Uncensored: Punished for Supporting Donald Trump?

/9 Comments/in /by

KM: Trump made a lot of bad appointments but Christopher Wray’s appointment as head of the FBI and its continuing impact has got to be the worst. Imagine creating a law enforcement organization supporting one party. In what used to be an America I recognized.

Video for members.

Tucker [00:00:00] So the FBI is the most powerful law enforcement organization in the world, certainly in the free world or what we’ve referred to for our lifetimes as the free world. So the nightmare scenario is that it becomes perverted, subverted into a secret police force, a Tonton Macoute, accountable to politicians and used to punish the adversaries of the regime. That’s the one thing you can’t have happen, or your country will no longer be a free country. Well, there’s some evidence, unfortunately, that that is happening. And the latest comes from an FBI whistleblower and the documents that he’s handed over to John Solomon of Just The News suggest that the FBI now has an internal political litmus test in his case: an order to get a security clearance after 12 years working for the agency, the FBI checked whether he supported the Vax regime, Donald Trump, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and afterwards determined he supported all of these things, which at least half the country supports. So he was denied his security clearance again. This comes from documents newly unearthed that confirmed the FBI checked his loyalty before allowing him a security clearance, and when denied that, he was suspended indefinitely without pay. So the FBI has not provided any comment to John Solomon, who broke the story and got these documents. But Tristan Leavitt, who’s the president of the group Empower Oversight, is representing him in court and joins us right now with an overview of this case. Tristan, thank you very much for coming on. So my pleasure. Is that a fair characterization or why don’t instead you start at the beginning and tell us what you have uncovered and what this employee underwent at the FBI.

Tristan Leavitt [00:01:46] So what makes this a little bit different from your average FBI employee is that this employee who has chosen to remain anonymous, did get swept up into the funnel of folks being investigated after January 6th. So the FBI cast a very wide net because of that. There was, frankly, some hysteria within the bureau, almost McCarthyism, searching out anybody that had, views of any type. You know, after searching out anybody who had any ties to events of that day, then examining their views. So this client particularly is someone who had decided on the day of January 6th to go down and hear President Trump’s speech; after attending the rally, he walked down to the Capitol and stayed outside on the grounds. He never went inside the Capitol. He was never involved in any violence. He was never involved in any conflict. Eventually, the FBI became aware that he had been, at the Capitol, which is ironic because the day after it, he self-reported his attendance. But that went, you know, that didn’t attract any notice within the FBI, until a year later. And at that point, the hysteria was in full force. And so there were a number of FBI whistleblowers, several of whom we have represented, people like Steve Friend, Marcus Allen, Garrett O’Boyle, who were objecting in various ways to how the FBI was approaching its investigations of those, related to January 6th. But this particular individual had his security clearance suspended. And that’s when all of this hit. And so one year ago, I testified alongside three of those other whistleblowers Steve Friend, Marcus Allen, Garrett O’Boyle in front of the weaponization committee. And at the time, the FBI had just released information that they had all had their security occurrences suspended. A couple of them revoked. And so, as we started that hearing, Delegate Stacey Plaskett opened by saying, you know, Chairman Jordan, you’ve invited these people here who are a threat to our national security. How dare you? And now, a year later, we’ve been able to pull back the curtain and see the FBI’s documentation for why it did what it did with their clearances. And that’s the context in which we’ve seen this sort of questioning going on, asking people if they ever supported President Trump. And mind you, it wasn’t just that they asked these individuals. These were interviews by the security clearance division of their fellow employees. So people who were compelled to answer, who had to either answer these questions from the secure division or have their own security clearance called into question. And they were asked, did you ever socialize with these individuals, what was your association with them, and then ask these extremely intrusive questions? And so that’s the context in which this very problematic set of questions came up. And what we are hearing is that this may be just the tip of the iceberg, that there were many, you know, certainly there have been allegations out there that once people got swept into that security funnel, that there was a purge of FBI employees that had conservative views or had skepticism of the vaccine or just hesitancy to receive it. And now, in black and white, we’ve uncovered those documents because of our clients security appeal, where we’ve been able to see the basis on which his colleagues were questioned. And this is extremely problematic.

Tucker [00:04:44] It was pretty clear, from the beginning. I mean, there are different threads here, but on the VAX specifically that the vaccine mandates were designed, and certainly their effect was to winnow out people with high testosterone levels, independent thinking, commitment to liberty, common sense out of positions in the federal government. And that would indefinitely include the military, but also at the agencies, including the FBI. So did they. They found out this guy didn’t take the vaccine. And that was one of the factors.

Tristan Leavitt [00:05:14] Yeah, it clearly was one of the factors. And it’s ironic because this came three months after a court had put an injunction on the, federal employee vaccine mandate. And so this was not even a live issue, right? This was not a matter of you’re currently required to and you’re not. Months after that, they’re asking his colleagues, did he ever express any hesitancy about the Covid 19 vaccine hesitancy?

Tucker [00:05:40] Did he pause before allowing an injection?

Tristan Leavitt [00:05:42] Okay, yes. And of course, the reverse of this, right. I think no, every American would agree it would not be appropriate in the future for the FBI to ask employees, did they ever express any support for receiving an abortion? You know, these this is this, this idea that that’s any of the FBI’s business whatsoever is really, really outrageous support.

Tucker [00:06:02] For Donald Trump’s support for the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, our founding document. So these are disqualifying positions.

Tristan Leavitt [00:06:14] Well, it’s that’s clearly seems to be the case behind the scenes. Now, again, keep in mind this is not what was put into the security clearance suspension letter that our client received or that other whistleblowers we have represented received. It’s not what went into their revocation letters. So it’s only now, like I said, pulling back the curtain, that we see that it’s behind closed doors. Right. So it’s within this black box of secrecy, and it’s really this secret process that has no oversight from the outside. No generally no oversight from the inspector general, no oversight from Congress. That’s an environment that allowed this to flourish, because otherwise we never would have known about this had we not seen those backing documents, because, again, the proposals themselves didn’t reference any of these things that we would consider illegitimate. They just talked about whether someone engaged in violence, whether they broke laws on January 6th, and, you know, the things that stretched beyond that into personal political views or even even feelings about one’s own bodily autonomy, all of that was hidden in these documents. And now that we’ve ripped the mask off the FBI again, where we are certainly going to push the inspector general to see whether this happened in other cases, and we strongly expect that they will find that it did.

Tucker [00:07:26] So for those who don’t work in or around government, it may be hard to appreciate how central a security clearance is if you’re working in an agency like the FBI. I mean, you can’t can’t do your job without a clearance, but the criteria for getting and holding a clearance are sometimes muddy. In other words, there’s a lot of subjective judgment. And it’s particularly vulnerable to political interference. Right. Because there isn’t, you know, character, for example, is is one of the, you know, one of the criteria is that a person be of good character. So, like, how much do we know, not just about this case, but about all security clearances across the millions of federal employees about how these clearances are awarded?

Tristan Leavitt [00:08:15] Well, there are criteria that are supposed to be consistent across the board. So there are executive orders. The office of the Director of National Intelligence, you know, puts out guidance on these; it is subjective, agency by agency. Several years ago, when I worked on Capitol Hill as an investigator, we did a very in-depth investigation into the Secret Service and how they issued clearances. And, you know, it was clear that it does change from agency to agency. You know, and what’s ironic about this is that, again, as a credential, if you will, if someone gets pushed out of the FBI, you know, because they say, you know, you didn’t show up for work on time or something else, right? That looks bad if you’re fired, if you have your security clearance revoked, you’re not in a position to go to another agency, right? You can’t say, “I don’t want to go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement because I think that they need some help over there. No, you have you have been deemed disloyal to the United States. And so lacking a security clearance, that’s a huge, huge issue. And this came up as we you know, we recently obtained total vindication for one of those individuals. I mentioned, Marcus Allen, who had been an FBI employee. And, just last week, we were able to get his clearance reinstated. We’re able to get him full back pay for 27 months of use without work. But during that whole entire time, you know, it’s not just this future idea of a credential. During that whole entire time, he was not paid while he was held in limbo. And so, again, it seemed designed to squeeze him to leaving the FBI, which is what this anonymous client, in the current case that we were talking about, did. And so but again, if you if you leave while your clearance is suspended or while it is revoked, you don’t have a future hope of getting a job with another, law enforcement agency or anywhere that would require clearance or access to secure classified information.

Tucker [00:09:56] What’s so baffling is that, Republicans hold the majority in the House. There’s a Republican speaker. We now know you’ve proven with these documents that supporting a Republican for president is enough to get your security clearance revoked. So the FBI is, by definition, a political secret police organization. And that’s antithetical to freedom. And yet the Republicans in the Congress, even though this is all very obvious, just refunded the FBI and allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to build a new headquarters. They’re rewarding the FBI. So at what point do Republicans say, I’m sorry, we’re not going to pay for a secret police organization dedicated to destroying us.

Tristan Leavitt [00:10:37] I think these documents are going to be the tipping point. Frankly, I think that the inspector general, we expect that, an investigation by the inspector general will open up. We expect that Congress is going to be doing oversight of that. And along with some of these other instances of vindication, I think this summer we’re going to see exposed quite a bit of how the FBI has shown such political bias in what they do. And so I think Congress has a unique opportunity here, a unique opportunity to overhaul the FBI and the personnel that are in it at the moment to reform that and also to pursue broader reform. You know, from a legal front. And so to your point about funding, I think this is the time I think this is the thing that more than anything else, these documents demonstrate in black and white what individuals like Chairman Jim Jordan have been alleging for two years. And now we have the definitive proof of that. So we expect there’s going to be a lot of attention given to these and not just from Congress, but from places like the Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and the press and others, because now you cannot deny that these political considerations, you know, weren’t just tossed around in a general sense. They weren’t just, you know, possible considerations. They were there in black and white for individuals in their security clearance determinations.

Tucker [00:11:51] I mean, it just becomes clearer every day that January 6th was a hoax on one level, but the response to it was one of the most corrupt things that’s ever happened in our lifetimes in this country. I mean, that’s the conclusion I’m coming to.

Tristan Leavitt [00:12:04] It’s difficult. Clearly, that’s a that’s a touchpoint for a lot of people. And I will tell you, as a former congressional staffer, it was difficult for me to see where there was violence on January 6th. Right. And so those that broke laws, you know, I don’t have any objection to those people, you know, suffering consequences.

Tucker [00:12:19] I agree, right.

Tristan Leavitt [00:12:20] And I think most Americans, that’s the case. But again, within the FBI, you know, for people who have just been on the grounds and the FBI to have gone after those individuals, for that to become and again, that was the tipping point within the FBI for this sort of hysteria where anybody that came to the attention of the security division, all of these other factors, then got wrapped in it. Right. It wasn’t a question of, were you present and then did you go inside the Capitol or did you engage in violence? It’s do you have any views that we don’t favor? And so for that to lead to a purge of conservative employees again is just, is just totally inappropriate and wrong. But, you know, it’s it’s a sign of how polarizing January 6th was to our country. I think one of the things that we brought to the attention of the inspector general a year ago was that less than a month after January 6th, the new deputy director of the FBI, a guy named Paul Abate, spoke up in a call with all special agents in charge around the country for the FBI and said, if you don’t like our response to January 6th and how we’re going after this, the FBI is not the place for you. You can come and talk to me, but we don’t need agents like that in the FBI, and it’s just not healthy or fair for the FBI to push out, say, roughly half of its employees just because they have differing political views who weren’t there on January 6th, didn’t engage in violence. None of those things. But for the FBI to use that as a pretext to say, well, we don’t need you and we don’t want you here right now.

Tucker [00:13:37] Well, it’s well, I would go further and say, that’s tyranny, right? I mean, this is an agency that’s allowed to kill you. If they deem it justified. They can use lethal force against American citizens. So you they cannot be a political instrument or else it’s tyrannical. No.

Tristan Leavitt [00:13:54] It’s extremely important that they be, you know, both perceived and actually be neutral—that they are not they’re not just hiring people based on one political view or the other. Yes. It raises major, major concerns because of their ability to use force and the role that they play in American society.

Tucker [00:14:11] Well, last question. Why is your client, the whistleblower, not coming forward by name?

