Jewish Double Standards on Immigration and Multiculturalism in Israel vs. the Diaspora

Abolishing Albion: How True Democracy Mandates a Flood of Mud for Britain

/9 Comments/in , , /by

Albion is a poetic name for Britain. I think it sounds better on the tongue and sits better in the mind. Why does it sit better? Because it’s related to the Latin word albus, meaning “white,” and refers to the White Cliffs of Dover. Albion therefore means the White Land. And you can read that in two senses: as referring both to the White Cliffs that guard Britain and to the White folk who built Britain.

Entrance to Albion: The White Cliffs of Dover (image from Wikipedia)

So the name Albion is poetically perfect. It sonorously proclaims that Britain is either White or nothing. The corrupt and malevolent elite that currently rules Britain have opted for the latter. They want Britain to be nothing, which is why they have unleashed a flood of mud on Albion. Mud is brown or black, not white. Mud clogs and chokes, smothering life and wrecking machinery. That’s why “flood of mud” is a perfect metaphor for the Brown and Black folk who are pouring across Britain’s borders and abolishing Albion. If the flood isn’t stopped and reversed, Britain will become Mudzone, not Albion. And the same will apply across the West. America and France, Germany and Italy, will become crime-and-corruption-crippled Mudzones, not peaceful, prosperous and productive White nations.

Working for Mudzone

But why is this happening? Like Albion, all the other countries I’ve mentioned are supposed to be democracies governed by the will of the people. Decade after decade, the people have willed that Third-World immigration end and even be reversed. But the politicians who are supposed to enact the will of the people have ignored them and the flood of mud has not merely continued but massively increased. One of those politicians has openly boasted of his betrayal. In 2013, Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, asked this question in the Guardian: “Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants?”

His answer was an emphatic “No.” What “most of the country” wanted, traitorous politicians like Hattersley refused to supply. As he boasted in a later article: “For most of my 33 years in [parliament], I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

“Above all people on earth”

By mainstream standards, Hattersley was a staunch democrat in the Labour Party. Yet he spent all his time in politics ignoring the will of the people and attacking the interests of the working-class. However, his behavior wasn’t as Orwellian as it might appear. Yes, the Labour Party is now really the Big-Business Party, but Hattersley is in fact a genuine democrat, someone who believes wholeheartedly in the kratia of the demos, the rule of the people. It’s just that the people in question aren’t the White natives of Britain. No, they’re the people described in this famous verse of the Bible:

For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6)

The Chosen People are of course the Jews. It is not a coincidence that Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife just like Keir Starmer, the current Labour prime minister. In Greek, “chosen people” can be translated as ἐκλεκτός δῆμος, elektos dēmos. In the modern West, democracy is really eclectocracy, rule of the Chosen People. That’s why the so-called Conservative Party in Britain promised voters again and again to reduce migration, but raised migration to unprecedented heights. And so Rajeev Syal, the so-called “home affairs editor” of the Guardian, has just reported that “Net migration to the UK hit a record high in 2023 of 906,000 in a period covering Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s premierships, revised estimates show.”

Meet Grandfather Sholem

The part-Jewish Boris Johnson and the fully Indian Rishi Sunak were eclectocrats, not democrats. They enacted the will of the Chosen People, not the will of the people. And if you want to know the will of the Chosen People, just read a fascinating article in the Jewish Chronicle from January 2020. The title of the article was “Jewniversity: Sarah Fine” and the subheading ran like this: “Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity.” Can you guess Sarah Fine’s line on “national identity”? Of course you can. She wants to destroy the national identity of Britain and turn Albion into a Mudzone. As you read David Edmonds’ summary of her ideas, remember that the Talmudic re-definition and inversion are meant strictly for Britain and other White nations. They emphatically do not apply to Jewish Israel:

I usually ask the subjects of this column — “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response. But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.

Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved [to this] country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?

To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely? Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.

On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.

