Featured Articles

The new immigration assault on White America: The hostile elite on steroids

/6 Comments/in , , , /by

In my research on the history of American immigration policy up to the watershed year of 1965, one thing that stood out was that the Jewish approach was that policy should not be tailored to meet the needs of the U.S. but to conform to the loftiest of moral principles—altruism by any other name. The testimony of  Simon H. Rifkind, who represented a very broad range of Jewish organizations in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill in 1951, says it all.

1. Immigration should come from all racial-ethnic groups:

We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. [This is an amazing statement given that the 1924 law restricting immigration and basically excluding Asians and favoring Northwest Europe was still in force.] Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.

2. The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very broad economic and political constraints: “The regulation [of immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability.” Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this very negatively.

3. Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported only to serve the present needs of the United States:

Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights—at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them,” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought.

Looking at immigration from the point of view of the immigrant is, of course, an invitation for altruism. Considering the poverty of so much of the world and the lucrative benefits available to immigrants (see below), taking the view of the immigrant means dramatically ramping up immigration at a cost to the White majority. Read more

Dawkins’ Demon: The True Faith of Liberal Atheists

/3 Comments/in , /by

Men and Miracles

Here are four highly important Western thinkers. Please pick the odd one out:

1. St Thomas Aquinas (theologian).
2. Charles Darwin (biologist).
3. Stephen Jay Gould (biologist).
4. Richard Dawkins (biologist).

The odd one out is of course No. 2, Charles Darwin, because he didn’t believe in miracles. By contrast, supernatural intervention in mindless nature is central to the thinking of the other three. For example, Aquinas believed that a single conception in Palestine about two thousand years ago involved a miraculous suspension of natural law. The militant atheist Richard Dawkins scornfully rejects the miracle of the Virgin Birth. So, less scornfully, did the bio-Marxist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002). Instead, their version of atheism mandates belief in a much bigger supernatural intervention involving billions of conceptions for thousands of years over most of the earth’s surface. By the standards of Dawkins and Gould, Christians like Aquinas are woefully lacking in metaphysical ambition.

This is because Dawkins, Gould and other liberal atheists believe in the Miracle of Human Equality: namely, that all human groups, despite their superficial physical differences, are equal in average cognitive ability – equal, in fact, on all psychological variables. In short, there is only one brain: the Human Brain. And all groups have an equal share in it. Okay, the actual physical brain of different groups varies in size and structure, but that doesn’t make any difference to brain function. Metaphysics trumps mere matter, for heaven’s sake. Or rather: not for heaven’s sake. Liberal atheists don’t believe in heaven, but they do believe that Black women are capable of the same high intellectual achievement as Chinese men. It’s true that no Black woman has ever won a Nobel Prize for Physics or made fundamental contributions to mathematics, but that’s because racism and sexism have held the soul-sisters back. How do we know that? Because the undoubted genetic differences between those two groups have no effect on the brain. That is the central dogma of Neuro-Miraculism, the super-scientific creed of liberal atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. Read more

The Jewish ethnic roots of Anglican Canon and left-wing media star Giles Fraser

/4 Comments/in /by

When it comes to shameless self-promotion few can hold a candle to the Church of England’s most high-profile progressive cleric, the Rev Dr Giles Fraser.

Seconds after staggering over the finishing line of the London Marathon the Anglican cleric was tweeting to the world that he had helped raise money for a theatre project in the slums of Ghana that would teach prostitutes to leave their pimps through the medium of dance role-play.

This achingly trendy cause, almost beyond parody, was par for the course for the Giles Fraser whose busy and lucrative career as Britain’s foremost left-wing media priest has made him the highest profile churchman in the country

It is hard to get away from the Rev Dr Fraser and his left-wing views in the British media these days. From his many pulpits in the Guardian, Evening Standard and ubiquitously across the BBC,  he preaches the gospel of political correctness in support of gay marriage, lesbian bishops, multiculturalism or bemoaning that some remaining London neighbourhoods are still too White.

