Featured Articles

Media Watch – The Gray Wall of Silence: What White New York Times Readers Should Know About What’s Fit To Print

/in /by

Earlier, I wrote about the New York Times’ newly announced policy of censoring racially conscious reader comment on the internet and the New York Times’ Magazine’s nearly all-Jewish editorial content, and how whites are excluded from the conversation.

But the big paper itself — sometimes called “The Old Gray Lady” — has erected an impenetrable wall of silence around the vast swath of American life occupied by white people. What’s more, in this essay, you’ll get some inside information on attempts by the Times’ own staffers to breach that wall, and the results.

In a story typical for its baffling refusal to account for white people, Times reporter Sam Roberts gave us a front-page story on Nov. 17, 2007 about how Hispanic names are beginning to outnumber “Anglo,” or white, names, in America.

Beyond the statistics, reporter Roberts offered several crowing quotes from Hispanics who were tickled to be beating out the whites:

“It shows we’re getting stronger,” Roberts quoted a banker named Luis Padilla. “If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.”

Whites — or “Anglos,” as Roberts calls them — were not quoted at all. Did a Wilson or a Taylor have a thought on being displaced by the Garcias and the Rodriguezes? Not that you saw in the New York Times. One might reasonably ask: If it’s acceptable for Hispanics to be enthusiastic about outnumbering whites, are whites correspondingly entitled to be concerned about the trend? Again: the Times isn’t asking.

The Times might have justified itself by running a story about this demographic trend without quoting any random individuals, Hispanic or white, about their feelings. But that’s not what they chose to do. They deliberately included quotes from Hispanics, thereby setting up the question about why they didn’t talk to whites in big, bold, neon letters.

Could Mr. Roberts have secured such a quote, only to have it edited out later? You won’t find out. Try telephoning him at the Times, and you will be told that he does not speak to the public. Which is odd, considering that he’s ostensibly writing about it in his capacity as a demographics reporter for the nation’s leading newspaper. But the Times’ attitude toward the public — especially the white public — is worse still.

This writer penned a short and reasonable letter to the editor complaining about this fairly obvious omission. (I know that complaints about un-run letters to the editor fall on the ears as desperate, so please bear with me for a second.) Having seen several similar letters run in some of the nation’s top newspapers, I thought this one might stand a chance, despite the fact that I am not writing from Cambridge and do not hold an ambassador post.

Unable to restrain myself, and not wanting to cross in the mail with this blog essay, I telephoned the desk to check. The woman who answered the phone returned after digging for a few minutes and said that “you may well hear from us” about my letter. I was tantalized. But when the standard period of a week passed and the letter did not run, I knew it would never. A follow-up call confirmed it.

Convinced, however, that the issue of the media’s ignoring of whites was more important than my own satisfaction at seeing a letter run, I tried contacting the public editor, Clark Hoyt. Mr. Hoyt’s position as “public editor” is more theoretical than real, because, as with reporters, he does not speak to the public. You must send an e-mail, which is almost certainly not read by Mr. Hoyt himself. While I certainly understand that open lines might make for time on the phone with lunatics, why have a position as “public editor” if that person won’t speak to the readers?

Alas, attempts to contact the public editor were fruitless. And you will almost certainly never see Mr. Hoyt address these issues in his column.

So, not only does the New York Times refuse to speak to whites in news stories about which they’re half the topic, it won’t even speak to white readers who seek to comment about that practice. I would say that it’s harder to imagine how much more thoroughly whites could be shut out, but as the essay linked to above shows, it’s even willing to censor the comments they do have that make it past the front door.

It all raises the question: what would have to happen for a New York Times reporter to speak to a white person as a member of the white race, and quote him or her? Read on: it almost happened.

About ten years ago, I had emerged from a successful challenge to a journalism internship at the Boston Globe that excluded whites. I did not pursue the internship because I was employed as a reporter elsewhere, but one reporter took notice of all this: Seth Schiesel, then covering the communications industry for the New York Times. Mr. Schiesel, who I believe is biracial, was intrigued enough by my story to invite me to lunch, at which we discussed my challenge to the internship, affirmative action, and journalism.