But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?

But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.

Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.

Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?

Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.

She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (“Jewniversity: Sarah Fine,” The Jewish Chronicle, 2nd January 2020)

The Israeli Likud party boasts about excluding strangers with the “Israel-Egypt Fence” (note that Hebrew adverts are read from right to left)

Ah yes, that famous xenophilia from the Jewish Bible or Torah, which Jews so often trot out to explain their enthusiasm for open borders. But this enthusiasm is strangely selective. As I described in “Trashing the Torah,” it doesn’t exist in Israel, which rigorously excludes “the stranger” with high-tech fences. And Israel is currently oppressing millions of “strangers” in Gaza with high explosive and high-velocity bullets. Consider some hypothetical goyim who want to move to Israel. Is protecting the Israeli way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Iqbal’s and grandfather Mbongo’s desire to move there?

Israel showing compassion for the stranger: bomb-devastation in Gaza City, 2023 (image from Wikipedia)

Of course it does! The non-White migration that’s mandatory for Britain is forbidden in Israel. But that apparent double standard is really a single standard of “What’s best for Jews?” Sarah Fine is “culturally Jewish” but retains the arrogance and ethnocentrism of the religiously Jewish idea that Jews are the Chosen People, “above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” The Jew David Edmonds obviously shares her arrogance and ethnocentrism. In summarizing Fine’s work, he talks about “democracy” and the right of the demos in Britain to control migration.

He then asks us to consider a hypothetical Jew in Eastern Europe: “[I]s it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.” Well, yes, by any sane and natural standard, it is obvious that “the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored.” As his very name proclaims, he isn’t British. He’s a foreigner, born and bred in a foreign country, speaking a foreign language and following a foreign religion and culture. The voice of “grandfather Sholem” has absolutely no right to be heard in Britain. Not by any sane and natural standard. Sholem’s interests are not the same as a native Brit, as is obvious from reading Fine and Edmonds.

Jews judge, goyim grovel

But the Jews Sarah Fine and David Edmonds aren’t applying sane and natural standards. They don’t merely want the voice of grandfather Sholem to be “heard” in Britain. They want it to prevail over the voices of the White British. As Edmonds asks: “[I]s protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?” His answer for Britain is no, it doesn’t: if grandfather Sholem wants to move here, he must be allowed to do so. In other words, the White British have no right to exclude anyone from anywhere on earth from entering Britain.

Keir Starmer performs the goy-grovel at Labour Friends of Israel (image from LFI)

All that matters is a stranger’s “desire to move here.” Whether it’s grandfather Sholem or grandfather Iqbal or grandfather Mbongo, the White British have no right to keep anyone out. That’s what Jews think. And because Jews control politics in Britain, that’s why Albion is being flooded with mud. The current Labour prime minister, Keir Starmer, is married to a Jew. His party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. The current Conservative leader is Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian who performed the goy-grovel at Yad Vashem, the central shrine of Holocaustianity. Like Starmer’s Labour, her party is run on Jewish money and controlled by Jewish ideology. In the modern West, democracy means eclectocracy, rule by the Chosen People.

Lance Welton on Jewish ethnocentrism: Fairness, Paranoia, and Self-Deception

/32 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Lance Welton’s article on VDARE is a nice summary of research on Jewish ethnocentrism and its consequences: “Did the ADL Think It Could Get Away with  Hypocrisy on Replacement in U.S. vs. Israel? Answer: It Probably Didn’t Think At All.” As noted below, some of his presentation touches on my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition as well as my books on Judaism.

Welton:

“Fairness,” as I noted in my article on blacks, is “impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination.” This is a high-order value which demands that you put aside nepotism, ethnocentrism, and even personal gain, in favor of this abstract goal. So, on this basis, would we expect Jews to be as high in “fairness” as Whites?

