Featured Articles

Other People’s Money — The Film

/19 Comments/in , /by

“Indeed, from the very beginnings of the industry until the present, it is impossible to ignore the influence of Jews on the movie business or to overlook the importance of a Jewish consciousness in American films.”
—Lester D. Friedman

“The Jewish involvement in motion pictures is more than a success story; it is the basis of the disproportionate influence that Jews have had in shaping American popular culture.”
—Steven Silbiger

“The way Steven Spielberg sees the world has become the way the world is communicated back to us every day.”
—Stephen Schiff

(See Edmund Connelly, “Understanding Hollywood, Part I: Hollywood’s Jewish Identity”

First, the argument: Hollywood, which is and always has been controlled by Jews, uses the medium of film to mask the vast power Jews have over the finances of America — and much of the rest of the world. In particular, Hollywood makes every effort to whitewash the reality of massive Jewish malfeasance in matters financial. This has been one of my major themes on TOO. See, for example, here, here, here, and here.  As you will read, I have documented this pattern and will supplement it with an extensive treatment of the 1991 film Other People’s Money, which gave us a command performance by the diminutive Danny DeVito.

The timing of this film is critical, for it came after a decade of highly publicized Wall Street deals, many of questionable legality or blatant illegality. When we consider the sad spectacle of these scandals of the 1980s, what we find is that there is no doubt about the identity of the vast majority of culprits — at least for those with eyes to see it.

Two writers who had both the eyes to see it and the talent to write about it intelligently were Connie Bruck — who is Jewish — and James B. Stewart — who is not. (Intriguingly, the obituary of Stewart’s mother notes that her son James’ “spouse” is one Benjamin Weil, who is Jewish.) Read more

More Census Bureau Propaganda

/37 Comments/in /by

Here we go again. More politicised demographic predictions from the Census Bureau.  These projections are then hyped by the Brookings Institute, and then by a wide array of mainstream media, from the New York Times to the New Republic.  The take home message? White people need to give up the fight to govern themselves because Whites are in demographic decline and—depending on which news source you read—will be a minority by the year 2044 or 2050. As a result, there is no point for Whites in opposing immigration because the immigration we already have will soon make Whites a minority.

Our elites craft this take home message of despair to persuade White people to give up the fight against non-White immigration and any attempt to establish a natural elite that share our racial and cultural characteristics.  We are supposed to glance at the published colored charts, the bar graphs, and the highlighted bullet points that scream “Whites are finished” and then make our peace with reality.

One author in particular leads this charge. He is William H. Frey, a demographer and a senior fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program of Haim Saban‘s Brookings Institute. He uses the newly published “data” from the Census Bureau to beckon White people into an open coffin, lay down of our own volition and watch quietly as our elites shut the lid tight.

Acknowledging the inspiration and support of his wife, Olivia Golden, Frey triumphantly declares the end of the White era in his book, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Brookings Institution Press, 2014). He gleefully pronounces that aged White males will be banished from the halls of power. The new nation of Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and mixed-race peoples will dominate the political scene. And of course—unacknowledged—is the fact that the self-chosen will rule unchallenged over this diverse American ghetto as our national slumlords. Read more

Yes, the Media Has Blood on Its Hands

/32 Comments/in , /by

The New York Times has reacted with predictable umbrage to any suggestion that the media deluge on the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases had anything to do with the murder of the two policemen in Brooklyn.

Mr. [Bill] de Blasio and Police Commissioner William Bratton, who stood together on Monday afternoon, tried their best to respond to rage with reason.

Mr. Bratton had chosen his words poorly earlier in the day, in a morning TV interview, saying that “the targeting of these two police officers was a direct spinoff of this issue of these demonstrations.” He should have made clear that the only one responsible for the killings is the killer, Ismaaiyl Brinsley. Mr. Bratton’s 35,000 officers, in whom Mr. Lynch has been trying mightily to stoke a sense of grievance and victimhood, need to hear from him that this administration fully supports the police, and that gestures of contempt — like turning their backs on the mayor — are out of place. [my emphasis]

It’s a strange argument, especially coming from the certifiably left — that Mr. Brinsley acted in a complete vacuum, that his cultural surroundings played no role. It didn’t matter that there were protest marches chanting “What do we want? Dead cops!” (ignored by Al Sharpton). It didn’t matter that all the statements and actions by Obama, Holder, and de Blasio supported the protesters and blamed the police for the “climate of distrust” in Black communities.

In general, the left loves arguments that culture is important. They have no problem attributing the behavior of police officers killing Blacks, the performance of Black schoolchildren, Black criminality and every other pathology to a poisonous racism that pervades White society. Discussion of genetic influences are off limits, and unfortunately there are no cultural/environmental cures for low IQ. Black children are therefore not responsible for academic failure and we have to be understanding about the levels of criminality among Blacks.  Read more

Björn Söder, Swedish Jews, and Multiculturalism

/37 Comments/in , /by

Of all the accusations commonly leveled against a Jews as a group, perhaps the one they find most frightening is the accusation that they are disloyal, or aren’t ‘quite’ like the rest of us. Arguably, a large part of the Jewish evolutionary strategy consists of maintaining a pose, or pretence, to be fully in and of the nation and its people. In this context, accusations of disloyalty, or even gentle reminders that Jews have an unassimilated separate ‘identity,’ disturb the strategy in such a fundamental manner that the entire Jewish ‘game’ seems to be in jeopardy. Since the era of Jewish ‘emancipation,’ the pursuance and success of the strategy has been highly dependent on the rest of society granting Jews citizenship on equal terms, and failing to note that Jews have a different agenda and aren’t playing by the same rules. Jews therefore jealously censor discussion of their loyalty, citizenship, identity, and place within the nation.

