Featured Articles

Making “America as user-friendly to Jews as possible.” The Anti-Defamation League and the Indoctrination of our Youth.

/5 Comments/in , /by

I’ve recently been occupying my spare time with careful study of the ADL’s “Anti-Bias Lesson Plans and Resources for K-12 Educators.” On the ADL’s website, it is said that these lesson plans, which target children in grades three through twelve, have been designed to help “educators” “integrate multicultural, anti-bias, and social justice themes into their curricula.”

In reality, it doesn’t take long for the informed individual reading through these lesson plans to conclude that they are little more than crude tools designed to strip White children of any sense of identity, rendering them little more than androgynous automatons — pliant prototypes of the ‘tolerant age,’ utterly devoid of race and gender.

There is a range of delicious fare on offer for those teachers with an appetite for ensuring that little boys and girls understand the concept of “gender stereotyping,” and who believe that little Mikey should be actively encouraged to play with dolls and a stroller since, as one ADL anti-bias handbook puts it, “there really is no such thing as a girl’s toy or a boy’s toy.”

More interesting still are the numerous lesson plans on offer which claim to “address anti-Semitism,” bearing tag-lines boldly proclaiming that these educational gems will challenge anti-Semitism by “debunking the myths and responding with facts.”

It is to an example from the latter set of these lessons plans that I wish to devote some attention in the following article. In studying these plans, we may well come to learn something — though that “something” will be considerably different from that envisaged by our erstwhile tutors. Read more

Stanley Fischer: A Dual U.S./Israeli Citizen and Pro-Israel Activist as Vice-Chair of the Fed

/6 Comments/in , , /by

fische1Grant Smith, writing at Antiwar.com provides an enlightening account of the nomination of Stanley Fischer as Vice-Chair of the Federal Reserve (“AIPAC’s Fed Candidate Stanley Fischer on a Warpath against Iran: Dual-citizen nominee’s lifetime benefit to Israel comes at a heavy cost to America“). When I first read that Fischer was a possibility, my only thought was something like “Can’t we find anyone who’s not Jewish to fill a post like that?” After all, the Chair of Federal Reserve has been Jewish since 1987, Janet Yellen, the present vice-chair, will likely be the next chair, and Yellen’s predecessor was Donald L. Kohn.

And one would think that appointing an Israeli citizen —and a high-level one at that (former head of the Israeli Central Bank and likely on a first-name basis with everyone who matters in Israel) — would raise all kinds of red flags about old-fashioned issues like dual loyalty.

But there is much more to the story. Fischer, it turns out, will be AIPAC”s man at the Fed.  Smith notes that

as Bank of Israel governor, Stanley Fischer played a central role in coordinating the implementation of AIPAC-generated sanctions against Iran—ostensibly over its nuclear program.  Stuart Levey, the head of the U.S. Treasury Department’s division for “Terrorism and Financial Intelligence,” an office created after heavy AIPAC lobbying, met often with Fischer in Israel alongside the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and chiefs of both the Mossad and Shin Bet to explore how to “supplement” UN sanctions and end-run Russian and Chinese opposition.[v]  The Levey-Fischer strategy was “to work outside the context of the Security Council to engage the private sector and let it know about the risks of doing business with Tehran” particularly against European banks that had only partially drawn back their business dealings with Iran.  In 2010, Israel dispatched Fischer to meet with Chinese and Russian “counterparts” in order to financially isolate Iran.[vi]

Smith’s phrase “ostensibly over its nuclear program” is beautifully suggestive. The fact is that Israel has many reasons to want a destructive war with Iran besides the putative nuclear weapons program—its support of Hezbollah, its alliance with Syria, its hostility toward Israel, and simply the fact that it is an energy-rich, technologically sophisticated neighbor with a population of around 75 million and regional ambitions. Israel would love to crush a rising rival power in the region before it becomes too difficult. Read more

Freedom of Association and the Right of Exclusion: The Rights Before All Others, Part 3

/in /by

Part 1
Part 2

The Legal Landscape

American law deals frequently and expansively with the topic of race[1]. The Constitution itself has three amendments that implicate race.  The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery, though it does not explicitly mention race.  The 14th Amendment requires governments to give citizens the “equal protection of the laws.”  It also does not mention race, but it plainly forbids many imagined government treatments of race — say, a state law prohibiting Asians from owning property or setting different punishments for different races for the same criminal act.  The 15th Amendment forbids both federal and state (and by extension, local) governments from prohibiting anyone from voting for racial reasons (“race, color, or previous condition of servitude”).  The Voting Rights Act, absurdly applied though it is, is a good example of racial legislation based on the 15th Amendment.