No. Firstly, there is abundant evidence that Jews are more ethnocentric than whites; meaning they cooperate strongly with their own people and are hostile to other peoples. Jews have been stereotyped as being highly ethnocentric throughout their history, as Kevin MacDonald showed in his 1994 book A People That Shall Dwell Alone [Chap 8, 228ff]. There is overwhelming evidence that racial stereotypes, like all stereotypes, tend to be true; that’s why they develop [Social Perception and Social Reality, By Lee Jussim, 2012].

This goes very deep. Jewish babies react with far greater horror to strangers of a different ethnic group than do German babies [Security of Infant-Mother, -Father, and -Metapelet Attachments Among Kibbutz-Reared Israeli Children, by Abraham Sagi et al., Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1985].

Data from the University of Wisconsin’s MIDUS survey of middle-aged Americans demonstrated that among Whites there is a positive correlation between how religious you are and how group-oriented you are. However, the same study found that Jews are the most ethnocentric—group-oriented religious group—even though they were the least religious group of those surveyed. When factors such as intelligence (which tends to make people less ethnocentric) and religiousness level were controlled for, Jews were still way more ethnocentric than the gentile White groups. (This is discussed in Religiosity as a Predictor of In-Group Favoritism Within and Between Religious Groups, by Curtis Dunkel & Edward Dutton, Personality and Individual Differences, 2016).

If you take into account the number of Jews in a population compared to the number of Whites, then the extent to which Jews “marry out” is far lower. Jews are about 49 times less likely to marry someone of a different faith than Protestants are, for example. [See Andrew Joyce’s “The Cofnas Problem.“]. The most obvious explanation for this, in the context of the other research: ethnocentrism. Jews seem to be evolved to be higher in ethnocentrism [see “A Genetic Perspective on Individualism/Collectivism,” A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 8: p. 236ff], something that would be heightened by their small gene pool; with people tending to be more ethnocentric when the gene pool is small [Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, By Gregory Cochran et al., Journal of Biosocial Science, 2006]. This higher ethnocentrism would make them less able to suppress ethnocentric instincts in favor of creating fairness than are gentile Whites.

Fairness is one of the traits that is higher in Western societies based on individualism versus the kinship-based societies of the rest of the world. Joseph Henrich and colleagues reviewed research showing differences between subjects from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) nations and subjects in a wide range of other cultures, finding important differences in fairness and moral reasoning. This is reviewed in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: 

In non-Western societies based on extended kinship, morality is defined in terms of whether an action satisfies obligations within the family or kinship group, whereas in individualist societies, morality is thought of as satisfying abstract notions of justice such as Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act according to the maxim that you could wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law. … The differences between individualist and collectivist cultures—whether in fairness and altruistic punishment, moral reasoning, cognition, or perception—are all “of a piece;” they all fit into a consistent pattern in which Westerners detach themselves from social, cognitive, and perceptual contexts, whereas non-Westerners see the world in a deeply embedded manner. This pattern is highly consistent with Western peoples being more prone to scientific reasoning (p. 110).

On the other hand, collectivist cultures—my view is that Judaism is a paradigmatic collectivist culture—see the world from the standpoint of group interests, so that even scientific reasoning in the social sciences is performed through the lens of group interests. Hence, The Culture of Critique.

The Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) people discussed in Chapter 3 developed scientific and scholarly associations in the post-medieval West which assume groups are permeable and highly subject to defection—that there is a marketplace of ideas in which individuals may defect from current scientific views when they believe that the data support alternate perspectives. On the other hand, collectivist cultures create group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions, fealty to group leaders, ethnic networking, and expulsion of dissenters [i.e., the thesis of The Culture of Critique]. …

