Featured Articles

Learning from the EU Experiment (II): Intra-European Diversity Is Also a Challenge

/14 Comments/in , /by

There is a tendency, particularly but not only, among North American White advocates to downplay the ethno-national, linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe. Richard Spencer has argued that “the Herman Van Rompuys of the world can become our useful idiots in building the infrastructure for a racial and civilizational Superstate on the European continent.” Some European nationalists, such as French New Right writer Guillaume Faye, have argued the same point.

The idea of nationalists hijacking the European Union is an interesting one. But one lesson of the EU experience is that intra-European diversity often poses many of the same problems as inter-continental diversity. Pan-European activists, so quick to see the problems of multiracial and Muslim/Christian diversity, should not forget intra-European diversity — whether linguistic, religious, regional or of any cultural or ethnic type — typically poses similar problems within a given polity.

The EU, with 500 million citizens from 28 countries speaking 24 languages, provides many examples of how this diversity, a wonderful thing and a major source of European civilization’s historic greatness, can become a problem when you try to jam different peoples into the same regime. Many of the Union’s problems today stem from its multiethnic character: Germans, French, Britons, Greeks, etc., do not identify with one another, have different levels of performance (thus increasing inequality), are not willing to share economic burdens (thus reducing the means to fight inequality), are not willing to submit to the laws of a “foreign” European majority. Cultural-linguistic differences mean mutual comprehension is often lacking, and decision-making and even aesthetics are ruined by the need to cater to each ethnic group’s particular tribal sensitivities. The result is that the EU, like other multiethnic regimes, is dysfunctional, sclerotic and culturally barren.

The solution, as Raymond Aron argued, is the ethnically-cohesive Nation-State, in which the brutality of the State and factionalism within the Nation are softened or even sublimated through spontaneous identification, solidarity and cohesion both within the people and between the people and the ruling elite. Read more

Reflections on Jews, “Anti-Semitism” and Free Speech

/5 Comments/in , , /by

“He will appear in our national discussions, not only giving advice, but attempting to direct policy, and will be puzzled to discover that his indifference to national feeling is annoying.”
Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, 1922.

I recently charted the history of Jewish efforts to restrict free speech in Britain, and noted common themes and practices in how they have achieved advances in this sphere. I think that it would be a worthwhile endeavor to elaborate upon the manner in which these measures are affecting Whites in the present, as well as highlighting the fact that Jewish efforts to restrict free speech are ongoing.

The Forward reports that, in late October, European rabbis called on governments throughout the continent to pass laws targeting speech against Jews. The move took the form of a resolution passed by the standing committee of the Conference of European Rabbis (CER), which convened in Tbilisi, Georgia. Pinchas Goldschmidt, CER President, told journalists that the CER demanded that “additional countries follow the example set by France and Germany, and devise legislation that targets hate speech against Jews specifically. … It is something that few countries have but is necessary in light of the rise in anti-Semitic violence and hate speech, as we have witnessed this summer.”

Goldschmidt’s comments clearly reflect ongoing Jewish anxieties at the strength of anger against Israel in Western Europe — anger provoked by Israeli atrocities in Gaza. In my previous article, I noted that Jewish activity to restrict free speech is closely linked to specifically Jewish concerns. Thus, while Jewish politicians and activists are often keen to point to the supposedly broader applications and benefits of the legislation they propose (the pretence to “universalism,” and to be against all forms of “racism”), Jewish activity in this sphere is very closely linked to periods in which Jews, and only Jews, feel threatened. Read more

Jews, Multiculturalism, and the War on Free Speech: A TOO Case File

/28 Comments/in , , /by

One of the most important functions that TOO has played in recent years has been to catalogue Jewish efforts to promote multiculturalism and muzzle with extremely repressive legal measures any speech critical of multiculturalism and the Jewish role in relentlessly pushing it. At the beginning of this year, Brenton Sanderson offered stunning further insight into the Jewish war on White Australia, remarking that “in addition to opening the floodgates to mass non-White immigration, a key part of this Jewish campaign to radically reengineer Australian society in their own interests has been to shut down speech critical of this immigration and multiculturalism — and particularly of the role of Jews in foisting these disastrous policies on a resentful White Australian population.”

