The War For Caspian Oil And Gas _ The Great Game

The War For Caspian Oil And Gas
By Christopher Bollyn

October 2001

President Bush’s “crusade” against the Taliban of Afghanistan has more to do with control of the immense oil and gas resources of the Caspian Basin than it does with rooting out terrorism.

Once again an American president from the Bush family is leading Americans down an oil-rich Middle Eastern warpath against enemies of freedom and democracy.

President George W. Bush, whose family is well connected to oil and energy companies, has called for an international crusade against Islamic terrorists, who he says hate Americans simply because we are “the brightest beacon of freedom.”

The focus on religion-based terrorism serves to conceal important aspects of the Central Asian conflict. President Bush’s noble rhetoric about fighting for justice and democracy is masking a less noble struggle for control of an estimated $5 trillion of oil and gas resources from the Caspian Basin.

One of the material results of the elder Bush’s Desert Storm military campaign in 1991 was to secure access to the huge Rumaila oil field of southern Iraq, which was accomplished by expanding the boundaries of Kuwait after the war. This allowed Kuwait, a former British protectorate where American and British oil companies are heavily invested, to double its prewar oil output.

The Trepca mine complex in Kosovo, one of the richest mines of Europe, was seized last year by George Soros and Bernard Kouchner, two Jewish members of the New World Order gang who devastated Serbia.

A similar geopolitical strategy, influenced by Zionist planners, to control the valuable mineral resources of the Caspian Basin underlies the planned aggression against Afghanistan, a Central Asian nation that occupies a strategic position sandwiched between the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent.

Central Asia has enormous quantities of undeveloped oil resources, including some 6.6 trillion cubic meters of natural gas, waiting to be exploited. The former Soviet republics of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are the two major gas producers in Central Asia.

Today, the only existing export routes from the area lead through Russia. Investors in Caspian oil and gas are interested in building alternative pipelines to Turkey and Europe, and especially to the rapidly growing Asian markets.

India, Iran, Russia, and Israel, are working on a plan to supply oil and gas to south and southeast Asia through India but instability in Afghanistan is posing a great threat to this effort.

Afghanistan lies squarely between Turkmenistan, home to the world’s third-largest natural gas reserves, and the lucrative markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan. A memorandum of understanding has been signed to build a 900-mile natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan, but the ongoing civil war and absence of a stable government in Afghanistan have prevented the project from going forward.

Afghanistan was at the center of the so-called “Great Game” in the 19th century when Imperial Russia and the British Empire in India vied for influence. Today, its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas pipelines, makes Afghanistan an extremely important piece of a global strategy by energy magnates to obtain control over these precious resources.

Enron, a Texas-based gas and energy company, together with Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Unocal are all engaged in a multi-billion dollar frenzy to extract the reserves of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan, the three newly independent Soviet republics that border on the Caspian Sea.

On behalf of the oil companies, an array of former cabinet members from the elder Bush administration have been actively involved in negotiations with the former Soviet republics. The dealmakers include James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Dick Cheney, and John Sununu.

Turkmenistan and Azerbijan are also both closely allied with Israeli commercial interests and Israeli military intelligence. In Turkmenistan, a former Israeli intelligence agent, Yosef A. Maiman, president of Merhav Group of Israel, is the official negotiator and policy maker responsible for developing the energy resources of Turkmenistan.

“This is the Great Game all over,” Maiman told The Wall Street Journal about his role in furthering the “geopolitical goals of both the U.S. and Israel in Central Asia. “We are doing what U.S. and Israeli policy could not achieve,” he said, “Controlling the transport route is controlling the product.”

“Those that control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production,” said energy expert James Dorian recently in Oil & Gas Journal on September 10, 2001.

Foreign business in Turkmenistan is dominated by Maiman’s Merhav Group, according to The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA). Maiman, who was made a citizen of Turkmenistan by presidential decree, serves as Turkmenistan’s official negotiator for its gas pipeline, special ambassador, and right-hand man for the authoritarian President Saparmurad Atayevich Niyazov, a former Politburo member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

The Merhav Group of Israel officially represents the Turkmen government and has brokered all of the energy projects in Turkmenistan, contracts worth many billions of dollars.