Moreover, … WEIRD people tend more toward analytical reasoning (detaching objects from context, attending to characteristics of the object and developing rules for explaining and predicting phenomena) as opposed to holistic reasoning (attending to relationships between objects and surrounding field). Westerners tend to categorize objects on the basis of rules that are independent of function and hence more abstract whereas non-Westerners are more likely to categorize on the basis of function and contextual relationship. Science is fundamentally concerned with creating abstract rules independent of context and developing explanations and predictions of phenomena in the empirical world. Such traits, which can be seen even in the ancient Greco-Roman world of antiquity, clearly predispose to scientific thinking. …

For collectivists, moral reasoning involves taking account of the social context, which is fundamentally centered on fitting into and strengthening a kinship group. For individualists, the social world involves a greater need to interact with strangers and to consider their reputation for respecting impersonal rules. …

Individuals are evaluated as individuals on traits—e.g., honesty, intelligence, military talent, and the logic and usefulness of their arguments—in abstraction from their (relatively weak) kinship connections. Moral situations are evaluated in terms of abstract concepts of justice that apply to all individuals rather than being vitally concerned with social obligations to particular people enmeshed in a particular extended kinship network. When confronting the natural world, individualists more easily abstract from social context and personal experience, seeking out and applying universally applicable laws of nature.

Back to Welton:

In addition, there is evidence that Jews are perfectly happy for a situation to be unfair. One study compared religious groups in the US—Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Jews, and Atheists/Agnostics—and asked people what they thought was most important to live a “good life.” Jews, in contrast to all the other groups, highlighted “extra money” [“For Tomorrow We Die”? Testing the Accuracy of Stereotypes about Atheists and Agnostics, by Edward Dutton & Curtis Dunkel, Mankind Quarterly, 2019]. They see it as important to be richer than other people in a way that the whites do not, which implies that they are less concerned about a possibly unfair situation as long as they benefit. And, being more intelligent than gentile Whites on average (as Richard Lynn has shown in his book The Chosen People) they will better be able to rationalize achieving such an advantage, as intelligent people are typically better at finding ways of rationalizing their biases [Why smart people aren’t better at transcending their biased views, by Tauriq Mousa, The Big Think, June 13, 2012].

Finally, Jews are less mentally stable than Whites. Ashkenazi Jews have significantly elevated levels of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, both of which can make people paranoid [Genome-Wide Association Study of Schizophrenia in Ashkenazi Jews, by Fernando Goes et al., American Journal of Medical Genetics, 2015]. When people are paranoid, they are less interested in what is “fair”—they are interested simply in surviving and doing so may involve being very “unfair.” People with paranoid personalities tend to be hypocritical and self-seeking [Understanding Paranoia, by Martin Kantor, 2004, p.71].

Because Jews are better at finding ways of rationalizing away their bias and hypocrisy, they may well not believe that they are being “unfair” at all [a kind of self-deception one expects to find among highly ethnocentric people—Ch. 8 of Separation and Its Discontents  and elaborated by Andrew Joyce here]. In this sense, it can be said that intelligent yet paranoid people do not “know themselves”—meaning that they live in a fantasy world in which there is nothing wrong with them; only with others.

This personality type will see the world as packed full of hostile persecutors who want to destroy them, meaning that an obviously Mostly Peaceful protest at the Capitol becomes an “insurrection” in which people could have been killed.

This personality type will also engage in “paranoid projection,” whereby they purport to find an aspect of themselves they dislike in others, causing them to despise these people. “I hate them” becomes “They hate me,” based on finding some minor evidence of this. Hence the Leftist obsession with how “hateful” their opponents are [8 Key Traits of Paranoid Thinkers, by Shahram Heshmat, Psychology Today. February 24, 2016].

It’s interesting in this regard that paranoia about the surrounding world is a very central aspect of Jewish culture—analyzed as what behavior geneticists label genotype-environment correlation (e.g., paranoid parents with genetic predispositions to paranoia would socialize their children (who share their genes for paranoia) in a manner that would reinforce a worldview that the outside world is dangerous). From A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 7:

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982) note that for Jewish families a “sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage—with the suffering of Jews throughout history.” Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153) note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.”