Sanderson indicated the primary methods by which organized Jewry developed and employed their influence on both fronts, for example, through the formation of “think-tanks” and the dissemination of “reports,” which were then carried into government. The influence of unelected Jews in this process is not only breath-taking in scope, but also exposes the fiction that we live in democratic societies. For example, Sanderson noted that

under the chairmanship (and behind the scenes influence) of the Jewish activist Walter Lippmann, the influential Committee on Community Relations delivered a report to the Australian Parliament in 1975 which placed “multiculturalism” at the heart of Australian government policy. It recommended that Australian social policy be formulated on the basis of four key elements. One of these recommendations, as summarised by the Jewish academic Andrew Markus, was that: “legislation was required to outlaw racial discrimination and uphold and promote rights through the establishment of a human rights commission. In response to this and the Committee’s other recommendations, which were essentially Lippmann’s recommendations, “multiculturalism” was adopted as official government policy in Australia in the 1970s, and extended under the Fraser [1975–1983] and Hawke governments [1983-1991] in the 1980s. Thus, in order to achieve the goals of multiculturalism, Jewish activists were determined from the beginning to bar and punish any speech that was critical of non-White immigration and multiculturalism. The new politically correct speech code was soon enforced by the weight of law with the enactment of racial and religious vilification laws that criminalized dissenting speech.

At the outset of my series of essays on the Jewish effort to raise Spinoza to almost cosmic importance in the intellectual history of the West, I indicated the importance of acknowledging patterns, trends and commonalities in how Jews, as a group, approach a given task. In the case of Spinoza, I linked Jewish efforts to exaggerate his legacy with broader Jewish efforts to perpetuate the notion of ‘Jewish genius.’ I took extra care to point to the precise processes, stages and methods involved. Read more

Bad News Propaganda: And then some Good News

/33 Comments/in , /by

Bad news is dangerous to one’s health, and even worse for one’s politics. Our Jewish elites spin propaganda that minimizes damage to their own in-group cohesion while simultaneously pumping out a steady stream of pessimistic demographic “news” to the White majority in the United States.

Demographic prediction is particularly useful for propaganda.  It is either an elixir of hope that energizes a base population into effective action, or a poison that kills hope and drains life and motivation from individuals.

Our elites deploy demographic bad news to persuade Whites that the contest for power is over: to lay down our arms, remain silent and acquiesce to their removal from the professions, from leading intuitions: from remunerative jobs and from national culture.  Increasingly Whites are told through a myriad of channels: obey or pay the consequences.

Never mind that the Ashkenazi birthrate is well below replacement, or that only the Orthodox among Jews have a high birthrate — indeed that the Jewish Orthodox appear to sport a significantly lower IQ and are not likely to sustain Jewish elite dominance. The frenzy of concern about Jewish demographic decline (and the angst over Orthodox dominance) suddenly ceased in Jewish publications across the board in the early 2000s. It would appear that bad news about Jewish demographic decline is Bad for the Jews.

Meanwhile many Whites in the United States have absorbed the toxic pessimism of demographic decline so intricately constructed by our elites.  It is easy to understand why.  First, the “news” we get is pre-selected, pre-digested, and vomited up daily for our consumption in news sites, movies, newspapers and blared from speakers in grocery stores, gas stations and coffee shops.  Second, many White nationalists use demographic data to shock our fellow Whites into action, by pointing out the litany of atrocities committed against us on a daily basis.  Who among us are not shocked at the blasphemy of aliens overrunning our sacred temples, deforming out institutions of higher learning, and degrading our national symbols?  Obviously we must speak out.

But predicting the imminent demise of our people in order to “wake up” our base is a mistake. Read more

I agree with Adelson: Democracy is not a Jewish value (or a reality in the U.S.)

/18 Comments/in , /by

The meeting of Jewish oligarchs Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson at the Israeli-American Council has attracted considerable comment. Obviously, it’s another illustration of the power of a minuscule number of very wealthy individuals to influence the political process. And since Adelson is partial to Republicans to the tune of $150 million in the last election (more to come) while Saban donates to the Democrats (substantially less [after all, he’s only worth 3.4 billion], but certainly not to be ignored), both parties are quite prone to doing their bidding. The Israel Lobby is nothing if not bi-partisan.

As Justin Raimondo noted, “Oh, it was quite a party, as the two philanthropists did their best to conform to every caricature out of the anti-Semites’ playbook” (“Oligarchs for Israel“).

(Isn’t it amazing that if one listens to activists on the left, such as MoveOn.org [originally funded by Jewish megadonors of the left, George Soros, Peter B. Lewis, and Linda Pritzker], one would think that the only wealthy individuals involved in U.S. politics are the safely non-Jewish Koch brothers?)

In the paranoid world of pro-Israel fanatics, even the New York Times and Washington Post are insufficiently pro-Israel. Scott McConnell in The American Conservative:

The two naturally agreed that the American media was terribly biased against Israel, except for maybe Fox News, and they discussed whether they could buy the Washington Post or New York Times to correct the problem. This aspect of the performance was comic, the lament, commonplace enough among neoconservatives, that the American press is biased against Israel. Consider that the Washington Post runs (the Wall Street Journal aside), the most neoconservative major editorial page in the country, and it’s been a long time since someone that one can even conceive of being slightly sympathetic to those subjected to Israeli occupation (perhaps the late Mary McGrory?) has written there. TheTimes is more diverse and makes occasionally sincere efforts at both balance and objective journalism, but if one looks at the roster of Times-men who regularly cover Israel, one could conclude that having a child serving in the IDF is a job requirement.

