Featured Articles

Roche’s Revenge: How Jews See Muslims as “Natural Allies” in their War on Whites

/30 Comments/in /by

“Two Jews, three opinions.” It’s a very common saying, but it’s also a very dishonest one. Jews and their gentile allies use it to suggest that Jews are on all sides of every political argument, so they don’t have a decisive influence one way or another. But on some matters there’s an overwhelming consensus among Jews and it’s decisive in shaping important policies. For example, back in 2004 the Jewish intellectual David Aaronovitch, a fixture of the British commentariat, was musing in the Guardian on “The Joy of Diversity.” He first ludicrously claimed that a vapid “respect for diversity” can “bind” completely different groups “together,” then went on to bash those Whites who don’t accept nonsense like that:

Respecting diversity can almost be a value in itself, one which binds together the girl from Hunan who served me with coffee in Starbucks yesterday and the assortment of quiet, paper-reading ethnicities who shared my tube carriage on Friday. It is the BNP [British National Party] supporter in Burnley who seems like an exotic, incomprehensible stranger to me. (The Joy of Diversity, The Guardian, 29th February 2004)

Burnley is a town in Lancashire where large numbers of Pakistani Muslims have settled against the wishes of the native White inhabitants. Those Whites turned to the British National Party, the only party prepared to stand up for them rather than demonize them and dismiss their concerns as racist and Islamophobic. David Aaronovitch is supposedly British, but he claims that British Whites who stand up for their own interests are “exotic, incomprehensible strangers.”

The “ex-communist” David Aaronovitch

He’s lying even as he says that. He doesn’t find White BNP-supporters “incomprehensible.” He understands their behaviour perfectly and finds it threatening, which is why he inverts the truth and labels those Whites “exotic.” He’s trying to pathologize entirely normal people who are behaving in an entirely natural way. In other words, he’s promoting a culture of critique identified by Kevin MacDonald as central to Jewish politics.

And part of that culture of critique has been to promote immigration and ethnic diversity from all the countries of the world into the West, typically clothed in high-flown moralisms (that they don’t apply to Israel). There is no Jewish organization of any stature that opposes this process. All of the financial, political, and media power of the Jewish community is pushing in one direction only: the replacement of Western populations. Millions of Jews and, in effect, one opinion.
Read more

Lying about Judeo-Bolshevism

/64 Comments/in , /by

A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism
Paul Hanebrink
Harvard University Press, 2018.

The writing and discussion of Jewish historiography in contemporary mainstream academia requires a sublime choreography. It’s basically a series of evasions resembling dances, in which facts are presented and parried, and flamboyant narratives are advanced which everyone knows to be false but which emerge repetitively and shamelessly. My attention was first drawn to Paul Hanebrink’s A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism by Christopher Browning’s recent glowing review, titled “The Fake Threat of Jewish Communism,” in the New York Review of Books. Browning is an establishment historian with a record of legally assisting Jews — for the right price. As well as receiving over $30,000 from Deborah Lipstadt to testify against David Irving, Browning has testified against a significant number of European ex-soldiers at war crimes trials. Although his most notable work, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (1992), contains the less than remarkable thesis that war turns ordinary men into killers, Browning’s dedication to the Jewish narrative has led to his becoming a true guru of Jewish victimology. Having received awards and funds from organizations including Yad Vashem and the USC Shoah Foundation Center and copious promotion in mainstream media and academia, Browning’s certificate of praise in the field is potentially career-making. Evidently, he has chosen to bestow his magic touch on Paul Hanebrink. In this essay I want to explore the approach of both Browning’s review and Hanebrink’s text as exercises in the manufacture of duplicitous histories.

I had to look twice at Browning’s headline. My first thought was: “Really? You really want to take this subject matter on? You really think you can ‘debunk’ the facticity of Jewish Communism?” Such an endeavor would unquestionably require abundant chutzpah, but it is clear from the very beginning of the review that this will be an effort of evasion rather than outright debate. As Browning states in the opening paragraph, “Hanebrink’s approach is not to repeat what he considers an error of the interwar era—the futile attempt to refute a myth on the basis of historical facts and statistical data.” Although this evasion is predictable, it’s quite remarkable to see a more or less open admission from two allegedly masterful historians that they don’t possess facts sufficient to dispel the very “myth” they set out to challenge. To describe any such presentation of facts as a “futile attempt” seems intellectually flaccid; a concession of the weakness of one’s case.

