“Diversity” and “Multiculturalism” Is Largely a Jewish Movement in the West
…by Jonas E. Alexis
The western world, at its core, welcomes any individual, regardless of national or ethnic background, who tries to enhance the ideas and principles inherent in the western intellectual tradition for the benefit of society.
As we shall see in a moment, multiculturalism does not appreciate this form of unity. One of the problems with multiculturalism is that it is inherently hostile to the West, and it has not been without its critics.
That multiculturalism is hostile to the West was expressed more vividly in 1988 when Jesse Jackson and a group of Stanford University students began to chant, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western Civilization has got to go!”
Ever since Jackson’s protest, the works of Plato, Aristotle, and a host of others have been viewed as almost a relic of the past in many colleges and universities around the country. One writer for the Stanford Review later declared,
“These protests yielded the desired results, as Stanford no longer required courses in Western Civilization and multiculturalism pervaded the curriculum. Still, Stanford has no classics requirements and universities often face claims of having a lack of courses in their curriculums that teach about conservative political thought…
“Specific to Stanford’s case is a core curriculum that does not require students to take Western civilization courses. The Western civilization requirements made students read and analyze texts that formed the groundwork for liberal political systems and modern Western thought.”
It must be said at the outset here that it is foolish to dismiss the people who have established the intellectual tradition of Western civilization, and certainly removing them from the core curriculum was a dangerous move.
I think mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead has a point when he said that the classics give us “a thorough study of language to develop the mind in the regions of logic, philosophy, history and of aesthetic apprehension of literary beauty.”
This is not to say that the words of the shapers of Western civilization must not be questioned. Aristotle for example criticized Plato and rejected some of his views. Reasonable discussion is part of life. I also am not dismissing the works of other people here.
But it is foolish to dismiss the shapers of Western culture as dead “white” male or racist or Eurocentric. Those men were generally concerned with arguments and logical deduction. In the process, they also studied other cultures, as we all should.
At the same time, we are not suggesting that reading the classics will automatically open one’s mind, but reading them will surely challenge a real student to confront the big issues and questions such as right and wrong, truth and error, outright lies and falsehood.
Allan Bloom’s work, The Closing of the American Mind, has spawned and continues to evoke substantial discussions on this very issue. The book came out in 1987.Like any controversial book, The Closing of the American Mind has been praised and criticized by numerous writers.
Lawrence W. Levine of George Mason University commented: “We keep hearing romantic calls for the ‘restoration of the classical tradition,’” but a real emphasis on the Great Books “is itself a relatively recent invention.”
Joseph Baldacchino, another critic, writes: “At best, The Closing of the American Mind is a confused book. At worst, it is deliberately subversive, intended to undermine some of the strongest pillars of Western Civilization.”
Some even went so far as to say that Bloom’s diagnosis is “Hitleresque,” forgetting the fact that Bloom was an ethnic Jew. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a noted Harvard professor, indirectly charges Bloom of being Eurocentric. He writes:
“These two men [Bloom and William Bennett] symbolize for us the nostalgic return to what I think of as the ‘antebellum aesthetic position,’ when men were men, and men were white, when scholar-critics were white men, and when women and persons of color were voiceless, faceless servants and laborers, pouring tea and filling brandy snifters in the boardrooms of old boys’ clubs.”
In the same vein, Ralph Wiley, a proponent of Afrocentricim, charges that Bloom is very narrow-minded in his analysis because he failed to acknowledge the works of people such as Richard Wright, Gwendolyn Brooks, Lorraine Hansberry, and others.
According to Wiley, Bloom reasoned that way “because Black people are not seen by most White people as being within the same value system—a convenient blindness that allows them to think what they like and make it come true.”
Janice E. Hale-Benson, professor of early childhood education at Cleveland State University, writes: “The emphasis of traditional education has been upon molding and shaping Black children so that they can be fit into an educational process designed for Anglo-Saxon middle-class children.”
As we shall see in the next article, the word “racism,” like “anti-Semitism,” has been weaponized and used so carelessly that people are just scared to death to say that the emperor hath no clothes.
What is Multiculturalism?
German chancellor Angela Merkel declared that the multiculturalist idea promoted by many utopians simply does not work in the real world. It took Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Walll Street Journal twenty years to realize that the “mulitcuaralism” or “diversity” which she had hoped was true was indeed nonsense; her epiphany came in February 2011 after the incident in Texas with Major Hasan.