This evolved response to external threat is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification. Hartung (1992) provides anecdotal data on the emphasis on Jewish suffering and its exaggeration as aspects of modern synagogue service. Such practices have a long history. Roth (1978, 62) notes that Jewish “martyrologists” maintained lists of Jewish martyrs for commemoration during synagogue services during the Middle Ages, and Jordan (1989, 20) refers to the “forbidding martyrocentric self-image” during this period.

Woocher (1986) shows that Jewish survival in a threatening world is a theme of Judaism as a civil religion in contemporary America. Within this world view, the gentile world is viewed as fundamentally hostile, with Jewish life always on the verge of ceasing to exist entirely. “Like many other generations of Jews who have felt similarly, the leaders of the polity who fear that the end may be near have transformed this concern into a survivalist weapon” (Woocher 1986, 73). Woocher (1986) notes that there has been a major effort since the 1960s to have American Jews visit Israel in an effort to strengthen Jewish identification, with a prominent aspect of the visit being a trip to a border outpost “where the ongoing threat to Israel’s security is palpable” (p. 150).

Or, as Elliott Abrams (Faith or Fear, 190) wrote, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

Hence the Jewish motivation for diversifying America, the theme of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique (corroborated by Otis Graham (Unguarded Gates [2004]: 80), who notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). (Culture of Critique, Ch. 7).

Welton concludes:

The self-centeredness and implicit unfairness of the ADL operatives’ fantasy world means they indeed might very well not have thought at all about what to any outside observer appears to be the utter hypocrisy of their position on the Great Replacement [via immigration] in the U.S. as opposed to Israel.

For such people, objective truth is “defamation”—but their “defamation” of others is objective truth.

Any objective observer would indeed have to agree that the ADL is utterly hypocritical in its stance toward immigration in Israel versus the United States. But activist Jews like Jonathan Greenblatt may not even be aware of it due to their powerful tendencies toward ethnocentrism and its corollary of self-deception. And now these people are firmly ensconced in the hostile elite that is running the United States. A dire situation indeed for the traditional White population of America.

Roche Trap: A Tribalist Lets Slip the Truth

/49 Comments/in , /by

A Spectre is haunting the Unz Review — the spectre of a highly ethnocentric Jewish commenter called Tyrion 2. He possesses all of Kevin MacDonald’s “background traits for Jewish activism,” from ethnocentrism and intelligence to aggressiveness and psychological intensity. With shameless disregard for facts and logic, he assails any criticism of Jews at the Unz Review, arguing aggressively and incessantly that no Jew anywhere has ever done or said anything harmful to non-Jewish interests.

Trap for a Tribalist

As you might expect, Tyrion 2 has been busy on re-prints of my own articles at the Unz Review. For example, he denies that the Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche had any true responsibility for the massive increase in Third-World immigration under Tony Blair’s New Labour government. Here is his defence of Roche: “She was a junior minister in a government (naturally) dominated by Gentiles and only holding the relevant brief for 2 years. As to her motivations in upholding the party line of Gentiles Blair, Brown and Prescott, I don’t know (upholding the party line as a junior minister? keeping her job?).”

Anyone who reads my article “Roche Motel Revisited: The Comfort of an Atomized Society” will learn how far Tyrion 2’s assertions are from the truth. However, I thought that he wouldn’t bother attacking the re-print of my article “Liberals vs. Mother Nature” at the Unz Review. After all, the article is about India, Freddie Mercury and AIDS, not about the Jewish corruption of Western politics. I was wrong. Tyrion 2 seized on one small reference to Jews in the article – and entered a Roche trap:

Yes, both Jews and Parsis have been overachievers and yes, as you point out, Parsis were not as singled out for dislike as Jews [were] but Parsis lived in super diverse India and Jews lived in much more homogenous [sic] Europe. (Comment of 8th December 2018 on the re-print of “Liberals vs. Mother Nature” at the Unz Review)