Tristan Leavitt [00:14:16] Multiple reasons, I think, for starters, there is the fact that they are not a public individual. This is not someone that sought out, attention. And, you know, to the extent that this is the whistleblower disclosures that are involved here are us raising to the inspector general and others the misuse of the security clearance process. So this was not someone where the whole process started with, you know, disclosures or something like that. But in, in this is someone who’s a very private individual, and doesn’t want to see all this strewn out to the world. Another reason that I think is significant is that in this instance, they are still hopeful that they can, you know, after an inspector general examination, have the possibility of getting their clearance back, that if the inspector general realizes how tainted this whole process was, you know, that the inspector general can help to set things right. That’s what happened in Marcus Allen’s case, that the inspector general did a very lengthy investigation. And we believe that played a big role in the FBI saying, maybe we better reinstate this person. So if there’s a possibility like that, I think it means more to this client to have the possibility of their economic livelihood restored, than to make some splashy headlines. But, you know, this is significant. And they recognize this is significant. And that’s why they’re okay with this being shared with the American public.

Tucker [00:15:35] Sure. Appreciate your explaining that for us. Thank you very much.

Transsexual Activists are Highly Intelligent Narcissists. No Wonder They’ve Managed to Achieve So Much

/11 Comments/in /by

In just two decades, transsexuals have gone from being perceived as manifestly deluded and mentally ill, to being able to force members of many Western societies to participate in their delusions. As the Irish comedy writer Graham Linenhan has set out in his memoir Tough Crowd: How I Made and Lost a Career in Comedy, people in the UK have lost their jobs or almost been thrown out of university for stating that you can’t change your sex.

Linehan himself has been driven out of the mainstream comedy industry in the UK due to his forthright criticism of the trans movement, teenagers have been sterilised and mutilated, women prisoners sexually assaulted by fellow female inmates with penises, toilets are increasingly unisex, biological men can participate in female sport and even use their changing rooms and anyone who dissents is subject to the wrath of the trans mob and its Woke supporters. Hardly any of his colleagues were brave enough to defend Linehan as he was attacked and many of them joined in with the mob of deluded bullies. How have we reached this level of insanity, where a deluded person can state they have changed sex and this must be accepted?

The answer, in part, is that the gender non-conforming have the precise traits which predict achieving power: They are high in Narcissism and they combine this, as my new study has found, with being highly intelligent. Narcissism is characterised by a sense of entitlement, self-importance, superiority, manipulativeness, callousness and envy. It strongly crosses over with the other “Dark Triad” of Psychopathology (low altruism, high dominance) and Machiavellianism (a desire for power).

To varying to degrees, these are reflections of Neuroticism: feeling negative feelings strongly. When people are plagued by negative feelings the world will seem out of control, so they will want power; high in hatred and anger, they will be psychopathic, and they may deal with low self-worth be creating a false self, where they tell themselves they are superior. In other words, they will create a delusion, which will be all the more convincing if others accept it. Puncture this delusion and you risk “Narcissistic Rage” as the method of containing the negative feelings unleashed by this attack on their false self; the agent of destruction is thus a threat to their ability to cope [see, Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, By Edward Dutton, 2023].

Many studies have found that those who attain extremely high status – what we might call geniuses – tend to combine extremely high intelligence with Dark Triad traits. The high intelligence allows them to solve problems and outwit their opponents while the Dark Triad traits make them highly competitive, unscrupulous, brimming with confidence, devious and power-hungry. It is people like this who are able to rise to the very top [see Sent Before Their Time: Genius, Charisma and Being Born Prematurely, By Edward Dutton, 2022].

So what do we find with transsexuals? Transsexuals are especially elevated in Narcissistic Personality Disorder. One study found that 80 per cent of transwomen had a personality disorder, with 57 per cent of those having Narcissistic Personality Disorder [The frequency of personality disorders in patients with gender identity disorder, By A. Meybodi et al., Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2014]. It may be that Narcissistic males, not caring about the subversion and disgust which transsexuality induces, are more prepared to go ahead with surgery and are less able to keep their paraphilia – their fetish – under control. It has been argued that many display evidence of Narcissistic Rage when others refuse to accept that they are female [Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2008].

To be clear, most male transsexuals are autogynephilous transsexuals (a minority are homosexual transsexuals, see themselves as female well before adolescence and are highly feminised). They suffer from a fetish, which develops in adolescence, whereby they are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves as a female, something with which they also become obsessed. The development of this and other fetishes is associated with autism. This is because, compared to controls, autistics are highly masculinised and hyper-sexual and feel sensations very strongly, meaning they easily create sexual associations. They are also obsessive, interested in objects over people and they are low in cognitive empathy. They are high in anxiety both due to their hyper-stimulation and problems they encounter due to their lack of social skills. This elevated Neuroticism, as we have seen, can easily lead to the development of Dark Triad traits [see Gender Dysphoria and Transgender Identity Is Associated with Physiological and Psychological Masculinization: A Theoretical Integration of Findings, Supported by Systematic Reviews, By Edward Dutton and Guy Madison, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2021]. Accordingly, we can see how this mix leads to transgenderism and they tend to be sexually interested in women even after they have “transitioned.”

But we must add to this their high intelligence. A recent study by me and Emil Kirkegaard, drawing on the large OK Cupid dataset, found that intelligence is associated with being non-binary as well as with unusual forms of sexuality, such as pansexuality [Intelligence is associated with being non-binary and unusual sexuality: Rare sexual orientation, gender non-conformism and intelligence in a large dating sample, By Edward Dutton and Emil Kirkegaard, Psychreg, 2024]. One possible explanation for this is that intelligence is associated with Openness, being open to unusual possibilities, this openness helping you to solve problems. The less intelligent may dismiss thoughts of gender non-conformity as ludicrous but the more intelligent may be more likely to entertain them.

Also, intelligence is associated with social conformity. Intelligent people are better at norm-mapping, forcing themselves, via effortful control, to adopt the dominant world view in order to attain the related social benefits. They will then attain status by competitively signalling their conformity to this world view. In our world of “grievance hierarchy,” being gender non-conforming allows you to attain a degree of status, so we can see why the relatively more intelligent would be attracted to it.

But taking all of this together, we can understand why transsexuality has managed to become so influential, even apart from the fact that Woke activists promote it. Autogynephilous transsexuals are more intelligent and higher in Dark Triad traits – more ruthless and power hungry – than normal people. The response of trans activists when you say this is to claim that the research “risks serious harm to already marginalised groups,” a point made about my own study by transwoman researcher Reubs Walsh [“Masculine” Describes Gender Expressions, Not Neurobiologies: Response to Dutton and Madison (2020),” By Reubs Walsh, Sex Research and Social Policy, 2021]. But this only proves my point. It is a fallacious appeal to consequences and is, therefore, manipulative. It also involves victim-signalling, something associated with Narcissism and especially so-called vulnerable Narcissism, in which such people manipulate others by stressing the degree to which they  are victims and need help [Signaling virtuous victimhood as indicators of Dark Triad personalities, By E. Ok et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2021].    

Transgender activists have a delusion which they demand others partake in, with rage being the consequence if they fail to. This is textbook Narcissistic abuse; textbook bullying. And when it is combined with high intelligence, we can begin to understand why they have been so successful in cancelling critics such as Graham Linehan.

Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off “Racist”?

/4 Comments/in /by
Patrick Cleburne at VDARE has written an article on Jewish pro-immigration activist Ilya Somin (“Volokh Conspiracy’s Ilya Somin Smears 1924 Immigration Act—For Contemptibly Selfish Reasons). His theme of the selfish reasons immigration enthusiasts like Somin present is certainly an important one. As Cleburne notes, Somin is “openly ethnocentric,” and I have come to believe that Jews like Somin (and there are a great many) are utterly incapable of seeing other people’s interests on any issue. It’s all about Jewish interests and they will then invent reasons why it would be good for everyone else—never mind the costs of multiethnic immigration on the European-descended (soon-to-be former) majority, the main one being that White Americans will soon lose control of their own political destiny (if they haven’t already) and become a hated and beleaguered minority. Cleburne generously quotes from a VDARE article of mine from 2004 which presents a view that is quite the opposite of Somin’s.
But in the end, it was too little, too late. By the time the bill was passed, America had already imported enough Jews to seal its fate, as Jews rose to the heights of American society in the coming decades and became an elite that remains hostile to the White majority. The 1924 immigration law still rankles serious Jews like Somin. And that’s a huge problem.
. 
Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off “Racist”?
Also by Kevin MacDonald: Thinking About Neoconservatism]
June 19, 2004

When Dr. Stephen Steinlight first advocated a change in the traditional Jewish support for open borders, his reflexive loathing of the 1920s legislative cut-off that ended the First Great Wave of immigration (see timeline) overwhelmed the logic of his argument.

He described the cut-off as “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” And he dismissed the vast majority of pre-1965 Americans as a “thoughtless mob” because they supported a near-complete moratorium on immigration.

Three years of arguing with Jewish groups about immigration reform have apparently not changed Steinlight’s mind on this point. In his most recent monograph, his only reference to the 1924 Act is that “tens of thousands” of Jews might have been saved from the Holocaust “had the United States not closed its doors…”

The 1924 immigration cut-off enjoys an almost uniquely bad press.

Other examples:

  • As an alert VDARE.COM reader recently spotted, even Governor Richard Lamm, immigration reformer hero of the Sierra Club insurgency, conceded in an NPR debate that the 1924 legislation was motivated by bigotry.
  • In a panel discussion on immigration on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country last winter, Randall Hamud, an Arab-American activist, responded to Pat Buchanan, who had praised the effective 1924-1965 immigration moratorium: “He forgets that the earlier restrictions on immigration were racist-driven.”

But were the 1920s restrictions “racist-driven”? What, exactly does that mean? And could it be that the opponents of those restrictions had their own ethnic motivations? Motivations still to be found today?

Stephen Steinlight is a useful starting point because he is quite frank in his belief that the only legitimate consideration for immigration policy is his interpretation of Jewish collective interests.

In my research on Jewish involvement in shaping immigration policy, I found that the organized Jewish community has been the most important force favoring unrestricted immigration to the U.S. In doing so, the various entities involved have consistently acted to further their own perceived collective interests—interests that are arguably in conflict with those of the majority of Americans.

We shouldn’t blanche at the thought of bringing up the issue of ethnic interests. We all accept that African American leaders like Jesse Jackson are pursuing their perceived ethnic interests. No one would deny that the Mexican-American pro-immigration activists advocating open borders are pursuing their ethnic interests. But somehow it’s inappropriate or “racist” to bring up the fact that Jews and, yes, Europeans have ethnic interests too. And they are all equally legitimate.

By the time Jewish organizations and Jewish legislators sustained a (temporary) defeat over the 1921 and 1924 legislation, they had been at the forefront frustrating the immigration restrictionists for over 30 years.

By 1905, a strong element of American opinion had turned against immigration. Even ethnic and religious groups that stood to gain by immigration, such as the Irish, were ambivalent, and anyway were poorly organized and ineffective in influencing policy.

At the time, pro-immigration activism was widely seen as a Jewish movement. University of Wisconsin sociologist Edward A. Ross stated in his 1914 book, The Old World in the New:

“The systematic campaign in newspapers and magazines to break down all arguments for restriction and to calm nativist fears is waged by and for one race. Hebrew money is behind the National Liberal Immigration League and its numerous publications. From the paper before the commercial body or the scientific association to the heavy treatise produced with the aid of the Baron de Hirsch Fund, the literature that proves the blessings of immigration to all classes in America emanates from subtle Hebrew brains.”

Throughout the entire period from the late 19th century to their eventual victory in 1965, Jewish pro-immigration efforts were characterized by strong leadership, generous funding, sophisticated lobbying techniques, well-chosen non-Jewish allies, and good timing. The most visible Jewish activists, such as Louis Marshall, were intellectually brilliant. They were enormously energetic and resourceful in their crusades on behalf of immigration as well as other Jewish causes.

This full court press exerted by Jewish organizations included intense and chilling scrutiny of immigration opponents, such as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, and of organizations like the Immigration Restriction League. Lobbyists in Washington also kept a daily scorecard of voting tendencies as immigration bills wended their way through Congress. They engaged in intense and successful efforts to convince Presidents Taft and Wilson to veto restrictive immigration legislation.

Much of the effort was done more or less surreptitiously so as not to fan the flames of anti-Jewish sentiment. (Open anti-Jewish feelings were fairly common during this period, stemming from resentment at Jewish upward mobility, the great numbers of leftist political radicals in the immigrant Jewish community, and dislike of the newcomers’ perceived strong ethnic sense.) Jewish organizations supplied the funding for pro-immigration organizations such as the National Liberal Immigration League and the Citizens Committee for Displaced Persons. Non-Jews from eastern and southern European countries were recruited to protest the effects of restrictionist legislation on immigration from those areas.