But what is really presented here, of course, is the standard structure of Jewish historiography: avoid the facts, downplay them if concession is absolutely necessary, and move the discussion into abstractions and sophistry. Taking a page from the ADL playbook, Browning mewls coyly that “a small kernel of truth underpinned the stereotype of the Jewish Bolshevik,” but insists, regarding Communism, that “the Jew as “the face of the revolution” was a “culturally constructed” perception.” We therefore arrive at the familiar position where facts don’t matter and everything Jews don’t like is triumphantly declared a mere construct. Read more

Jewish Attitudes toward Free Speech: What’s Good for the Jews

/16 Comments/in , /by

Amazon is no longer selling books linked to White nationalism by the thought police at Quartz. It’s obvious that in the EU and since the 2016 election in the US, there have been campaigns to destroy the media presence of the dissident right by deplatforming from financial sites like PayPal, limiting followers and shadow-banning on Twitter, etc. Even mainstream conservatives like Ann Coulter and Charles Murray have had talks at universities cancelled amidst violence and threats of violence The campaign against free speech is clearly heating up. Since Jewish issues are discussed on this site (who knows for how long!), I thought it appropriate to comment on the recent history of Jewish attitudes toward free speech.

There is a huge contrast between the stance of the organized Jewish community regarding free speech depending on whether it’s “good for the Jews.” During the 1950s, the organized Jewish community consistently opposed measures intended to make it more difficult for communists to operate within the American system even as it officially opposed communism. For example, Jewish organizations objected to any infringements of civil liberties or academic freedom enacted to firm up national security. Jews were also vastly overrepresented in high-profile cases among those invoking the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, so that public hearings like Sen. Joe McCarthy’s inevitably highlighted the Jewish role in communism. For example, in 1952, of 124 people questioned by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Weingarten identifies 79 Jews, 32 non-Jews and 13 with unknown ethnicity. All invoked the Fifth.

Even more remarkably, of the 42 people who were dismissed from their positions at the Fort Monmouth Laboratories in New Jersey on suspicion of constituting a spy ring (the same one that Julius Rosenberg belonged to), 39 were Jews and one other was married to a Jewish woman.

On the other hand, during the 1920s and 1930s mainstream Jewish organizations and Jewish intellectuals rationalized Soviet despotism and turned a blind eye to Soviet mass murder during a period when Jews were an elite within the Soviet Union. And in the present era, Jewish organizations, most notably the ADL, have been prime advocates of “hate crime” legislation aimed at penalizing beliefs and ideas. Jewish organizations have also attacked the academic freedom of professors who have been critical of Israel. The ADL has also been critical of my writing and, along with the $PLC, engaged in public denunciations of my writing and associations at the university where I work. In general, perceived interests are a much better predictor of Jewish behavior than principles.

During the 1950s, Jews were also deeply involved in creating a culture of the left that was  mainly concerned to protect communist  professors and other leftist dissidents targeted by McCarthyism. Inherit the Wind (by Jerome Lawrence Schwartz and Robert Edwin Lee) was written to oppose McCarthyism. Another famous example of anti-McCarthyism from the 1950s is Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities  Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials.

Although quite powerful, the culture  of  the left was not yet the dominant elite  that it has become since the 1960s; it had powerful enemies in McCarthy and his allies, and these forces had strong popular support. The rise of this new elite has coincided with the power of organizations like the Southern Poverty Law  Center and the ADL that  specialize in getting people fired for  thought crimes and care nothing  for  free speech. There is clearly an  ethnic aspect to this transformation. While there are endless tears (see here and here, pp. 39-40) for Hollywood screenwriters blacklisted during the anti-communist fervor of the 1950s and since promoted to cultural sainthood, don’t  expect our new elite to condemn witch hunts like the one that destroyed Jason Richwine. And don’t expect a hit Broadway play based on an allegory in which the SPLC is implicitly condemned for its persecution of race realists and White advocates.

Finland Questions

/10 Comments/in /by

I am giving a talk in Finland next month, and the organizer, Tuukka Kuru, asked me to answer some questions so that attendees would have a better idea of where I am coming from. They were translated into Finnish and posted here.

 *   *   *

Hello Mr.Macdonald! How would you describe yourself to the Finnish audience, most of them haven’t heard about your exciting life and career!

