Liberty Lobby, founded in 1955 by political activist Willis Carto, was for many years based in Washington, D.C. This is how the former staff of Liberty Lobby described themselves: "The first citizens' lobby in the United States, the Washington-based non-profit institution advocated America-first nationalism, armed neutrality, aloofness from involvement or interference in the affairs of other countries, and freedom of the people from repression and exploitation by governmental and big-bank financial power."

     The Lobby also believed that people of European descent (like all races and cultures) have the right to self-determination and self-preservation, and political Zionism wields an enormous, and often negative, influence upon American and Middle Eastern affairs. Not surprisingly, they incurred the wrath of the mainstream media and powerful Jewish-Zionist organizations.

     In 1985, historian Frank Mintz published his study of Liberty Lobby.  The book was a typical error-ridden attack (dressed up in scholarly garb) that one usually sees upon any White nationalist organization that works for European/White rights and opposes political Zionism.  You know the line--"These organizations are racist, anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi, Holocaust-denying, etc, etc, etc."

     The following review of Mintz's tome was first published by Liberty Lobby as a booklet in February 1993. For reasons that we will not explore here, Liberty Lobby is now defunct (its legacy is continued by The American Free Press). However, the ensuing essay effectively rebuts many of the canards that are still used against legal, peaceful and democratic White/European nationalist groups that work for European self-determination and self-preservation, and for this reason the essay is still important.

By Frank P. Mintz. Westport Ct.: Greenwood Press, 1985.
Hardcover, 251 pages, ISBN 0-313-24393-X.

     In his classic work on the sociology of knowledge, Ideology and Utopia, Karl Mannheim noted that in every society there are social groups whose special task it is to provide an interpretation of the world. These groups-the culture-bearing strata-usually enjoy a monopolistic control over molding a society's world-view. When the values and interests of these intellectual elites act as distorting influences upon knowledge of the world, social and intellectual progress becomes impeded.[1]

     America is no exception to this sociological generality. We too have our culture-bearing strata, our intellectual and cultural establishments, and our media elites that effectively mold the worldviews and ideological orientation of the American masses. One of the most powerful and influential of these establishments in American society is the Jewish political and cultural establishment.[2]

     Definite forms of social consciousness derive from the fact that the Jewish political and cultural establishment possess, to a significant extent, the power and authority to impose its outlook upon the American people. Most people, even intellectuals, never think to question, let alone examine, these preformed patterns of thought, and thus, remain locked in a dogmatic slumber.

     As noted film critic Neal Gabler pointed out in his study of the Jewish movie moguls who came to dominate Hollywood:[3]

     A similar statement could be made for the Jewish political and cultural establishment as a whole. It created an ensemble of images, ideas, and "moral" evaluations-in short, an entire group of different ideologies-which profoundly influenced the thinking of American intellectuals. A professor of social philosophy, Ernest van den Haag, stated it in these terms: 'The literate American mind has come, in some measure, to think Jewish, to respond Jewishly. It has been taught to, and it was ready to."[4]

     Author Mintz criticizes other works on the right for their shortcomings and biases (pp.10, 237). He notes:

     In spite of the fact that his work is highly readable, much less emotion laden than other works on the right, and displays a semblance of objectivity and detachment, Mintz ultimately fell far short of his goal. He approached his subject with distorted assumptions and schemes of evaluations-in a word, with a biased ideological orientation. That ideological orientation ultimately reflects and serves the sociopolitical interests of the Jewish political and cultural establishment. As we shall see, this preformed pattern of thought has induced him to give a distorted account of the beliefs, goals and aspirations of Liberty Lobby.