Why members of the Jewish community, which over so many centuries demonstrated such determination to preserve its distinctiveness, should have been so demonstrably active in preventing the preservation of the nation in which they find themselves, is an interesting question.

My hypothesis, advanced in several academic books: it is part of an evolutionary strategy aimed at advancing Jewish interests. As Leonard Glickman of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society has put it memorably: “The more diverse American society is, the safer [Jews] are.” (“Community Questioning Open Door,” by Nacha Cattan, Forward, November 29, 2002).

Of course, this does not involve all Jews, and some consciously reject it. But positive attitudes and activism aimed at ending the pre-1965 ethnic homogeneity of the United States have been typical of the entire Jewish political spectrum and all of the main Jewish activist organizations. These efforts were the driving force in favor of liberalized immigration up to the 1965 sea change in immigration law. This pattern continues into the present.

In the 1924 debates, the anti-restrictionists invariably alleged that their opponents saw the issue primarily in terms of “Nordic superiority.” They complained that restrictionists viewed themselves as a superior ethnic group and argued that this view was immoral, and furthermore had no scientific basis.

Imputing motives of racial superiority had some plausibility because such ideas were certainly in the air. For example, in his popular book The Passing of the Great Race (1921), Madison Grant argued that the American colonial stock was derived from superior Nordic racial elements and that immigration of other races would lower the competence level of the society.

But in reality, the contentions the political champions of restriction actually made were quite different—and much more modest. Their basic argument was that, while all ethnic groups in the country had legitimate interests in immigration, the interests of the founding groups made restriction imperative.

The restrictionists actually went out of their way to deny that they believed they were racially superior to other groups. The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

“Let me emphasize here that the restrictionists of Congress do not claim that the ‘Nordic’ race, or even the Anglo-Saxon race, is the best race in the world. Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It well behooves them to be humble.“What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth. They added to it, they often enriched it, but they did not make it, and they have not yet greatly changed it.

“We are determined that they shall not…It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different. If there is any changing to be done, we will do it ourselves.” [Cong. Rec., April 8, 1924, 5922]

One is struck in reading the 1924 Congressional debate that, while virtually all of the anti-restrictionists raised the issue of Nordic racial superiority, those in favor of the legislation rarely did.

After a particularly colorful comment in opposition to the theory of Nordic racial superiority, restrictionist leader Albert Johnson remarked that

“I would like very much to say on behalf of the committee that through the strenuous times of the hearings this committee undertook not to discuss the Nordic proposition or racial matters.”

Several restrictionists explicitly denounced the theory of Nordic superiority.

Clearly, the reformers did not see the concept as helpful to their cause.

What can be found in the statements of the reformers is actually fear of inferiority. Several representatives from the far West seem to have viewed the Japanese as racially equal or superior, not inferior. One senator stated,

“we admit that [the Japanese] are as able as we are, that they are as progressive as we are, that they are as honest as we are, that they are as brainy as we are, and that they are equal in all that goes to make a great people and nation.”

A congressman described the Japanese as

“a relentless and unconquerable competitor of our people wherever he places himself.”

Apparently, many restrictionists, far from feeling they were members of a superior ethnic group, worried that their people could not compete with Japanese and Chinese.

Nor did the restrictionists view Jews as intellectually inferior. During the 1920s quotas on Jewish admissions to Ivy League universities had become a controversial issue and a focus of Jewish defense organizations. As noted above, Congressman Vaile noted that Jews were “the best businessman in the world.” A. Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard and the national vice-president of the Immigration Restriction League, advocated quotas on Jewish admission to Harvard.

If anything, restrictionists were worried that the immigration of more Jews from Eastern Europe would result in even more competition between Jews and non-Jews.

And of course subsequent IQ research has shown their concerns to be sound—the average IQ of American Jews is well above the average for whites and is the highest of any known human group.

Restrictionists typically argued that maintaining the ethnic status quo would be fair to all ethnic groups currently in the country. This argument implicitly recognizes that different ethnic groups have different interests in immigration policy.

The restrictionists were concerned that immigration of people of other ethnic groups and cultures would ultimately deprive their own people of political and cultural power. They argued that the interests of other groups to pursue their ethnic interests by expanding their percentage of the population should be weighed against the ethnic interests of the majority, who naturally wanted to retain their ethnic representation in the population.

In the words of the House Majority Report,

“The use of the 1890 census is…an effort to preserve as nearly as possible, the racial status quo of the United States. It is hoped to guarantee as best we can at this late date, racial homogeneity in the United States. The use of a later census would discriminate against those who founded the Nation and perpetuated its institutions.”

The 1924 law also prescribed that, beginning in 1927, the national origins of the immigrants would match their percentage of the population. For example, if 10% of the country in 1920 came from Italy, then 10% of the annual quote of 150,000 immigrants would be reserved for Italian immigrants.

Clearly this was an attempt to achieve an ethnic status quo.

In other words, in the 1920s, both sides were pursuing their perceived ethnic self-interest. Representative Scott Leavitt stated quite bluntly that Jews should respect the desire of other Americans to retain the ethnic status quo:

“The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned, as has been intimated here. No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals. That fact should make it easy for them and the majority of the most active opponents of this measure in the spoken debate to recognize and sympathize with our viewpoint, which is not so extreme as that of their own race, but only demands that the admixture of other peoples shall be only of such kind and proportions and in such quantities as will not alter racial characteristics more rapidly than there can be assimilation as to ideas of government as well as of blood. [Congressional Record, April 12 1924, 6265-6266]

The House Committee was clearly annoyed that their motives were continually being cast in terms of Nordic superiority and racial discrimination—an interesting sensitivity to find, so many years ago. But the 1924 law was clearly a victory for the northwestern European peoples of the United States. It halted the substantial transformation of the country which had gotten underway over the previous 30 years.

Because of it, the groups dominant when it passed were still (at least superficially) dominant when the 1924 law was overthrown 41 years later.

Around the time the 1924 victory was won, however, a disaster was occurring elsewhere—on the intellectual front. Beginning in the 1920s, the intellectual and moral high ground in the debate was increasingly claimed by the anti-restrictionists.

This was made possible largely by the influence of Franz Boas and his school of anthropology. The Boasians argued that the only differences among human groups are cultural differences, not biological.

Even in the early 1920s, as I have noted, the restrictionists hesitated to use arguments based on ethnic superiority and they were forced continually to deny that this was their rationale. In terms of my hypothesis, I have argued elsewhere that the Boasian School can be explained in terms of evolutionary strategy, as merely another of a series of intellectual movements dominated by Jews and aimed at advancing Jewish interests. These movements were designed to combat anti-Semitism and to de-legitimize the ethnic interests of the European majority of the United States.

What we are seeing now is the long term consequence of these movements: The displacement of the European majority—and an increase in ethnic conflict.

Since the 1965 law opening up immigration on a large scale to all the peoples of the world, the U.S. has become a cauldron of competing racial and ethnic interests. Much of the conflict centers immigration and its consequences, ranging from Muslim women having unveiled photos on their drivers’ licenses to the survival of Christian symbols in public schools.

This shift to “multiculturalism” has been facilitated by an enormous growth of immigration from non-European-derived peoples. Many of these immigrants come from non-Western countries where cultural and ethnic segregation are the norm. In contemporary America, they are now encouraged by public policy to retain their own languages and religions, and may well continue to marry within their group.

The long term result is, inevitably, increased competition and friction between groups.

The idea that there is no biological reality to race inevitably implies that there is no such thing as ethnic interests at all. The reality, of course, is that race does exist and different races and ethnic groups do have different and often competing interests. And, indeed, from an evolutionary point of view, ethnic self-interest is not deluded: people have a very large genetic interest in defending their ethnic group.

Other non-Western countries seem to understand this. For example, despite what the New York Times says, Japan feels no need to allow a deluge of non-Japanese immigrants.

It’s time to exculpate the 1924 law—a law that succeeded in its aim of preserving the ethnic status quo for over 40 years.

The law did indeed represent the ethnic self-interest of its proponents—albeit not “racism,” if racism is properly understood as irrational prejudice.

But the anti-restrictionists also had their own ethnic interests at heart.

And their subsequent successful counter-attack has unleashed the far greater, more savage, and more threatening ethnic competition that we see today.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is Professor of Psychology at California State University-Long Beach.

<< Previous

Dissidents: Ending Free Speech without a First Amendment

/4 Comments/in /by

 

George Orwell: “Freedom of speech is the freedom to say what others do not want to hear.”

Sometime in the 80s, Arne Melchior made the following statement on television with the usual contempt in his voice, quoted here from memory:

“Who are the Nazis? They mean nothing! There are no famous people who are Nazis, no scientists, actors, or artists. They are nothing.”

That’s pretty much what the great master said, his face twitching in disgust – and it should be said immediately that by “Nazis” Arne Melchior meant anyone who doesn’t agree with him about how the world has been put tpgether. And unfortunately, he is right in his assertion. The traditional right wing means very little – and the extreme right wing means absolutely nothing. How can this be? Well, it’s very easy to explain. Anyone who professes a nationalist or patriotic philosophy of life and steps onto the public stage to defend it is immediately excluded from all “good society” – and if he is a “Nazi”, the exclusion is complete.

Could you imagine a royal actor openly professing nationalist ideas or publicly speaking out against immigration and “integration”? A doctor? A teacher? A soccer player? A CEO? No, they would never get that far. Even if a doctor with such sympathies found the solution to the riddle of cancer, he would be relegated to eternal unemployment and his discovery would be ignored. And the same goes for artists, writers and others – right down to the humblest positions in society. Such people will be relegated to welfare, no one will dare to socialize with them, and their children will be persecuted until they turn against their parents. People with such views cannot be “trusted”, they think outside the box, they challenge the prevailing religion, they are in short heretics and are destined to be burned at the stake – symbolically as the real thing is not really possible, for now at least.

But don’t we have freedom of opinion and freedom of speech in our democratic age? No, we don’t. Only those who have never tried to use these freedoms to speak out against the ruling class can think so. Freedom, in the words of Rosa Luxemburg, is always the freedom of those who think differently, and freedom of speech is, in George Orwell’s opinion, precisely the freedom to say what others do not want to hear. Anyone who has used these alleged freedoms in blind faith in all the talk of democracy he hears around him will have learned that, in reality, they do not exist today. Sure, you won’t be shot or hanged, and we have no concrete Siberia to which you can be banished. However, such methods are also primitive and end up conferring martyr status on the presumptuous few. Today, we are far more sophisticated, but no less effective in dealing with dissidents. They are still banished, but now to a place in the absolute shadows of society, where they mean nothing, and where no one takes them seriously. How is this welfare client supposed to manage society’s affairs if he cannot even manage his own, if he cannot make a living for himself, in short, if he has no success in his personal life? This is the natural reaction.

In the meantime, the ruling “elite”, who have emerged from an absolute turnaround in society, where the bottom has risen to the top as a result of a spiritual oxygen depletion, can calmly employ each other in the highest positions, award each other the most prestigious awards and honors, appoint each other to councils and boards, receive state subsidies and lifelong benefits, fill the columns of the press and the airwaves of radio and television, and constantly pat each other on the back and tell each other how great they are. In short: you matter, you are something. Ability, knowledge, and skills are not required – as long as you have the right views and can recite the correct mantras – and the more you can sully your own nest, the better – the more you are.

The tools to exclude dissidents are not legal in nature – that would be unconstitutional. But there are so many other methods, and the main one lies in the demonization of real dissidents everywhere in the media, i.e. of those who do not share the worldview of the rulers – those who reject immigration, multiculturalism, or the EU, or who defend the nation state and the Danish people’s right to self-defense and to defend their territory against foreign occupation. Any real dissent is therefore immediately reported to the police by good-hearted people who believe that such dissent must necessarily be illegal. They don’t want to read or hear anything like that – and so it must be illegal.

In addition, the entire power system today is dominated by the descendants of the communist conspiracy who, in the years following the so-called student uprising of 1968, purposefully seized all important positions in society, i.e. in the education sector from kindergarten to university – where power was handed over to them unopposed by people who should have known better – the church, the courts, the central administration and the press, after which they began to take over the business world. At the same time, they took power in the various small associations from rabbit breeders to civic associations and voluntary organizations, where they suppressed dissenters with the schooled speech and empty platitudes that make reasonable people say: “No, I simply don’t want to participate in that”.