He told me that he was considering doing a story about my challenge, perhaps along with other whites kept from jobs by affirmative action. He also suggested that it didn’t stand a good chance of running, for several reasons, one of which was that it may have been too self-referential: The Times owns (and I think then owned) the Boston Globe, and papers are wary of covering themselves. He also hinted that he had come along as a reporter himself through the very internship I’d been denied, or a similar one, and had worked for a time on the Globe’s editorial desk. But I was in turn intrigued that a reporter from the Times would have taken notice at all.

Again, needless to say, Mr. Schiesel’s story did not see the light of day. But my encounter with him serves as a useful piece of information for white media consumers: the media’s black hole of political correctness is so powerful, almost nothing escapes. If a reporter inside goes against all odds and indulges a little curiosity about the plight of whites, it will not be “fit to print,” as the Times says.

What we do see, however, are the inevitable disasters, like the saga of Jayson Blair, a young black reporter for the Times fired for concocting stories from whole cloth. It is hard to imagine that a collection of people as well-educated and inquisitive as the staff of the New York Times doesn’t look at the Jayson Blair episode and wonder whether there isn’t something deeply wrong with the whole multiculturalism project. But no. It carries on.

In Coloring the News, a 2001 book on the devastating effects of multiculturalism on journalism, writer William McGowan’s references to the New York Times in the index go on for so long, they seem to cover half the book. Occidental Observer readers looking for detailed information on this topic would do well to take a look at this book. What’s especially interesting are the repeated instances in which, when McGowan sought to talk to journalists about these problems, they begged off — or asked for anonymity — because of the career-ending risks of saying the wrong thing. Such is our “free” press.

[adrotate group=”1″]

In a 1993 special publication of National Review called “The Decline of American Journalism,” writer Daniel Seligman recounts how an in-office “diversity” team at the New York Times had such internal divisions it had to retire to Tarrytown, NY for a two-day retreat in which members were subjected to psychological testing. What was the issue? Whether white journalists should be whipped in public — or in private?

I suspect there is one overriding reason for the New York Times’ — and the rest of the media’s — refusal to speak to white Americans as members of a group. The minute such a thing happens, whites, as a group, will be recognized as America’s newest, and biggest, interest group. This would be cataclysmic — a virtual warping of America’s political space-time continuum. With a few strokes of the keyboard, one writer will have changed the course of history.

For the Times to voluntarily reach out like this, something incredible would have to happen. It’s more likely to be forced along by overwhelming current events. The question is, how much longer can it keep whites as a group at bay?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Eye on Hollywood: Letter of termination to the white race

/in /by

If an insightful document is found to be a forgery, does that totally negate its value as an analytical tool or source of useful information? In the case of history’s most infamous forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the argument is that the document is worthless—or worse. No matter how accurate or useful the information contained therein might be, The Protocols is consistently dismissed as not only a fraud, but as an anti-Semitic fraud at that.

This week I happened across a much shorter example in the form of a brief letter written to whites of the world. Called “Letter of Termination to the White Race,” it was almost certainly not composed by the envious non-white who claims to have penned it.

The letter tersely describes why the white race is toast. The 92% of the world’s population who are not white and have not succeeded in building successful civilizations are now demographically swamping every last white homeland. And they are being led by an “out group” that has been using our own “media and government, academia, and law enforcement organizations” to “terminate” us. 

Perhaps the most perverse aspect of this dispossession is this passage:

By carefully controlling and managing the schools, universities, media, and press, this “out group” has managed to convince the great bulk of your racial kinsmen that not only is resistance futile, but that it is immoral, barbaric, depraved, and unworthy of a “thinking” individual. By promoting the stereotype of a “racist redneck resistance”, they have made the idea of a struggle for White Identity a veritable sin in the minds of nearly every White person. In short: they have convinced European-derived peoples that a prolonged suicide is preferable to the unmitigated evil of “racism”.

The author most certainly gets it right when he says that “you Whites have become a neutered, egoless herd of cattle, easily manipulated and posing no threat to the Out Group.”