Diversity is Good for Jews

Tyrion 2 is making the classic Jewish argument that racially and religiously mixed societies are safer for Jews than homogeneous ones. According to him, in “super diverse India” (in fact, not-so diverse Gujarat), Parsis didn’t stand out and so didn’t suffer persecution and expulsions as Jews did in “much more homogenous Europe.” And guess what? Tyrion 2 is thinking exactly like Barbara Roche:

Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Roche wasn’t acting on her own when she became immigration minister and opened Britain’s borders to Somalis and other low-IQ, high-criminality Third-Worlders. She was collaborating with other Jews to make Britain a more “comfortable” place for Jews. And since she left office, she has continued to campaign for open borders and for more anti-White bureaucracy:

Tony Blair should promote the benefits of legal immigration to Britain, and “not back off” from plans to create a super equalities commission, Barbara Roche, the former equalities minister, has urged. … The child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother, Ms Roche has reason for her feelings on immigration. “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups. The Americans are ahead of us on things like multiple identity. I’m Jewish but I’m also a Londoner; I’m English but also British.” (Roche urges Labour to promote the benefits of legal migration, The Independent, 24th June 2003)

Migration maniac Barbara Roche

In fact, Barbara Roche is neither English nor British. How could she be, when “being Jewish informs [her] totally”? For her and for other powerful Jews in the West, a term like “British” or “French” or “American” is merely geographic. That’s why she was so eager to flood Britain with low-IQ Third-Worlders, re-shaping its demographics in a way that, while inflicting huge harm and expense on native British Whites, allowed her to “feel comfortable” while sipping “her cup of Americano coffee” at Euston station. Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: Colin Tatz and the Genocide Charge—PART TWO

/13 Comments/in , /by

Professor Colin Tatz

Go to Part 1

Colin Tatz is a stereotypical Jewish intellectual activist whose mindset is characterized by an intense ethnocentrism and an equally intense hostility to the traditional people and culture of the West. He reflexively subjects White people and Western societies to radical critique while exempting Jews from any equivalent evaluation. Identifying with, and taking great pride in the Jewish penchant for critiquing Western societies, Tatz claims that “Whatever else, I am a ‘product’ of Lasswell, of Cecil Roth and his notion that Jews (or some Jews) are the eternal protest-ants, of the doctrine of the Jewish Sages about tikkun olam. It is a synonym for social action, a conscious manipulating of skills to be proactive rather than reflective or contemplative.”[1]

Cecil Roth, a Jewish historian, had argued “Jewish intellectualism” was primarily about “protesting at the insufficiency of the status quo.” Tatz agrees, and points to “a Jewish existential value which asserts that history has taught us that whatever is, no matter what it is, it is not good enough—hence the moral dictate of tikkun olam, that one is compelled to try to repair a flawed world.”[2] Of course, for “fiercely argumentative” Jews like Tatz, a “flawed world” is any world where Jewish interests are not forever prioritized. Tatz claims that “My activism is motivated by both personal and societal alienation,” and the “inner dynamic of my life, the foremost factor, is my version and interpretation of my Jewishness.” He notes that a “related if not conjoined propulsion” is “a lifelong devotion to matters of race and racism.”[3]

Tatz makes no pretense of Jewishness being anything but an essentially biological phenomenon. Despite being an avowed atheist he remains a proud Jew, declaring his “unshakeable admiration, even a veneration for what I call Jewishness,” observing how “I remain within even while lacking faith, ritual, observance or any sense of Covenant.”[4] For Tatz, Jews comprise an easily identifiable ethnic type characterized by “body mannerisms, the shrugs, distains, the ever-present deprecatory and interrogative tenses of body and voice.”[5]