Today’s managers and employees are intolerant of anyone who thinks differently – and should they miss any by accident, there are countless ways of getting rid of them. Typically, it’s called restructuring, collaboration difficulties, fabricated “problems” supported by the red backing, complaints from customers or external suppliers, bullying, etc., etc., etc., etc. until the presumptuous person is forced out. This is where the trade unions and political electoral associations are always invaluable. The unions are happy to help create the problems, and the electoral associations put pressure on their people to participate in the witch hunt – while the media incite against the person in question without any reasonable distinction between truth and lies and always with addresses where the left-wing terrorists can carry out their misdeeds with the obvious approval of those in power.

Then comes social exclusion – people don’t dare to associate with “that kind of people”. What will the neighbors think, and what if you were to appear in the newspaper and be named along with “them”?

A good example is Nicolai Sennels, the spokesman for now defunct and in any case toothless Pegida (now For Freedom) in Denmark. Sennels is a psychologist working for the City of Copenhagen’s Child and Youth Administration, where he performs psychological assessments in connection with the ever-increasing flow of cases involving maladjusted and difficult young people. Naturally, this is not acceptable. His colleagues, who are organized in the communist-ruled National Association of Social Educators, are “uncomfortable” with Sennel’s “view of human nature”, and the vice-president of the association, the communist Jan Hoby, demands that he be fired for “professional pedagogical reasons”. As a representative of a trade union, this charlatan is supposed to protect employees against unfair dismissals – but of course this only applies to his friends. On the equally communist modkraft.dk, the DKP members get very upset about the firing of an “educator” who in his “teaching” has used a “rap song” with the evocative title “Musty ass”, the content of which intellectually and stylistically corresponds completely to the title. Hoby writes about this:

Everyone in the chain of command in Copenhagen Children and Youth Administration believes that the teacher has shown poor professional judgment and that the text is “abusive, offensive and unacceptable to present to this age group”. This is the reason why they no longer trust the teacher. But in the eyes of the administration, “professional judgment” becomes both an objective and an elastic band on a measuring stick. This means that the most powerful person decides what is a professional approach to the task. And not as it should be – the one with the greatest professional knowledge and insight.

We have to apologize for Hoby’s language problems, but so be it. He finds that the educator “professionally, objectively and research-based [has] justified his choice of text” and that the firing is “pedagogically and professionally Berufsverbot[barred from employment]”. Hmmm. What’s really wrong with firing someone because they are professionally and pedagogically unable to do their job properly – and whose approach to teaching is devoid of any decency, culture and ethics. We don’t know the name of the fired person, but we’d bet a bottle of good whisky that it’s one of their friends. We note that Hoby believes that the person with the greatest professional knowledge and insight should make the decisions.

In the case of Nicolai Sennels, this is suddenly not the case, here it is the “educators” who must decide on the psychologist’s professional competence, and in the case of Sennels, Berufsverbot is entirely appropriate. Here it is political. No one should have a job apart from their peers – and certainly not in this industry, where future generations will be shaped. Generally speaking, an academic job brings prestige, and dissidents should not enjoy that prestige. People who come into contact with Sennels by virtue of his job could possibly get the impression that Sennels might be sensible, skilled and sympathetic – this is completely unacceptable. People like Sennels must be isolated – and destroyed. He has previously had to resign from a position at the City of Copenhagen under similar, but less spectacular circumstances.

Of course, for the sake of completeness, Hoby surrounds himself with old communist posters and willingly allows himself to be photographed with pictures and busts of mass murderers such as Ho Chi Minh and Lenin, whose view of humanity this miserable relic of the past apparently shares.

It is not surprising that Social Democrat council member Jonas Bjørn Jensen, who is also the “campaign coordinator” for the blood-red “think tank” Cevea, which is the catchment area for some of the most superfluous existences in Danish society – the word “think tank” is absolutely misplaced in this context – immediately backed his colleague from the ideological dump for particularly dangerous waste and demanded Sennels be fired. Worst of all, however, both Hoby and Bjørn Jensen can enjoy their nation-damaging and parasitic existence in absolute safety and peace. They work for their friends, no one comes after their families, no one hurls abuse at them in their stairwells, no one destroys their cars, and no one attacks them with knives and clubs in public parking garages. All a luxury not enjoyed by their opponents. They are living proof of right-wing impotence.

Whereas in the past you didn’t always know where an applicant for a position stood politically, today anyone can look it up on the Internet, where terrorists from Demos and Redox use their networks in the CPR register and within the administration to keep all information up to date and to cast suspicion on anyone who does not share their warped worldview. It is therefore safe to assume that an employer will screen out in advance all applicants who might be suspicious – not necessarily out of malice, but to avoid the problems that he knows will inevitably arise or be created. You cannot cooperate with such people with dissenting opinions that contradict the company’s or institution’s “values” or “view of humanity”, as if these values and so-called “view of humanity” were above the constitution and the laws of nature.

With multiculturalism, the problems are further exacerbated. An opponent of immigration will naturally arouse the wrath of the immigrant lobby, and they will quickly mobilize the foreign fifth column. Doctors and social workers who do not do the immigrants’ bidding will be labeled “racists”, and examiners who will not give high marks to incompetent students from immigrant backgrounds or who catch them cheating risk the same fate. Feminists will complain about men who still believe there is a difference between the sexes, etc.

On DR’s online news, journalist Stine Bødker Nielsen asks the understanding question: “How much can you be allowed to express yourself on social media before it should [???] have consequences?”, as she reports on a Tumblr blogger who purposefully “exposes both racist comments and the people behind them – in the hope of getting them fired.”

“The blog reveals the identity of users and shares their name and workplace on the blog in the hope that someone will make a case out of it so that it will ultimately cost them their job.” Because, as she says sympathetically: “For some people, the racist tone has now become so harsh that they have started to take matters into their own hands.” Hmm, is that the society we want? The society where a random mob decides what you can say and what you can’t say – and where the aim is to get people fired from their jobs so they can learn to keep their mouths shut. What’s the difference between this and the more physical vigilante justice, where citizens catch and punish criminals that the police don’t want to deal with? Except, that is, that the Tumblr blogger’s activities are aimed at destroying law-abiding people who are simply exercising their alleged right to freedom of speech. Of course, it would have been appropriate for Danmarks Radio to problematize this development and perhaps raise the question of how this blogger comes into possession of his detailed knowledge of the people in question. However, Stine Bødker Nielsen is no journalistic heavyweight, and she is obviously intellectually challenged by such discussions of principle. She is just one of the usual automatic relay stations for the night soil of treasonous forces. But she is right, of course, that there should be consequences for certain speech – the question is, what speech and what consequences! Nationalist forces that find themselves in positions where this is possible should learn from this story. Fire a communist, hire a “racist”! Be conscious when choosing employees and suppliers – we no longer live in the age of democracy. Nowadays, every trick seems to work, and the enemy must be fought with the same means that he himself uses – and more than that.

Under these circumstances, it’s no wonder that the dissidents’ network is quite weak – and so far they haven’t managed to do much against these forces of darkness. Many resign themselves to their relegation, to being “nothing”, but young, talented and gifted people who have studied their subject for many years because it interests them and because they want to work with it, usually choose to keep their mouths shut and forget about their ideas about society. Understandably, they want a career, and since this can only be achieved through lack of talent or prostitution, they choose the latter, as they are not naturally equipped with the most important qualification in Danish academia: boundless stupidity.

The brainpower that should have elevated the right is being forced away from it – and the process is self-reinforcing. This group understandably wants to find a community that shares not only its ideals but also its interests and intellectual level, but when the only people who can afford to be in opposition are largely those who are on welfare anyway, this desire becomes harder to fulfill.

The situation we envision is a far cry from the ideals of freedom that are constantly celebrated by officials on solemn occasions. Freedom of speech and political freedom only apply to speech that supports the prevailing social order. Anyone who fundamentally disagrees with the worldview of the power elite has no real freedom of speech. In Denmark and the rest of the Western world, there is far less real political freedom in 2015 than there was in the 1950s or 1960s – let alone the 1930s. Today, there is an absolute, totalitarian dictatorship of opinion that bears comparison with the worst dictatorships of the past, only without the bloodshed. As long as you keep your mouth shut, you can live your life as you please – you could do the same under Stalin or in the GDR. You are no threat to the system as long as you keep your mouth shut. If you open your mouth, you are destroyed economically and socially, and you are effectively lawless, as the courts are totally controlled by the power elite and secret police today unscrupulously use exactly the same methods they condemn the Stasi for, with the difference that today they have technical possibilities that the Stasi could not even dream of.

There are still oppositional forces who believe that you can play in this system’s casino on the system’s own terms and thus influence it through political debate. Unfortunately, this is naïve. There have been debates and many good books and articles have been published in recent decades, but none of them have noticeably moved the fence posts of political life – political freedom is diminishing year by year at an ever-increasing rate. However, the same power clique that controls the media also owns the politicians, and they know that it’s the small daily dose of poison that does it. Day in and day out, educators and media popes lecture the population on how “good people” should think – not through long lectures, but through indirect influence in “non-political” contexts. The aim of education is to directly create “democratic” people, and advertisements, movies and other media products increasingly reflect today’s distorted multicultural worldview. Goebbels was a happy dilettante compared to today’s propagandists. Let’s be honest: If facts or truth had prevailed and debates had been useful, the world would look different today. The knowledge is available – anyone with just the most modest intelligence and the slightest knowledge of history knows that this will end badly – but they ignore it and concentrate on the next election, hoping to keep their possibilities to siphon off some goodies from the public purse. The problems of the next generation remain the problems of the next genera­tion. Parties that start out as a vocal opposition to the old parties, such as the Danish People’s Party, end up as their wagging tail within less than twenty years – they become “responsible”, i.e. irresponsible towards history and towards future generations. Or they are excluded from any influence and eventually disappear into the mists of oblivion – aided and abetted by agents of the secret police, who provide the dissent that eventually dissolves them. This will not change in the future.

But aren’t the Danes the happiest people on earth? We don’t really know, because Danes – like other Western European peoples – are scared and afraid, afraid of being lumped in with the worst of the worst, the Danish People’s Party, Nazis and other good people. When the average citizen finally gets upset about everything that annoys them – which is often immigration – they usually end with something like this: “Please don’t think I’m a racist, because I’m certainly not, and I certainly have nothing against foreigners if they behave, work and pay their taxes, but….” In political opinion polls, the Danish People’s Party regularly receives far lower support than in elections. People are simply afraid to say they are voting for such an awful party. Danes are insecure and cowed, but they can still drown their insecurities in unprecedented consumerism, and as long as they can do that, there is little hope for change.

If Danish dissidents want to achieve anything, they must be clear about what they are up against, what they want and what they can realistically achieve under the current conditions – and they must stop wasting time and money playing with parties that ultimately only serve to wear people down and turn them into public figures and thus render them harmless through exclusion from society and surveillance by the secret police. There are no shortcuts or compromises possible. It is simply no longer possible to change society within the framework of the system because the system no longer respects its own rules of the game – which they are always bragging about.

This article was originally posted at Denmark’s Freedom Council  in 2015. Reposted with permission.

Translated by means of AI

 

Moulding the Australian Mind: The Jewish role in the Australian Media Landscape

/9 Comments/in , /by

 

Jews control the media — so goes the classic anti-Semitic ‘canard.’ Inquiries into the extent of Jewish influence over the streams of information that make up so much of our daily life are among the most studied aspects of the Jewish Question and it’s not hard to see why. In the age of mass democracy, the media has delivered the rich and the powerful an historically unprecedented mechanism to mould the minds of the general public and direct the political currents of society. Revolutionary and subversive new ideas can be broadcast wide and far, editorial decisions can determine the boundaries of the Overton window, critical perspectives can be silenced, and the thought-makers of the day set the overall tenor of discourse.

Western liberal democracies have always been averse to the bequeathing of this power to the government and the resulting predominance of wealthy private actors, each with their own ideological predispositions, was the necessary price to pay to avoid a state media monopoly. In times past, such arrangements could be begrudgingly accepted within homogenous nations, confident that even across sharp political divides the basic notion of the ethnic preservation of one’s homeland would remain uncontested. However, with the advent of multiculturalism and multiracialism, where competing ethnic groups clash on even the most fundamental principles of society, media outlets can now be fashioned into instruments of covert ethnic warfare.