There is no escaping the fact that the details contained in the letter are perfectly true. For instance, who can think of The Wichita Massacre or The Knoxville Horror without realizing the truth of a statement such as, “We will beat and murder your sons; we will rape your wives and daughters.”

Though we whites are the victims, “the Out Group will use their media to label you with shocking epithets and broad smears: racist, hater, bigot, neo-Nazi, nativist, White supremacist, domestic terrorist, etc.” I’ve written about this very thing previously in this blog, and Kevin MacDonald has shown how white identity has became pathologized by the  success of several Jewish intellectual and political movements.

What makes this all so demoralizing is the fact that, as the author so cruelly reminds us, a good portion of the white population welcomes our demise. “Adios, White man! You had a good, long run, but your day is over . . . and your race is no longer wanted here. . . . Besides, many of you are even anticipating this with something akin to sick glee. After all, that’s how the TV set told them to feel. The brainwashing is almost complete, and the sheep are in line to shear.”

Provocative blogger Birdman makes some good points regarding the letter:

Is the following essay serious? It is in at least one sense: There can be little doubt that the future it portrays for the white man is true. Whether it was written by an arrogant Jew dripping with vengeance, burning with white hatred and animated by near-victory, or else one who was feigning arrogance in hopes of shocking us and getting us off our duffs in hopes that we might save the civilization that has been so good to Jews, is anyone’s guess. I can only hope we will take it as a much-needed lesson.

Go ahead and read the entire letter. It’s not long. You will see how correct the author is, no matter who that author might actually be or why he wrote it.

Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Breaking Bottles Underfoot: The Continuing Jewish Takeover of the New York Times’ Wedding Announcements

/in /by

As TOO readers are aware, one of my favorite targets for white advocacy critique is The New York Times.  There are many good reasons for this, one of which is the Times’ standing as America’s pre-eminent newspaper.  Sometimes, one can tell a lot about the direction of American society simply by looking at what the Times chooses to highlight (or not), even in seemingly innocuous areas.

Take wedding announcements.  The New York Times wedding announcements are famous for their exclusivity.  Once the domain of WASPy Ivy Leaguers, it is now heavily Jewish.  Of the 35 announcements to make the cut for the July 6, 2008 Sunday Styles section, 13 were Jewish couples.  That’s more than a third, for a population that does not claim to constitute more than three to six percent of American society.  It’s also more than double the 12 percent seen about 10 years ago (see below).

Of course, the Ivy League — or any connection to it — remains important as a criterion for admission, as do the medical and legal professions, finance, and of course, journalism.  The working class need not apply.  But instead of the white gentile Ivy League, it now features the Jewish Ivy League.

The Times surely congratulates itself on its “inclusivity” otherwise.  For instance, there was a Shinto wedding, a Muslim wedding and a Hindu wedding, three homosexual couples (including a black lesbian couple, one of whom was described as a self-employed carpenter), Hispanic couples, and several Asian couples.  How does a self-employed carpenter get a wedding announcement in the New York Times?  By being a black lesbian, of course. This is contra Slate writer Timothy Noah’s prediction that no such thing would happen.

Amusingly, Noah, whom I believe is Jewish, admits to pulling strings to have his own wedding announcement run.  In his piece, Noah cites a 1997 article by David Brooks — also Jewish — who leads off with an anecdote about the marriage of a Jewish Ivy League couple.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Brooks is frank about the replacement of Episcopalians with Jews on the pages, and even references The Bell Curve in doing so.  The article is loaded with clever speculation and insight on the whole business of wedding pages demographics. But Brooks puts a Jew-positive spin on the trend by saying it’s now brains over birth, or merit over heritage.  In other words, the white WASPs once featured didn’t deserve to be there, but the new smart Jews do.

I don’t see it that way.  WASPs once ran America not because it dropped in their laps, but because they had the strength to forge a new society in America, and the ethnic cohesion to run it.  Jews now run America because they had the strength to take it over, and the ethnic cohesion to hold and expand their position.  Meanwhile, WASPs were easy targets because their own will to survive died long ago.