Merhav has been contracted to modernize existing natural gas infrastructure and will build new facilities in an oil refinery in the city of Turkmenbashi on the Caspian Sea. Merhav refuses to disclose its sources of financing.

In keeping with Israeli political interests, Maiman’s planned pipelines bypass Iran and Russia. Maiman has said that he would have no objection to dealing with Iran, “when and if Israeli policy allows it.”

Iran has accused the U.S. of trying to keep regional pipelines from passing through Iran. Creating a counterbalance to Iran’s regional influence was a cornerstone of the Clinton administration, which was concerned that Iran could gain too much control over Caspian exports.

“This is a common interest for the U.S. and Israel,” said Dr. Nimrod Novik, vice president of Merhav, “The primary interest is to prevent the development of Turkish strategic dependence on Iran, given the unique emerging strategic relationship between Turkey and Israel.”

Russia and Turkmenistan are in a battle to conquer the Turkish gas market, the supplier that offers the best price for its gas will emerge as the winner. “This is a great race,” Maiman says, “Whoever takes Turkey first wins. Whoever comes second will have lean years.”

Although the U.S. needs Russian assistance in its campaign against Afghanistan, when AFP asked Alex Chorine of Caspian Investor what kind of relationship existed between the Russian and Western/Israeli energy companies doing business in the Caspian Basin, Chorine said, “They act as enemies.”

One of Maiman’s proposed pipelines would bring Turkmenistan’s gas and oil to Turkey via Azerbaijan and Georgia. Maiman’s Merhav Group is also involved in a $100 million project that would reduce the flow of water to Iraq by diverting water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to southeastern Turkey.

Israeli officials boast of having excellent relations with Azerbaijan, where an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems, has a contract to provide security at Baku airport. Magal is one of several Israeli companies that will turn Israel into a major player in Azerbaijan by providing security for the 1,200 mile pipeline taking oil from the Caspian to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean Sea.

Enron, the biggest contributor to the Bush campaign of 2000, conducted the feasibility study for a $2.5 billion Trans-Caspian gas pipeline, which is being built under a joint venture agreement signed in February 1999 between Turkmenistan and two American companies, Bechtel and General Electric Capital Services. Maiman acted as the intermediary between the Turkmenis and the U.S. firms, but won’t discuss his cut or whether he will receive a stake in the pipeline.

The Merhav Group has hired a Washington lobbying firm, Cassidy & Associates, and spent several million dollars to encourage U.S. officials to push for the Trans-Caspian pipeline. During the Clinton administration, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and special adviser to the president, Richard Morningstar promoted the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, calling it “critical to the economic survival of Turkmenistan.”

The relationship between Israel, Turkey, and the U.S. is the major factor for the selection of the Baku-Ceyhan route, which could be extended to bring oil directly to energy deficient Israel, however, energy experts question the wisdom and cost of this route. Companies are under pressure from the U.S. and Israel to invest in east-west pipelines, although most companies would prefer cheaper north-south pipelines through Iran, according to WRMEA.

The U.S. firm Unocal was leading a pipeline project to bring Turkmenistan’s abundant natural gas through Afghanistan to the growing markets of Pakistan and India, until the turmoil in Afghanistan led them to withdraw from the project in 1998. The planned pipeline would carry gas from the Turkmen Dauletabad fields, among the world’s largest, to Multan in Pakistan, with a planned extension to India. The line from Dauletabad through Afghanistan is planned to transport 15 billion cubic feet of gas per year for 30 years. This pipeline is on hold until the political and military situations in Afghanistan improve.

There is a second Unocal project to build a 1,030 mile oil pipeline called the Central Asian Oil Pipeline Project, which would start at Chardzhou in Turkmenistan linking Russia’s Siberian oil field pipelines to Pakistan’s Arabian coast. This line could transport 1 million barrels a day of oil from other areas of the Former Soviet Union. It would run parallel to the gas line route through Afghanistan and branch off in Pakistan to the Indian Ocean terminal in Ras Malan.


Niyazov, the authoritarian president of the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic was elected in 1990, and remained in power when Turkmenistan declared independence in October 1991. In May 1992, Niyazov oversaw the passage of a new constitution giving the president extraordinary powers.

Under the new constitution, the president is head of government as well as head of state, and can appoint a prime minister at any time. The president can also appoint and remove all judges.