Sheldon and Haim then amused themselves and their audience by talking about taking over the Times and Washington Post.

Read more

“The Wolf of Wall Street” — the Book

/32 Comments/in , , /by

How many times have you heard about financial crimes and frauds perpetrated by people who happen to be Jewish? How many times have you heard about the association of Jews and Wall Street? For most TOO readers, these themes should be amply familiar.

Now let’s consider yet another instance of the above. Just before the economic meltdown of 2008, an important book about Wall Street appeared and became a bestseller. It was stockbroker Jordan Belfort’s first book about his crimes called The Wolf of Wall Street and was published in 2007 by major publisher Bantam Dell, a division of Random House.

Let’s allow an official overview to set up the tale:

By day he made thousands of dollars a minute. By night he spent it as fast as he could, on drugs, sex, and international globe-trotting. From the binge that sank a 170 foot motor yacht, crashed a Gulfstream jet, and ran up a $700,000 hotel tab, to the wife and kids who waited for him at home and the fast-talking, hard-partying young stockbrokers who called him king and did his bidding, here, in his own inimitable words, is the story of the ill-fated genius they called … “Wolf of Wall Street.” In the 1990s Jordan Belfort, former kingpin of the notorious investment firm Stratton Oakmont, became one of the most infamous names in American finance: a brilliant, conniving stock-chopper who led his merry mob on a wild ride out of the canyons of Wall Street and into a massive office on Long Island. Now, in this tell-all autobiography, Belfort narrates a story of greed, power, and excess no one could invent — the extraordinary story of an ordinary guy who went from hustling Italian ices at sixteen to making hundreds of millions. Until it all came crashing down.

Refreshingly, throughout the book Belfort openly and explicitly notes his marked Jewish identity and that of all of his close co-conspirators. It amounts to a fascinating look at the inner workings of a corrupt Jewish financial organization — and Belfort succeeds magnificently in narrating the rollicking affair. No wonder one newspaper called it “A cross between Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities and Scorsese’s GoodFellas. The comparison to Wolfe is apt, but rather than Scorsese’s GoodFellas, Belfort’s tale should be compared to Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas because it shares the same non-stop extreme adventure and use of mind-altering drugs. Read more

Race and the 2014 election

/37 Comments/in , , /by

Race again loomed large in the 2014 elections. The CNN exit polls showed that Whites of all age groups, both sexes, and all social classes voted Republican. White males: 64%-33%: White women: 56%-42% (likely much higher for married White women if past trends held); Whites 18–29: 54-43%. Whites without a college education voted 61–31 for Republican House candidates. (These are underestimates because voters counted as White include groups, such as Jews and Middle Easterners, who neither identify or vote like Whites.)

As Thomas Edsall notes,

It has not escaped the notice of political analysts that 72 percent of whites without college degrees — a rough proxy for what we used to call the white working class — believe that “the U.S. economic system generally favors the wealthy.” Or that on Nov. 4, these same men and women voted for Republican House candidates by a 61-31 margin.

Similarly, the overwhelmingly white electorates of Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota voted decisively in referendums to raise the minimum wage while simultaneously voting for Republicans, whose party has adamantly rejected legislation to raise the minimum wage. (“The Demise of the White Democratic Voter”)

Whites are deserting the Democratic Party, but that doesn’t mean they advocate plutocratic policies traditionally associated with Republicans. They are voting Republican even though Democrats are generally seen as the party of the non-wealthy and are far more likely to advocate policies like minimum wage hikes.

And Obamacare. The problem with Obamacare from the standpoint of Whites is that they are well aware that a disproportionate share of the costs will be borne by people like them, while a disproportionate share of the benefits will go to poor non-Whites. Edsall again:

Obamacare shifts health care benefits and tax burdens from upper-income Americans to lower-income Americans, and from largely white constituencies to beneficiaries disproportionately made up of racial and ethnic minorities.

So once again we come up against biological realities — that people are less likely to contribute to public goods that will disproportionately benefit people unlike themselves. This is a well-known cost of multiculturalism. Why should White voters want a law they know will benefit non-Whites far more than themselves? In fact, immigrants are major beneficiaries of Obamacare, accounting for 42% of the growth of Medicaid since 2011.

Race is never part of the explicit rhetoric of White opposition to policies that disproportionately benefit non-Whites — it tends to be expressed as opposition to the federal government, the welfare state, taxation, and the desire for better schools, or even perceived moral issues like abortion and homosexuality. But at the implicit level, the aversion to contributing to public goods for non-Whites is the overriding motivation for opposition to Obamacare. When Republicans shut down the US government over Obamacare, it was widely perceived as motivated by Whites concerned that poor non-Whites would disproportionately benefit from the law, while it would increase taxes on Whites. Read more