Brown v. Board[2], because public school segregation was at issue, is a good example of a case decided under the 14th Amendment.  The “separate but equal” defense, it should be noted, was perfectly Constitutional, but the true inequality between Blacks and Whites was exposed:  an all-Black school, by virtue of lower Black IQ and behavioral differences, was bound to be a shabbier environment, and it was imagined that the by the alchemy of shoulder-rubbing with White students, Blacks would by osmosis become smart, well-behaved little versions of Whites.

The 14th Amendment, however, has a “state action” requirement:  the racial discrimination must be accomplished by the government for it to be illegal.  In the Supreme Court case of Shelley v. Kraemer[3], the court managed to wrangle in the “state action” requirement by declaring that two private parties, battling over a racially exclusive covenant in the sale of a home, had created state action by merely seeking enforcement of that right in a state court.  A decision like this shows the depths to which courts will sink to defeat a White right of association. Read more

Freedom of Association and the Right of Exclusion: The Rights Before All Others, Part 2

/in /by

Begin at Part 1.

Homogenous Societies Are Healthy Societies:  Why We Need a Right of Association

It is time to affirm a White right of association.  To begin with, Whites simply desire it.  From decisions on which neighborhood to live in, whom to date and marry, and where to worship, Whites choose the company of other Whites.  The desire is typically characterized as narrow-minded, but has deep roots in biology and evolution.  Whites, like all other races, stewed in their own genetic juices for thousands of years before the present era.[1]  They were bred for togetherness, and their general pull toward it is healthy.  I do not exclude from this vision international trade, cultural exchange, and frequent travel — in fact, I mark all these as healthy and necessary for White people.

But for everyday living, homogeneity should be the default.  Said Wilmot Robertson in The Ethnostate:  “Individual and group identity can be viewed as the backbone of the human psyche, an unbent vertebra of pride, behavior and character. … The ethnostate is designed to fulfill the equally important need of all men and women for a community, for a collective home.”[2]

For Whites, it is actually physically healthier.  In 2004, Dan Buettner became interested in the topic of longevity.  He teamed with National Geographic to find the places on Earth where human beings lived the longest, and identified several he referred to as “blue zones”[3].  Loma Linda, California (home of a community of Seventh-Day Adventists), Okinawa, Japan, and Sardinia, Italy were places where people regularly lived to be 100.

The zones had characteristic behaviors:  physically, the people “moved naturally” — i.e., gardening instead of pumping iron, walking instead of running marathons.  Their diets were more plant-based than meat-based.  They didn’t eat to the point of being stuffed — the “80 percent full” rule.  They drank alcohol — wine is a good example – regularly but moderately. Read more

Freedom of Association and the Right of Exclusion: The Rights Before All Others, Part 1

/1 Comment/in /by

What follows is a 2005 exchange between Justice Stephen Breyer of the Supreme Court and Joshua Rosenkranz, an attorney arguing for the unconstitutionality of a law that denied federal funding to law schools that barred military recruiters from campus.[1]

Justice Breyer: — So, in fact, to be clear, you also think schools that are angry at the military because they’re too favorable to gays in the military, they have the same right.

Mr. Rosenkranz: Absolutely, Your–

Justice Breyer: Okay.

Mr. Rosenkranz: — Honor, because–

Justice Breyer: And also the same right Bob Jones University, because they disapprove of social mixing of the races?

Mr. Rosenkranz: — If… to answer the first hypothetical first, if that’s a matter of conscience, absolutely–

Justice Breyer: All right, so–

Mr. Rosenkranz: — if we’re talking–

Justice Breyer: — so, what… and there are a lot of people in the country, they may… there’s few, anyway… may not believe in either affirmative action, they may not believe in… they may not believe in diversity, they may not… they may even believe in racial segregation, for all I know.

I hope there are not too many…  I would like an answer to my question, because I’m thinking, as you correctly say, if you have that right, so do all the worst segregationists you can imagine, et cetera…

Rosenkranz lost his case.  His client, the law schools, opposed military recruiters on campus because of the military’s exclusion of gays.  In other words, they wanted to exclude the excluders.  The justices unanimously rejected the argument on grounds that if the law schools accepted federal money, they also had to accept Congressionally-set conditions – which were, in this case, that they had to allow military recruiters on campus (aka the Solomon Amendment). Read more

