly all-powerful position obtained through presidential favour.

I doubt any of my readers will be surprised by any of this. All the same, it bears highlighting, for the fact that a man with such obvious character flaws, with such glaring contradictions between stated ideology and real-world behaviour, has been so handsomely rewarded by the system, funded out of our collective and individual pockets, is symptomatic of the system’s level of corruption. In a non-corrupt system, where character was as important as ability, such a person would not have been able to talk his way undetected into the highest echelons of international finance; such a person would have been weeded out long before. Champaigne socialists—Bill Clinton and Tony Blair are famous examples—are but one of the various miasmic bacteria that contaminate the Western body politic in our Iron Age. Indeed, the French establishment now worry about the effect this this affair could have at a time of unprecedented distrust for politicians.

Whatever the outcome of this specific crisis, I will not be shedding tears for the political death of this champagne socialist.

Ellison Lodge’s attempt to bring order to the debate about Jewish nationalism and influence in America was very laudable and plausible. His categories have the appearance of fairness and balance, which is an achievement in an area that generates so much “heat” and miasma. His four categories also have a pleasing symmetry and simplicity that almost reminded me of Newton’s laws of planetary motion. However, after a few days rolling them around in various portions of my rather convoluted and un-geometrical mind, I couldn’t help thinking that they made the classic Western (or White) intellectual error of equivalence, which is treating things as if they all exist on the same plane.

This sort of thinking, rather like Newtonian physics, has the appearance of rationality, extension, and universal applicability, and, more than this, just like Newtonian physics, it almost always works. For example, there is certainly equivalence between German and French national rights and interests. Although these might have been addressed at various times by different methods—politics, economics, and war—the idea that both countries had roughly equal national rights and weight has always informed their history and their relationship.

When France was dominant at the time of Napoleon’s ascendancy, the idea of a German national interest mobilized things beneath the surface and prepared the way for his downfall. Likewise, when France was crushed by the superior military genius of the Germans in 1870 and 1940, the idea that France was somehow still equal to Germany kept the national flame burning strongly. This idea of a just equivalence of national interests between all the European nations has led at various times to wars and more recently to the unfortunate situation where the nations have agreed—based on the idea of a kind of negative equivalence—to temporarily subsume their legitimate national interests in the bureaucratic swamp of the European Superstate.

The crux of Byron Roth’s disagreement with Kevin MacDonald is essentially that Prof. MacDonald makes criticisms of Israeli nationalism that he would never make about European peoples. This critique is frequently leveled against Patrick Buchanan by writers like Larry Auster.

This is, in many ways, the inverse of one of the easiest criticisms some White Nationalists make about Jewish Leftists: namely, that they hypocritically support Israeli nationalism, while screaming that enforcing our immigration laws is “racist.”

If one were to try to sort out views on nationalism in Israel and the West, it could be neatly split into four categories:

1. Those who support ethno-politics for Israel but not for Europeans and the West.  (neoliberals and neoconservatives like Abe Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Bill Kristol et al.)
2. Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel and the West (Noam Chomsky, Max Blumenthal et al.)
3. Those who support ethno-politics in the West and in Israel  (Lawrence Auster, Diana West, Michael Savage)
4. Those who oppose ethno-politics for Israel but support it for the West (Pat Buchanan, Kevin MacDonald)

Presumably, the intellectually consistent views would be 2 and 3. Group 1 could be seen as Jewish hypocrites, and group 4 must be anti-Semitic.

It is not that simple, however.

As part of a series of interviews I have been conducting elsewhere with dissidents involved with writing and publishing, I have conducted a major interview with Professor Kevin MacDonald. 

Much has been written about him, but all of it, and even what he has written about himself, has focused on his intellectual background and current thinking on ethnic competition, immigration, twentieth century Jewish intellectual movements, and Leftist bias in Western academia. I wanted to find out more about the man behind the monster. What is it like to be a controversial professor? What is he like as a person? What about his pre-academic life? In his replies, we discover many previously unknown facts about Professor MacDonald, we obtain something closer to a full-length portrait of the man, and are even treated to never-previously-seen photographic images from his past. Whether you are a friend or a foe, what you will find there will illuminate, enlighten, and entertain—not to mention shatter some popular misconceptions. You can read the interview here.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel caused a sensation recently when she stated bluntly that Muslim integration has “failed.” Despite the media controversy, Merkel was merely acknowledging a broad consensus in Europe, and one that crosses national and party boundaries. In Merkel’s Germany, for example, a recent survey found that 55 per cent of respondents think Muslims are a burden on the economy, and around a third believe that Muslims will “overrun the country.” Throughout Europe, Muslims live in parallel societies, and the dream of a harmonious multicultural future has little basis in reality. Thilo Sarrazin’s well-publicized book, Germany Does Away With Itself, pointed to the many shortcomings of immigrants (including low intelligence and educational achievement) and placed the blame for the failure to assimilate squarely on the Muslims.

Popular sentiment is increasingly on the side of those who would sharply curb immigration, particularly Muslims immigration. And the rise of European nationalist parties is certainly one of the more encouraging developments for White advocates. Times are changing.

Nevertheless, parties addressing these concerns still have a serious problem establishing their legitimacy. Opposition to immigration is the lightning rod of contemporary politics throughout the West and has been met with vicious opposition by the Powers That Be.

Indeed, it might be said without exaggeration that opposition to immigration and multiculturalism have defined a “no-go zone” for decades—beyond the pale of legitimate political discourse. “Far right” parties that challenge the consensus on these issues are typically seen by the elite media and the political establishment through the lens of conventional post-World War II moralism—as hearkening back to National Socialist attitudes of racial exclusion and superiority. Within this worldview, opposition to immigration and multiculturalism is immediately shrouded in the rhetoric of the Holocaust that has become the cultural touchstone of European civilization at least since the 1970s.