While the scriptural content of his sermons is diluted to almost homeopathic levels, editors still love him for they know that when it comes to sticking to the narrative of of the left-liberal political consensus the Blessed Giles will always deliver. Read more

Jim Goad on “a specific minority Who Must Never Be Named Under Threat of Eternal Damnation”

/2 Comments/in , /by

Jim Goad has a noteworthy comment on TakiMag on the liberal Jews David Sirota and Tim Wise who took the opportunity presented by the Boston bombings to complain about “White privilege” while exempting themselves from any taint of Whiteness  (“Let’s Hope the Next Bomber is a Liberal Journalist“). (This was such low-hanging fruit that I couldn’t resist taking a shot myself.) Sirota’s column got a lot of attention by mainstream conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity, but of course they never mentioned that Sirota was a Jew and had therefore exempted himself from White guilt and White privilege because, after all, he is a member of minority persecuted by those evil Whites.

Goad hits all the right notes, particularly the hypocrisy of these anti-White crusaders. You have to read the whole thing, but I can’t resist quoting his comment on Tim Wise:

Wise kinda-sorta claims to be white in an apparent quest to score self-flagellation points, but not really, since he says his Jewish ancestors were only able to achieve success by slyly passing as white. So if I’m understanding him correctly, even though he insists he’s white and that white guilt is a real thing, don’t try and pin any of the bad stuff about whiteness on him, because he’s not really white. This, apparently, is how he’s able to feel justified in plotting the “destruction” of the “conservative old white people [who] have pretty much always been the bad guys” while he refers to Jews as “my people.”

Fuck me with a dreidel if that “destruction” line doesn’t sound somewhat genocidal, Uncle Tim. But what the hell do I know—I’m rendered deaf, dumb, and blind by “white privilege,” right?

Although the Boston bombings had nothing to do with whiteness, Wise immediately squirted his shopworn “white privilege” meme all over the blood and guts in Boston. Read more

Non-Jewish media owners: Hope for the future

/1 Comment/in /by

It’s clear that the biggest hurdle faced by White advocates is lack of access to the mainstream media. It’s no secret that media ownership is largely in the hands of Jews with all that that implies in terms of opposition to White interests and favoritism to Jewish causes such as Israel.

And it’s no secret that Jews are very good at using their financial power to advance their ethnic interests. One of the biggest problems for European-Americans is that wealthy non-Jews seem far more interested in funding the opera or getting their name on a building at the local university than in helping their people. A good example is the Chandler family who formerly owned the LATimes. They had no interest in the media, and the company is now controlled by Sam Zell, who is Jewish. The family remains wealthy but in general seems dedicated to finding fun and interesting ways to spend their time (one of them flies around the world to attend the opera; another is into building outsize model trains) rather than influencing the world.

However, I call attention to some glimmerings of possibility, none of which promise much in the short time, but are possibly quite important in the long term.

The NYTimes reports that the Koch brothers are interested in bidding on a group of high-profile newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Orlando Sentinel and The Hartford Courant. The Koch brothers are billionaires with a history of supporting libertarian causes (Wikipedia says that Charles is the 6th richest person in the world, with a fortune of $34 billion). Unfortunately, libertarianism as an ideology of radical individualism is a far cry from believing that it’s important to preserve the U.S. as a European culture with a European racial base. (This article unconvincingly claims the Koch brothers are anti-immigrant.)

The NYTimes article also mentions that two Jews, billionaire Eli Broad and Ronald Burkle, are also interested in bidding for the LATimes. They are well-known supporters of liberal causes and the Democratic Party, donating around $585,000 to Democrat causes in the last election cycle. Read more

Boston Bombing Aftermath: David Sirota and Ben Shapiro claim Jews are not part of White America

/7 Comments/in , /by

David Sirota’s  blog hoping that a White guy was responsible for the Boston terror has gotten quite a lot of mileage (“Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American”). The basic idea is that if it’s a Muslim, say, people might start thinking that increasing legal immigration by 50% and amnestying God knows how many illegals in a time of high unemployment—the Senate bill that insane Republicans think will bring them back to power—might not be a good idea. That’s because , if it’s a Muslim, people will start blaming whole groups of people and maybe not want to continue importing more of them.

