Featured Articles

UKIP — Britain’s latest right-turn through a meandering political wilderness

/1 Comment/in , /by

With the European Parliamentary elections imminent, talk of UKIP’s chances of a major breakthrough has reached fever pitch in the mainstream media, with some lauding them as a potential saviour to the British people and their way of life. As is often the case, however, TOO readers have seen several would-be advocates of our culture and heritage succumbing to the all-too-familiar practice of toning down rhetoric, in an ultimately forlorn hope that it will garner wider credibility. Therefore a much more critical appraisal of the party is needed, for amidst the frenzy (which has seen reactions range from enthusiastic praise, to mild approval and in some quarters, outright scathing), a crucial element of critical thought has been largely omitted; many have jumped on their bandwagon and nodded approvingly at what they stand against, but paradoxically, insufficient scrutiny is given to what they actually stand for.

Firstly, it is important to understand why they have risen to prominence, to become acknowledged as England’s third most popular political party, following the capitulation of the Liberal Democrats due to their ill-fated coalition with David Cameron’s “Conservative” party in 2010. While the treachery of New Labour during their 13-year reign of terror has already been comprehensively documented at TOO, it is no co-incidence that it was with the collapse of the BNP that Nigel Farage has taken UKIP from a party perceived merely (but not without merit) as a single-issue, breakaway group of disgruntled, Euro-sceptic conservatives, who bemoan that party’s move to a decidedly more pro-EU centre ground following the internal coup which ousted Margaret Thatcher in 1990. Read more

Le Lobby pro-israélien: Impossible de se cacher

/in , /by

English version here

Article d’origine publié le 25 Janvier 2013

Le site Mondoweiss a reproduit un extrait du discours d’un rabbin, Melissa Weintraub, sur les stratégies utilisées par la communauté juive pour gérer les relations avec Israël. Le problème pour les Juifs est qu’aux États-Unis, ils représentent l’avant-garde de la gauche libérale, pro-immigration, pro-multiculturelle, et anti-blanche, et qu’au même moment, leur pays préféré, Israël, se lance allègrement dans l’apartheid et le nettoyage ethnique. Cela provoque une dissonance cognitive et une grande agitation politique dans la communauté juive. Mais la réaction la plus commune reste simplement la stratégie d’évitement (en deux versions) :

Israël est devenu le motif de division le plus explosif dans la vie juive américaine, selon la plupart des observateurs, journalistes, rabbins, et tous ceux qui baignent dans le milieu. Actuellement, on a 3 façons principales d’aborder Israël.

L’une est l’évitement. Pour presque toutes les associations juives américaines qui sont dans le domaine de la justice sociale… J’étais récemment dans une salle, avec toutes les sommités du mouvement juif de justice sociale, et ils ont tous mis en place pour leur organisation une politique d’évitement du sujet d’Israël. Les rabbins de toutes sectes et tous horizons politiques discutent du “sermon qui tue par allusion à Israël” d’après l’expression de Scott Perlo, un rabbin ordinaire du site 6th and I. Cela signifie qu’un sermon peut parler de tout, sauf d’Israël. On peut parler du système de santé, des armes à feu, ou d’autres questions controversées, mais un seul mot sur Israël et on risque le renvoi. Il semble que chaque jour, une nouvelle organisation interdise le sujet d’Israël sur sa liste de diffusion….

Voilà pour l’évitement, le premier type de réaction… Le premier type est en fait une réponse au second type de réaction, mais je cite l’évitement en premier parce que c’est devenu la réaction la plus répandue…

La deuxième façon habituelle de réagir se caractérise par une agressivité ouverte ; avec dénigrement, diabolisation ; des attaques et contre-attaques dans les éditoriaux, des menaces à propos des sources de financement, des directeurs et conseils d’administration terrorisés et pétrifiés du fait qu’ils sont régulièrement dans des situations impossibles où ils sont désavoués quoi qu’ils fassent. Cela se passe en grande partie hors de vue du public, mais c’est le domaine où j’interviens, et je peux vous dire que j’entends tous les mois des dizaines d’institutions qui ont le même genre de problème.

Et tout aussi destructif, il y a la caricature grossière de l’attitude des autres, la déformation, les citations hors contexte, les procès d’intention, les antagonismes.