     Mintz has written a detailed but quite distorted study of Liberty Lobby, set against the background of right wing politics in the United States since the First World War. Proceeding chronologically, the author gives his interpretations of the writings of the racial thinkers, philosophers, and right wing literati that preceded and influenced the political philosophy of Liberty Lobby. Mintz claims that the political philosophy of Liberty Lobby "...is not an all-pervasive, rigid ideology but an intellectual tendency derived from an amalgam of ideas that different individuals embody in distinct ways." (p.6)

     In spite of his claim that the belief system of Liberty Lobby is not rigid, author Mintz fails to distinguish sufficiently between the political agenda of Liberty Lobby and the anti-democratic, right wing philosophies which preceded and may have influenced it. Because philosophy A has been influenced by philosophy B, it does not follow that philosophy A is synonymous with or in the same class as philosophy B. Because an anti-democratic, right-wing, totalitarian philosophy may have influenced the belief system of Liberty Lobby, it does not follow that the belief system of Liberty Lobby is also to classified as a form of anti-democratic, right-wing totalitarianism. Furthermore, even if anti-democratic ideologues have or still do associate with Liberty Lobby, it does not follow that the Lobby's political agenda per se is fascist and anti-democratic, any more than the existence of Communists in the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) proves that it is a Communist organization. In a word, Mintz's study appears to commit the fallacy of "guilt by association."

     Consider this example. Francis Parker Yockey's lengthy work Imperium, which has been promoted by Liberty Lobby's outlets, espouses the following ideas: That there is a cultural unity between the peoples of Europe that transcends national boundaries; that parliamentary systems, constitutional republics, and democratic governments should be rejected; that the peoples of the West should be united under an authoritarian, one-party command state.

     Clearly, the agenda of Liberty Lobby incorporates the first, but it is equally clear that it rejects the following two. In order to become a member of Liberty Lobby's Board of Policy, one must accept the U.S. Constitution.[5] In the words of the staff of Liberty Lobby, its political philosophy, populism, is "...democratic, constitutional, nationalistic, and puts all its emphasis on the good of the people as a whole. Its outstanding early exemplars are Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson; these men's words and deeds paint a clear picture of the populist philosophy and its practical application."[6]

     Mintz, however, leaves the reader with the false impression that the agenda of Liberty Lobby is an authoritarian, statist ideology like that of Yockey's (pp.6, 130-131, 197, 234), although he never says this in so many words. A more accurate study would point out that Liberty Lobby's identification with republican ideals as embodied in the U.S. Constitution and the populist theory and practice of men like Jackson and Jefferson puts it in a class apart from authoritarian and totalitarian movements on the European model.

     One of Mintz's central claims is that Liberty Lobby is anti-Semitic. In his own words: "If one had to make a judgment, the fostering of anti-Semitism rather than Negrophobia [sic] constituted the paramount goal of the Lobby."(p.202) His definition and classification of the various forms of "anti-Semitism" is extremely broad and far ranging. He begins by claiming anti-Semitism can mean "...a propensity to blame Jews or any group associated with Jews (e.g. Jewish bankers, radicals, Zionists) for a substantial or disproportionate part of the designated malaise in the modern world..."(p.8) According to Mintz, Liberty Lobby and its followers are guilty of this brand of anti-Semitism.(p.8)

     But certain groups of Jews are responsible for a disproportionate, if not substantial, part of the woes of the world. Numerous studies and documents have shown that certain segments of Jewry were a major force behind the rise and spread of totalitarian Communism,[7] which has brought hardship and suffering to hundreds of millions of people throughout Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and Asia. In addition, numerous other studies have demonstrated that Jewish Zionists are responsible to a very significant extent for the problems in the Middle East.[8] According to Mintz's twisted interpretation, when Liberty Lobby's literature tells the truth about the sordid involvement of certain groups of Jews with totalitarian Communism and the problems in the Middle East, they are engaging in "evil activities"-they are promoting anti-Semitism.