Much has been written on this topic within the United States and undoubtedly many readers of The Occidental Observer are familiar with the graphs documenting US media ownership colour-coded by ethnicity that regularly circulate on the internet — and make an appearance with famous rappers. The basic line of argument is as follows: Jewish dominance over the American media results in the consolidation of Jewish power and the promotion of anti-White narratives. The ills of the world, as communicated by the Jewish intelligentsia at newspapers and television networks, are racialism, bigotry and exclusion, and the path to a brighter future is paved with diversity, open borders and tolerance. But what of the far reaches of the American empire? How true is the so-called canard in Australia?

In surveying the Australian media landscape, I am guided by two simple queries. Firstly, how much do Jews influence the media within Australia, and secondly, to what degree does this influence have an impact on political discourse. Focusing on ownership, the editorial gatekeepers and the media trailblazers, I seek to gain a balanced understanding of the state of the Australian media in 2024. Each section investigates the various constituent elements of information communication that make up what we broadly define as ‘the media’ — newspapers, television, radio, publishing etc. — and my review covers only those that are owned and operated in Australia, and are geared exclusively towards the Australian audience.

This therefore rules out foreign-based newspapers that have a presence in Australia such as The Guardian Australia and Spectator Australia, or overseas media companies like Netflix, which operates an office in Sydney for running local content. I have excluded media that is deliberately positioned towards a single ethnic group or is otherwise inaccessible by the majority of Australians, for example Jewish paper The Australian Jewish News, or the contingent of Chinese-language newspapers that operate in the country. Finally, I have restricted my analysis to ‘mass media’ — that is, media that is able and intended to reach a wide audience — as well as ruled out media outlets that cannot reasonably be described as political in character. One may well find a knitting magazine that has a Jewish owner, but it would be far-fetched to claim that pages of instructions for woollen socks and baby bonnets will be able to impart any kind of political influence in Australia.

Newspapers

Our survey starts out with the most traditional form of information delivery, the newspaper. As is the case around the world, Australian newspapers are in a period of significant decline. Their physical circulations are minuscule compared to what they once were and online content is increasingly hidden behind paywalls. Nevertheless, the newspaper still remains the prestige institution for the dissemination of news and opinion, and the putting of ink to paper will always have longevity over a television broadcast or a social media post.

The Australian newspaper industry of the 20th century was the domain of a handful of press barons, almost all of Anglo-Saxon extraction. The major names are the Fairfax dynasty, founded by English-born journalist John Fairfax in the mid-19th century, notably owning the oldest extant newspaper in Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald; The Syme family in Melbourne who stewarded The Age until a later Fairfax takeover; The Norton family with their nation-wide sensationalist tabloids Truth; and the Packer family, whose newspaper, publishing and television holdings spanned four generations.

Australia’s historically minuscule Jewish population as well as the established nature of local newspapers from a time before the era of mass Jewish migration after the Second World War left little opportunity for strong Jewish ownership within this industry. Australia has no equivalent to the Sulzberger family at the New York Times or the Meyer family at the Washington Post. Historical Jewish ownership of Australian newspapers is limited to the periphery of the industry, owners of singular newspaper operations that never grew into a sprawling media empire. Thedore Fink owned and chaired the Herald and Weekly Times in Melbourne during the early half of the 20th century, the dominant newspaper in the city at the time. John Davies, a Jewish convict, founded The Mercury newspaper in the small state of Tasmania which remained in the family for almost 150 years, and Maurice Brodzky founded Table Talk, an infamous muckraking journal popular during the financial crash of the 1890s.

Today most newspapers fall under the ownership of larger media conglomerates, publicly traded companies whose shareholders need not even be Australian. Modern Jewish influence at the major papers comes primarily in the form of prominent editors and contributors, or in the occasional director or board member at a parent company. The list of Jewish journalists and editors that have made their mark over the years is too large to reasonably detail in this essay, only the more prominent individuals are worth mentioning. Michael Gawenda edited The Age from 1997–2004, Cyril Pearl edited a number of Murdoch and Packer papers during the 50s and 60s and George Munster edited the fortnightly journals Nation and Nation Review from 1958-1978.

An exception to the relative dearth of modern Jewish newspaper ownership is found in the case of Australian Community Media, which owns most of the regional newspapers in Australia and the newspaper of the nation’s capital, The Canberra Times. In 2019, ACM was sold off by its prior owners and Alex Waislitz, an investment manager and member of the Pratt Family (Australia’s richest Jewish family) purchased a 50 percent stake.

 

Television

Television was first launched in Australia in 1956 with a single governmental broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and a commercial broadcaster (TCN-9) founded by press baron Frank Packer. Free-to-Air[1] television is now comprised of the two government-funded and operated broadcasters — the ABC and its multicultural broadcasting twin the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) — alongside the three commercial networks; Channel 9 (current day TCN-9), Channel 7 and Network 10. Prior to the transition to digital television in the late 2000s, these five broadcasters corresponded to the five television channels available to the general public via analog broadcasting, with cable television having a very small market share. Thereafter, each broadcaster began steadily introducing additional digital channels to their schedule, the tally now standing at more than twenty-five separate television channels in Australia.

In theory, control of the ABC is in the hands of the Australian public. The taxpayer funds its operation, and the elected government of the day exercises legislative power via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and appoints the ABC board, comprising 5-7 directors plus a managing director. The ABC board is responsible for the operation of its television (and radio) assets, and a strong Jewish presence has been evident on the board over the past three decades. At a high-point in 2009, Jews made up three of the board members: Maurice Newman, who served as chairman from 2006-2011 (also former Chairman of the Australian Securities Exchange), and two banking executives, Steven Skala and Cheryl Bart. Other Jews who have occupied the board are left-wing activist James Spigelman, chairman from 2012-2017, and Ramona Koval, a long-time ABC radio presenter. Indeed from the turn of the century until the retirement of Joe Gersh from the board in 2023, there was a continuous presence of at least two Jews on the ABC board at all times.

In practice, the ABC has been afflicted with much of the same ‘march through the institutions’ seen throughout the West. Even a conservative government hostile to the ABC appears impotent to prevent a left-wing bias in the lower management levels, as occurred during the late 1990s when the ABC board was stacked in vain with conservative allies. During the 1960s and 1970s, Marxist journalist Allan Ashbolt began the institutional capture of the ABC at the staff level, promoting ‘free speech’ and democratic reform, and he built a cadre of young dedicated leftists within his department who would come to dominate the direction of radio and television programming over the coming years.

According to McAdam, the source of many of the radical ideas Ashbolt would launder through ABC programs was his connection to the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies, founded in 1963 by Jews Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnet,[2] and Jews make up a handful of his prominent protégés.  Jewish journalists, producers and content creators who have made their mark at the ABC are again too numerous to list out in full. Daryl Karp was head of ABC Factual Programs from 1993–2005. Satirist John Safran created various programs for the ABC (and SBS) skewering religious and racial ‘extremism’, and Andrew Denton’s production company Zapruder’s Other Films has delivered a steady stream of non-fiction content for the ABC for the last two decades, including launching the television career of political satire group The Chaser. Working Dog Productions, co-founded by Michael Hirsch, has also contributed numerous popular comedy and political satire shows, notably Frontline and the now iconic Australian film The Castle (1997), a comedic exploration of land rights in Australia after the Mabo decision.[3]

Neither Channel 9 nor 7 display any significant degree of Jewish leadership or ownership. As of 2024, both networks are owned by publicly traded companies with controlling shares held by individual gentile shareholders or local investment funds. Channel 9 remained within the Packer family for many years under Frank Packer’s son Kerry and grandson James. James Packer became known for his curious “obsession with the Jewish state” and close ties to Benjamin Netanyahu[4], allegedly attempting to convert to Judaism. Since 2010, ownership of the network has been separated from the Packer family with the majority shareholder now Bruce Gordon, a long-time associate of Kerry Packer and a former Hollywood executive who spent 35 years on the board of Paramount Studios. Channel 7 was historically associated with the Fairfax empire and other than a brief period of joint ownership with Jewish private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, West Australian businessman Kerry Stokes has been the controlling force at the network since the 1990s.

As with newspapers, Jewish influences at these two networks are felt more on the producer level, for example Gerald Stone, founder of the Australian edition of the current affairs program 60 Minutes in 1979. In its day a ratings juggernaut for Channel 9, and the most influential current affairs program on a commercial broadcaster, Stone nurtured a generation of the most popular political reporters in the country. Born to Russian-Jewish parents, Stone migrated to Australia in 1962, covering the Vietnam war at The Daily Mirror before migrating to television, first at the ABC (prominently at the flagship currents affairs program This Day Tonight) and thereafter a news director at Channel 9. Later in life, Stone became network head of current affairs for Channel 7 and served on the board of directors of the SBS from 2000 until 2010 (deputy chairman from 2005), rounding out a career at almost every television station in the country.

Since its founding in the 1960s, ownership of Network 10, the third and final station to be given a broadcasting license — and the most financially unstable — has bounded across different owners. Jewish interests in this ownership mix have predominated since the 1980s. Property developer and founder of the Westfield shopping centre empire Frank Lowy briefly owned the network from 1986-1988 and CannWest, a Canadian media group owned by Israel Asper, held a controlling interest from 1992-2009. Jewish community leader Isi Leibler also owned a significant share of the network during the 1990s and in 2017 Network 10 was sold to the American media conglomerate CBS (now renamed Paramount) which is still run by members of the Redstone family (Jewish).

Multicultural Broadcasting

As readers would no doubt suspect, Jews have been integral to the founding and modern alignment of Australia’s multicultural broadcaster SBS. Launched in 1978 as a supplement to the ABC, the SBS was designed to counter the forces of assimilation and explicitly promote multicultural values. The bread and butter of the SBS was once world news and its foreign language news services, though in recent years it has expanded well beyond these confines into more commercial ventures through a partnership with Canadian media group Vice News.

The origins of the SBS lie in 1975 with the new-left Whitlam government, which set up two ethnic radio stations as part of the newly minted policy of multiculturalism (2EA in Sydney and 3EA in Melbourne). Members of the Ethnic Radio Experiment Committee which oversaw the two stations that later became the SBS included Walter Lippmann. The inaugural chair of the SBS was Russian-Jewish migrant Grisha Sklovsky, who guided the early years of multicultural radio and the launch of multicultural television in 1980. A chemist by trade with seemingly no experience in the TV or radio industry, explaining Sklovsky’s prominent position at the SBS requires an understanding of the war the organised Jewish community had waged against public access radio in the mid-1970s.

Alongside ethnic radio, the Whitlam government had also launched two experimental public access stations, 3ZZ and 3CR, the former being hijacked by multiculturalists and turned into ethnic broadcasting[5]. With no Jewish presence, the results of this experiment began to alarm the Jewish community and threatened to jeopardise the multicultural cause. The unmoderated nature of both stations saw a flourishing of far-left and pro-Palestinian rhetoric, and they became mired in ethnic tensions as ethnic communities (in particular Yugoslavs) used the broadcasting facilities for the airing of longstanding political disagreements. A pressure group led by Isi Leibler was successful in shutting down 3ZZ and censuring 3CR.[6] Once moves were made to formalise ethnic radio, it was clear to the Jewish community that a strong Jewish presence was required to prevent such further hijacking of multicultural broadcasting.

After 1996, the SBS found itself in the crossfire of the Coalition government hostile to its multicultural charter. Whilst failing to shut the network down, by the mid-2000s the SBS had become a politically neutered institution. More and more commercial programmes were replacing LOTE content, and the station was widely mocked for its predictable rotation of World News, Soccer, and racy European films. The saviour of the SBS came in 2009 in the form of Jewish investment banker Joseph Skrzynski who undertook sweeping reforms within the institution. Under Skrzynski’s chairmanship, the SBS secured a large increase in federal funding and was revamped into an aggressive vehicle for promoting diversity and multicultural rhetoric via the commission of new current affairs shows and documentaries:

SBS repositioned itself under the Skrzynski board in three key complementary arenas. The board insisted that SBS would not be a “neutral” broadcaster (and increasingly irrelevant and dull as it had been during the Howard years), but rather would be an advocate of a human rights-based exploration of Australian cultural diversity. SBS would become riskier and more investigative, building a body of media productions that tested the limits of where Australians were going in this increasingly multicultural nation.[7]

This ‘riskier’ SBS found expression in local television programs such as Immigration Nation and Go Back to Where You Came From, programs that pushed the button on the refugee and immigration debate. Changes also came to the SBS Radio division, which broadened out from its European base to introduce languages from Africa and the Asian subcontinent, and in 2012 the network launched the National Indigenous Television channel (NITV).