Let us be clear here. If “diversity” means that people should be cherished for who they are, regardless of color or creed, then it is reasonable, logical, and displays common sense. If “diversity” means lowering test scores or implementing affirmative action in order to bring in a “diversity” of people, then it is irrational, unreasonable, and should be rejected.
Moreover, if “diversity” is used as a means to irrationally deconstruct Western culture and elevate demonstrably false ideas, then cultural conflict is not far behind.
Affirmative action in particular has been a vehicle in the culture war. It has never worked in the real world, instead creating havoc in the academic world in foreign countries such as India, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and even Nigeria.
Let me give an example to make sure that I am not being misrepresented, “The U.S. Department of Justice recently ordered Dayton, Ohio’s police department to lower its written exam passing scores so as to have more blacks on its police force.” This is not diversity; this is complete foolishness.
Yet this issue will simply refuse to go away until ideologues stop using “race” as an excuse for reaching political or ideological ends. The flip side of affirmative action is that whenever affirmative action is used to get non-qualified students into colleges and universities, often students who had a higher score get ignored. In recent time, the Abigail Fisher case is a classic example.
In a nutshell, affirmative action essentially rejects equal opportunity. Some are favored or denied because of their race. If there is one thing that I agree with Martin Luther King, Jr., it is the view that a man should not be judged by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.
If we take this seriously, currently many whites and Asians are being judged by the color of their skins when it comes to college admissions. This is certainly not fair and everyone ought to be playing by the same rule. Even a Zionist shill such as former presidential candidate Herman Cain had an ounce of sense to say that affirmative action was a bad move.
Multiculturalism is also based on the relativistic idea that all cultures are equally valid. In other words, in “primitive” cultures some people might sacrifice children or promote polygamy, while other cultures might uphold family and monogamous marriages.
Multiculturalism implicitly states that child sacrifice and family values, polygamy and monogamy, are equally valid. Yet whenever these lines of reasoning are applied, they always end up in cultural relativism.
If cultural relativism were true, it certainly would undermine many historical, scientific and technological enquiries, including anthropology, and the United Nations would have to close down its offices for good. We will come back to this issue in an upcoming article.
Who Is Behind Multiculturalism?
Yet, while arguing vigorously against illegal immigration, Buchanan cannot admit that the main groups behind mass immigration are Jewish organizations—his book Where the Right Went Wrong never mentions the largely Jewish ideology that has driven and is still driving that system.
Similarly, Jewish neoconservative talk show host Michael Savage wrote an entire book about how Obama has failed to protect our borders from illegal aliens, but not once does he mention the Jewish organizations pushing the agenda.
The fact is that whenever multiculturalism is implemented in schools, it seeks to attack Western culture, in many cases resenting Western culture’s position in academia. In order to further this agenda, multiculturalists seek to promote works that have little academic or intellectual value and devalue or discourage works by “white” Europeans, since they are viewed as racist and patriarchal.
Thomas Sowell is right when he says: “What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture—and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.” In the process, many colleges and universities have become an ideological battle ground.
The problem with “multiculturalism” does not lie in the word itself, for any person with a common sense interpretation of history knows that, as Sowell puts it, “the world has been multicultural for centuries before this word was coined.”
Practically, Sowell argues, printed paper “was invented in China, as was the art of printing. The letters come from ancient Rome and the numbers from India, via the Arabs. All this is being written by a man whose ancestors came from Africa, while listening to music by a Russian composer.”
If multiculturalists want to say that a person’s contribution should be acknowledged regardless of ethnic background, then the West would highly applaud such a view. But that is not the point that has been portrayed in multicultural books, which display hostility toward Western culture.
If we deconstruct “multiculturalism” from its ideological nonsense, the West or even the world has practically embraced “multiculturalism” long before the multiculturalists began to use the word as an ideology. For example,
“When Europeans first discovered paper and printing from China, they did not ‘celebrate diversity,’ they stopped giving themselves writers’ cramp from copying scrolls and started letting the printing press do the work.
“When American Indians saw horses for the first time after Europeans brought them here, they did not ‘celebrate diversity,’ they started riding off to hunt instead of walking. Everything from automobiles to antibiotics has spread around the world because people wanted the best they could get, not the inefficient ways that the multicultural cult calls ‘living in harmony with nature.”
