Featured Articles

Karl Pearson, Immigration, and the War over Jewish Intelligence, 1925–1935

/2 Comments/in , , /by

I often take great pleasure from looking into the past and finding, among persons and works of great genius, ideas that we very closely share. Recently I’ve been looking into the life and work of Karl Pearson (1857–1936), a man commonly considered to be one of the founders of modern statistical science. Born in London, Pearson’s formal education began only at age 15 at the city’s University College School. A precocious talent, he later attended King’s college at Cambridge where he won the Third Wrangler position of the Mathematical Tripos in 1878. His initial work after his formal education was as an author, lecturer, and lawyer. In 1884 he was offered a position at University College, London in applied mathematics, where he taught mathematics to young engineering students. He was reported to have been an effective and charismatic teacher, devoting considerable time and energy to these duties while also producing an impressive output of original work in applied mathematics.

Pearson’s mathematical contributions are immense. He pioneered discussions of relativity and antimatter, and in 1892 he wrote The Grammar of Science, a famous work covering many scientific themes. He is also credited with being one of the first mathematicians to truly consider data as essential in scientific inquiry. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that “Pearson was responsible for almost single-handedly establishing the modern discipline of mathematical statistics, including the invention of a number of essential statistical techniques.”

Rather than merely developing new probability theory, Pearson used this theory as a tool with actual data. He subsequently became well-known for his work in various measures of correlation; perhaps the most widely used today is Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient. Many of his statistical procedures are still in use, such as Pearson’s “Chi squared goodness of fit test.” In 1901 Pearson established the journal Biometrika, which remains in print today and is still considered to be one of the most important statistical journals. Read more

Abe Foxman’s Retirement: A TOO Retrospective, Part 2

/4 Comments/in , /by

Part 1.

The Canard Strategy. Foxman loves to silence his opponents by simply saying that they are resorting to canards. Andrew Joyce began his article “Justice Denied: Thoughts on Truth, “canards,” and the Marc Rich Case” by noting:

One of the most intriguing features of the posturing of the Anti-Defamation League, and other Jewish ethnic activist organizations, is their frequent discussion of what they call ‘canards.’ There are, I am informed, many ‘canards’ ranging from allegations that ‘the Jews’ killed God and mutilated communion wafers, to allegations that Jews control the media and have inordinate influence in the areas of culture and politics. … It was apparent to me that the question of whether Jews were supernatural ‘demons,’ and the question of Jewish over-representation in the media or at elite universities, were clearly worlds apart — the former simply ridiculous and the latter capable of being empirically examined and, at least in theory, logically and rationally discussed. …

Over time, organizations such as the ADL have come to jealously guard this list [of canards], and ‘canard’ has in fact achieved the remarkable feat of acting like a magic word — capable on deployment of making even the most blatant Jewish misdemeanor disappear. Take for example American Jews, who are no more ‘loyal’ to Israel than a Chinaman — because to suggest otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of ‘dual loyalty.’ Likewise, Jews have an unblemished record when it comes to matters financial — because to say otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of the greedy or untrustworthy Jew. Palestinian children never fall victim to Israeli incendiary devices — because to say otherwise would be to employ the ‘canard’ of the ‘Blood Libel.’

A good example of Foxman using the canard strategy related to dual loyalty was his reaction to a Huffpo article that attributed Sen. Bob Menendez’s attempt to undermine the Obama administration’s Iran policy to AIPAC influence.  Now one might think that the matter of AIPAC influence would be obvious or at least a strong possibility for a senator who received $340,000 from AIPAC (more than any other candidate in the 2012 election cycle), but Foxman sees nothing but a canard:

Whether done intentionally or not, it is deeply troubling to see how easily even a well-respected mainstream media outlet like the Huffington Post can fail to see the ugly stereotype projected when the language of “sabotage” is combined with the image of an identifiably American Jewish organization known for its effectiveness in promoting U.S. political support for Israel. The charge of dual loyalty leveled against Jews has, for centuries, been a catalyst for scapegoating and vilifying Jews. It has no legitimate place in our society.