Skrzynski‘s multiculturalist television credentials go as far back as the 1980s during his time as chief executive of the Australian Film Commission, involved in the production of the 1984 SBS documentary series The Migrant Experience. The 6-part series aimed to reposition the centre of the Australian experience from British settlers to the post-war migrants, and presented assimilation as a harsh and undesirable policy. Produced and directed by Jews for the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs[8], the series was intended to be shown in school classrooms and exemplified the early use of the SBS by Jews for spreading the multiculturalist message to wider Australia.

Skrzynski’s tenure at SBS came to end in 2014, but he left the broadcaster a changed organisation, now empowered to further the cause against White Australia. Current Jewish leadership at the SBS includes two Jews on the board of directors — Christine Zeitz as Deputy Chair alongside Jewish community activist Vic Alhadeff as Managing Director — and a number of other Jews dotted throughout lower management levels.

Radio

Like television, radio broadcasting in Australia is split between the government channels of the ABC and SBS, and privately run commercial broadcasters. Commercial radio in Australia is dominated by a handful of publicly traded companies who own most of the ‘hit’ stations across the country.  Other than occasional commentary from hosts or the hourly news bulletins, these commercial radio stations are not of an explicitly political nature, the exception being the talkback radio stations. Talkback radio remains arguably the most conservative and right-wing medium in Australia[9] and is regularly the scene of politically incorrect controversies and incidents. Accordingly, one struggles to discern any degree of direct Jewish influence over this medium.

Turning to public radio, Jewish influence at the board level and elsewhere at the ABC and SBS has been covered in the section above. Of further note is ABC radio in Melbourne, perhaps the most Jewish of the regional networks at the level of presenters.  For more than two decades, Jon Faine was a staple of Melbourne’s airwaves, hosting the morning program from 1996 to 2019. Fellow tribesman Raf Epstein rounded out the Jewish face of Melbourne’s public radio broadcasting, hosting the drive-home program from 2012-2023 until he took over Faine’s old position on the morning broadcast. Since 2022, ABC radio’s Australia-wide PM news program has been presented by David Lipson.

At the top of the local music industry, Dan Rosen serves as current President of Warner Music Australasia, taking on the role after a decade as CEO of the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA).

The Murdoch Empire

Keen observers may have noticed a conspicuous absence in the above analysis of Australian newspapers and television, a certain Murdoch-shaped absence. The empire of Rupert Murdoch covers so large a cross-section of the Australian media that it ultimately deserves its own segment. Looking deep into the past, the origins of the Murdoch press can in fact be attributed to Jewish lawyer and newspaper proprietor Thedore Fink (mentioned previously), who appointed journalist Keith Murdoch as editor of The Herald in 1921 and fostered Murdoch’s rise to a major figure in the Australian media in his own right, long before his world-conquering son took over the family business upon his death in 1952.

Murdoch’s Australian media interests, contained under the News Corporation umbrella, have grown to the point where he owns the tabloid press in almost every major city in the country, totalling upwards of 50 percent of Australia’s entire print market readership. New Corp. also publishes the nationwide paper The Australian, online news sites Daily Mail Australia and News.com.au, the NOVA radio network, cable TV network Foxtel and the television channel Sky News Australia.

Though Murdoch’s biography is hardly a secret, the ideological contours of the man once known as ‘Red Rupert’ during his time at Oxford (due to his fondness for displaying a bust of Lenin in his room) are far less understood by the general public. Many have been misled by attempts to classify Murdoch — an opponent of the British Monarchy whose tabloid papers ran soft-core pornography — as some kind of conservative. Whilst the left-wing radicalism of his youth that once so upset his father has subsided, Murdoch has never lost his sense of anti-elitism and his hostility to the cultural mores of the long since vanquished ‘stuffy narrow-minded men’ who once comprised the British and Australian elite.

Murdoch’s political trajectory from youthful socialist to neo-liberal Reagan-booster is an altogether familiar one. Accordingly, the editorial positioning of Murdoch’s papers (which Murdoch has always taken a hands-on approach in fashioning) has been aligned with the neo-conservatism of Irving Kristol and Co. since the Thatcher/Reagan era. Critics pinpoint the beginning of Murdoch’s intimacy with Jewish power to his entrance into the American media scene in 1973. For a power-hungry businessman looking to make a splash in the USA and disrupt the old establishment, the benefit in aligning with America’s then emergent elite faction is obvious.

In short, whilst Murdoch and his family are not Jewish[10], his media empire has perfectly dovetailed with the organised Jewish community for the past five decades. Murdoch embodies the word philo-Semitism, and for his efforts he has been rewarded with all the symbols of a ‘Righteous Gentile’. His accolades include the ADL’s International Leadership Award (2010), a Simon Wiesenthal Humanitarian Laureate Award (2006), a Museum of Jewish Heritage Award (2012) and an American Jewish Committee National Human Relations Award (2009) given in a ceremony where Norm Podhoretz personally thanked Murdoch for his help in keeping Commentary magazine alive.

In Australia, the Murdoch press that once supported the new-left Whitlam Labor government and its program of social and cultural radicalism has become almost inseparable from the Liberal Party of Australia. His newspapers incorporate weak, multiracial civic-patriotism for Australia with an iron-clad support for Israel as an ethnically Jewish state. Murdoch appointed a number of Jews to prominent positions at his Australian newspapers in his early years, including Solomon Chandler, a Fleet Street veteran whom he hired to launch The Australian. Lithuanian-born Zell Rabin (Rabinavicius), edited Murdoch’s The Daily Mirror in the mid-1960s, the only major Australian newspaper to oppose the Vietnam war.[11]

Within Murdoch’s local television ventures, Foxtel was primarily for American television shows and the latest Hollywood movies still inaccessible on free-to-air television. Sky News, a 24-hour news station, is known for its ‘After Dark’ rotation of right-wing commentators akin to the evening lineup of Fox News in America, including breakout Jewish star Sharri Markson. All Sky News commentators are vocal Zionists who rally against ‘wokeness’ and predictably reject any form of White racialism.

Magazines and Periodicals

The political magazine and periodical industry in Australia is dominated by Schwarz Media, owned by property developer Morry Schwarz. This outfit produces The Monthly, Australia’s leading current affairs magazine[12]; The Saturday Paper, a weekend newspaper focusing on politics and current affairs; Quarterly Essay, a political journal; and Australian Foreign Affairs, Australia’s leading foreign policy journal. Visit any newsagency in Australia and Schwarz’s publications will be your most obvious choice for local political reading. Though ostensibly left-wing products, Schwarz’s Zionist views have long created a cordon-sanitaire around espousing pro-Palestine perspectives within his publications.[13]

On the other end of the political spectrum, usually sitting alongside The Monthly and Quarterly Essay, comes Quadrant magazine, a solidly kosher-conservative outfit that has for its entire existence held the line against racialism and anti-Semitism. Founded and overseen by Czech-Jewish migrant Richard Krygier in 1956, Quadrant was the Australian venture of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a Jewish-led anti-communist group later discovered to be funded by the CIA.[14] Jewish editors and major contributors abound in Quadrant’s history, from anti-communist firebrand Frank Knopfelmacher, television journalist Sam Lipski, to the neo-conservative academic Robert Manne, whose editorship from 1990 began to draw the magazine towards a more progressive position, in particular on the Indigenous question, until an internal revolt eventually forced him out in 1997. Critics have decried Quadrant’s supposed recent descent into “right wing extremist material”, but with a new Jewish editor-in-chief appointed earlier this year (Rebecca Weisser), racialism and critical discussions on the Jewish question, let alone any significant criticism of Zionism, remain predictably off-limits.

When it comes to lifestyle and special interest publications that have a degree of political character (such as women’s or scientific magazines), the Packer family’s Australian Consolidated Press was the main player in Australia. Once again Jews have come more into leading positions as editors: Nene King at Woman’s Day and The Australian Women’s Weekly; Bernard Leser, founder of Vogue Australia; and Alan Finkel, co-founder and editor of science publication Cosmos Magazine. As of 2024, this dying market has been under the management of gentile-controlled private equity firms that every year wrap up publication on yet another magazine that was once a staple of Australian light reading. As to pornographic magazines, I have previously written about the Jewish component here.

Publishing

For the sake of brevity, I have limited my analysis of the publishing industry to wholly Australian-owned and controlled publishers who are primarily known for producing non-fiction works —  publishers which can thus be seen to have an overtly political intent. Schwarz Media comes to the fore again with their publishing outlet Black Inc. Founded in 2000, Black Inc. is the publisher of choice for left-wing political writers in Australia and its imprints also include the university publisher La Trobe University Press.

Scribe Publications, founded in 1976 by Henry Rosenbloom, holds another large catalogue of local non-fiction works. Melbourne University Publishing, founded in 1922, is Australia’s largest and oldest university press. For the better part of the last two decades, MUP was under the stewardship of Jewish CEO Louise Adler, whose tenure introduced many commercial titles into what was once a primarily academic press. Adler departed from MUP in 2019 after a 16-year stint to become publisher-at-large for Hachette Australia.

Australia’s largest online bookseller Booktopia, which also operates its own publishing arm, was founded and run by Tony Nash (Nachemstein) and Steve Traurig, and in 2015 it acquired the book retailer and publisher Angus & Robertson.

New Media

The term New Media encompasses the new generation of news outlets, websites and political magazines that have no physical presence away from the online world. Such outlets benefit from a lack of overhead tied up in large offices and printing presses and have grown in popularity over the last decade with the decline of traditional newspapers and free-to-air television. Given the novelty of the medium and lack of institutional barriers, Jews have founded many of the prominent Australian ventures, covering everything from feminist blogging to youth-orientated news websites.

The Conversation, an academic current affairs website which has launched editions across the globe, was co-founded by American Jack Rejtman. Mia Freedman, the daughter of anti-apartheid activists, founded the women’s media group Mammamia. Quilette, owned by gentile Australian Clare Lehmann, has positioned itself as a hub for the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’, a grouping of disaffected anti-woke Jewish writers and academics. Youth news website The Daily Aus was launched in 2017 by Sam Koslowski and Zara Seidler and the recently launched investigative journalism website Declassified Australia was co-founded by Antony Loewenstein. Finally, ADH TV a video news channel launched in 2021 with a roster of popular conservative commentators, was founded and chaired by Maurice Newman. 

Film

As far as the film industry is concerned, the obvious predominance of Hollywood in the Australian market need not be further elucidated. As detailed by Neal Gabler in his 1988 book An Empire of their Own, it is insufficient to say that Jews “run” or “control” Hollywood. Rather, Hollywood is their own creation, an institution founded and built from the ground up by Jewish filmmakers and entrepreneurs who had fled to California to escape the legal reach of the Edison Trust. To separate Jews from the history of Hollywood is as futile as separating the history of Salvation Army thrift stores from the Methodist Church.

Australia briefly had a native film industry prior to the advent of Hollywood, one quickly destroyed by mismanagement and political interference. The government banned the popular and financially lucrative Bushranger genre for fear of it encouraging criminality, and by the 1930s the Australian film industry had been completely swallowed up by Hollywood through local Jewish entrepreneurs like Nathaniel Freeman. As Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s first managing director for Australia and New Zealand, Freeman “led the local industry from the 1930s to the 1960s, presenting such landmark attractions as Ben-Hur (1927), Gone with the Wind (1940) and Dr Zhivago (1965).”[15]

In the hideouts that the American film industry does not reach into, Jews have also played prominent roles in the establishment of local film festivals and independent cinema operators, leaders of government film bodies and CEOs of Australian-based film production companies.

Conclusion

Whilst Jewish influence is significant, this review of the major components of the Australian media shows that it is far from the direct organisational stranglehold held by Jews over America’s media. There is still a fair degree of gentile ownership, in particular at the newspapers and television networks operating in country. But even though Australians are still in charge of large portions of their own media, this media appears universally hostile to the interests of the White Australian majority. Above and beyond direct ownership or editorial control, other methods are utilised to keep Australia in check, in particular on the question of Israel.

