Featured Articles

The Jewish War on White Australia Continues

/3 Comments/in , /by

censored

 In my extended essay ‘The War on White Australia,’ I explored how Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism were pivotal in ending the White Australia policy — a policy change opposed by the vast majority of the Australian population. Australian Jews take enormous pride in this achievement. For instance, the national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges that: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” The Jewish promotion of non-White immigration and multiculturalism in Australia has been (and continues to be) a form of ethnic warfare aimed at destroying Australia’s traditional White racial homogeneity — and with it supposedly any potential for a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Australia.

The history of multiculturalism in Australia (and indeed throughout the West) is in large part an object lesson in how a small but highly organised and motivated group of activists can successfully hijack the demographic destiny of a nation for its own ends. Acknowledging that Australian multiculturalism is first and foremost a manifestation of Jewish ethno-politics, Jewish historian William Rubinstein observed that: “Thus far, any serious questioning of multiculturalism has not resulted in an anti-Semitic backlash; nevertheless, the Jewish community would certainly be exceedingly disturbed by any basic reversal of the commitment to multiculturalism by successive governments.”[i] 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.

In Part 3 of my essay I discussed how, 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.”[ii] Read more

The Israel Lobby: Nowhere to Hide

/4 Comments/in , /by

Mondoweiss excerpted a talk by a rabbi, Melissa Weintraub, on strategies used by the Jewish community for dealing with Israel. The difficulty that Jews have is that they are the vanguard of the liberal, pro-immigration/multicultural anti-White left in the U.S., while at the same time their favorite country, Israel, is energetically engaged in apartheid and ethnic cleansing. This leads to cognitive dissonance and intense politicking in the Jewish community. But it’s clear that the most common strategy is simply avoidance (two versions).

Israel has become the most volatile wedge issue in American Jewish life, by most observers, journalists, rabbis, people who are immersed in this field. We’ve got 3 prevailing avenues for Israel engagement, currently.

One is avoidance. Nearly every American Jewish social justice organization– I was recently in a room with all the luminaries of the Jewish social justice movement and veritably every one of them has an organizational policy to avoid Israel. The rabbis of every denomination and from across the political spectrum talk about what actually a local rabbi Scott Perlo who’s at 6th and I calls the “the death by Israel sermon”, which means we can talk about anything but Israel. We can talk about health care or guns or other controversial issues, but say anything about Israel and we could be fired. It seems every day I hear of another organization that’s banned Israel from its listserve….

So that’s avoidance, the first pattern… The first pattern is really reacting to the second pattern, but I stated avoidance first because it’s become most ubiquitous…

The Second pattern is more overt antagonism; vilification, demonization; attacks and counter attacks on op ed pages, funding threats, boards and executive directors in utter terror, paralyzed, because they are in damned if you do and damned if you don’t situations on a regular basis. A lot of this is outside of public view, but I can tell you as someone who works in this field that I hear dozens of institutions facing these kinds of dilemmas every month.

And you know equally as damaging: reckless caricatures of each other’s positions, distortions, quoting each other out of context, impugning each other’s motives, antagonism.

The third pattern I call avoidance 2.0. And that is congregating with, conferencing with those who agree with our own politics, and dismissing everybody else as loony, or malicious, or dangerous. Taking pride in the numbers of those who are with us, categorically, one dimensionally dismissing everyone else. And that is becoming increasingly common as well.

So whatever happens with the current campaign for war with Iran, don’t expect American Jews to change their status as the backbone of the anti-White left. They may avoid the issue or do a lot of screaming at each other, but it won’t affect their attitudes on the core issues facing White America.

The rabbi’s remarks indicate an uptick in anxiety about Israel  among American Jews. For one thing, the BDS movement, and in particular the recent anti-Israel resolutions by the American Studies Association and the Modern Language Association, indicates a shift in elite opinion where non-Jewish liberals feel the need to act on their principles. Israel as a pariah state is increasingly obvious to everyone.

Secondly, and more immediately, there is the push for war with Iran which, as everyone who is not living under a rock knows, is a project of Israel and its fifth column in the U.S. Indeed, although the New York Times failed to mention the Lobby in a recent article on the Kirk-Menendez-Schumer Iran war bill in the Senate, the role of the Israel Lobby is obvious.  The Economist gets it:

economistobama-12014

  Read more

Review of Derek Penslar’s “Jews and the Military”

/2 Comments/in , /by

Jews and the Military: A History
Derek Penslar
Princeton University Press, 2013

“The rate of draft-dodging for the peasant population in the Pale of Settlement was 6%; for the Jews it was 34%. Jews evaded the law and misused the court system, even as they demanded special protection from the authorities.” Professor John Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881–1882 [1] 

PenslarThe subject of Jewish attitudes to military service, particularly in the diaspora, has been a key interest of mine for some time. Since ancient times, military service has been regarded as the touchstone of true citizenship and patriotism and, to me at least, it seemed the perfect backdrop against which Jewish identity and its hierarchy of loyalties might be seen more clearly. Though never given truly comprehensive scholarly attention, there are countless brief references to Jewish attitudes and actions in taking up arms in works ranging from flagrant Jewish apologetic, to the productions of the racialist right. Most of these references pertain to accusations that Jews historically have shirked military service and often resorted to the most elaborate, and often ridiculous, methods in order to avoid doing “their share” in the defence of the nation-state.

