Featured Articles

Large majority of Jews favor abortion—for non-Jews

/8 Comments/in , /by

In a footnote to Chapter 5 of Separation and Its Discontents, I  describe the work of Felix Theilhaber, a racial Zionist working in Germany in the early twentieth century. Like all racial Zionists, Thielhaber wanted to end Jewish intermarriage, increase Jewish fertility, and preserve Jewish racial purity. Theilhaber was very concerned about the declining Jewish birth rate and was politically active in attempting to increase Jewish fertility (going so far as to propose to tax “child-poor” families to support “child-rich” families). At the same time, he was also instrumental in creation of the Gesellschaft für Sexualreform, whose aims were to legalize abortion and make contraceptives available to the German public. (On the other hand, because they were ethnic nationalists, the National Socialists encouraged fertility and enacted laws that restricted abortion and discouraged birth control.)

Now an article on Mondoweiss by Allison Deger points out the hypocrisy of American Jews who simultaneously are staunch supporters of abortion in America but also support anti-abortion organizations in Israel (“‘Pro-Life? Pro-Israel?’: Israeli anti-abortion organization reaches out for US support to fight demographic war in the Jewish state“).

American Friends of Efrat, the U.S.-based fundraising arm of Efrat …, is an Israeli anti-abortion group with hundreds of volunteers that counsel Jewish women against abortion and provide support for the first year of the child’s life. While in the U.S. pro-life discourse focuses on morality, the American Friends of Efrat looks at abortion from a demographics perspective. Their advertisement for the Committee to Rescue Israeli Babies (C.R.I.B.) program … markets what they call an “inner aliyah,” or increasing Israel’s Jewish population not by flying in new immigrants, but by pumping up the birthrate via anti-abortion counseling and subsidies.

Though Efrat only assists women in Israel, the group has garnered support from inside the beltway through its American partner. Senator Chuck Schumer, a noted pro-choice champion who has used the issue of abortion to secure his New York Senate, attended a 30th anniversary gala for Efrat. Schumer has been lauded by Planned Parenthood who called him a “hero,” with “a 100% pro-choice, pro-family planning voting record,” but in 2007 Schumer put his pro-choice position aside and joined his anti-abortion foes at the celebration. …

According to IRS 990 tax reports, the American Friends of Efrat pulls from mainstream foundations including matching donations from Deutsche Bank, The Goldman Sachs Foundation and the Prudential Foundation. But the heftiest sums come from the Jewish community. Despite the fact that 89% of American Jews support abortion rights, the Federation Foundation of Greater Philadelphia sent the group $100,000 in 2004 and 2006, while the Jewish Community Foundation of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles gave C.R.I.B. just over $5,000 in 2007 and $10,000 in 2008. In addition, the Madav IX Foundation, a charitable organization funded by Jewish family foundations but administered by the Jewish Federation of Cleveland, gave the C.R.I.B. program $10,000 in 2008. The Madav IX Foundation shares the same Ohio address of the Bennet and Donna Yanowitz Family Foundation that gave the C.R.I.B. program $2,000 in 2004 and $1,000 in 2007.am

To repeat: Chuck Schumer and 89% of American Jews support abortion rights in the U.S., but an anti-abortion rights organization in Israel has no problem attracting money from broad-based mainstream Jewish organizations as well as support from a Jewish politician like Schumer. An ad put out by the group illustrates the mindset:

Israel is currently fighting a demographic war for her survival. As we go to print Israel’s borders are in jeopardy. The Arab birthright [sic] is about double the Jewish birthrate. General Uzi Dayan speaking as the Director for the Council of National security announced: ‘Demographic projections forecast an Arab majority in Israel by the year 2020 less than 15 years from now.’

This feeds into a prominent theme on TOO: Jews in the West behave as a Diaspora group that sees its interests as opposed to the continued demographic dominance of the West’s traditional peoples and cultures. That means that the organized Jewish community and the great majority of Jews embrace the multicultural, pro-immigration, anti-White left in America and elsewhere while also embracing Israel as a Jewish ethnostate. And it means supporting policies like abortion on demand in the Diaspora, but not in an Israel intent on retaining its Jewish ethnic majority.