But it’s an effective strategy:

The result of this strategy is that legitimate discussions of Jewish influence and dual loyalty are off limits under pain of being charged with “anti-Semitism.” Foxman’s tactic, very familiar by now, is to argue that somehow the fact that Jews have been charged with dual loyalty and power over governments over the centuries logically implies that any current suggestion of dual loyalty and influence by Jews could not possibly have any empirical basis—that such charges are automatically nothing more than scapegoating. …

The common sense of it is just the opposite: If over the centuries Jewish groups in widely separated times and places have often been seen as influencing governments to pursue policies beneficial to Jews but not necessarily the rest of society and as more loyal to Jews in other societies than to the wider society they live in, the obvious suggestion is that these are real patterns, as indeed they are (see here, p. 38ff on Jews as an influential elite and p. 60ff for the pattern of dual loyalty; it’s interesting that the first examples of both of these “canards” may be found in the Book of Exodus). …

The charge of “age-old anti-Semitic canards” cuts off any rational, empirically based debate before it can start, which is exactly what the ADL wants. The charges themselves are portrayed as nothing but irrational anti-Semitism reflecting a medieval mindset. No need to discuss the evidence. (“The Canard Strategy in Service of War with Iran“)

The canard strategy was also on display in the wake of the financial meltdown:

It’s well known that when the financial meltdown first hit, the ADL was concerned about “a dramatic upsurge” in anti-Jewish messages on Internet discussion boards devoted to finance and the economy in reaction to the huge bailout of Wall Street. The ADL press release is predictable in its attempt to characterize such outbursts as irrational hatred against Jews: Abe Foxman complained darkly that in times of economic downturns, ”The age-old canards … about Jews and money are always just beneath the surface.” (“Jews Embarrassed by Jews: Slumlords — and Goldman Sachs“) Read more

Abe Foxman’s Retirement: A TOO Retrospective, Part 1

/5 Comments/in , /by

Abe Foxman is retiring from the ADL as of July, 2015. He’s had a very successful career pursuing Jewish interests, from unqualified support for Israel to strictly enforcing the ban on assertions of White identity and interests. The ADL is an 800-lb. gorilla of American politics and culture, pulling in $53 million in 2011; his salary of $688,188 should ensure him a comfortable retirement.

Since our beginnings in 2008,  TOO has posted 68 articles mentioning Foxman, so perhaps a retrospective is in order.  The vast majority of our comments relate to statements and actions of Foxman and the ADL that get reported in the media, thereby ignoring the many important programs that continue whirring in the background, such as holocaust education, making alliances with Latinos and other non-White groups, promoting diversity education (CLASSROOM OF DIFFERENCE™), etc. Still, the record as seen in TOO is a good summary of the tactics Foxman has used to advance Jewish interests, often at the expense of White America.

Hypocrisy. Paul Gottfried called attention to Foxman’s hypocrisy in a book of essays reviewed on TOO — “the idea that Israel must be a Jewish state, while having no sympathy for the idea that America should be defined as a White, Christian republic.”

Foxman’s hypocrisy was also front and center in an article titled “Shocker! Abe Foxman is a hypocrite.” Discussing the  mostly ill-fated Arizona law on illegal immigrants (also discussed here), Foxman said it was “biased, bigoted and unconstitutional.” When asked about how to reconcile this with Israel’s successful policy of getting rid of illegal immigrants, Foxman didn’t see a problem: “Well, in terms of size and dimension Israel is nowhere near the U.S.”

Wow, great news for small, traditionally White countries like Norway, Switzerland, and New Zealand! Foxman has doubtless pressured the powerful Jewish communities in these countries to oppose immigration so that they can retain their traditional White ethnic and cultural character.

And if you believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Similarly, an article on Dutch politician Geert Wilders noted that “Abe Foxman is incensed at Wilders’ failure to agree with both prongs of the Jewish strategy, loving multiculturalism at home and Israel abroad [quoting Foxman]: “It’s akin to the evangelical Christians. … On one hand they loved and embraced Israel. But on the other hand, we were not comfortable with their social or religious agenda” (Geert Wilders’ Unrequited Love“). Read more

Review of “Dark Albion” by David Abbott

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Dark Albion
by David Abbott
Sparrow Book Publishers,  £10

There is a long and distinguished tradition of travel books by English authors  such as Patrick Leigh Fermor and Colin Thubron who travelled to exotic and  distant lands and tell of the strange ways of the people who lived there.

It is into this category that Dark Albion — A requiem for the English by David Abbott falls but this native South Londoner has not had to make much of a journey to find himself a stranger in a strange land. Instead he has just had to step outside the door of his house in the London borough of Greenwich and walk around and see how  the streets he grew up in have been utterly transformed by the largest wave of immigration that has ever hit our shores.

This is a story that could be told time and again in communities across England. It is the story of the gradual dispossession of the native English without public debate, without permission, without a shot being fired.