Niyazov’s leadership became increasingly authoritarian during the 1990s. In September 1993 he defended his policy of tight censorship of the press as a prerequisite for stability and peace in the country. In a referendum held in January 1994, nearly 100 percent of the voters endorsed Niyazov’s leadership, allowing him to extend his presidency until 2002.

Niyazov renamed himself Turkmenbashi (father of the Turkmen) and presents himself as a prophet and messiah. Every morning, state radio and television (no independent broadcasters exist) transmit the words of a prayer that includes an oath of allegiance to the president along with the traditional appeal to Allah.

Like Turkmenistan, the other Central Asian nations of Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are all ruled by former Communists who came to power under the Soviet system. All five have been re-elected to their posts without opposition, garnering over 90 percent of the votes and securing comfortable lives in the national palaces.

In each of the Central Asian countries a strange and officially imposed dichotomy between “official” and “unofficial” Islam has appeared. Official Islam refers to religious institutions under the control of the state authorities. Unofficial Islam includes all other Muslims, especially those who believe that Islam cannot be controlled by the state power. They are accused of being extremists.

The strength of Islamic fundamentalist movements like the Taliban in Afghanistan and the anti-Russian Chechen rebels threatens the Soviet style dictatorships and their control of the region’s immense mineral wealth.


Before the sun had set on the apocalyptic day that New York’s gleaming twin towers collapsed, the U.S. government had already determined to affix the blame for the kamikaze attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born guerilla leader, and the Taliban government of Afghanistan which harbored him.

Although the U.S. government did not present its evidence in support of its case against bin Laden, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on September 23, “I think in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack.”


When it was reported that the Taliban might turn bin Laden over to face justice, the Bush administration said that surrendering bin Laden would not prevent an American-led attack on Afghanistan.

An international plan to remove the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban from power has been a subject of international diplomatic discussions for months and was reportedly raised by India during the Group of Eight summit in July in Genoa, Italy.

The Indian press reported in June 2001 that, “India and Iran will facilitate, U.S. and Russian plans for limited military action, against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don’t bend Afghanistan’s fundamentalist regime.”

The invasion plans described in the Indian press in June may come to pass in October: Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will lead the ground attack with a strong military back up of the U.S. and Russia. Vital Taliban installations and military assets will be targeted.

The economic reasons for the multi-national assault against the Taliban were explained: Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan are threatened by the Taliban that is aiming to control their vast oil, gas, and other resources by bringing Islamic fundamentalists into power.

What was not explained in the Indian press is how these four predominantly Islamic Central Asian nations would be threatened by having Islamic fundamentalists in power.

See also:

The Sudden Death of Niazov
By Christopher Bollyn
21 December 2006

The sudden death of President Saparmurat A. Niyazov of Turkmenistan opens up a new chapter in the Great Game for control of the mineral wealth of Turkmenistan – and the Caspian Basin.

Photo: In May 2005, President Bush and Laura Bush joined President Saparmurat A. Niyazov of Turkmenistan and the Ukrainian president, Viktor A. Yushchenko, to mark a World War II anniversary in Moscow.

It should be remembered that Niyazov was a totalitarian dictator “for life” not unlike Stalin. Bush did not seem to mind marching alongside a dictator like Niyazov in 2005 as American boys died for “democracy” in Iraq and Afghanistan. This photo reveals just how shallow and false that claim really is.

What matters most to Bush and his cronies is control of Central Asia and its mineral assets.

Niyazov’s death may have been natural or caused by poison or doctoring. What matters most is what comes next. Turkmenistan is a neighbor to Afghanistan and has a long border on Iran’s northeastern frontier.

This is key. The border of Turkmenistan is very close to Tehran.

The Israelis have long played a key role in Turkmenistan and their strategy has been to find ways to export the immense oil and gas reserves of Turkmenistan to the West without passing through Russia or Iran.