     There is another part of Mintz's definition of anti-Semitism. It can also mean "...a tendency to define 'nation' or 'social good' in any way that prohibits fully equal Jewish participation in the social structure..."(p.8) According to Mintz, Liberty Lobby is also guilty of promoting this brand of anti-Semitism.(p.8) This accusation will not hold water. Liberty Lobby welcomes Jews who are fully committed to the interest of America to participate in the social structure, but it peacefully opposes those Jews who pose a threat to the American political system: "dual loyalists," torn between allegiance to Israel and the U.S., and those hostile, alienated Jews who feel no attachment to the United States. Liberty Lobby's pamphlet, America First, makes its position on this matter perfectly clear. It reads:[9]

     Mintz's definition does not exhaust the subject of anti-Semitism. He claims that anti-Semitism has two subcategories.

     Subcategory 1: "The definition suggests a conspiracist variant, in which writers identify a powerful conspiratorial association that is primarily Jewish or ultimately under Jewish direction but does not necessarily pertain to all Jews."(p.8) Once again, consider just a small portion of the evidence: influential Jewish groups do engage in conspiratorial activity.

     In March 1973, Liberty Lobby began broadcasting its five-minute radio program, "This is Liberty Lobby," which consisted mainly of commentary on current issues and political affairs. The show quickly grew in popularity. In April 1974 Liberty Lobby signed a contract with Mutual Broadcasting System Inc. to air the program over its affiliates across the nation. "This is Liberty Lobby" expressed legitimate criticism of Zionism's influence upon American and world affairs. At a meeting of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL) in February 1974, officials of the League set in motion a conspiracy to remove the offending show from the air waves. Eventually, Mutual canceled the contract and the program was taken off of the air.

     Liberty Lobby took legal action against the ADL. One important result of the Lobby's suit was that the group gained access to ADL memoranda, personal letters, and meeting notes. These provide ample documentation of determined behind-the-scenes influence to have the radio program removed from the air.[10] Characteristically, Mintz's description of the incident veils the ADL involvement. He writes: "...at the end of the year, Mutual, dissatisfied with Lobby discourses on Rockefeller conspiracies and Israeli iniquities, canceled the contract."(p.104) He makes no mention of the inordinate, behind-the-scenes pressure utilized by the ADL to have the contract cancelled.

     In his classic study of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, David Irving has pointed out how, in the aftermath of WWII, certain Marxist Jews did conspire to dominate Hungary, and enforce a Communist government upon the masses of Hungarian people.[11]

     Throughout the history of the twentieth century, Jewish-Zionist groups have engaged in conspiratorial activities. Evidence in support of this statement is so abundant, that all of it could not possibly be presented here. Three examples should suffice for our purposes. In his private journals, Moshe Sharrett, one of the founding fathers of the state of Israel, revealed the conspiratorial activities of the Israeli cabinet during the years of 1953 and 1956. Acts of terrorism were planned, the purpose of which was to intimidate and demoralize Middle Eastern Arabs, and to create a climate of fury and adventurism among Israeli Jews.[12] The Lavon affair is another classic example of a Jewish-Zionist conspiracy. In 1954, the Modiin, an Israeli military intelligence organization, activated a ring of spies in Egypt. These agents carried out acts of sabotage against certain British and American installations, in the hope that it would be assumed that Arab radicals perpetrated the crimes, and thus turn American and British opinion against Egypt. This Israeli-Jewish conspiracy had a profound effect upon Middle Eastern politics.[13] Finally, certain studies have brought to light the fact that the American government has been infiltrated by Jewish-Zionists who consciously conspire to influence it to adopt policies which are congruent with Zionist goals.[14]

     Mintz points out another "subcategory of anti-Semitism" that Liberty Lobby is allegedly guilty of: "Then there is sociological anti-Semitism. The sociological anti-Semites perceive Jews or Jewry as such to be inherently alien, unstable, malevolent or otherwise incompatible with commonweal and thus deserving of varying degrees of repression."(p.8) But certain groups of Jews do regard themselves as unassimilable cultural aliens, and certain malevolent characteristics of Jewish culture do encourage many Jews to be incompatible with commonweal. Consider just a small portion of the evidence.

