Joe Biden’s faux pas

May 24, 2013 |

Kevin MacDonald


Good  grief!  Joe Biden should  know the ground rules by now. You can praise the contributions of individual Jews. It’s totally permissible to wax eloquent on the accomplishments of  Sigmund Freud, Jonas Salk, or Albert  Einstein—perhaps even implying that humanity would never have come on these ideas and thus be infinitely poorer for it. (John Derbshire seems to agree, but it’s ridiculous on the face of it.) You  can even  praise the Jewish community’s role in enacting public policy on which there is a broad consensus, such as the Civil Rights movement.

But you can’t imply that Jews have real power and have used it to push America in directions most Americans don’t want to go or obviously conflict with the legitimate interests of other  groups—particularly Whites.

The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you … I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation. (See Jonathan Chait, “Biden praises Jews, Goes Too Far, Accidentally Thrills Anti-Semites“)

In particular, as noted also at TOO, Biden claims that Jews have been at the vanguard of gay marriage. We have also noted Jewish domination of the gun control movement and their responsibility for the mainstreaming of pornography and for the sexualization of culture. Jewish neocons with their power in the media and in the government were the main force behind the costly war in Iraq. And by far most importantly Jews have been the main force behind displacement-level non-White immigration (see also here regarding the current push for yet more massive increases in non-White immigrants). Biden cheerfully says, ““The embrace of immigration” is part of that, as is the involvement of Jews in social justice movements.” Read more »

Posted in Jews as a hostile elite, Jews as an elite Leave a Comment

Observations - The Occidental Observer Blog
Background to the Magna Carta
May 19, 2013 | Author: Andrew Joyce

The first point to bear in mind in that Magna Carta was a document produced by the nobles and presented to the monarch — in this case, King John. In this sense we should bear in mind the tensions between the nobles and the King over one chief issue — the role of Jewish usury in enabling land transfer from the nobility to the monarch. The relevant clauses are as follows:

 * (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

So obviously these clauses weaken the ability of Jew and Crown to recoup either debt or interest on loans. It doesn’t prevent moneylending etc., but certainly we could agree that the position of Jew and King would be weakened. We must then ask, firstly, why was this necessary? And secondly, why did it suddenly disappear a year later in the 1216 charter? On the first point, as I state in my article on medieval Jewry, the relationship at this time during the Crown and the nobles was tense indeed, and the Jews were a very important factor in this tension. King John, whose actions had brought about the need for the Magna Carta, was profligate, incompetent, and utterly beholden to his Jews and their ability to provide him with seemingly unlimited funds for his misadventures on the Continent. Read more »

Posted in Anti-Semitism 2 Comments
Steve Sailer: Jews are on top now
May 18, 2013 | Author: Kevin MacDonald

In the course of a Q and A on Jason Richwine in Takimag, Steve Sailer notes:

Q. How can America survive without these sacred myths [such as the myth that "America is a nation of immigrants]?
A. America survived fine for a couple of hundred years without the current schmaltz. When I was a boy in the 1960s, we had different schmaltz. The national myths then were all about cowboys and settlers, not immigrants.

The contents of the national myths serve to demonstrate current ethnic power. The descendants of Ellis Island-era immigrants are on top now, so they’ve rewritten history to make their ancestors sound central. This post-hoc score-settling is no doubt fun, but it’s obviously a stupid way to decide immigration policy. (“Frequently Asked Questions about the Jason Richwine Brouhaha“)

What? Italians run America?

Actually, no. If one clicks on the “top now” link, it takes you to another Sailer column on Jewish billionaires. Based on blogger n/a’s estimates, 35% of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans are Jewish.  (The Jewish Times of Baltimore estimated that 139 of the 2009 Forbes 400 were Jewish—also 35%; cited here; the original article seems to have disappeared.)

Of course being “on top” is a lot more than being well represented among the wealthy. It’s media influence (ownership and production of media; see here, p. 48ff), political influence (e.g., the Israel Lobby, financial clout within within the Democratic and Republican parties), academic influence (overrepresentation in the administration and enrollment at elite universities), etc. It’s this powerful  influence in all the elite high ground of America that makes Jewish concerns on issues like immigration and multiculturalism so critical (Lawrence Auster agreed). It’s no surprise that Jewish organizations are foursquare behind the Schumer-Rubio bill, and Jewish billionaire Paul Singer (#392 on n/a’s list, with $1.1 billion) has financially backed the bill within the Republican Party (see also here).

I would agree that Jews are on top now so that they effectively run the country. As a result, Jewish attitudes on immigration are very important. I am not so sanguine about Jewish motives for supporting displacement-level non-White immigration. Sailer thinks they want “to make their ancestors sound central” to national mythology. My view is that it’s really about fear and loathing of White America. And that makes the entire project sinister indeed.

Posted in Jewish support for multiculturalism 2 Comments
Heather MacDonald on the corruption of the new hostile elite that runs the University of California
May 10, 2013 | Author: Kevin MacDonald

At TOO we often emphasize that the new elite is not only hostile but corrupt. Usually, our main culprit is Jewish ethnic networking, but it extends far beyond that. Heather MacDonald has a great article on the corruption of the University of California by the new multicultural elite (“Multiculti U.: The budget-strapped University of California squanders millions on mindless diversity programs“).

For an alternative view, which blames Gov. Ronald Reagan’s actions in 1969 for UC’s current problems (!!!), see “Reagan and the fall of UC” by Seth Rosenfeld (LATimes, 5/10/2013.) Rosenfeld ignores the budget crisis since 2008 and the massive diversity bureaucracy and lowered standards for faculty and students targeted by MacDonald. Obviously intended to promote his book (which condemns the FBI’s  role in resisting 1960s student radicalism), Rosenfeld paints a fantasy world where one might be led to believe that UC is being destroyed by a shadowy conspiracy put into motion by Reagan and somehow continuing to the present despite the fact that California is Exhibit A for the dominance of the multicultural left throughout state government. As MacDonald shows, this dominance of the multicultural left is obvious at UC (and, one might add, pretty much every other American university).

There is so much to like in MacDonald’s article, beginning with her comments on Peter Schrag, an op-ed writer for the Sacramento Bee, who claimed that the university needs more money so that it can pass on the tradition of a whole lot of dead White folks. MacDonald responds:

Stingy state taxpayers aren’t endangering the transmission of great literature, philosophy, and art; the university itself is. No UC administrator would dare to invoke Schrag’s list of mostly white, mostly male thinkers [including Madison and Jefferson,  Melville, Dickinson and Hawthorne; Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer; Dante and Cervantes; Charlotte Brontë and Jane Austen; Goethe and Molière; Mozart, Rembrandt and Michelangelo; Plato and Aristotle, Homer and Sophocles and Euripides,  Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky] as an essential element of a UC education; no UC campus has sought to ensure that its undergraduates get any exposure to even one of Schrag’s seminal thinkers (with the possible exception of Toni Morrison), much less to America’s founding ideas or history.

Rather than requiring a focus on Western civilization, the only undergrad requirement at Berkeley is  a course involving “theoretical or analytical issues relevant to understanding race, culture, and ethnicity in American society” administered by “Berkeley’s ever-expanding Division of Equity and Inclusion.” Read more »

Posted in Costs of Multiculturalism 1 Comment