After posting this blog (and retracting it for further thought), a correspondent sent me the  following two points, which further  nail down the point that  in Israel, birth control all about ethnic interests, not religious belief or individual freedom. Then in the U.S. and elsewhere in the West, Jewish organizations and the vast majority of Jews favor abortion.

1. In Israel abortion is illegal for married woman of childbearing age (17 years to 40 years old). All abortions must be approved by a five member “Termination committee”.

“Abortion in Israel” Wikipedia article:

Circumstances under which abortion is legal
A termination committee approves abortions, under sub-section 316a,[1] in the following circumstances:

1. The woman is younger than seventeen (the legal marriage age in Israel) or older than forty.
2. The pregnancy was conceived under illegal circumstances (rape, statutory rape etc.), in an incestuous relationship, or outside of marriage.
3. The fetus may have a physical or mental birth defect.
4. Continued pregnancy may put the woman’s life in risk, or damage her physically or mentally.

Thus Jewish organizations actively work for and support laws legalizing abortions in Christian European ethnic countries and societies but do not oppose or publicize the fact that Israeli law outlaws abortion for woman of childbearing age.

2. Ethiopian Jewish women were told that in order to be allowed on the plane to Israel they had to agree to take Depo Provera birth control shots, though they were not told that this is long term birth control. This got some publicity in the Israeli press (as an exposé) but was ignored by the Western media. Imagine if any White country had done this what a firestorm of publicity this would have gotten.

Here is a video about it:

As the correspondent implies, one story here is the double standard and hypocrisy involved in birth control issues in Israel vs. the Diaspora. The other  is the media silence in the U.S. reflecting Jewish power in the media. It’s easy enough to find articles on the Depo Provera scandal like the article in Haaretz linked above, but a search of the New York Times will come up with nothing. “All the  news that’s fit to print” and all that.

Critical Theory in the American University: A Critical Issue, Part Three

/in , /by

Read Parts One and Two before proceeding here.

 

It is remarkable how universal a negative, critical, view of Whites as a race is in today’s university.  Every course, every speaker, every professional article and book, every “welcome week” activity in the fall, every program in the dorms, every word uttered in faculty meetings, every committee report, every organization, every administrative pronouncement, every master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation, every group email, every bulletin board notice, etc., etc., etc., etc.—not one positive word about Whites and not one negative word about any other race.  If any university administrator or academic has said a favorable word about White people as a race, verbally or in print, I don’t know about it, and I think I pay attention.

The late novelist and essayist Susan Sontag, a regular on the university commencement speech circuit, captured the view of Whites held by those in power in American universities when she famously wrote, “The white race is the cancer of human history.”22 Indeed, Whites have their dirty linen—every race does—but the picture isn’t all bad in the way universities portray it.  I’d be happy to take the Whites’ side compared to any other race, let’s say Blacks, in accomplishments in philosophy, the arts and humanities, mathematics, science, technology, architecture, literature, philanthropy—you name it.20  I’d be willing to compare White communities to Black communities, anywhere in the world, on the basis of cleanliness, safety, care for children, and civility.  In the area of race relations, you can make the case that Whites are abusing Blacks and I’ll take the other side, which would involve citing interracial crime statistics. In race relations, I’ll cite examples of White individuals and groups trying to help out disadvantaged Black people and ending slavery for moral reasons at a time when slavery was pervasive throughout the rest of the world. And you can cite examples of Black individuals and groups trying to help out disadvantaged White people.

For Whites on campus, even the hint of a positive conception of their racial heritage or of racial consciousness and commitment and solidarity; even a touch of concern for the status and wellbeing of White people; even one word in favor of White advocacy, leadership, organization, and collective action; even the least gesture in the direction of affirming the right of White people to self-determination—don’t you dare.  Whites are obligated to have an all but obsessive concern for the interests of other races, and to serve those interests, while having absolutely no concern for the circumstances and fate of their own people.  In fact, Whites should go to work against their racial brethren (the race traitor idea). Read more

Critical Theory in the American University: A Critical Issue, Part Two

/1 Comment/in , /by

This material depends on familiarity with  Part One. Please read that before proceeding here.