     An expert on voting behavior, Professor Alan M. Fisher, has made it clear that for large numbers of Jews, the tendency to see themselves as cultural aliens to America is a major determinant their voting behavior. In his own words: "Jews still see themselves as socially vulnerable. They do not feel as comfortable as their social status or their economics would seem to warrant. They still retain a Diaspora mentality of a minority group, a marginal people, the stranger in a strange land."[15]

     Certain religious/cultural practices of Jewry openly encourage Jews to remain unassimilable, or cultural aliens to the society in which they reside. For example, according to two articles that appeared in Cleveland Jewish News, Chanukah is a tribute to those Jews who fought against assimilation with the mass of Gentiles.[16]

     Let us now examine statements by individual Jews who view themselves as alien to the Gentile world.

     The Zionist politician and first president of Israel, Chaim Weizman:[17]

     The Jewish leftist and editor of Tikkun, Michael Lerner: "Our story is built on resistance to the ruling order...In the Galut (Diaspora) we were outsiders..."[18]

     A writer for Cleveland Jewish News, Selma Hellman:[19]

     Certain groups of Jews did or still do harbor malevolent characteristics; they teach hatred for or are consumed with hatred for Gentiles.[20]

     Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism encourages hatred and intolerance of Gentiles. In the words of Evelyn Kay, who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish community and is the author of a study of the subject Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism: "The mark of a truly devout Hasidic or Orthodox Jew, as well as many other Jews, is an unquestioned hatred of non-Jews."[21] New Testament scholar Dr. Robert Countess has brought attention to passages from the Talmud that teach Jews contempt and hatred for non-Jewish people.[22] Political scientists Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter found in their studies that hostility toward European/Gentile culture was mainspring of left-wing Jewish radicalism.[23] Arthur Liebman, the Jewish sociologist, revealed in his Jews and the Left that at one time the majority of American Jewish intellectuals viewed American society as "the enemy," something to wage war against.[24] For certain American Jews, the following claim applies: citizens by law, aliens in fact.

     Finally, Liberty Lobby does not advocate the repression or persecution of Jews. After a search of Liberty Lobby's literature, nowhere can this writer find an instance in which the organization advocates the persecution or repression of Jewry. Committed to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Liberty Lobby advocates peaceful and legal opposition to Jewish Zionists or Jewish Communists that pose a threat to American interests.

     Author Mintz's definition and classification scheme for "anti-Semitism" is in itself an excellent example of the fallacy of "question-begging epithets." The logician, Alex C. Michalos, has described this fallacy as follows: "The fallacy of question-begging epithets is committed when, describing an issue, epithets are applied to it which not only describe it but evaluate it. Instead of introducing the issue of neutral or non-biased terms, one introduces it using laudatory or vituperative epithets."[25] Mintz introduces certain theories concerning Jews and applies to them a vituperative label ("anti-Semitism") that carries with it the following evaluation: "These theories about the Jews are merely prejudices. They are obviously false and must be rejected." The "anti-Semitic" label that Mintz applies to various negative evaluations of Jewish activities is employed to nullify the listener's powers of rational thought before they begin to operate. Merely on hearing it, the listener is induced to reject as "false," beliefs about Jewish culture or groups of Jews that are essentially true!

     One can see how Mintz's definition of and classification scheme for anti-Semitism, not only has a distorting influence upon knowledge of Jewry's sociopolitical influence, but also serves the interests of the Jewish political and cultural establishment. Criticism of Jewry, which, if given an open and public hearing, would threaten their power and interests, is surrounded with a taboo and delegitimized. We return to my original contention: Mintz's ideological orientation distorts our knowledge about Jewry's influence, but serves the sociopolitical interests of the Jewish power elite.

     Mintz classifies Liberty Lobby as "racist"(p.5), "white supremacist"(p.98), and part of a "nativist syndrome"(p.198). (According to the The New American Heritage Dictionary, a "syndrome" is "a group of signs and symptoms that collectively indicate or characterize a disease, psychological disorder, or other abnormal conditions.") In other words, Mintz is claiming that the political thought of Liberty Lobby is an irrational body of ideas which are espoused by people who are stricken with a psychosocial disorder.)