Tatz is a descendent of the Litvaks, the Jews from Lithuania who, prior to their recent mass exodus from post-Apartheid South Africa to countries like Britain and Australia, made up ninety per cent of that country’s 120,000 Jews. According to Tatz, Lithuanian Jews were “economically forlorn and politically intimidated” and left Lithuania in “hordes” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the majority landing in England, the United States and South Africa. He notes that “In South Africa I learned to live in a Lithuanian communitas, a transposed shtetl world of like-minded, like-speaking, like-behaving people. It was a society in transition from Tsarist oppression to a semi-welcomed ethnic minority moving into modernity.”[6] The hyper-ethnocentric mentality of South Africa’s Lithuanian Jews was encapsulated in “daily pontification about the Jewish-goyishe divide” and his grandfather’s refrain that “The worst of ours are better than the best of theirs.”[7]

During World War II the South African government officially supported the Allies, with Prime Minister Jan Smuts appointed to Britain’s war cabinet. Despite this, most Afrikaners backed the Germans, and Tatz claims his childhood in South Africa in the 1940s was dominated by awareness of “a raging world war, civil strife between the pro- and anti-war forces, between English- and Afrikaans-speakers for political power, violent anti-Semitism in a country rife with fascist movements, the seeming calamity for Jews when the Nationalist Party came to power in the late 1940s, the fear of rising racial tensions of the 1940s, 1950s and beyond.”[8] Tatz claims to still be haunted by “domains that are oppressively black and cruelly white; and me, not quite a crowd—Jewish, alienated, migratory, and deeply troubled by food.” Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: The Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 1 of 4

/39 Comments/in , , , /by


The Australian Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) is the Australian equivalent of America’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both organizations fall under the umbrella of B’nai B’rith International which holds NGO status at the United Nations. The stated mission of the ADC is to make Australia “a better place” by fighting “anti-Semitism and all forms of racism” and combatting “the defamation of the Jewish people and Israel.” Describing itself as a “harm prevention charity,” the ADC claims to be dedicated to “promoting tolerance, justice and multiculturalism.” But despite its pious pretentions to universal benevolence, the ADC, like countless other Jewish activist organizations around the world, exists to promote the ethnic interests of Jews. The “harm” this organization is determined to prevent is any harm to these perceived interests.

Regarding the plethora of Jewish activist organizations in the United States, the Jewish academic and journalist Adam Garfinkle has observed:

The main mass-membership advocacy organizations of American Jewry — B’nai B’rith and its Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the National Conference of Jewish Federations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (a kind of steering group for the major organizations), to mention only a few — are not religious organizations but ethnic ones. It is not necessary to have any Jewish religious affiliation to be a member in good standing in these organizations, and their leaderships are composed mainly of people who are not religious or Jewishly learned Jews.

We need not go into foundational texts and statements of purpose on the question of origins, for the answer is simple enough: organizations like B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee were created to lobby for particular Jewish interests. … In time, these and most other Jewish organizations became explicitly or implicitly Zionist, and thereafter existed to one degree or another to support, first, a Jewish home in Palestine, and then, after 1948, the security and prosperity of the State of Israel. In other words, all these organizations have depended, and still depend, on the validity of their serving parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from the broader American interest but not related directly to religion. [Emphasis added][1]

Contrary to the propaganda put out by the ADC for non-Jewish consumption, the interests of Jews are not the same as those of the broader Australian community, particularly the White Australian community. While the ADC — whose motto is “Promoting Diversity” — pretends that all conflicting group interests can be reconciled through “education” and “mutual understanding,” the interests of different racial and religious groups are often fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable. The group evolutionary interests of White Australians are absolutely harmed by the mass importation of non-Whites into the country — compounded by ideological commitments by state and federal governments to “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Read more

Jews and Immigration: Time for Change

/67 Comments/in , /by

Our country and its Jewish intelligentsia are currently torn by a debate about immigration. On one side the Trump administration is trying to pass executive orders limiting immigration from particular, though certainly not all, Muslim-majority countries while also deporting people — largely from Mexico or Central America — who are in the US illegally.