The most politically brazen of these is the Rambam Israel Fellowship program founded in 2003 (but ongoing since the early 1980s) by the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies. The program involves shepherding a group of Australian politicians and journalists on a lavish and tightly controlled tour of Israel, one designed to inculcate a pro-Israel perspective and “broaden their knowledge” on the right of Israel to defend itself. The most recent compilation of people who have taken part in a Rambam trip is a who’s-who of Australia’s top journalists, with a particular focus on members of the Murdoch press.[16]

Where a journalist or media figure has not been directly compromised through a Rambam fellowship, broad institutional pressure exerted by Jewish and Zionist groups is almost always successful at ‘cancelling’ and pushing oppositional journalists out of their job. Australia’s media is highly concentrated, with one of the lowest levels of media diversity in the western world. Two media conglomerates, News Corp. and Nine Entertainment, account for the lion’s share of private media ownership, making the institutional targeting of a journalist a straightforward task. Countless examples can be found over the last 30 years, the most recent being Lebanese-born ABC journalist Antoinette Lattouf, sacked from her job at ABC Radio Sydney after Jewish pressure groups took issue with her social media posts critical of Israeli actions in the ongoing Gaza war.[17]

Where cajoling with all-expenses-paid Israel trips and pressure on an institutional level does not work to silence critics of Israel, Jewish behaviour or the racial status quo in general, the final step of recourse is the legal system. Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, introduced under heavy Jewish lobbying, is designed for only the most recalcitrant opponents. Mainstream journalists and media figures rarely fall afoul of this extreme measure. Instead, it hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the head of anyone in Australia who contemplates a public violation of the taboos of the 21th century. Rare victims of Section 18c, such as journalist Andrew Bolt in 2009, will quickly find Jews working together to ruthlessly censure their target. As of June 2024, Jewish Attorney General Mark Dreyfus is in the process of drafting new and even more forceful ‘hate speech’ laws that are purported to include custodial sentences.

As with so many other questions of political influence in Australia, the state of the Australian media must always be placed squarely in the context of Australia’s position as a colonial outpost of the American Empire. Most of the above-mentioned media outlets, in particular television, struggle with audiences shifting towards American media. The average Australian under the age of 35 is more likely to spend their time watching a product on Netflix or Disney+ than tune into a drama series on the ABC or a commercial network. They gather their news from Instagram, X and YouTube rather than radio broadcasts or newspaper articles. They listen to playlists on Spotify rather than tune into youth radio stations. Accordingly, the question of who owns and directs the media in America is no less relevant for finding out who influences the minds of Australians.

In all, the anti-White tone evident across the media is a note-for-note recreation of the anti-White perspectives that encompass the thoroughly Jewish media landscape in America. Putting aside even the significant degree of Jewish influence outlined in this essay, which is utterly disproportional when considering their population size, Australia has long been downwind of the political climate of the United States. None of the decisions of America’s ‘thought-makers’ exist in a vacuum, and they always seem to find their way Down Under. When all attempts at presenting a public defence of the Australian people from the threat of racial obliteration are either self-censured or inevitably result in censorship or legal retribution, can one honestly say that Australians control their own media? Clearly true control lies elsewhere.

SELECT SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Inglis, K.S 1983 This is the ABC: The Australian Broadcasting Commission 1932-1983, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne: Australia.

Lyons, J 2021 Dateline Jerusalem: Journalism’s Toughest Assignment, Monash University Press, Melbourne: Australia.

Stone, G 2000 Compulsive Viewing: The inside story of Packer’s Nine Network, Viking O’Neil, Ringwood: Australia.

Young, S 2019 Paper Emperors: The rise of Australia’s Newspaper Empires, NewSouth Books, Sydney: Australia.

[1] All five broadcasters can be freely accessed by anyone with a television and a digital connection, with no subscription or payment required. In the case of the ABC, the broadcasting is taxpayer funded and the commercial networks, whilst subsidised, operate on advertising revenue. The SBS employs a hybrid model of advertisement plus government funding.

[2] McAdam, A 2014, ‘The ABC’s Marxists’, Quadrant Magazine, retrieved from: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/opinion-post/abcs-marxists/

[3] A landmark indigenous land rights case, one largely engineered by Jewish lawyers.

[4] Holmes, O & Butler, B 2021, ‘James Packer’s ties with Israeli PM and spy chief became ‘national risk’ – report’, The Guardian Australia, Friday 7 May, retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/may/07/james-packer-ties-israeli-pm-spy-chief-national-risk-report

[5] Lopez, M 2000, The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics: 1945-1975, Melbourne University Press, p.402–403.

[6] See Rutland, S 2021, Lone Voice – The Wars of Isi Liebler, Hybrid Publishers, Melbourne Australia.

[7] Jakubowicz, A 2014, ‘What’s on for SBS in the fight for public broadcasting’s future?’, The Conversation, April 28, retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/whats-on-for-sbs-in-the-fight-for-public-broadcastings-future-25762

[8] Produced by Malcom Smith, who lived with his family on a Kibbutz in Israel for 3 years and would later go on to become head of the ABC Drama department, and co-directed by Ben Lewin — Australian Jewish News 1995, ‘Malcom Smith A Renaissance Man’, 5 May, p.33.

[9] Historically, talkback radio saw some of the last defenders of White Australia allowed in the public sphere in the form of presenters such as Norman Banks and Ron Casey.

[10] Dissident commentators have often falsely hinted at a degree of Jewish heritage from Murdoch’s maternal side, a rumour that originates from the somewhat Jewish-sounding surname of his Irish-descended maternal grandfather.

[11] Milliken, R 2006, ‘Zalmenas (Zell) Rabin (1932–1966)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, retrieved from: https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/rabin-zalmenas-zell-11474

[12] The first edition of The Monthly in 2001 was headlined by Robert Manne, publishing ‘In Denial: The Stolen Generations and the Right.’

[13] Sanderson, B 2016, ‘The Jewish War on White Australia: Refugee Policy and the African Crime Plague, Part 2’, The Occidental Observer, June 8, retrieved from https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/06/08/the-jewish-war-on-white-australia-refugee-policy-and-the-african-crime-plague-part-2/

[14] See Saunders, F.R 1999 Who Paid the Piper?: The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Granta Books, London.

[15] Greenberg, J 2007, ‘Sir Nathaniel Bernard Freeman (1896–1982)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, retrieved from: https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/freeman-sir-nathaniel-bernard-12513

[16] Saeed, D 2023, ‘Which Australian journalists and politicians have gone on trips to Israel and Palestine?’, Crikey, November 3, retrieved from: https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/11/03/australian-journalists-politicians-trips-israel-palestine/

[17] Bachelard, M & Jaspan, C 2024, ‘Secret WhatsApp messages show co-ordinated campaign to oust Antoinette Lattouf from ABC’, The Sydney Morning Herald, January 16, retrieved from: https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/secret-whatsapp-messages-show-co-ordinated-campaign-to-oust-antoinette-lattouf-from-abc-20240115-p5exdx.html

How Liberals Pay Off Their Bimbos

/4 Comments/in /by

How Liberals Pay Off Their Bimbos

I have it on the authority of New York Times guest editorialist Norm Eisen that Trump’s 34 felony convictions concern “profoundly serious” crimes. But one point I’m still not clear on is how Trump was supposed to describe his payments to Stormy Daniels.

     That is, after all, the heart of the case: Trump committed felonies by recording the payment to Daniels — made through his lawyer Michael Cohen — as a “legal expense,” thus creating a “false business record.”

How was he supposed to describe it?

— “Nuisance fee”?

— “Extortion payment”?

— “Cost of doing business for a celebrity”?

NO! The only answer liberals will accept is this:

“Hush money payment to a porn star who was threatening to claim we had sex — a claim as false as the Trump Tower doorman’s allegation I had an illegitimate child with an employee, which is so false that even the media admitit’s false — for the exclusive purpose of hiding the porn star’s (false) claim from the electorate, so that they would vote for me, even though they did vote for me, despite seeing a video one month before the election of me bragging about grabbing women ‘by the p*ssy.’ The Daniels allegation, however, I believe would have pushed them over the edge, so I used my own money to pay Daniels not to lie about me, much like the $30,000 that was paid to the lying doorman.”

If he’d said that, District Attorney Alvin Bragg would have been forced to say, BINGO! That’s exactly what I and The New York Times wanted you to write in your internal business records. Free to go, Mr. Trump.

How could Trump not have known this?! Duh. Just look at the precedents.

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, his campaign hired a sleazy private detective, Jack Palladino, to threaten journalists and private individuals in order to prevent voters from finding out about the horny hick’s legion of sexual conquests and sexual assaults — or “bimbo eruptions,” as campaign aide Betsey Wright charmingly put it.

The smear merchant was first hired after singer Gennifer Flowers told a tabloid she’d had a lengthy affair with Clinton. Palladino wrote a memo to the campaign, promising to impugn her “character and veracity until she is destroyed beyond all recognition.”

Clinton campaign: SOLD! (By the by, Clinton would eventually admit to having sex with Flowers.)

Then in 2008, presidential candidate John Edwards hit up a couple of well-heeled donors for more than a million dollars to hide his yearlong affair with Rielle Hunter and their resulting “love child.”

To keep Hunter happy (and hidden) throughout his run, the campaign gave her “cash, luxury hotels, private jets rides and a $20,000-a-month rental mansion in Santa Barbara, California” — as summarized by The Guardian. (Even lefty publications in the U.K. are more honest than the American media.)

All these goodies were paid for by heiress Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, who gave the Edwards campaign $725,000 — laundered through a North Carolina interior decorator — and Texas lawyer Fred Baron, who gave the campaign $400,000.

As any of you campaign finance buffs know, $725,000 and $400,000 exceed the federal limit for campaign donations by about a half-million dollars apiece. (The limit was $2,300 in 2008.)

With Hunter squirreled away, Edwards orchestrated a massive cover-up, repeatedly denying the affair, only “confessing” after he was caught red-handed — but still insisting that it was “not possible” that he was the father of Hunter’s child. He even asked his campaign aide, Andrew Young, to cop to being the child’s true father, although he was married, too. (And you thought Michael Cohen was loyal!)

In July 2008, the National Enquirer caught Edwards sneaking into the Beverly Hilton to see his mistress and love child — complete with photos of him holding his daughter. After spending about six hours alone with them, he tried to sneak out through the basement at 2:40 a.m., whereupon he encountered Enquirer reporters. He ran back and forth but was continuously confronted by reporters, so he ducked into a hotel restroom and remained there for 15 minutes, until hotel security rescued him.

Maybe I don’t have a nose for news, but that sounds like a pretty good story to me. There was even a sex tape. Top that, Stormy! The Times did not breathe a word of it to readers.

But that’s not my point.

Suppose you were Donald Trump trying to decide how to record a nuisance payment that you were making with your own money (not Bunny Mellon’s) for entry into your own books?

You’d look at precedent, right? How did Clinton report the campaign cash he was spending on a lowlife to smear his sexual conquests? How did Edwards report the million-plus dollars in campaign donations he received from Fred and Bunny to cover up an ongoing affair?

Clinton laundered the campaign’s payments to Palladino through a law firm and listed them on Federal Election Commission forms as “legal expenses.” Unlike Trump’s personal business records, these entries were being submitted to the FEC. Those entries had to be perfect!

So that’s how it’s done.

But wait a second! How come when Trump lists his payment to squelch a single “bimbo eruption” as a “legal expense,” he’s committed “profoundly serious” crimes?

According to the legal eagles in the D.A.’s office, Cohen’s payment of $130,000 to Daniels — reimbursed by Trump — was actually a “loan” to the Trump campaign that should have been listed on his federal campaign finance report.

How did Edwards explain the million bucks he got from campaign donors — gratis, no reimbursement expected or paid? His elegantly simple solution was not to report those contributions to the FEC. His reports included not the briefest mention of these gargantuan sums that were used to conceal a mistress and love child from the voters. (And he was definitely using the money to hide the affair from voters, not his wife: Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair since at least March 2007.)

In Edwards’ case, Obama’s Justice Department did bring a prosecution for campaign finance violations, but it ended with one acquittal and a hung jury on all other counts. The DOJ declined to retry the case.

The Times — finally deigning to speak of Edwards’ love child hush money — reported on the failed prosecution, noting that the case “had no precedent” and would not “help politicians better interpret the labyrinth of campaign finance law.”

But now, an even more “unprecedented” legal case, based on the “labyrinth of campaign finance law,” is a hanging offense.

Liberals aren’t off their rockers, at all.

     COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

Blights on Whites: HBD, Headlines and the Violation of Western Norms

/25 Comments/in , /by

A simple headline. That’s often all it takes to spot HBD — Human Bio-Diversity — at work in a high-trust Western society like Britain. That’s because a headline is often enough to reveal that the norms of such a society are being violated in an extreme way.