     Describing the political philosophy of Liberty Lobby, Mintz writes:

     Mintz's descriptive terminology is extremely misleading, and it tells us more about the hypocritical moral standards and dominant ideologies of our time (and the political interests which these serve) than about the political philosophy of Liberty Lobby.

     The authority on international law, Louis Rene Beres, once pointed out that: "...The right of every people and every nation to self-determination is taken as a cardinal element of civilized international relations."[26] Another cardinal element of civilized international relations is that a people, culture, race, etc, have the right to preserve and perpetuate their collective racial/cultural identity (i.e., the right to self-preservation). That international law does indeed recognize this right is shown by the fact that anybody or any group that performs actions that destroy the racial/cultural identity of a group is guilty of genocide.[27]

     If a group such as Liberty Lobby works to insure that the collective rights (self-preservation and self-determination) of the white Euro-American population are honored, can this rightfully be labeled "white supremacy," "racism," and part of a "nativist syndrome"? By way of contrast, why is it that Jewish-Zionist and non-white groups that work to insure that their people's collective rights are honored are considered legitimate and respectable in our society?

     According to the tenets of international law, Euro-Americans have the collective right to self-determination and the right to preserve their heritage, just as Jews and non-whites do. But self-determination for Euro-America, if it means anything at all, means the right of the former entity to be free of domination by or interference from powerful minorities or a coalition of minorities. After all, self-determination directly implies that a people has an inherent right to collectively determine its destiny, without interference by other peoples, cultures, or races. The staff of Liberty Lobby described their position on this matter with the following statements. (They label their beliefs as "populist" and "nationalist.") "Populist nationalism is expressed in its principle that each country and race should be free to exist and develop without interference by other countries or races. Populism is anti-colonial."[28]

     What Liberty Lobby wants is an American society that respects the white majority's right to self-determination. They want to free that majority from domination by or interference from organized minorities (eg. Jewish Zionists) and their coalitions. In a word, Liberty Lobby desires self-determination for Euro-Americans and the preservation of their racial/cultural heritage. This is not an illegitimate desire; it is a desire that is grounded in the tenets of international law.

     What Mintz describes as Liberty Lobby's desire to "lay down the law to Jews, blacks, and other non-white groups" can be more accurately described with the following statement: when the demands or behavior of minorities pose a threat to the collective rights of the white majority, Liberty Lobby wants to make certain that those collective rights are honored.

     Presumably, one of the reasons that Mintz labels Liberty Lobby as "racist" and "white supremacist" is because he alleges that they believe the United States to have "...a dominant population group of Christian Whites, who must preside over the destiny of the nation." Once again, Mintz's claim is misleading. Liberty Lobby does not advocate that whites should preside over and dominate the destiny of non-white America. Liberty Lobby, as shown previously, advocates the policy of racial self-determination. That is, non-white people should collectively preside over their own destiny, and white people should collectively preside over their own destiny. The founder of Liberty Lobby, Willis Carto, made this perfectly clear when he wrote:[29]

     Hence, Mintz's claim that Liberty Lobby supports "white supremacy" is false. He wrongly implies that they favor white domination of non-white people. What Liberty Lobby wants is for the nation to adopt policies that: a) are in the best interests of all segments of the nation, and simultaneously, b) adhere to the principle of racial/cultural self-determination.

     On page 9, Mintz makes another specious claim:

     Organizations bearing the message of white racial-cultural monism were usually unable to have a significant impact on national life. Organizations bearing the message of Jewish-Zionist racial-cultural monism have had, and still have, a tremendous impact on national and international affairs.