This is why multiculturalism has received such a backlash wherever its ideologies are properly understood, for it undermines the Western intellectual and historical tradition.
This philosophy still has a stronghold in most schools because many simply have no clue of what is at stake. Yet it has been widely viewed as a dismal failure in Europe and even in South Korea, where this writer currently resides and teaches.
“Multiculturalism” in South Korea
In South Korea, multiculturalism as a revolutionary ideology has been one of the central forces behind gang violence and rape, and local citizens have been shocked at how the government is supporting an obviously failing system.
Lee Jae-Hoon, an attorney with the National Policy Agency’s Foreign Affairs Bureau, has declared that gangs have caused shockwaves among South Koreans. Most of the people involved are from China, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Pakistan, and the Philippines—and the vast majority of them got on shore illegally.
In 2011, twenty-five gang members of Sri Lankan origin were arrested in Ansan, Gyeonggi, “for regularly beating up people from their own countries who refused to follow their orders. In the same month, three Vietnamese gangs operating an illegal gambling Web site were arrested in Jinju, South Gyeongsang.”
Consider Kang Su-hyun, a young Korean girl who was brutally murdered by an illegal migrant worker from the Philippines who was identified simply as “J.” According to the report, he “dragged Kang out of an alley to rape her. But when Kang resisted, he stabbed her once in the back and 12 more times in her stomach, neck and chest with a kitchen knife.”
This devastating act outraged Koreans, who believed that the media betrayed them by not giving proper coverage of the story. Some saw that the media was on the verge of embracing a shaky multiculturalism that only works in the minds of the reporters.
Cho Dong-hwan, the head of the Foreigners’ Crime Eradication Association, lamented, “I heard that none of the major newspapers turned up to report on the case when police held an on-site inspection of the crime scene about a week after Kang’s death.”
Because of these high-profile crimes by many illegal foreigners, a petition was filed with the Korea Immigration Service asking for stricter laws, such as rigorous background checks and fingerprinting or deportation.
The rise of crimes committed by foreigners gave rise to the idea that some foreigners are regarded with suspicion. Cho blamed this issue on “multiculturalism,” which he called “a policy of reverse discrimination.”
Multiculturalism Is a Jewish Revolutionary Movement in the West
German Chancellor Angela Merkel was not the only one to see the madness of multiculturalism. France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, himself Jewish, finally saw it as a disaster.
And both in Britain and Spain politicians have seen it as demonstrably disastrous. As a result, a number of right parties have sprung up all over Europe: France, Belgium, Holland, Swiss, Austria, Hungary, Sweden, Russia, Italy, etc.
In Britain alone, almost half of the country would align itself with “far-Right party” if those parties would dissociate themselves with violence. One simply cannot claim that such people are bigots when they are reacting to a detrimental ideology that seeks to subvert their cherished heritage.
Since multiculturalism seeks to undermine Western culture, and since it seeks to build a false utopian world where every ideology is equally valid, it has a long history of support from many Jewish organizations and Jewish leaders, going back to the 1920s, when many Jewish organizations fought tooth and nail to change the immigration policy in the United States (such as the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe).
Historian Hugh Davis Graham maintains that in the 1920s, some of the pressure employed by those organizations was “ineffective,” but they never gave up. Jewish governor Herbert Lehman picked up those themes in the 1940s, and after World War II, “Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform.”
What are the fruits of all those covert and subversive operations? Last month,
“The Supreme Court ruled… that Arizona may not require documentary proof of citizenship from people seeking to vote in federal elections there. The ruling was the second in two terms to reject Arizona laws that the state’s officials justified as responses to illegal immigration.”
The methodology of those operations was quite strategic. When many Jews left the Soviet Union and much of Europe and moved to the United States, there was a fear among them that there could be a revival of anti-Semitism in America.
At the same time, many in America were well aware of Jewish revolutionary activity and, in the process, used caution when hiring Jewish professors and intellectuals.
Ronald Radosh tells us in his memoir that many Jewish intellectuals like himself were sent from New York to Wisconsin to take over the universities and turn them into revolutionary cells.
Since Jews have always been a minority group, they made alliances in order to combat what they perceived to be as anti-Semitism. The Civil Rights movement, as we shall see in an upcoming article when we discuss Martin Luther King, Jr., was largely a Jewish revolutionary movement.