There are obvious differences between WASPs and Jews — one being that Jews aren’t running America to the benefit of whites.  But from way up high, it’s a simple replacement of one power group with another.  Even for whites whose modest unions will never grace the pages of the New York Times’ wedding announcements, this is something to pay attention to.  We whites should be asking:  who holds power in America, and is it good for us?

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

Eye on the Media – NYT’s Kristof Admits: A White Mugabe Would Get Attention

/in , /by

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof is a bit of an enigma:  an apparently white gentile male with solidly liberal leanings who occasionally flirts with the reality of genetic differences.  His big concern, as with many white liberals, is Africa.

But Kristof is not quite the apologist that Walter Duranty was for the Soviet Union.  He lays bare the atrocities of African regimes and does not reflexively blame whites for Africa’s messes.

In his Sunday column, he actually reports that many black Africans in Zimbabwe preferred the rule of white leader Ian Smith to its present leader, black African Robert Mugabe, because under Smith, food was available.

Says Kristof, “If only Mr. Mugabe were a white racist! Then the regional powers might stand up to him. For the sake of Zimbabweans, we should be just as resolute in confronting African tyrants who are black as in confronting those who are white.”

The attacks on white farmers by Mugabe and his goons — as well as horrifying violence committed against fellow blacks — should be known to white advocates.  The latter has started to get attention from the Bush administration and even Britain, which recently stripped Mugabe of his “knighthood” (what it says about the West that he ever got this in the first place is too depressing to consider.)

But for Kristof, the fate of whites shouldn’t enter into the moral calculus at all. He states, “Britain squandered its influence partly by focusing on the plight of dispossessed white farmers. (That’s tribalism for Anglo-Saxons.)”

Those tribal British! All they care about is people like themselves when they should really be finding ways to help out the blacks. Of course, the sad fact is that the British have lost the normal human sense of tribalism to the point that both major parties officially endorse Britain as a multicultural, multiethnic state.

Kristof is correct that a white Mugabe would get attention.  But he’s wrong if he thinks the West should or will drop its double standard.  The truth is that we expect such madness from black Africans, because it’s perfectly in line with their past behavior.  The lower IQ, quickness to violence and higher rates of pathology among blacks are a compelling explanation for that behavior, but beyond that, the madness of Africa is not the business of whites (with the exception of the attacks on whites, for which I recommend military intervention and refugee status in white countries).

Africa is a hellhole not because of the legacy of colonialism, “racism” by the white West or “failures of leadership,” but because it is populated by the lowest-IQ human beings on Earth.  Their evolutionary trajectory simply does not equip them to live in or make the civilized societies of the West.  This is no cause for mockery or condemnation, but simple understanding and acknowledgment.

[adrotate group=”1″]

But this understanding is crucial, because whites have saddled themselves — with the prodding of men like Kristof — to feel that Africa’s situation can be remedied if we simply take the right actions.  Of course, it won’t.

Even if the case could be made that whites should make humanitarian gestures toward Africa, this would be immoral given the present crisis facing whites. Whites need to be attending to their own people, who are quickly vanishing from the Earth.  If Kristof wants a tragedy to cover, he should look into this.

Christopher Donovan is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.

The Specter of Russian Nationalism

/in /by

A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels,Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848

The fallout from the Russian invasion of Georgia continues. The Daily Mailreports that “Across the region, newspapers, commentators and politicians drew parallels between Moscow’s operations in Georgia to Soviet interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968 to crush their attempts to leave Moscow’s orbit.”

The LA Times did its bit, with a photo op-ed piece titled “All too familiar” juxtaposing photos from Czechoslovakia in 1968 with photos from Georgia, 2008.

But there’s a huge difference. As I pointed out in “Neocons versus Russia,” Russia under Putin is committed to Russian nationalism. There is no evidence whatever that Russia is committed to Communist internationalism and its ideology of world revolution. Those days are over (thankfully).

Russia stands out among the white-majority societies of the world because it is not dominated by elites bent on managing the dissolution of the peoples and culture that created them.

Russian nationalism is on display in a variety of ways. The LA Times reports on “a patriotic concert” in Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia: “In front of a badly damaged government building, a Russian orchestra performed pieces by Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich as 1,000 or so residents held up candles and the flags of Russia and South Ossetia, the catalyst in this month’s conflict between Russia and Georgia.”