Or maybe they’ll tend to just blame immigration itself. (See LATimes: “Boston suspects’ background threatens to derail immigration bill.”) The bombers appear to be ethnic Chechnyans and Muslim, although at this point it can’t be said exactly what their motives were. In any case, it’s pretty obvious that these immigrant bombers don’t have much love or respect for America.

So Sirota is right that people like him should hope that it was a White guy. But I rather doubt he would like the logic: It’s probably true that quite a few people would blame an entire group or even all immigrants for the actions of a few people. But that’s not really the issue. Even the least likely to stereotype would reasonably wonder why any of the group are here if even a small number are causing such death and destruction.  Even if a tiny percentage of immigrants of a certain sort turn out to be terrorists who wreak major havoc (VDARE has documented the immigrant mass murder syndrome), it’s still a very bad policy to bring them in, especially when the only reasons for doing so are to meet the political goal of the left in swamping the White majority and the Republican’s goal of destroying the labor market.

The same can be said about crime, low IQ, and high rates of welfare dependency and single parenting, although it would take more than a few bad apples to sway the argument on these issues. (High percentages of illegal immigrants [58% in Texas, 55% in California] are already on means-tested welfare; the new bill ensures that they will continue to do so, likely at much higher rates.) Of course, for the left and now the Republicans envisioning all those welfare recipients voting for Marco Rubio, no cost is too high in the drive to eclipse White America.

But it’s worth pondering the other side of the coin—that a White American bomber would not result in stereotyping Whites. Anti-White activist Tim Wise took the opportunity presented by the Boston bombings to claim that the fact that Whites do not suffer group stigma for such an act is yet another example of “White privilege”—a “privilege” enjoyed by any demographic majority. But of course that’s the real reason why Wise and Sirota are exercised: they hate the fact that there is still a White majority. (See here for TOO articles mentioning Tim Wise.) Read more

High-Voltage Hate: Hypocrisy on Free Speech in Britain

/1 Comment/in , /by

Enlightenment Values

If you’ve ever handled a slug, you’ll know that you have to wipe  your hands afterwards. It would be wrong to compare the British anti-fascist Denis MacShane with a slug – he’s not a hermaphrodite or a mollusc, after all – but contact with Denis has similar effects. You’ll have things to clean up afterwards. I wrote about this former Labour Member of Parliament in the article “Rotten in Rotherham”, where I noted two important but apparently contradictory facts:

1) He oversaw a parliamentary report into antisemitism that suggested it be made a criminal offence to read hate-inciting material on the internet.

2) He wrote a comradely review of You Can’t Read This Book, Nick Cohen’s book on free speech and claimed to stand with Voltaire and other “giants of the Enlightenment” for free speech and against censorship.

I concluded that he was lying about his solidarity with Voltaire. But there’s more to be said. MacShane wasn’t only lying: he was revealing either his complete ignorance or his impudent chutzpah. Here again is the suggestion in the MacShane-helmed Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (2006):

The former Home Office Minister Paul Goggins MP gave evidence of a model which could possibly be applied to racist material on the internet. In the case of child pornography it is now an offence to download images from the internet, and it may be possible to develop a similar law in regard to material which could incite racial or religious hatred. (Report, para. 186, pg. 37)

Here again is MacShane’s praise of Voltaire in his review of Nick Cohen’s You Can’t Read This Book (2012):

Surely there is no greater badge of honour than to stand with the giants of the 18th century, who insisted rationality should be given equal status to superstition. … The right of men (always men) dressed in long robes to censor words and thought is increasing, not diminishing. In the end, Cohen rightly argues, we have to assert the Enlightenment values of both Voltaire and Mill as they argued for free speech. (You Can’t Read This Book, The Observer, Sunday, 12th February, 2012) Read more