Brazen in Bournemouth

The norms were obviously set by mainstream Whites, so they tend to be violated by outsiders. The worse the violation, the more likely it is that an outsider is responsible. For example, one norm in Britain is the ability of large numbers of people to gather peacefully and cooperatively for recreation. That’s why we have holiday-resorts like the coastal towns of Bournemouth and Blackpool, where Whites have gathered for many decades to enjoy sun, sand and sea. But Bournemouth and Blackpool have recently generated headlines about the brutal violation of the norms that formerly prevailed there. When I read the headlines, I immediately thought “HBD!” That is, I thought that outsiders — not British Whites — would be responsible for the crimes in question.

And I was right. At least, I was right about one of the headlines and I’m confident that I’ll be right about the other two. The first headline ran like this: “Man found guilty of raping girl, 15, in sea off Bournemouth beach.” That’s an extreme violation of a British norm and sure enough an outsider was responsible:

A 20-year-old man has been found guilty of the “brazen” rape of a 15-year-old girl after he took her out of her depth in the sea off Bournemouth beach. A jury found Gabriel Marinoaica, of Darlaston, Walsall, guilty of three charges of sexual assault and rape. He was acquitted of a further charge of sexual assault by biting her neck. Judge Susan Evans KC [King’s Counsel] said it was a “brazen thing to have done in broad daylight” on the beach. (“Man found guilty of raping girl, 15, in sea off Bournemouth beach,” The Guardian, 15th March 2024)

Not British but brazen: the possibly Gypsy Romanian Gabriel Marinoaica

Well, it was a “brazen thing” to do by British standards, but Gabriel Marinoaica isn’t British. He has a Romanian surname and could well be a Gypsy. That is, he isn’t genuinely from “Darlaston, Walsall” in the English Midlands. Instead, he is a single footsoldier in the “immivasion” of Britain overseen first by the treacherous Labour party and second by the equally treacherous Conservative party.

I’m confident that the same will prove true of the criminals behind two other headlines from the British holiday resorts of Blackpool and Bournemouth. They run like this: “Woman raped in horror attack on Blackpool seafront” and “Bournemouth beach stabbing: man arrested on suspicion of murder.” In the first case, the police are looking for a “tall Asian [i.e., Pakistani or similar] man in his mid-30s.” And in the second, a suspect has now been arrested and charged. If you’re a hate-criminal like me, you won’t be surprised to hear that his name is Nasen Saadi. He’s described in the mainstream media as being “from Croydon, London.” He isn’t, of course. Whether or not he is found guilty, he’s another footsoldier in the “immivasion” of Britain overseen by our treacherous elite.

Schoolboy slaughters schoolgirl

If he is found guilty, he will become yet another non-White who has imposed vibrancy on the White norms that formerly prevailed in Croydon. This district of London has a name with a beautiful etymology: it’s from the Old English crogen and denu, meaning “valley where wild saffron grows.” But forget wild saffron: in the 21st century, Croydon regularly generates headlines that reek of HBD. Late last year, for example, there were headlines about the “fatal stabbing of [a] schoolgirl in Croydon.” Hate-criminals like me needed only the headlines to begin thinking heretical thoughts. When we read the stories below the headlines, our heretical thoughts got worse. It was a horrific crime, as the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill described at Spiked:

Everything about the death of [the schoolgirl] Elianne [Andam] is bleak beyond imagination. It happened during rush hour on Wednesday. Elianne and friends were on their way to school. One of her friends was accosted by a 17-year-old boy, reportedly her ex-boyfriend. He had a bouquet of roses. Elianne stepped in to try to calm things down. The boy allegedly took out a thin, foot-long knife and drove it into Elianne’s neck. She died in the street, next to the blood-spattered roses.

It feels incomprehensible. How untethered from morality must a young man be, how unbound by social norms, to slay a girl in the street for the ‘offence’ of suggesting he back off. Elianne was bright and clearly a good friend. She wanted to be a lawyer. And yet on a Wednesday morning, in front of her fellow citizens, her life was ended with a ‘zombie knife’ allegedly wielded by a boy who has not yet reached the age of majority. Not only the people of Croydon but the nation itself feels shell-shocked by this senseless destruction of young, promise-filled life. (“The Croydon stabbing: in the shadow of nihilism,” 29th September 2023)

Brendan is performing a common ritual in the modern West. The ritual involves leftists self-righteously bewailing the consequences of their own preferences, while steadfastly refusing to admit blame or face reality. The “boy” responsible for that “nihilistic” murder was almost certainly Black and living in Britain thanks to the non-White migration so warmly supported by leftists like Brendan. But there is no discussion of race or migration in the article. And when Brendan laments how the “boy” was “unbound by social norms,” he doesn’t raise the highly interesting question of what “social norms” he’s talking about. Are they Black norms? The norms that prevail in Somalia and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa? No, of course not. They’re White norms. And why would we expect Blacks, with a distinct genetic and cultural history, to follow White norms?

From repulsive to ridiculous

Well, if we’re sane and scientifically literate, we wouldn’t. But leftists like Brendan O’Neill aren’t sane or scientifically literate. That’s why they’ve cheered on the immivasion of Britain by non-Whites while simultaneously bewailing its inevitable consequences. For example, Brendan and his comrades also get very heated about Muslims attacking the traditional White norm of free speech. Yes, fancy that. Britain imports people who hate free speech and those people continue to hate free speech on the magic dirt of Britain. This is because the dirt isn’t in fact magic and doesn’t alter the genetics and culture of outsiders.

The magic dirt doesn’t work: Muslims carry on behaving like Muslims

If you want another example of that, just look at the behavior of a group that has lived on British soil not for decades, like Blacks and Muslims, but for centuries and even millennia. Yes, let’s go from the repulsive to the ridiculous. I’ve described how hate-criminals like me can detect HBD in repulsive headlines about rape and murder. But hate-criminals like me can also detect HBD in ridiculous headlines like this: “Couple in Wales jailed for series of ‘dine and dash’ offences.” In other words, the couple were ordering and eating food in restaurants, then leaving without paying for the food. That’s a violation of the high-trust norms of British society, which is why I read the headline and immediately thought: “Gypsies!” And I was right. At least, I was right in the short-hand sense I was using the term “Gypsies”:

A couple have been jailed for carrying out a string of “dine and dash” offences, racking up large bills for food and drink before leaving without paying. A judge at Swansea crown court said Ann McDonagh, 39, and Bernard McDonagh, 41, had “cynically and brazenly” defrauded restaurants and a takeaway in south Wales.

Judge Thomas KC told the court that the couple, from Port Talbot, had ordered more than they could eat — including T-bone steaks — just to see if they could get away with it and got a buzz out of their spree. “It was criminality for criminality’s sake,” he said. The court was told the couple were from a “very large Travelling community” and the judge criticised them for reinforcing negative stereotypes. (“Couple in Wales jailed for series of ‘dine and dash’ offences,” The Guardian, 29th May 2024)

Travellers and Gypsies aren’t fully distinct groups in Britain. They’ve interbred and, although the famous boxer Tyson Fury is a Traveller, strictly speaking, he calls himself the “Gypsy King.” After all, the two groups are both outsiders with similar nomadic cultures. And with similar cultures of violence, criminality, and parasitism. The “negative stereotypes” referred to by the judge exist with very good reason. And note how the judge in Swansea used the word “brazen,” just like the judge who sentenced the rapist Gabriel Marinoaica in Bournemouth. Like Marinoaica, the McDonaghs are marked as outsiders not only by their shameless violation of British norms, but also by their surnames. The surname McDonagh isn’t Welsh but Irish, because Travellers come from Ireland.

Living outside the state

Not that the McDonaghs will regard themselves as outsiders, of course. From their perspective, they’re insiders who are entitled to prey on the out-group of non-Travellers. The McDonaghs preyed on the Welsh out-group in typical Traveller fashion because that is the evolved norm in their “community.” Travellers have lived on British soil for many generations, but they haven’t adopted British norms of high trust and low criminality. In other words, they look White in the broad sense but aren’t White in the narrow sense. If Travellers and Gypsies were taken out of the crime statistics for “whites” in Britain, the stats would fall even further by comparison with those for Blacks and other non-Whites. Indeed, in some ways Travellers are closer to Blacks than to mainstream British Whites. For example, they have lower average IQs than British Whites and regard education with disdain and contempt. Although they’re undoubtedly far closer in genetics to us than Somalis or Pakistanis, they remain a distinct group.

The McDonaghs are Travellers who look White but don’t act White

It’s clear, for example, that they haven’t undergone the process of genetic pacification that applied to the White British majority. For centuries, a strong state and efficient system of justice suppressed genes for violence and criminality by the simple means of executing and imprisoning criminals. The law-abiding had more children than the lawless and the result was high-trust, low-crime White Britain. But nomadic Travellers lived outside the state and did their best to evade its laws. It isn’t anomalous that an exceptionally good boxer like Tyson Fury should have come from such a tiny minority, because violent and aggressive males among Travellers weren’t weeded out by the state and the hangman.

The double whammy of immivasion

On the contrary, they were rewarded with reproductive success. Having lots of children is another Traveller tradition. Fury himself has seven. The “dine and dash” McDonaghs have six. In contrast, the birth-rate of mainstream British Whites is at a historic low. It’s below replacement level. There are many reasons for the fall in White births and some of them are freely discussed in the mainstream. Here’s one reason that isn’t: the overcrowding that is now prevalent in cities like London. Unlike some races, Whites don’t like living in crowded, noisy environments. And they don’t like being unable to ensure a safe and secure home for their children. That’s why so many White couples postpone children or refrain from having children entirely.

Jewish migration-maven, the lovely Barbara Roche, spinner of ludicrous lies

Groups like Travellers and Somalis, who live much more in the moment, don’t follow those norms, which is why their birth-rates remain high even as their behavior helps suppress White birth-rates. And that’s exactly the way our hostile elite like it. They’ve imposed the immivasion on the West not simply because it floods us with outsiders, but also because it suppresses our birth-rates. Of course, HBD is also at work in the hostile elite. I’ve regularly described the central role of the Labour immigration minister Barbara Roche in organizing the immivasion of Britain and propagandizing for its non-existent benefits. Roche is Jewish. So were the plutocrats who funded the treacherous Labour party as it opened the borders and waged war on its traditional supporters in the White working-class.

No respect for White norms

The plutocrats who presently fund the treacherous Conservative party are also Jewish. And when, as seems highly likely, the Conservatives lose the next election, they will replaced by the Jew-funded Labour party under Keir Starmer, who has a Jewish wife and is firmly committed to following a Jewish agenda of open borders. In America, as Kevin MacDonald has carefully documented, the 1965 Hart-Celler Act that began national-wrecking immivasion was a thoroughly Jewish project. But the project was fronted by Irish Catholics like Teddy Kennedy, who also regarded themselves as outsiders to the White Protestants who had created America and established its norms. Teddy’s brother John F. Kennedy had already put his name to a book about America with the lying and ludicrous title of A Nation of Immigrants (1958). Again, hate-criminals will not be surprised to read that the book “was written as part of the Anti-Defamation League’s series entitled the One Nation Library. In the 1950s, former ADL National Director Ben Epstein was concerned by rising xenophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric, so he reached out to then-Senator Kennedy to write a manuscript on immigration reform.” The ADL also supplied a historian, Arthur Mann (a doctoral student of historian-Jewish pro-immigration activist Oscar Handlin at Harvard) for the project, and it was ghost-written by Myer Feldman who was influential in the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

Jews and the Whitey Bomb

The anti-White Jew Barbara Roche used the same lying and ludicrous propaganda when she claimed in 2000 that ““Britain has always been a nation of migrants.” The phrase “nation of migrants” has the same stupidity and illogic as “rope of sand” or “brick of water.” That is, it’s a complete contradiction in terms. The word “nation” itself comes from the Latin nasci, meaning “to be born.” In other words, a nation is a bond of blood, created by a distinct group that shares genetics, culture, and language. Immigration means the destruction of a nation, not its creation or consolidation. When Jews like Roche claim otherwise, they’re brazenly violating the White norm of respect for truth and objective reality. But Jews don’t respect White norms any more than Blacks or Travellers do. And with their much higher IQs and powers of organization, Jews are much more dangerous to White societies than imported minorities. Brazen rapists in Bournemouth and stabby schoolboys in Croydon are the footsoldiers of the immivasion. Jews are the generals and military theorists who have organized and directed the war on the White West.