Four Woundings and a Funeral: Sometimes Folk Are Happy to be Hated

/1 Comment/in /by

Despite being Jewish, the journalist Matthew Yglesias has a Christian surname – it means “Churches” in Spanish. And he displayed a truly Christian spirit of forgiveness when he was assaulted by Blacks in Washington in 2011:

Matthew Yglesias

Victim of Vibrancy #1: Matthew Yglesias

But to be clear about something — insofar as there’s supposedly a “game” here where the contestant tries to knock someone out with one punch, that absolutely isn’t what happened. I was knocked down, but definitely not out, and then after that I got kicked a bunch of times. If you’re familiar with the phrase “don’t kick a man while he’s down,” take note — it really hurts quite a bit to be kicked while you’re down. In fact, this substantial deviation from the “rules” of the “game” is a lot of what made getting violently assaulted for no reason such a physically unpleasant experience. … People shouldn’t minimize these concerns about urban violence, but it accomplishes nothing in terms of tackling them to concoct weird trends and games out of thin air. (Yglesias: I wasn’t a victim of “Knockout Game” because I was only knocked down, not out, iSteve, 25th November 2013)

Nothing to see here. It was a random attack – there are no conclusions to be drawn. In 2008, the Jewish journalist Brian Beutler nearly died at the hands of Blacks in the same city. And guess what? Beutler displayed the same Christian spirit of forgiveness: Read more

Le lobby pro-israélien et la communauté juive organisée veulent un changement de régime en Syrie

/in , /by

Le lobby pro-israélien et la communauté juive organisée veulent un changement de régime en Syrie

1 Septembre 2013

Kevin MacDonald

Original version here

Le président Obama dit maintenant que son administration a décidé d’attaquer la Syrie mais qu’elle demandera l’approbation du Congrès avant de passer à l’action. La situation deviendrait alors très intéressante, si jamais le Congrès s’y oppose, comme cela semble bien possible.

L’idée qu’Obama puisse ordonner un acte de guerre contre la Syrie sans disposer d’un fort soutien international, ni d’un mandat du Congrès, a toujours laissé perplexe. Voilà donc notre président d’extrême gauche qui préconise une guerre de plus au Proche-Orient, après s’être opposé à la guerre en Irak quand il était sénateur. Ce même président, qui a des rapports glaciaux avec Benjamin Netanyahu, et qui a maintes fois déçu les exigences du Lobby pro-israélien.

Bien sûr, les arguments pour cette guerre sont formulés en termes de bien et de mal—comme pour toutes les guerres américaines, mais ce genre de justification moraliste existait aussi pendant la période menant à la guerre d’Irak. Dans le cas actuel, le point de vue des faucons est plus difficile à défendre du fait que les allégations concernant les armes de destruction massive se sont avérées fausses. N’oublions pas que ces allégations avaient été fabriquées par des agents pro-israéliens à l’identité juive très marquée. Ces agents étaient liés au Bureau des projets spéciaux du Ministère de la Défense, avec parmi eux, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Abraham Shulsky, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, Michael Ledeen, David Schencker, et Michael Rubin. Cela s’était fait en étroite coopération avec les services de renseignements israéliens (voir ici, p. 47 et suiv.).

Les suspects habituels, les néoconservateurs du Weekly Standard—y compris nombre de ceux-là mêmes qui ont fait campagne pour la guerre d’Irak— font maintenant pression pour une lourde intervention américaine en Syrie. Il est surréaliste de lire dans la déclaration de ces soi-disant “experts” que le président doit agir «pour s’assurer que les armes chimiques d’Assad ne menacent plus l’Amérique”. Cela rappelle l’Irak de Saddam Hussein, qui s’apprêtait à détruire les Etats-Unis avec ses armes de destruction massive. Comment Assad pourrait lancer ses armes chimiques sur l’Amérique est laissé à l’imagination de chacun.

Le soutien résolu des néoconservateurs à une action militaire en Syrie laisse penser qu’Israël est tout à fait favorable à une campagne américaine. Il n’est donc pas surprenant, comme pendant les jours précédant la guerre d’Irak, que les renseignements israéliens jouent un rôle de premier plan: “Les preuves du déploiement d’armes chimiques par le régime d’Assad – déploiement qui apporterait un fondement juridique essentiel pour justifier une action militaire occidentale – ont principalement été fournies par les renseignement militaires israéliens, selon le magazine allemand Focus” (voir ici). Cela comprend l’appel téléphonique intercepté, dont on a tant parlé, entre des officiers syriens qui discutaient de l’utilisation d’armes chimiques (Ibid.), ainsi que l’affirmation selon laquelle des armes chimiques ont été transportées jusqu’au site de l’attaque (voir ici). Read more