More or less dissatisfied by much of the fare on offer from both sides, I was quite interested late last year to hear of the publication, by no less than Princeton University Press, of Derek Penslar’s Jews and the Military: A History — the jacket of which promised “the first comprehensive and comparative look at Jews’ involvement in the military and their attitudes toward war from the 1600s until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.” Penslar promised to show “that although Jews have often been described as people who shun the army, in fact they have frequently been willing, even eager, to do military service.”

Read more

ADL: “Les théoriciens du complot blâment les Juifs pour les événements en Syrie”

/in , /by

Original appeared 26 septembre 2013; English version here 

La “respectable association de défense des droits civils” reprend sa vieille habitude. L’ADL me colle l’étiquette de “théoricien de la conspiration” pour avoir présenté des documents qui montrent le soutien général de la communauté juive organisée au principe d’une attaque militaire américaine contre la Syrie (“ADL: Les théoriciens du complot blâment les Juifs pour les événements en Syrie“). Il y a aussi l’affirmation que je suis un “extrémiste” —ce qui semble curieux, de la part d’une organisation qui prône l’immigration vers les États-Unis de dizaines de millions de personnes venant du monde entier.

Kevin McDonald, un professeur antisémite de psychologie à Long Beach, à l’Université d’État de Californie, a écrit sur L’Occidental Observer un article daté du 2 septembre affirmant que “Le contretemps [qui remet à plus tard l’action militaire en Syrie] donne au Lobby pro-israélien l’occasion d’intensifier ses efforts pour faire grimper les résultats des sondages et pour faire pression sur le Congrès. “

Depuis si longtemps que je suis sur leur liste des pires antisémites, on aurait espéré qu’ils apprennent au moins à écrire mon nom correctement. Leur article ne donne aucun lien vers l’article incriminé écrit par moi, si bien que le lecteur se retrouve seulement avec un nom mal orthographié et un lien vers la fiche écrite à mon sujet sur le propre site de l’ADL (où ils réussissent cette fois à bien écrire mon nom). D’ailleurs, ils ne donnent de lien pour aucun des articles ou vidéos produits par les “extrémistes marginaux et anti-sémites” dont le communiqué de presse de l’ADL dresse la liste — sans doute parce que l’ADL préfère que ses lecteurs ne voient pas ce qu’ils ont dit en réalité. Read more

Soutien général de la communauté juive organisée pour une intervention en Syrie

/in , /by

Original posted 6 septembre 2013; English version here

Patrick Cleburne, du blog VDARE, a écrit un article sympathique à propos de la corruption du Parti républicain par Sheldon Adelson (“Syrie: Pourquoi Boehner et Cantor prennent-ils leur base électorale et leur pays à rebrousse-poil ? Parce qu’ils sont atteints du syndrome ADD ! “). [NdT: ADD = Attention Deficit Disorder (Trouble de Déficit de l’Attention)]. Mais ici en fait, le syndrome ADD signifie Adelson Dollar Disorder. Cette expression désigne le penchant des politiciens républicains (Newt Gringrich en est le meilleur exemple) à se prosterner devant l’argent d’Adelson. Cet argent sert principalement à soutenir ceux qui en Israël se montrent les plus agressifs et les plus portés au nationalisme et au racialisme. Cleburne fait également remarquer qu’Adelson illustre parfaitement l’hypocrisie et les doubles standards qui gouvernent les politiques défendues d’une part pour Israël, où Adelson préconise une clôture frontalière inviolable et l’expulsion des clandestins, et d’autre part pour les États-Unis, où il préconise l’amnistie des clandestins, et aucune expulsion.

Une illusion dont se bercent souvent les Juifs est l’idée de “deux Juifs, trois opinions“ — c’est-à-dire l’idée que les Juifs ont toujours tendance à être en désaccord les uns avec les autres. Mais en fait, sur les questions cruciales telles qu’Israël, l’immigration, le multiculturalisme, et le christianisme sur la place publique, la communauté juive parle d’une seule (et très influente) voix. Cleburne signale un article de Bloomberg qui montre le large soutien juif à l’idée d’attaquer la Syrie. (“Soutien de cercles juifs à l’intervention en Syrie – Adelson, nouvel allié d’Obama“). Ce très large soutien est d’autant plus surprenant que, dans le reste de l’Amérique, le Congrès constate une “opposition record” à l’idée d’un raid aérien.