12 responses to “The War For Caspian Oil And Gas _ The Great Game


    ressco on 20 Jun 2010

    ***ORIGINAL UPLOAD BY MrBritDestruct*** Permission to repost granted.

    — June 14, 2010 — U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan

    USA troops are being used to protect the Trans-Afghan Pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan to Pakistan to give oil to India (America’s 2nd best friend after Israel). Iraq War gave free oil to Israel and Afghan War will give oil to India. Chevron loves its pipeline. CIA loves to profit from the Heroin Trade (CIA pays Afghan Drug lords and takes the Heroin to sell it worldwide). Pentagon ONLY works for Oil Corps & Haliburton (Cheney wanted Haliburton to get the Pipeline construction contract).

    Construction on the gas pipeline begins in 2010 and continues through 2015 and beyond, but only after the region is secured. Since USA interfered with the original contracts awarded to the Bridas Corp (from Argentina), the Pashtun & Taliban tribal forces became fiercely opposed to Chevron/UNOCAL’s counter-offer, US Puppet Hamid Karzai (a former UNOCAL Executive) was installed to make sure Chevron got pipeline deal.


  2. @goldenthroat86

    Google the Trans Afghan Pipeline or the Turkmen/Afghan/Pak/India pipeline. You’re right in that there’s no oil to be produced in Afghanistan, but it’s the easiest route to get oil out of the Caspian Basin. That’s the point here. The Afghan people got screwed so Unocal could build a pipeline (which is now being funded by an Asian bank)


    If you read some of the comments here by candygir7 you’ll find there’s more to it than oil & gas. She has some excellent vids on the poppy trade which the Taliban almost destroyed before we invaded. The fact is the drug trade is an economic necessity for certain organizations the US is supporting. It’s also interesting to note that Hamid Karzai is a former Unocal advisor while his brother is a well-known drug dealer. Also, don’t forget China owns a large portion of our debt, and they need oil.

  3. Before the sun had set on the apocalyptic day that New York’s gleaming twin towers collapsed, the U.S. government had already determined to affix the blame for the kamikaze attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born guerilla leader, and the Taliban government of Afghanistan which harbored him.

    Although the U.S. government did not present its evidence in support of its case against bin Laden, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on September 23, “I think in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack.”



  5. It is supposed to be the final coup de grace against the white race, while all the other destructive programs are also put in “overdrive”: multi-cultural propaganda, consolidating ownership of all values in the West by mergers, take-overs, even mortgaging of private homes far above the chimney. And by urging on still more wars, now maybe one against Iran, while those neo-con insane individuals have a totally submissive American president who does their bidding for yet a couple of years.



    Published on (

    Home > MidEast Policy—Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?


    MidEast Policy—Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?
    By Kevin MacDonald
    Created 01/31/07
    Off Topic
    Almost 3 ½ years ago I published Thinking about Neoconservatism [1], analyzing the neoconservative movement in the context of my studies [2] of the behavior pattern of Jewish groups in the societies where they live. I concluded neoconservatism [3] was the latest of a long procession of political and intellectual movements dominated and essentially controlled by members of the Jewish community, in effect dedicated to a particular concept of how to promote the interests of that community. I specifically cited foreign policy and immigration as hallmark interests.

    At the time, and for a couple of years later, this was an unmentionable theory. I am told certain prominent web sites stopped linking to after my essay was published. The malign [4] presence of the SPLC (the “Southern Poverty Law Center”, a notorious ethnically-oriented Political Correctness enforcer) was soon felt [5] on the scene, not coincidentally, and it named VDARE.COM a “hate group”, a sobriquet more normally associated with groups advocating violence and other forms of illegality.

    But now public debate has changed considerably. Serious antiwar commentary routinely connects the Iraq/Iran policy problem with the influence of Israel and her friends in America. (See here [6] and here [7] and here. [8])

    So I ask now: will the other boot [9] drop? Will this candor next extend to the immigration controversy [10]?

    The vast majority of Americans live under the comfortable illusion that theirs is a free country. They suppose that issues are openly and honestly debated in the newspapers and on talk shows. In this imaginary world, all issues affecting public policy are on the table and are constantly scrutinized by the best and the brightest.

    But that is simply not the case. In fact, I would go so far as to argue the opposite—that virtually all of the really critical issues affecting the United States and its role in the world are actually excluded from discussion in the elite media or in the political arena.

    The classic case: US policy in the Middle East. Despite the obvious fact that US support for Israel has crucial implications for war and peace, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious to what is really going on in this region.