Le troisième type de réaction est ce que j’appelle la stratégie d’évitement, version 2.0. Cela consiste à se réunir et faire des conférences avec ceux qui approuvent notre politique particulière, et à rejeter tous les autres comme s’ils étaient loufoques, malveillants, ou dangereux. Se flatter du nombre d’alliés qui sont avec nous, et rejeter tous les autres de façon catégorique et unidimensionnelle. Et cela aussi, c’est de plus en plus courant.

Donc, quel que soit le résultat de la campagne actuelle pour la guerre avec l’Iran, il ne faut pas s’attendre à ce que les Juifs américains renoncent à leur rôle d’épine dorsale de la gauche anti-blanche. Ils auront beau éviter la question, ou vociférer les uns contre les autres, cela n’affectera pas leur attitude envers l’Amérique blanche et les problèmes fondamentaux qui la menacent. Read more

My Question For Sean Hannity

/in /by

The joke by the now-unemployed MSNBC tweeter, who said that the ‘rightwing’ [sic] would hate the new Cheerios ad celebrating miscegenation, wasn’t bad. I smiled, if not guffawed.

You know what’s bad? Amnesty.

The shocked and outraged commentators at Fox News deny that conservatives are racist, save a few bad apples. They strive to show through video clips how monstrously racist the folks at MSNBC are, seeming to save their fiercest wrath for the White-hating ethnomasochist and on-air burper Chris Matthews. (So they are particularly incensed by… a race traitor?! How unenlightened!)

The MSNBC tweeter was partially right: the right wing of course includes some “racists.” That’s what the Fox outrage-discussion is always limited to… “Sure there are maybe three racist conservatives out there…but the rest are PC when it comes to race…and immigration.”

Of course there is never any discussion of racial realism, or of White genocide. This is television. But, this is “conservative” Fox. And on this “conservative” channel, there is hardly even a mention of non-assimilation, balkanization, and the differing attitudes between the native-born and immigrants on a number of issues such as capitalism, government’s role in society, the Constitution, and patriotism. Rarely will a Pat Buchanan or an Ann Coulter get a few words in edgewise about such issues — usually gaining a disapproving look, a saccharine-sweet counter-argument about our ‘propositional nation’ (which is, of course, “A Nation Of Immigrants ®”), and perhaps a quick description of the host’s (Northern European) indigent immigrant grandparents. And then a hard break to the commercial. Read more

The Amnesty/ Immigration Surge And Senator Schumer’s War Against “White Anglo-Saxons”

/3 Comments/in , /by

This article is also posted at VDARE.

Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the notorious Eight Banditos, gave a revealing speech to the Center for American Progress about the Tea Party  the other day. Conservatism Inc. types like  Bill O’Reillycriticized Schumer’s remarkably blatant call for the IRS to be used against the Tea Party. But more important was Schumer’s equally blatant acknowledgement of the ethnic agenda behind post-1965 immigration policy—and behind the implacable drive for some form of Amnesty/ Immigration Surge, which the House GOP Leadership appears to endorse this week.

Basically, according to Schumer, Tea Partiers are afraid of change. He drew an analogy with the Temperance Movement of the 1920s as a reaction to the changes wrought by the last 1880–1924 immigration Great Wave:

This reaction against social and cultural changes isn’t new to us. Edward Shils, a professor from the University of Chicago, wrote about the Temperance Movement identifying that it was about much more than abolishing liquor.  In the 1880s the U.S. was a rural country and people were on farms and small towns living a clean, God-fearing life. By 1920, America had been urbanized and diversified because of manufacturing, immigration, and so many other forces.

And the cities were a totally different way of life with slums, bars and dance clubs, emerging suburbs and country clubs.  Prohibition was not simply about abolishing alcohol; it was an attempt by rural Americans to pull their country back to a Jeffersonian agricultural ideal that was being rapidly replaced by a new cultural and economic order.

Today, we see the Tea Party doing much of the same thing. Tea Party adherents see an America that’s not reflective of themselves, and the America they have known, and they just don’t like it. [Emphases added throughout].

The reference to Edward Shils is revealing: Shils, a member of the New York Intellectuals—a Jewish intellectual movement reviewed in Chapter 6 of my book The Culture of Critique—was a leading theorist of the idea that attempts by majorities to resist the increase in the power and influence of other groups are contrary to the democratic process. A defining feature of the New York Intellectuals was their hostile reinterpretation of Populism, the anti-elite insurrectionary movement of the 1890s. Read more

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