David Roediger is a White professor of African American studies at the University of Illinois. He is a leading voice in the White abolitionist movement, as it is called: “It is not merely that whiteness is oppressive and false,” he asserts, “it’s that whiteness is nothing but oppressive and false.”  As does Peter McClaren (see Part One), Roediger proposes that Whites become “race traitors.”13 He is best known for his book, Wages of Whiteness: Race and the Making of the American Working Class.14 In it, he draws on Marxist ideology and psychoanalysis to sketch the development of racism in the American White working class during the nineteenth century. The book is arguably legitimate academic scholarship. That said, it comes down to portraying Blacks as victims and painting White working people negatively as racists: that’s who they are. That is not the only defensible way to perceive either labor history or the White working class.

If students only encounter this Roediger book, which is how it works in universities these days, they could well assume that this is the definitive take on White identity—overall, not just among working class Whites—and that what was true, or purported to be true, in the nineteenth century still prevails today. That is to say, that the problem in race relations is White racist animosity and feelings of superiority toward African Americans and desires to suppress or hurt them, which is the basic thrust of the Roediger book. Read more

Critical Theory in the American University: A Critical Issue, Part One

/3 Comments/in , /by

I teach a university course in education taken by undergraduate liberal arts students—they aren’t education majors—who take the course as an elective. It focuses on contemporary elementary and secondary public schooling and, to a lesser extent, the circumstance in universities.  Among the required readings this semester (Fall, 2013) are sections of a book edited by James Noll, a retired professor of education, entitled Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues.1   The Noll book is made up of twenty-three contemporary schooling issues as Noll defines them, each phrased in the form of a question.  For each issue/question, Noll writes an introduction and then includes two articles he has chosen from the professional literature in education to represent Yes and No answers to the question, thus creating a debate format.  Noll ends each issue with a concluding statement, which includes further readings on this concern.

Noll has done a good job with the book, and I find it useful in my course. I want my students to realize that there isn’t just one right answer to the issues we confront in education (or in anything else, for that matter), that depending on their particular outlooks and values, thoughtful and informed people legitimately differ both as to what is going on in schools and what ought to go on in them. Grounded in that realization, students, I hope, feel invited to analyze and assess arguments and explore their differences and implications, contribute their own best thinking to making sense of the issue, and come to their own conclusions rather than remain uncritical note-taking consumers of the ideas and proposals of others, which unfortunately is too often the role students play in university courses.

A Noll issue I used this semester is titled “Does a ‘Deficit Model’ Serve Poor Children Well?”2 It is clear from Noll’s introductory comments and the two opposing arguments that poverty to these writers means African American students in urban public schools. By deficit, Noll is referring to lack of health care, exposure to crime and drugs, negative adult role models, family instability, and limited exposure to culturally uplifting experiences. Read more

Zuerst Interview: The Weapons of the Israel Lobby

/2 Comments/in /by

This is an English version of an interview appears in the November issue of Zuerst!, a German magazine.

  1. Prof. MacDonald, the Central Council of Jews in Germany (ZdJ)  is maybe one of the most influential lobby groups in Germany – it is an affiliate of the World Jewish Congress (WJC). Critics say, the influence of the ZdJ is disproportionally big compared to the number of jews living in Germany. Are they right?

I am not familiar with the situation in Germany on the power of the Jewish lobby. I do know that in the countries I am familiar with, the United States in particular, Jews are very well organized and effective in pursuing their interests. They are well-integrated into elites in the media, politics, business, and the academic world, and they have organized very well-funded lobbying organizations, in particular, the Anti-Defamation League. So I would not be surprised to find that a similar situation prevails in Germany.

  1. The ZdJ – as well as the WJC – plays a complex role in Germany – and the West in general. On the one side the organization claims to represent the Jewish communities in Germany and the West, on the other hand they act on behalf of Israel and campaign for Israeli politics. How can this mix?