On the other side are activist judges shutting down these executive orders and what seems like the entire constellation of journalists, pundits and activists in the country decrying these moves. From looking at the writers of many op-ed pieces or from looking through Jewish publications such as Forward, it is clear that Jews are disproportionately lobbying in favor of immigration and against deportation or immigration restrictions. Jewish organizations ostensibly formed to lobby for Jewish interests are on the side of resettling more Muslim refugees. Some voices on this side go so far as to call for “open borders” as in a recent piece in Salon. Most of the left has long decried the idea of White interests or White rights as being inherently racist in a way that Black rights or Latino interests aren’t. See for instance David Aaronovitch’s recent op-ed “Defending ‘white interests’ can never be right” in the Financial Times.

I think Jews are on the wrong side of this debate, and have been for decades. Countries are not arbitrary designations on a map; and borders are not imaginary lines. Countries are defined by their people, and borders generally demarcate necessary walls between peoples. Good fences make good neighbors, as the saying goes. Globalization and mass immigration result in what amounts to demographic invasion. It is natural for host populations to resist this being forced upon them.

The Jewish support for so-called “immigrant rights” is supposed to be rooted in the Jewish experience of diaspora and constant movement. Being exiled from our home in ancient times, we should feel sympathy with others who need to leave their homes in modern times. Jews have prospered in America because it is a multicultural society with such a rainbow of peoples that no true majority exists, or will soon, if current demographic trends continue.

I think Jews should be looking at this in another way. Read more

How to Cure a White Zombie: Ants, Crabbs and Societal Control

/35 Comments/in , /by

If grovelling ever becomes an Olympic sport, Britain has a potential world-beater ready and waiting. He’s called Stephen Crabb, and he was a minister in David Cameron’s Tory government. Here he is displaying his skills before an appreciative audience at Finchley Synagogue in London:

Israeli Independence Day: Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb leads UK celebrations

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions addressed over 1000 people at the service at Finchley Synagogue, organised by youth organisation Bnei Akiva, as Israel’s Remembrance Day (Yom Hazikaron) led into Israeli Independence Day (Yom Haatzmaut). Mr Crabb began: “The remarkable sense of fellowship and unity felt in Israel, and in Jewish communities all around the world, as we remember those who have given their lives in the defence of Israel, is something truly beautiful and inspirational.”

He went on to describe Israel on Remembrance Day as “a country united as one to remember their fallen.” The former Wales Secretary said that “the need for a Jewish state remains as crucial now as it was in 1948”, and that the British Government “does not take the safety of the Jewish people for granted.” He said that on Israel’s 68th birthday, “we recall that this relatively young country – young but with deep ancient roots – has endured so much. It has also achieved so much.” …

The Minister, who visited Israel for the first time in 2007 with CFI, said that, as a Christian, he has “always felt a very close affinity with the Holy Land”. “At a time when the Christian population of the Middle East is in steep decline due to systematic and sustained persecution, Israel continues to be a place where Christians are welcomed and feel safe,” he said. …

Mr Crabb referred to the “repugnant rise in anti-Semitism both in Europe and here in the UK”, describing it as representing “a stain on our nation”. He said: “I want to reassure you that this government has an unequivocal zero-tolerance approach to this racist ideology. We need to make it clear that anti-Semitism, whether it is expressed through the pernicious illiberal boycotts and sanctions bandwagon; through pouring out hate on twitter; or through any other means, is totally unacceptable.”

He emphasised that “we should in particular hold those in public life to the highest standards on this.” The UK’s Jewish community, Mr Crabb said, “is, unquestionably, part of the fabric of our society and the contribution of Jewish people in business, in media, in politics, in culture, in all parts of our national life, has been truly immense.”  (Israeli Independence Day: Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb leads UK celebrations, Conservative Friends of Israel website, 12th May 2016)

Read more