It is a howl of anger from a south London resident outraged at the betrayal of his people by their own elites. Read more

Laura Ingraham KO’s George Will in Amnesty Debate on “FNS”, 2/9/2014

/1 Comment/in , /by

Well, it was awesome to watch: on Fox News Sunday’s February 9th show, the fight card matched up the (normally) well-spoken Pulitzer-prize-winning-columnist, baseball aficionado, political philosopher “Gentleman George” Will against the attractive, blonde, recent-Catholic-convert and brawler Laura Ingraham, the talk-radio host, author, Fox News commentator, and frequent (and often Traditionalist-sounding) fill-in for Conservatism Inc.’s CEO, Bill O’Reilly. The subject: amnesty. Will was bloodied and bowed — sprawled on the mat, and unable to get up, by the end of the go-round on the panel segment.

From his corner, the (typically) articulate Will came out swinging, though a bit wildly, stating the “national interest…is in considerable more immigration.” Ingraham was not thrown off her game by this nonsense from the new Wise Man of Fox, the man who gets even more deference from his coworkers than the House Rabbi at FNC, Charles “I Never Met a War That Might Benefit Israel I Didn’t Like” Krauthammer. (Krauthammer, of course, is a dark, morose, wheelchair-bound former doctor who, very possibly, paralyzed himself after drinking and/or drugging, when he skipped class at Harvard Medical School one day with a friend, to enjoy a spring day in Boston in the early ‘70’s, returned to campus, and – instead of taking a shower, decided to cool off by… diving into a swimming pool.) (?!?)

It was unfortunate that when host Chris (Jewish ethno-nepotism-beneficiary) Wallace read an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial bemoaning Boehner’s “retreat,” which it said would just mean 11 million illegals continuing to work with fake documents, Ingraham did not bring up the fact that the e-Verify system is still not mandated to be used by all US employers! But, she cleaned Will’s clock, all the same. Boy, did she ever! Read more

Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Europe and Modern Politics

/2 Comments/in , /by

 

“Saturn (Kronos) Devouring His Son”, by Francisco de Goya, 1821

“Saturn (Kronos) Devouring His Son”, by Francisco de Goya, 1821

The following is an abridged version of my speech given at the London Forum, February 1, 2014, London, UK. The video of the whole speech is available here.

When discussing myths we must first agree on the meaning of words and expressions we intend to employ.  We must also certify that we assign to those words an appropriate meaning regardless of our own individual approach to this subject. The word ‘myth’ has a very specific meaning when we deal with the ancient Greek tragedies, or when we study the early Greek theogony or cosmogony.  By contrast, the fashionable expression today, ‘political mythology’ has a very subjective meaning, often laden with strong value judgments and derisory interpretations. A verbal construct such as the ‘myth of modernity’ may be interpreted by many of us as something legitimate when denouncing political and historical lies of the System we live in. Yet to a modern self-proclaimed supporter of the System, enamored with system-supporting myths of permanent economic progress and the like, speaking of the “myth of economic progress” or the “myth of democracy” is an egregious political insult. It is viewed as a sign of someone’s undemocratic behavior — a word used by an undemocratic opponent not worthy of residing in the modern democratic system.  How does one dare mention such a sacrilegious locution as “the myth of modern democracy,” or “the myth of contemporary historiography,” or the myth of progress” without being punished??!  Modern political mythology is usually enforced against free thinkers by means of social ostracism at the best, or penal codes and imprisonment at the worst.

In hindsight when we study the ancient Greek myths with their surreal settings and hyperreal creatures, few of us will accord them any historical veracity or any empirical or scientific value. However, few of us will reject those ancient European myths as an outright lie. Why is that?  In fact, most of us enjoy reading those ancient European myths because most of us are aware not just of their strong symbolic nature, but also of their didactic message. This is the main reason why the ancient myths and sagas are still so popular among White Europeans. Those ancient myths of ours thrive in timelessness; they are meant to go beyond the historical timeframe; they defy any historicity. They are open to anybody’s “historical revisionism” or interpretation.  Hence the reason that ancient European myths or sagas can never be dogmatic; they never require the intervention of the thought police or a politically correct enforcer in order to make themselves readable or credible. Read more

Les liens familiaux de Victoria Nuland: Le Gouvernement Permanent en action

/in , /by

English version here

Article d’origine publié le 9 février 2014

Les familles juives influentes qui s’entrecroisent sont un aspect marquant de l’histoire juive. Elles cimentent les relations d’affaires en créant des réseaux de proches parents qui se marient seulement entre eux. On peut donner l’exemple des Juifs de cour, dans l’Europe du 17e et 18e siècle (voir ici, pp 150-152). On observe des résurgences de ce phénomène dans le monde contemporain, comme par exemple chez les néoconservateurs.