In the process of time, many Jewish organizations began to adopt multiculturalism as a way to promote a far more harmful agenda.
In a widely televised program in Sweden, Jewish ideologue Barbara Lerner Spectre declared,
“Europe has not learned how to be multicultural, and I think we [the Jews] are going to be part of that transformation which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make and they are now going to be in a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role, but without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”
How did Europe survive for the past thousand years without that leading role? The Swedish government helped Spectre to get into the country and start a Paideia program there geared toward leading Europe into a “multicultural” society, which in the end will create havoc in Europe.
In other words, Spectre got paid by the Swedish government to destroy the social fabric of Sweden! So far, this process is working.
Nick Nilsson, a truck driver who has realized what is actually taking place, reluctantly joined the far-right. After seeing the some of the conditions of many immigrant communities where he actually lives, “where dreary apartment buildings are jammed with refugees from all the world’s recent conflicts,” Nilsson declared,
Moreover, it is not that people dislike foreigners. It is the fact that most foreigners do not want to abandon their cultural background and adapt to a new way of life.
With respect to the recent riots that happened last May in Sweden, which lasted for six consecutive nights, one foreigner by the name of Mohammed Abbas declared,
“In the old days, the neighbourhood was more Swedish and life felt like a dream, but now there are just too many foreigners, and a new generation that has grown up here with just their own culture.”
One foreigner declared that racism was responsible for the riots, but another foreigner, Yusuf Carlos, said,
“It is just kids causing this trouble, that is why the police are not doing much about it. Sweden is fair towards immigrants and it isn’t hard to find work, or not before these riots anyway. The problem is that the Swedish people are angry now. They don’t know why people here in Husby are doing this, only that they come from this neighbourhood.”
Colin Freeman of the British newspaper The Telegraph declared,
“Certainly, claims of racism upset many Swedes, who have little colonial history, and whose decision to admit large numbers of Third World migrants from the 1980s onwards was born of no particular political obligation, more just a very Swedish sense of humanitarian duty to the wider world. From the very start, the government also sought to avoid creating a German-style ‘guest worker’ class by promoting immigrants’ rights and introducing a plethora of programmes to promote racial integration.
“Yet despite Swedish language education being offered free to all long-term immigrants, ghettos of foreigners have flourished in recent years. So too have Far Right parties challenging the political class’s long-standing pro-immigration consensus, who now command up to 10 per cent of the vote and may increase their share in next year’s elections.” 
Marc Abramsson of the National Democrats Party finally had an epiphany. He said,
“We have tried harder than any other European country to integrate, spending billions on a welfare system that is designed to help jobless immigrants and guarantee them a good quality of life. We have areas where there are ethnic groups that just don’t identify with Swedish society.
“They see the police and even the fire brigade as part of the state, and they attack them. We have tried everything, anything, to improve things, but it hasn’t worked. It’s not about racism, it’s just that multiculturalism doesn’t recognize how humans actually function.”
The riots were said to have started by an elderly man who threatened to kill some police officers with a machete as they were attempting to search his home. The officers shot him. He was 69 years old. Shortly thereafter, multiple cars were set on fire and police officers were attacked in many districts.
Spectre is right: Jews are going to be resented precisely because they are pursuing a detrimental ideology (multiculturalism) that has been tried in distant lands such as South Korea without success.
Thus, by declaring that Jews are going to be influential in pushing multiculturalism forward, Spectre is indirectly putting decent Jewish individuals in harm’s way.
What is quite amazing is that not a single media outlet could actually see that Jewish revolutionaries like Spectre were behind the scene. The only person who actually has seen what exactly was going on was Baruch Efrati, a yeshiva head and community rabbi in the West Bank settlement. He said,
“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years we were in exile there. We will never forgive Europe’s Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly…not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity…”
The interesting part of the discussion is that these Jewish organizations do not promote that kind of multiculturalism among themselves. Michael Steinhardt, a Jewish philanthropist and one of the co-founders of the Birthright program, declares,
“We are at a crucial juncture in the history of the Jewish people, a time when we must do everything possible to strengthen young people’s connection to their culture and religion. A strong connection to Israel is a powerful way to bring young Jews back to their roots…This is a gift from our generation to our children and grandchildren.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu praised Steinhardt’s effort, declaring,
“The people of Israel are ready to welcome all the young visitors. Jews throughout the world have always supported Israel and now it is time for us to join in this unique partnership to strengthen the Jewish community.”