     Zionism is a political philosophy that is firmly grounded in the racial thought of the 19^th and 20^th centuries.[30] In the words of the Zionist political thinker, Moses Hess:[31]

     Theordore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, once pointed out that one of the basic tenets of Zionism is to preserve and perpetuate the uniqueness of the Jewish people. On this matter, Herzl wrote:[32]

     This desire to preserve and perpetuate Jewry remains alive and strong in Israelis and Jewish-Zionists who reside outside Israel. The Middle East analyst, Mitchell Bard, wrote:[33]

     According to the chief rabbi of France, Rene Samuel Sirat, "...the racial disappearance of French Jews is the greatest threat to the community..."[34] Rabbi Sirat also claims that "there are two ways to exterminate the Jews: the radical method, concentration camps and terrorist attacks, or the slow method through mixed marriages..."[35] In keeping with his desire to preserve the racial makeup of French Jews, Rabbi Sirat refuses the religious conversion of non-Jewish spouses.[36] Indeed, French Jews in general are concerned about the loss of their cultural identity and religious traditions.[37] This concern for the racial/cultural survival Diaspora Jewry is not only prevalent in France, but it is also seen in the United States among the leaders of American Jewry. Carol Diament, the National Director of Jewish Education at Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, complains, "...we are not imparting to our children the responsibility to marry Jews."[38] She was also quoted as saying: "...the greatest threat of all to the future of Diaspora Jewry is intermarriage."[39] Finally, according to Marc Stern (co-Director of the Commission on Law and Social Action of the American Jewish Congress), it is socially and morally for Jews"...to insist on surviving as a separate and distinct group with their own distinct sense of moral mission."[40]

     Willis Carto was indeed correct when he stated:

     He and his fellow members of Liberty Lobby are labeled "racists" for putting the interest of the white majority at the forefront of their agenda. Yet, Jewish-Zionists like Dennis Praeger who proclaim that Jews have an obligation to put the interests of Jewry at the forefront of their agenda are accorded honor and respect in our society.[42] (He is a nationally prominent lecturer and author of two books.) Why is it that in contemporary America it is socially and morally acceptable for Jewish people to espouse Zionism, a political philosophy of Jewish racial-cultural homogeneity; yet, simultaneously, contemporary thought demands that intellectuals like Frank Mintz label any expression of white racial-cultural homogeneity as "racist" and "white supremacist"?

     In any society a large part of the prevailing ideologies, world-view, and "moral" judgments reflect the sociopolitical interests of that society's power elites and controlling elements.[43] The Jewish political and cultural establishment, a dominant, pervasive element in American society, is in such a position of such power that it can inculcate the minds of the people with beliefs that ultimately reflect and service its sociopolitical interests.

     The political agenda of Liberty Lobby poses a threat to the power and hegemony of the Jewish political and cultural establishment. A desire to ensure a) the survival of the racial/cultural heritage of the white majority, and, b) that the latter's right to self-determination is respected will inevitably be coupled with a recognition of those forces that militate against such an agenda. Consider the sociopolitical consequences of the following belief system: certain segments of Jewry (e.g., political Zionists, Jewish Marxists) are hostile and alien groups that militate against the survival of the racial/cultural heritage of the white/majority; Euro-America has the right to self-determination, the right to be free of alien Jewish-Zionist interference and domination, or of interference from a coalition of Zionist Jews and other minorities.

     If ideas such as these ever attained widespread legitimacy and respect, they could spawn a movement that could culminate in a marked curtailment of Jewish sociopolitical power. The masses of people might start saying: "Maybe certain segments of Jewry are hostile and destructive aliens, and they should not have such power and influence over our lives. Perhaps we have the legal and moral right to restrict Jewish influence in the Western World."

     Author Mintz's judgments in relation to Liberty Lobby were not created in a vacuum. They derive from a biased and distorted ideological outlook that currently holds tremendous sway in the intellectual community. The originators and promoters of this outlook, the ideologues of the Jewish political and cultural establishment, have a vested interest in censuring and delegitimizing the political agenda of Liberty Lobby.