    Most Americans would be appalled to learn the truth about what former President Jimmy Carter terms [11] “the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine’s citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank.” Carter calls attention to the “enormous imprisonment wall … now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers.” (Los Angeles Times, December 8 2006).

    Carter’s recent book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid [12], and his courageous defense of it, seem finally to be triggering a newly open discussion of Israeli actions and Jewish influence in the U.S. Coming on the heels of the work of the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer and Harvard University’s Stephen Walt on the Israel Lobby [13], it highlights many of the same issues. Indeed, Carter has explicitly endorsed Mearsheimer and Walt’s conclusion that American policy in the Middle East does not reflect genuine American interests, but instead those of the Israel Lobby. (Carter Shares Insight On Peace In Mideast [14], by Marty Rosen, Coastal Post, January 3 2007)

    This is why it is possible to hope that the role of Jewish influence in promoting the epochal change inaugurated by the 1965 Immigration Act [15] might also now be discussed openly and honestly

    Carter is quite clear [11] that open discussion of Israel’s policies in the U.S. has been suppressed:

    “This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress … to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians…. What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.”

    In fact, it is not at all difficult to comprehend how this regime of “self-restraint” is maintained. President Carter himself, and Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt, point to pressure by the Israel Lobby on the media, consequent media self-censorship, and the intimidation of dissidents.

    Carter’s book has created the astounding spectacle of a former president of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize winner being called an anti-Semite, being condemned by mainstream Jewish organizations such as the ADL [16] and the Simon Wiesenthal Center [17], and having his offers to give talks at major universities with high Jewish enrollment rejected. The saga of the book’s treatment on Amazon has been a farce [18].

    The ADL [19]’s Abe Foxman is one of many who have used the old canard of anti-Semitism to condemn both President Carter [20] and Mearsheimer and Walt [21]. (My favorite title in this genre is by David Horowitz: “Jimmy Carter: Jew-Hater, Genocide-Enabler, Liar [22]”.)

    I focus on Foxman’s comments because he heads a mainstream Jewish activist organization and thus reflects the opinions of at least a major component of the organized Jewish community. (It has long been noticed [23] that there is a gap between the attitudes of the majority of American Jews and the attitudes of the established Jewish leaders. This is especially apparent on issues such as the neoconservative agenda of regime change in the Middle East and support of expansionist right-wing governments in Israel.)

    The point here is that the Jewish Establishment will strongly resist any discussion of Jewish influence or dual loyalty in any area of public policy, no matter how judicious and factually-based it may be. These Jewish leaders have a strong sense of history. They know that Jews have repeatedly become elites in European societies. But they also realize that Jewish power and influence [24] and dual loyalty have been potent themes of anti-Semitism throughout the ages. And they know that increases in Jewish power and influence have often been followed by the rise of rise of anti-jewish movements [25] spearheaded by people whose interests have been damaged by that Jewish power and influence.

    The strategy used by the Jewish Establishment is not to condemn the neocons for acting on their strong emotional and ethnic ties to Israel and manipulating the Bush administration into the disaster of Iraq and a looming war with Iran. Nor is it to urge that the Israel Lobby be scaled back in an effort to bring it more in line with a reasonable view of American interests. Rather, they go into the full blown smear and intimidation mode.

    Hence the fury among Jewish activists when General Wesley Clark blurted our that “New York money people” are gung-ho for bankrolling politicians who will support US involvement in a war against Iran; and that talk of a war with Iran is common in Israel. As Matthew Iglesias, himself Jewish, notes [26]: “Everything Clark said … is true. What’s more, everybody knows it’s true.” (American Prospect, January 23, 2007). But, as we should know by now, truth is irrelevant here.

    Partly this is because, thus far, these tactics have been tremendously effective. The American Jewish Establishment will not change these tactics until they stop working. After all, it is a long road from widespread discussion on the internet and occasional mentions in the above-ground media to having a real influence on the President and in the halls of Congress. There, change will be much slower.

    This is especially true given the very large role of Jewish money in funding [27] the newly-resurgent Democrats. On the Republican side, as Scott McConnell has argued [28], the neocons may be down, but they are far from out. And they are still pushing for war against Iran [29].