Yet Netanyahu believes that “the fewer Israeli Arab births, the better.” If a racialist promoted that same kind of agenda, he or she will be viewed as a bigot. Yet this is characterized as clear thinking by many in Israel.
As Mearsheimer and Walt rightly point out,
“Imagine the outcry that would arise here if a U.S. cabinet official spoke of the benefits of a policy that had reduced the birthrates of African Americans and Hispanics, thereby preserving a white majority. But such statements are not unusual in Israel, where important leaders have a history of making derogatory comments about Palestinians and are rarely sanctioned for them.”
A survey of Jewish high school students indicated that 74 percent viewed Arabs as “unclean.
Many in Jewish intellectual circles in our time have agreed that steps must be taken to keep “‘the Jewish race’ pure. ‘Deborah Lipstadt, who has written and lectured widely on Holocaust denial, has exhorted Jewish parents to just say no to intermarriage [with non-Jews]’…Elliott Abrams wrote a book, Faith or Fear: How Jews Can Survive in Christian America, which criticizes intermarriage as a danger to Jewish survival in America.”
The American Jewish Committee “founded the magazine Commentary. The leading figure in bringing the magazine into existence was its executive head, John Slawson, who worried about the assimilation of Jews and saw the new magazine as a vehicle for Jewish survival in this country.”
Alan Dershowitz writes in The Vanishing American Jew,
Dershowitz fears that through intermarriage and assimilation in particular, “the era of enormous Jewish influence on American life may soon be coming to an end” and that “increasing rates of assimilation and intermarriage are propelling us toward a demographic Armageddon.”
This fear of “assimilation and intermarriage” is one of the main themes that Dershowitz discusses in the book. Kevin MacDonald notes that “recent surveys in the United States indicate that more highly educated Jews and those with higher socioeconomic status are more likely to marry endogamously.”
Even within Rabbinic Judaism, there are laws that would stun a neo-Nazi. For example, in 2005, Haaretz declared:
“Irina Plotnikov cannot marry the man she loves, Shmuel Cohen, even though she is Jewish according to halakha (Jewish religious law). A rabbinic court in Jerusalem ruled recently that even though Plotnikov is Jewish, she is not eligible to marry a Cohen since her father is not Jewish.
“According to Jewish tradition, people with the surname Cohen are descendants of the priests that served in the Temple in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago…Plotnikov immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union in 1992. Last summer she met Cohen, a retired career army man, and they fell in love…
“When the couple registered at the rabbinate, the marriage registrar referred Plotnikov to a rabbinic court for a process for ascertaining Jewishness.
This is a procedure which all immigrants from the [Former Soviet Union] are required to undergo if they want to marry.
“After presenting documents and hearing testimony from witnesses on Plotnikov’s behalf, the rabbinic court confirmed that Plotnikov is Jewish and single and ruled that ‘she can be married in accordance with Jewish tradition, except to a Cohen.”
Echoes of this can be found in history. Amschel and Solomon Rothschild objected to Nathan Rothschild’s choice of marrying Adelheid Herz because “her family did not keep kosher,” despite the fact that she was Jewish.
Moreover, after 1824, “Rothschilds tended to marry Rothschilds. Of twenty-one marriages involving descendants of Mayer Amschel between 1824 and 1877, no fewer than fifteen were between his direct descendants.”
To Heinrich Heine, this was bizarre. “These Rothschilds harmonize with one another in the most remarkable fashion. Strangely enough, they even choose marriage partners from among themselves and the strands of relationship between them form complicated knots which future historians will find difficult to unravel.”
James Rothschild “married his own niece, his brother Salomon’s daughter Betty. Salomon was thirty-two, and Betty was nineteen. “Two years later Salomon’s son Anselm married Nathan’s eldest daughter Charlotte….Six years later after that, Nathan married James’s daughter Charlotte; and Carl’s son Mayer Carl married Nathan’s third daughter Louise.”
British hilo-Semitic historian and neoconservative hawk Niall Ferguson notes that this endogamy was practiced not because the Rothschilds loved their future wives. Almost all of them hated their marriages, and James, for example, described his wife as “an essential piece of furniture.”