In the last few months of 2010, the United States has intensified its air campaign over the Pashtun tribal lands that lie astride a mountainous and poorly defined Afghan-Pakistan border. In the course of 102 days, 58 strikes against Taliban and Al-Qaeda operatives (as well as a high but unknown number of innocents) were carried out by the Air Force and CIA’s fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Jihadists and civilians alike are incinerated by Hellfire missiles without much notice from the media, and American soldiers and marines who fall in combat can expect little better. Yet one death connected to the war in the Hindu Kush certainly did garner attention in Washington: that of Richard Holbrooke, the Department of State’s Special Representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Holbrooke, responsible for diplomatic coordination of the ongoing conflict, died from a ruptured aorta on December 13^th. Since then the press and the Obama administration have unleashed torrents of praise for this “giant of American diplomacy”. But perhaps the most fitting tribute to the man has been the ever-expanding role of killer drones in the execution of policy, as reported from Pakistan’s northwest. Despite his earlier experiences in Vietnam, Richard Holbrooke came to believe firmly in redemption through coercive air power. In bombing there is progress; in bombing shall we find peace.

VDARE.com's Peter Brimelow joins Richard to discuss the secular liberals' war against traditional Christian European folkways.

For my entire lifetime, the figure of Richard Milhous Nixon has been an almost cartoonish Left-liberal hate object (second only to Adolf Hitler in this regard.)

Predictably, the Left hates Tricky Dick for all the wrong reasons.

Nixon’s presidency was certainly a failure (if not a disaster), but this was hardly due to the botched caper at the Watergate hotel or his fabled “enemies list” of Beltway pundits. In his five years plus in office, Nixon added whole new departments to the welfare state, ended the gold standard, and implemented forced busing and Affirmative Action in the name of racial integration. He was the last president to openly call himself a “Keynesian.”  (Liberals might, indeed, want to rethink their antipathy towards Nixon, much as they have reason to embrace the social reforms of George W. Bush.)

In the foreign realm, however, Nixon’s policies were quite admirable: he eased tensions with the Soviet Union and, most brilliantly, shattered the Cold War paradigm by opening diplomatic relations with China.

With “Watergate” fading in memory, one might think that Nixon would begin to be looked back upon fondly as a hard-nosed statesman and peacemaker. Unfortunately, the 265 hours of Oval Office recordings released this week by the Nixon Library—which include the president’s disparaging comments about Blacks, Jews, and American “ethnics”—will, no doubt, cement his status as a bête noire.

For me at least, the offending remarks have raised my own estimation of the man.

Nixon believed that peoples have inherited traits. And he voiced “stereotypes” about Jews and Blacks that men around the world have held for centuries in one form or another. (Briefly, Nixon thought that Jews can be pushy and obnoxious and African-Americans are incapable of civilization, save their complete genetic absorption into the White population.¹)

The tapes also reveal that Nixon, bolstered by his chief advisor Henry Kissinger, was perhaps the last president to view foriegn policy as matter of competing interests and not as a means of social work and world improvement. The most telling lines in this regard come in an exchange between Nixon and Kissinger in 1973 over regarding Jewish migration to Israel out of the Soviet Union.

Kissinger: The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.

Nixon: I know. We can’t blow up the world because of it.

Apparently, one is supposed to find these words extremely offensive. And Nixon’s unwillingness to jeopardize the lives of hundreds of millions in response to a potential “Second Holocaust” is yet more evidence of his “anti-Semitism”—or, according to Slate, “something worse than anti-Semitism.”

Putting aside the Israel issue, one might want to speculate whether Nixon’s HBD realism (so to speak) was intimately connected with his foreign-policy realism—and whether the two might reinforce one another.

In the egalitarian mind, the notion that “All Men Are Created Equal”—that any perceived difference between or within races must be the result of irrational prejudice or yet-to-be vanquished tradition—is partnered with the view that all men deserve the same egalitarian form of government. (Whether it’s called “socialism” or “democracy” is immaterial; both are imaged a bringing about equality and “true freedom.”) In this view, a nation that has deviated from the One True Political Way is not simply a rival or potential enemy but an outright foe that must be liberated and transformed … or else annihilated.²

Those of us who believe that there are profound differences between the human subspecies are usually depicted, by our liberal or egalitarian Christian opponents alike, as crazed fascist who, if given the chance, would promptly pursue genocidal policies around the globe.

In reality, our foreign-policy program is fairly laid back. (In contrast to those of the neocons and humanitarian interventionist, it’s quite pacific.)

I don’t think that, say, the Chinese or the Iraqis have the same innate expectations and predilections as Europeans; it thus doesn’t surprise me that they’d arrive at political arrangements other than Anglo-Saxon republicanism. I don’t hate them for it, nor do I want to bomb or invade them until they love America, duly elect public officials, and ensure that all women receive an undergraduate education. To the contrary, the racial and foreign-policy realist seeks to find ways to get along with other civilizations—much as Nixon did with Beijing—and not blow up the world in the name of some “humanitarian” cause.

The egalitarian creationism of David Frum, John Hagee, and Richard Holbrooke, on the one hand, and their commitment to endless wars for democracy, on the other, are not unrelated. Such a righteous cause as “equality” can justify almost any means.

Notes:

1. The tapes also add credence to the view that Nixon supported Affirmative Action as a cynical gambit, or as a way of securing Blacks a small slice of the diminishing economic pie, and not as a means of acheiving a "color blind" society.
2. In his book Crisis and Critique, German historian and theorist Reinhart Kosseleck viewed Soviet Communism and American “democracy” as equally messiahnic and totalizing forces; the Cold War itself was in danger of reviving the all-or-nothing bloodshed of the Wars of Religion.)