I am a retired psychology professor who became aware of the disaster unfolding for our people while doing research for my books particularly the chapter on immigration in The Culture of Critique (hereafter CofC). Since retirement, I have continued to write on all the issues facing our people. Right now I am finishing up a book on Western peoples, to be titled Western Individualism and the Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future.

2.) You have done years of research on Evolutionary Psychology and wrote several books about group behaviour and group evolutionary strategies. What is the meaning of “group evolutionary strategy”? Is there different kind of strategies for different kind of populations?

A group strategy is essentially a way of getting on the world in which group-level processes are important. These processes include: a.)  How are group boundaries policed? (E.g.: Who can be a group member? Is membership to be based on ethnicity or being a good citizen?); b.) What shall be policies toward ”cheaters”? (E.g., How are people who attempt to be part of the group without paying the costs of group membership, such as observing rules like paying taxes and marrying within the group, treated?) c.) How are group members expected to treat other group members and outsiders? d.) Who are acceptable marriage partners? (E.g., should group members be allowed to marry people from outside the group?)

There are a variety of different group strategies. I describe some of them in my work on Judaism and in Diaspora Peoples which describes the Puritans, Mennonites, Roma and Overseas Chinese. Each of these groups has a somewhat different strategy. For example, Roma have a very different group strategy than Jews or Overseas Chinese.

3.) The Culture of Critique (1998) made you famous person in international nationalist circles and even I have one copy of the book in my bookshelf! Many public figures, like Patrick Little and Mike Enoch, have stated that the book was the turning point in their political life and many anti-racist organizations have labeled it as intellectual basis of modern anti-Semitism. What is Culture of Critique and why it has made such a impact around the world? 

CofC describes various influential intellectual movements centered around ethnically conscious Jews who were attempting to change the culture of the West to serve specific Jewish interests. Several specifically Jewish interests were involved: ending anti-Jewish attitudes, promoting and legitimizing immigration to the West from all the peoples of the world in the belief it would make Jews safer, pathologizing national identities among White people based on race or ethnicity, and de-legitimizing the interests of the traditional peoples of the West in maintaining their cultural and demographic dominance.

I don’t like to call my work ”anti-Semitic.” It attempts to portray Jewish groups and Jewish activism as accurately as possible and to describe the real conflicts of interest between Jews and the peoples of the West. Perhaps ”Judeo-critical” would be better. Read more

Justice for Jussie: Hate-Hoaxes and the Ideological Sickness of the Modern West

/29 Comments/in /by

If you want to understand the hate-hoax perpetrated by the gay “Black-Jewish actor” Jussie Smollett one freezing Chicago night in late January 2019, it helps to go back to a book published twelve years before and thousands of miles away in Britain:

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s [then] chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive. A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)

Let’s have Rabbi Sacks’ hate-think again: “The [poisonous culture of victimhood] began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays.” Jussie Smollett literally embodies three of those groups. He’s the embodiment of an intersectional dream — gay, Black and Jewish. His mother is “African-American” and his father was from a family of Russian and Polish Jews. No wonder Smollett smouldered to be seen as a victim of “pain, injury, oppression, [and] humiliation.” But because no White Trump-supporter was willing to supply him with those valuable commodities for free, he had to manufacture them for himself with the aid of two Nigerian bodybuilders.

The least likely White Supremacists on the planet

But I must admit that the sudden and spectacular collapse of Smollett’s hate-hoax took me by surprise. Like everyone with an even vaguely functional bullshit-detector, I never believed his story. He’s famous among liberals, not among Trump-supporters. What were the odds that two homophobic and racist MAGA-fans, ready-equipped with rope and bleach, would encounter and recognize him as they roamed the streets on the coldest night of the year in one of the most liberal cities in America? No, I didn’t believe a word of it. But I was worried that the Chicago police would never find proof that his story was as false as Chuck Schumer’s smile. Well, the police have found abundant proof, and of the most hilarious kind. The buff Black brothers Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo are perhaps the least likely White supremacists on the planet.