This form of endogamy was also practiced during the time when Jews dominated the slave trade and commercial capitalism. As a result, it
“produced a New York-centered German Jewish business aristocracy which not only made capital available to Jewish businessmen along the frontier, but itself played a leading role in the American Jewish community well into the twentieth century.”
Haaretz tells us in 2010 that in Israel, some parents “of Ashkenazi (European)
descent at the all girls’ school have refused to let their daughters study with classmates of Middle Eastern and North African descent, known as Sephardim. The Ashkenazi parents insist that they are not racist, but want to keep the classrooms segregated—as they have been for years—on the grounds that the Sephardi families are not religious enough.”
The article goes on to say that “more than 100,000 ultra-Orthodox demonstrators thronged the streets of Jerusalem earlier Thursday in support of the Ashkenazi parents’ right to keep their children in classes segregated from their Sephardi peers.”
In one Israeli grocery, the Rami Levi supermarket, Palestinian baggers and Jewish cashiers are set apart. Why? Because there was a case where a Palestinian worker began to fraternize with a Jewish cashier.
Just picture some crazy person in America (particularly of European descent)—let alone ten of them—following the same path; he would find himself in the middle of World War III.
Yet while such behaviors create tensions in America, most specifically among organized Jewry such as the ADL and other groups, they are at the same time accepted in many circles of ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, who largely consider themselves separatists.
Here again the obvious logical contradiction breaks down to any thinking person. Taking all these issues into consideration and looking through the lens of logic and rational discourse, we are confronted with several fundamental implications that refuse to go away.
No matter how rabbis may dislike the ideas proposed by a number of extreme right-wing groups, the rabbis are making them look good on the record. It would be hypocrisy for the rabbis to label them bigots while Jewish theological and ideological writings propose the same kind of separatism that has kept Rabbinic Judaism, as one writer puts it, foreign in strange lands.
At this junction in our discussion, it is pertinent to point out that Judaism is “a fundamentally self-interested group strategy, which has often been in competition with at least some sections of gentile society.”
Yet with all the apologetic writings that depict Judaism as a universal religion, the main thesis from within Judaism itself and among Jewish intellectuals remains the same: Judaism, contrary to Christianity and Islam, is exclusive with regard to ethnicity.
With the emergence of Kabbalistic writings and mysticism in the 13th century, “The non-Jewish world was viewed as evil, and any compromise or assimilation with it was rejected. The worst behavior of all was to enter into intimacy with gentile women.”
 See for example Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987); Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silvergate, The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses (New York: The Free Press, 1999).
 See for example Francis J. Beckwith and Todd E. Jones, ed., Affirmative Action: Social Justice or Reverse Discrimination (New York: Prometheus Books, 1997); Terry Eastland, Ending Affirmative Action: The Case for Color Blind Justice (New York: Basic Books, 1997).
 See for example Adam Liptak, “College Diversity Nears Its Last Ends,” NY Time, October 15, 2011. For recent developments, see for example Adam Liptak, “Justices Step Up Scrutiny of Race in College Entry,” NY Times, June 24, 2013; John Schwartz and Richard Perez-Pena, “Lacking Definitive Ruling on Affirmative Action, Both Sides Claim Victory,” NY Times, June 24, 2013.
 See for example Adam Liptak, “College Diversity Nears Its Last Stand,” NY Times, October 15, 2011; Adam Liptak, “Race and College Admissions, Facing a New Test by Justices,” NY Times, October 8, 2012.
For sociological and anthropological studies, see Lawrence H. Keeley, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert B. Edgerton, Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony (New York: Free Press, 1992); Rodney Stark, Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief (New York: HarperOne, 2007); Will Durant, Our Oriental Heritage (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1954).
See E. Michael Jones, “False Flags inOslo,” Culture Wars, September 2011; MacDonald, Culture of Critique, chapter 7; Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 56-57.
the Bush Presidency (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2004)
Thomas Sowell, Inside American Education (New York: The Free Press, 1993); Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate, The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998); Thomas Nelson, Freefall of the American University: How our Colleges Are Corrupting the Minds and Morals of the Next Generation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004).
 See for example Murray Friedman, What Went Wrong?: The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995); Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (London: Pluto Press, 1997).
Posted by Jonas E. Alexis on July 6, 2013, With 6100 Reads Filed under Government & Politics, WarZone. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.