Les récents sondages montraient déjà le peu d’appétit du peuple américain pour une intervention militaire en Syrie. Un sondage publié mardi par le Pew Research Center estime qu’à peine 29% des Américains approuvent l’idée de raids aériens “suite aux témoignages selon lesquels le gouvernement syrien a utilisé des armes chimiques”. Et le même jour, un sondage Washington Post/ABC donnait un chiffre de 36% d’Américains favorables à des raids aériens. … Le député Alan Grayson (Démocrate de Floride), un opposant virulent aux frappes militaires contre le gouvernement syrien, a déclaré aux journalistes après le briefing de mardi dernier qu’un vote pour le recours à la force militaire en Syrie ne passerait pas. “La Chambre n’est pas d’accord, le peuple américain n’est pas d’accord. Ici, on écoute les électeurs”, a t-il déclaré. “Premièrement, l’opinion publique est totalement contre. Deuxièmement, l’opinion publique est violemment contre.” (“Selon les législateurs américains, les électeurs refusent l’intervention en Syrie – Une opposition plus forte que jamais“) Read more

Review of Paul Gottfried’s “Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America,” Part 2

/1 Comment/in , /by

Part 1.

2. The “Lockean Founding” of the United States

Gottfried is apparently attracted to the anti-rationalist Burkean tradition of conservatism, which in effect claims that history is smarter than reason, therefore, we should take our guidance from historically evolved institutions and conventions rather than rational constructs. This form of conservatism is, of course, dismissed by the Straussians as “historicism.” Gottfried counters that the Straussians

seek to ignore . . . the ethnic and cultural preconditions for the creation of political orders. Straussians focus on those who invent regimes because they wish to present the construction of government as an open-ended, rationalist process. All children of the Enlightenment, once properly instructed, should be able to carry out this constructivist task, given enough support from the American government or American military. (pp. 3–4)

In the American context, historicist conservatism stresses the Anglo-Protestant identity of American culture and institutions. This leads to skepticism about the ability of American institutions to assimilate immigrants from around the globe and the possibility of exporting American institutions to the rest of the world.

Moreover, a historicist Anglo-Protestant American conservatism, no matter how “Judaizing” its fixation on the Old Testament, would still regard Jews as outsiders. Thus Straussians, like other Jewish intellectual movements, have promoted an abstract, “propositional” conception of American identity. Of course, Gottfried himself is a Jew, but perhaps he has the intellectual integrity to base his philosophy on his arguments rather than his ethnic interests

(Catholic Straussians are equally hostile to an Anglo-Protestant conception of America, but while Jewish Straussians have changed American politics to suit their interests, Catholic Straussians have gotten nothing for their services but an opportunity to vent spleen against modernity.) Read more

Review of Paul Gottfried’s “Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America,” Part 1

/1 Comment/in , /by

Paul Edward Gottfried
Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012

Paul Gottfried’s admirable book on Leo Strauss is an unusual and welcome critique from the Right.

Leo Strauss (1899–1973) was a German-born Jewish political theorist who moved to the United States in 1937. Strauss taught at the New School for Social Research in New York City before moving to the University of Chicago, where he was Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor until his retirement in 1969. In the familiar pattern of Jewish intellectual movements as diverse of Psychoanalysis, Marxism, and Objectivism, Strauss was a charismatic teacher who founded a cultish school of thought, the Straussians, which continues to this day to spread his ideas and influence throughout academia, think tanks, the media, and the government.

The Straussians have not, however, gone unopposed. There are three basic kinds of critiques: (1) critiques from the Left, which range from paranoid, middlebrow, journalistic smears from such writers as Alan Wolfe, Nicholas Xenos, and John P. McCormick, to more scholarly critiques by such writers as Shadia Drury and Anne Norton, (2) scholarly critiques of the Straussian method and Straussian interpretations from philosophers and intellectual historians such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Quentin Skinner, and (3) scholarly critiques from the Right.

As Gottfried points out, the Straussians tend only to engage their critics on the Left. This makes sense, since their Leftist critics raise the cultural visibility of the Straussian school. The critics are also easily defeated, which raises Straussian credibility as well. Like all debates within the parameters of Jewish hegemony, the partisans in the Strauss wars share a whole raft of assumptions which are never called into question. Thus these controversies look somewhat farcical and managed to those who reject liberalism and Jewish hegemony root and branch. Read more