Given these realities, I wasn’t surprised this week when Jewish leaders in Sweden got a little hot under the collar after Björn Söder, secretary of the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats (SD) and deputy speaker in Parliament, went on record with some fairly innocuous comments about citizenship and identity which, disturbingly for the Hebrews, happened to mention Jews.

In an interesting and frank newspaper interview published on Sunday, Söder is reported to have said:

I think that most people with Jewish origin who have become Swedes leave their Jewish identity behind. But if they don’t, it doesn’t have to be an issue. One must distinguish between citizenship and nationhood. They can still be Swedish citizens and live in Sweden. Sami and Jews have lived in Sweden for a long time.

Read more

The Big Day draws near

/22 Comments/in , /by

It’s that time of the year again. The big day is nearly upon us and every year it seems to come round earlier and drag on longer. It has all become so overblown. The original spirit seems to have been forgotten and it has become such a commercialised affair. Frankly I’m sick of it already — it’s all about the money these days.

Yes, Holocaust Memorial Day is nearly upon us again — 27 January in Britain — and the Prime Minister has kicked off proceedings seven weeks early with a visit to Auschwitz concentration camp.

It was a private visit — just him, his press corps, a huge security detail, TV crews, and about a dozen reporters and photographers. Of course Cameron would not be Cameron if there was not another agenda running, and it is more than likely that next year’s election was concentrating his mind.

It will be close-run, and the support of the organised Jewish political and financial community is necessary if he is to keep his job. The detail of how the Conservative Party (and Labour as well) is supported by Israeli money has been brilliantly dissected in a must-read article by Alastair Sloan in Middle East Monitor.

Despite Holocaust studies being part of the school curriculum and remembrance events occuring in, apparently, every town hall and municipal body, Cameron is still worried that his paymasters will think we are still not doing enough, so he has set up a commission to discuss the erection of a “permanent and fitting” memorial. This would be in addition to the other holocaust memorials and organisations across Britain. Read more

Learning from the EU Experiment (III): The Taboo of Intra-European Conflict

/32 Comments/in , /by

Identitare

I recently spoke with a staffer working for a mainstream Member of the European Parliament (MEP). We were discussing her boss’ hiring practices and I found that the young politician was willing to employ someone of just about any political background except someone who had worked with nationalist parties like the French National Front. I was indignant at first. What intellectual intolerance! What closed-mindedness! Harming someone’s career prospects purely out of political prejudice!

But after some reflection, I thought better of it: All societies have taboos which lead to social ostracism and censorship of wrongthinkers, as White Nationalists and European Identitarians in particular know too well. A good taboo achieves this through the spontaneous action and revulsion of society itself, not through official government persecution and censorship. My problem with the MEP wasn’t with his adherence to a taboo; indeed it showed he had some moral or ideological principle even though I might disagree with it, but rather that this particular taboo is undermining the future of European peoples. We’ve seen this taboo at work in the massive media reaction against Jean-Marie Le Pen when he reached the second round of the presidential elections in 2002 and in the European and international pressure against Austria when Jörg Haider joined the government in 2000. As a rule I strongly favor effective free speech, but perhaps we rather need to perform the inverse rather than try to eliminate this phenomenon of social ostracism (which is as old as human nature): That in all European and European-derived societies, any attacks on ethnic Europeans should be taboo leading to social ostracism.

Joseph Stalin once dismissed the head of the Catholic Church saying: “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?” The European Union and its institutions are in much the same position: Their authority and influence are primarily moral and institutional, the force of norms and of habit. Unlike the United States Federal Government, Eurocrats have no soldiers to enforce their authority at gunpoint upon recalcitrant states. Even the eurozone, where the European Central Bank’s (ECB) power to blackmail and even topple national governments is real, the EU’s power is premised on the refusal of national governments to print their own money. But the ECB, and anyone else for that matter, would be powerless to stop a government if it wished to do so. Read more

Beginning of an Italian Civil War against Immigration

/26 Comments/in , /by

For once we have riots that are not by anti-white black protesters — to whose violence Ferguson, among others, has accustomed us — but by indigenous Europeans defending their land against invaders.

In Rome, on the night of 10–11 November, a group of residents of the Tor Sapienza suburb living in public housing attempted to assault the local centre for refugees and asylum seekers incongruously named “Il sorriso” (The Smile), throwing stones and bottles and setting dumpsters on fire, amidst broken glass and screams of “We want to burn you”.

The reception centre houses over 40 youths — Gambians, Congolese, Ethiopians and other Africans, plus Afghans and Syrians — rescued from their boats crossing the Mediterranean.

The local residents have long been concerned about health and crime issues associated with Il sorriso and, after their complaints to the authorities went unheeded, they took matters into their own hands.

“The tension” said Tommaso Ippoliti, president of the Tor Sapienza Committee, “is skyrocketing. For years this neighbourhood has been abandoned, you cannot go out at night, and lately assaults and thefts have increased. A few days ago a girl walking her dog was molested in the park in mid-afternoon. As a committee we distance ourselves from the violence of last night, but people are rightly exasperated. We demand more security.”

“Police are scarce and the city has not responded to requests for more security and better controls of the migrant centres,” he added. Read more