    I think too that the American Jewish leadership no longer has the flexibility to use any other strategy. The radical expansionists, often motivated by religious and ethnic fanaticism, have long been in control in Israel—since 1967 really. They are the vanguard of the Jewish community, and as usual, they they pull the rest of the Jewish community with them [30]. The moderates (aka “self-hating Jews”) have been shoved aside and do not really count any more. Similarly, the organized Jewish community in America is dominated by the expansionists. Jews who do not sign on to Israel’s expansionist agenda are relegated to the fringes [31].

    Indeed, one of the arguments of Mearsheimer and Walt [13] is that Israel would be far better off if it could not persuade Washington to support its expansionist agenda. And reasonable Jews like Jerome Slater [32] are wondering what it takes to “save Israel from itself”:

    “The real issue is the willed ignorance—the psychological need not to know—of our community. The price—to the Palestinians, to the Israelis, and to American national security—is already unbearable, and it may well soon become apocalyptic.”

    These comments bring to mind historian Albert Lindemann’s statement in his book Esau’s Tears [33] (P535)

    “Jews actually do not want to understand their past—or at least those aspects of their past that have to do with the hatred directed at them, since understanding may threaten other elements of their complex and often contradictory identities.”

    Whether it’s about the past or the present, the pattern among Jews is self-deception [30] and willful ignorance.

    As in the case of policy in the Middle East, it is no secret [34] that Jewish organizations were at the forefront of the immigration policy shift implemented by the 1965 Act. Consider the assessment of Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham in his book Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America [35]

    “Most important for the content of immigration reform, the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas… Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.” (pp. 56–57)

    In the past year, there has been much discussion of illegal immigration. It tapped into a very large reservoir of public anger about the lack of control of our borders and, I think, the transformations that immigration is unleashing. The fact that illegal immigration is, after all, illegal made it difficult to keep off the public radar (What part of illegal don’t you understand??).

    But this contrasts with almost no discussion at all in the Mainstream Media of the question of the 1,000,000 or so legal immigrants that come to the U.S. every year—no discussion of their effect on the economy, social services, crime and competition at elite universities; no discussion of their effect on the long term ethnic composition of the U.S. and the displacement of native populations in various sectors of the economy; and no discussion of whether most Americans really want all of this. (They don’t. [36]) The fact that large scale legal immigration causes exactly the same difficulties as large scale illegal inflow is a non-subject.

    Those who question the power and influence of the Israel Lobby are quickly labeled anti-Semites. The terms of choice for anyone who thinks the U.S. should have any restrictions at all on immigration are “racist [37]” and “nativist [38]”.

    It is exactly the same routine: Media self-censorship, pressure on the media and politicians who stray from official orthodoxy, and intimidation via labeling, anathematizing, and ultimately loss of livelihood.

    Of course, there are other issues that fall into the same category of “not fit for public discussion”. Perhaps the main one is the role of genetic influences on intelligence and behavior [39].

    But the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.) have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and political influence of their community.

    In the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of immigration policy, there ample documentation [40] [PDF] of a consistent interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe [41], in ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as “the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government”.

    I have presented the facts about Jewish influence in both immigration [42] and the Middle East [43] elsewhere. This has been extremely unwelcome. And it is not at all surprising that the Jewish community would strenuously resist these conclusions.

    Nevertheless, on foreign policy matters what is going on has obviously become increasingly apparent to a lot of smart people with intellectual integrity.

    As the incoming 110th Congress starts up, a crucial question will be if this new comprehension will dawn in an area in which, I believe, it is even more critical: America’s post-1965 immigration disaster [44].

    Kevin MacDonald [email [45] him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach. For his website, click here [46].

    The articles on are brought to you by the VDARE Foundation. We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions are tax deductible and appreciated.


    Source URL:
    [37]“definition of racist”&sp-a=sp0a298a00&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-d=custom&sp-date-range=-1&sp-start-month=0&sp-start-day=0&sp-start-year=&sp-end-month=0&sp-end-day=0&sp-end-year=&sp-x=any&
    [44] disaster&sp_a=sp0a298a00&sp_f=iso-8859-1&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-d=custom&sp-date-range=-1&sp-start-month=0&sp-start-day=0&sp-start-year=&sp-end-month=0&sp-end-day=0&sp-end-year=

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s