B.B. Kings: Buff Blacks Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo

The Osundairo brothers are as Black as they come. And so they’re unlike Smollett himself, whose relatively light skin and homosexuality may have helped shape his anti-White and anti-Trump psychology. Identity politics is, in part, uncertainty-about-identity politics, because it’s often driven by the desire of marginal people to prove that they really belong to some sacred racial minority. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, the leaders of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement are disproportionately gay. Large numbers of Blacks reject homosexuality as weak, effeminate and White-acting, so some gay Blacks feel the need to assert their Blackness as unmistakably as possible. What better way than to identify with and campaign for hyper-Black street-thugs like Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown? Accordingly, BLM is at least as much a reaction to genuine Black homophobia as it is to alleged White racism. Read more

Chilean President Sebastián Piñera Battles the Rising Tide of Color

/11 Comments/in /by

Back in July of 2017, VDARE.com’s mainstay John Derbyshire noted that along with the rest of the white world, the small whitish Latin American nation of Chile is having its own troubles regarding our planet’s “rising tide of color.” Quoting from a recent piece put out by the Migration Policy Institute, he summarized:

International migration to the predominantly European-descent Chile has also grown racially diverse, as the origins have shifted. Chile received growing numbers of Peruvians and Bolivians starting in the 1990s, and Haitians, Colombians, and Venezuelans in the 2000s and 2010s, while the share of Argentines and Europeans has fallen. This diversification in general, and the influx of tens of thousands of African-descent Haitians in particular, has made immigration more visible as an issue and has provoked public backlash … [Amid Record Numbers of Arrivals, Chile Turns Rightward on Immigration, By Cristián Doña Reveco, January 17, 2018]

From the data available across a wide array of sources, I have put together the below table showing the number of foreign-born Chileans by country over the years—keep in mind that Chile’s total population today is estimated at around 17.5 million.

1960 1982 1990 1992 2002 2012 2013 2015 2016 2017
Peruvians 3,583 4,308 ~ 7,649 37,860 103,624 117,925 130,361 266,244
Bolivians ~ ~ 7,277 ~ 10,919 25,121 33,623 37,554 122,773
Colombians 645 1,069 ~ 1,666 4,095 27,411 48,894 63,481 145,139
Haitians ~ ~ ~ ~ 50 2,428 ~ 48,783 112,414
Argentines 11,876 19,733 34,415 48,176 57,019 53,192 55,185 87,926
Ecuadorians 9,393 16,357 39,556

Other smaller, but not insignificant foreign national populations, as of 2017, include: Spanish (26,177), Brazilian (20,707), American (19,900), Chinese (17,021), and Dominican (9,270). The total number of foreign nationals for 2017 not listed in this paragraph or the chart above was a whopping 117,750. Read more

There is no morality to accepting extinction

/42 Comments/in , /by

They lie.

They lie when they speak in glowing terms of the “enrichment” created for us by America’s burgeoning “diversity.”

In reality, a vast and inexorable destruction is spreading across America, and it is the entirely unnecessary and entirely deliberate dissolution of what we once revered as our nation and culture.  Americans had a people to which they belonged, and a cultural identity as distinct as that of any other society on earth.  Only the willfully blind can fail to see that both of those things are now vanishing quickly and forever.

It is a tribute to the gullibility of human beings, our acceptance of the lie that our dispossession “enriches” us, even as the waves of people displacing us reach deeper and deeper into our public coffers and polling booths.  It is a tribute to our ignorance, that we sit unblinking when our leaders tell us America has always been an experiment in multiculturalism, and the evolving New Babylon is rooted in our historical experience.

At its founding, America was 80 percent European, and undeniably Christian, Western, and European in its character.  For 200 years that identity was promoted by our immigration laws, and those laws in time fostered a nation 90 percent European.  It was indeed no perfect experiment, and there were definite fault lines involving race or ethnicity, but we knew who we were and with God’s help and great sacrifice we created the most magnificent civilization in human history.

Now, in the course of a single lifetime, our identity will be extinguished.  With the gutting of our immigration laws in 1965, in the course of a single 70-year average life span, by the year 2035 or thereabouts we will have gone from a nation ninety percent white to one in which Europeans are but one of many minorities, floating in a polyglot sea of people drawn from every corner of the globe.

In the fevered minds of the Cultural Marxists and the stupid, we will be a happy picture of coexistence and cooperation to which the rest of the world can aspire.  Such folks currently argue that the rights of the individual will still take precedence over group rights.  They insist our standard of living will remain intact or actually improve, as the numbers of consumers and producers expand.  They reassure us our principles of government will protect everyone, and those, along with the English language, will be the glue that will bind our society together.  This future, they would have us believe, is our natural and inevitable destiny as a nation, a destiny we can embrace without further examination or fear.

Those are the biggest lies of all. Read more