There is a similar mixture in the US, where the Anti-Defamation League has been a strong supporter of the very right-wing, racialist governments in Israel while at the same time pursuing a wide range of Jewish political interests in the US linked to the political left. Most importantly, Jewish groups have been at the forefront in advancing an agenda of multiculturalism and displacement-level immigration to the US that will make White Americans a minority within 20–30 years.

Prior to the establishment of Israel, large sections of the American Jewish community opposed Zionism because they were concerned that support for a foreign government would bring charges of dual loyalty which has been a persistent feature of anti-Jewish attitudes throughout the centuries. However, these concerns dissipated after 1948, and subsequent decades have seen a huge increase in the power of the Israel Lobby and very overt support by American Jews for Israel. To be sure, American Jews who support Israel are careful to argue that the interests of Israel and the interests of America coincide. At times, this can result in comical assertions, such as recent claims by prominent American neoconservative Jews that America must bomb Syria in order to prevent Syria from attacking America with chemical weapons. Or that Iran is on the verge of being able to destroy the United States or even invade it. Read more

Jobbik’s Unholy Alliance

/3 Comments/in /by

It seems that these days hatred, and the right to use it, even in defence of one’s nation, race, and culture, has to be offset by plenty of misplaced love. This is the take home message from Gábor Vona’s recent trip to Turkey, where the president of the Hungarian nationalist party Jobbik has been declaring his “Eurasian love”:

I didn’t come here to talk to you about the transitory subject of diplomatic and economic relations. Others will do that on behalf of me. I came here to meet my brothers and sisters, to offer a fraternal alliance and bring you the good news: Hungarians are awakening. Our common mission and the universal task of Turanism [see also Hungarian Turanism] are to build bridges between East and West, between Muslims and Christians, to be able to fight together for a better world – to show to the world that Christians and Muslims are not enemies, but brothers and sisters. No one can accomplish this mission more effectively than Hungarians and Turks because we are connected by common blood.

That’s all we need, European nationalist parties endorsing the very people most bent on colonizing and destroying Europe. Turkey, let us remember, is hostile to Greece and Golden Dawn, supports the Islamic jihad in Syria (along with Israel and the USA), harbours Chechen terrorists, and is seeking to extend neo-Ottoman influence in the Balkans through supporting ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. And this is the country that Jobbik wants to French kiss and take home to meet its mother!

Of course, “Love” is not a word usually associated with Jobbik. Thanks to the antinationalist bias of the mass media, Jobbik is better known for its hatreds of Jews, Gypsies, and the various nationalities that surround the ill-drawn borders of the Hungarian nation. Read more

The Ruling Stones: The Ethnic Activism of Richard Stone

/1 Comment/in /by

Martyrs and Mothers

Who is England’s patron saint? If you think it’s St George, you’re behind the times. In fact, it’s the martyr St Stephen. But not the Stephen stoned to death in Palestine 2,000 years ago. No, the Stephen stabbed to death by Whites at a bus-stop in London in 1993. He was a young Black male, but that didn’t make his death unusual or worthy of special attention.

Black power: St Stephen Lawrence

Black power: St Stephen Lawrence

It wasn’t until 2012, after huge expense by the London Metropolitan police and the abolition of the centuries-old principle of double jeopardy, that two White men were found guilty of the murder and given long jail sentences. Cries of joy greeted the conviction in all sections of the media, particularly at The Guardian and BBC. But further suspects are still free and Doreen Lawrence, mother of the murder victim, wants to see more millions spent on pursuing and convicting them.

Doreen has become a familiar and highly respected figure in the UK. She has recently been elevated to the House of Lords, where she will sit as Baroness Lawrence and continue to promote the martyr cult. She was prominent at the twentieth-year commemoration of her son’s murder, which was attended by the leaders of all three main political parties. And you may have seen her helping to carry the flag at the 2012 London Olympics. It was a further honour in recognition of her long campaign for justice, equality and tolerance in the UK.

The image of an aspiring young Black architect slaughtered by thuggish White racists continues to be reinforced through every medium of news, art and commentary. Doreen has often appeared in the media to criticize Britain for failing to live up to the high standards she demands of it as a British Jamaican. And the government listens. Here she is in the closing days of 2012 with fellow activist Dr Richard Stone, who will be the main focus of this essay: Read more