Comme pour les autres mouvements intellectuels juifs que j’ai étudiés, les néoconservateurs sont connus pour l’admiration mutuelle qu’ils se prodiguent entre eux, pour leurs étroits rapports d’entraide mutuelle sur les plans personnel, professionnel, et familial, et pour leur coopération ciblée autour d’objectifs communs. Par exemple, Norman Podhoretz, l’ancien rédacteur en chef de Commentary, est le père de John Podhoretz, un éditeur et chroniqueur néoconservateur. Norman Podhoretz est aussi le beau-père d’Elliott Abrams, l’ancien chef de l’Ethics and Public Policy Center (un groupe de réflexion néoconservateur) et directeur des Affaires du Proche-Orient au Conseil de Sécurité Nationale. La femme de Norman, Midge Decter, a récemment publié une biographie hagiographique du secrétaire à la Défense Donald Rumsfeld, dont les deuxième et troisième adjoints au Pentagone étaient respectivement Wolfowitz et Feith. Perle est membre de l’American Enterprise Institute. Au départ, il a aidé Wolfowitz à obtenir un poste à l’Agence pour le Désarmement et le Contrôle des Armes [Arms Control and Disarmament Agency] en 1973. En 1982, Perle, en tant que secrétaire adjoint [Assistant Secretary] à la Défense pour la politique de sécurité internationale, a engagé Feith comme son conseiller spécial, puis comme secrétaire adjoint suppléant [Deputy Assistant Secretary] pour la Politique des Négociations. En 2001, le secrétaire adjoint [Deputy Secretary] à la Défense Paul Wolfowitz a aidé Feith à obtenir le poste de sous-secrétaire pour la politique [du département de la défense]. Feith a ensuite nommé Perle président du Defense Policy Board [Comité de la Politique de Défense]. Et ce n’est que la pointe d’un très gros iceberg. “Le néoconservatisme en tant que mouvement juif” (p. 32)

Les réseaux et liens ethniques cimentés par le mariage sont mis en évidence par le récent incident concernant la sous-secrétaire d’État Victoria Nuland, et sa conversation téléphonique avec Geoffrey Pyatt, l’ambassadeur américain en Ukraine. Comme le dit Steve Sailer sur le blog VDARE, Nuland est membre d’une

famille [juive] très talentueuse et énergique, qui fait partie du Gouvernement Permanent des États-Unis. Peu importe qui gagne l’élection présidentielle: il se trouvera un Kagan-Nuland pour travailler on ne sait à quoi, on ne sait où, en votre nom et à vos frais.

Le lien avec les Kagan existe via son mari, Robert Kagan. Comme l’ont remarqué Vos yeux qui mentent, “Robert et son frère Fred semblent s’être stratégiquement implantés à des postes clés pour l’élaboration de la politique au sein de l’appareil central des partis Démocrate et Républicain. Robert est incrusté à la Brookings Institution, tandis que Fred est cramponné à l’American Enterprise Institute”.

Nous avons ainsi un nouvel arbre de famille chez les néoconservateurs juifs. Il commence avec Donald Kagan, un historien de l’Université de Yale, dont l’histoire de la Guerre du Péloponnèse a été utilisée par les néoconservateurs pour justifier l’invasion des pays qu’Israël n’aime pas (voir Sailer). Donald Kagan était également signataire de la lettre de 2002 à George W. Bush, rédigée par le PNAC de Bill Kristol (Project for the New American Century – Projet pour le nouveau siècle américain), qui considérait les dangers menaçant Israël (Iran, Syrie, Irak) comme des dangers menaçant l’Amérique.

Dans la génération suivante, Fred Kagan (American Enterprise Institute) et Robert Kagan (Brookings Institution) sont également des piliers du néoconservatisme. (Par exemple, Donald, Robert et Frédéric sont tous signataires du manifeste néoconservateur, Reconstruire les Défenses de l’Amérique, émis par le PNAC en 2000). Eux tous, y compris leurs femmes, sont diplômés d’universités d’élite, et fermement implantés dans l’infrastructure néoconservatrice qui associe gouvernement et groupes de réflexion [think tanks]. La femme de Fred, Kimberly (née Kessler), préside l’Institut pour l’Étude de la Guerre, et défend des positions typiquement néoconservatrices.

Et bien que la politique américaine envers l’Ukraine soit probablement liée à divers problèmes en dehors de l’hostilité des néoconservateurs envers la Russie (hostilité due à divers griefs, comme la répression des oligarques par Poutine, et son soutien à l’Iran et la Syrie, pays ennemis d’Israël), il ne fait pas grand doute que le soutien énergique de Nuland aux opposants pro-européens du gouvernement Ianoukovitch s’accorde bien avec les positions défendues par les réseaux néoconservateurs auxquels elle appartient. Admirez notre gouvernement permanent au travail !