Nationalism in a white country—a frightening prospect indeed for Western elites. For the neocons, not surprisingly, it conjures up images of National Socialist Germany: Neocon Robert Kagan lost no time in comparing the Russian invasion of Georgia to the German occupation of the Sudentenland in 1938. Neoconservative rhetoric on the Georgian crisis is steeped in the language of Munich, Neville Chamberlain, and the “lessons of appeasement.”

The good news is that Russian nationalism is real. Consider Putin’s appointment of Dmitry Rogozin, a Russian nationalist politician, as Ambassador to NATO. Rogozin is described as “one of the founders of the Congress of Russian Communities, a political movement dedicated to voicing the concerns of ethnic Russians and pushing nationalist causes.” In 2003 he became head of the nationalist Rodina [Motherland] coalition. After being forced out of that position, he became involved with the Movement Against Illegal Immigration, “championing the rights of ethnic Russians and organizing nationalist demonstrations.” While head of Rodina, the party put on a television ad starring Rogozin:

The video shows three surly Azerbaijanis eating watermelon and throwing the peels on the ground; to make their nationality clear, Azerbaijani music is playing in the background. A dignified Russian mother is walking by pushing her child in a pram, stepping on the peels. One of the Azerbaijanis insults the Russian lady. All this is witnessed by Rogozin and his vice president; this time Terminator music starts playing in the background. They ask the Azerbaijanis to “clean the space”, but the Azerbaijanis ignore them. Then Rogozin puts a firm hand on one of the Azerbaijanis, and demands of him: “Do you understand Russian?” That’s when the logo of Rodina appears, and the words below the logo say “We will clear Moscow of the dirt”. [Emphasis in text; See the video.]

The imagery of defending a Russian woman and her baby against foreign men is particularly striking. Imagine a similar ad aired by a US political party directed against immigrants being aired on the major television networks.

It goes without saying that if an American or European politician were associated with such a video, he or she would be condemned to the extremist fringe of political life, with no chance whatever of obtaining power or influence. The powers that be would make it difficult for him even to find employment. But in Russia, Rogozin has been elevated to an important, high-profile foreign policy position where he can express his nationalist views to NATO whose actions have been a sore point with Russian nationalists for years.

This point has not been lost on observers. Rogozin’s appointment “was seen as an extension of President Vladimir Putin’s combative tone with the West and NATO, specifically. As a strong voice for Russian interests and nationalism, his tenure has been marked by little shift in tone but a continuation of Putin’s rhetoric in principle.”

[adrotate group=”1″]

Maybe, just maybe, Russia under Putin and Medvedev gets it. The Russian elite seem to understand that ethnic nationalism is healthy and natural, even for white people. They acted decisively against the Jewish oligarchs whose loyalties lay elsewhere and whose behavior threatened to produce a Russia subservient to the West. They have also failed to welcome non-Russian immigration—much to the chagrin of Jeff Mankoff, a Zionist writing in the international edition of the New York Times. (We won’t bother to dwell on the hypocrisy of those whose primary loyalty is to a country with a biological standard for immigration lecturing the West about the moral imperative of mass multi-ethnic immigration. And to think such ideas would appear in a publication of the New York Times. Shocking!)

Their own experience of being a victimized ethnic majority dominated by a hostile Jewish elite in the early decades of the Soviet Union (see Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century) may well have reinforced their own sense of ethnicity and made them immune to the ideologies of victimhood—and especially Jewish victimhood—that permeate the West.

Indeed, it is interesting that one of the first Russian responses in the wake of the invasion of Georgia has been to initiate talks with Syria about providing advanced anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. The Russians obviously have a grasp of the reality of American foreign policy as centered around the interests of Israel, and they seem bent on punishing Israel for its military and political ties to Georgia. Russia continues to provide Iran with nuclear material as well as weaponry designed to protect its nuclear installations.

Neoconservatives and other elements of Western elites will do all they can to destroy Russian nationalism. As noted above, we have already seen that neocons have compared the Russian actions in Georgia to the actions of Germany in the 1930s.

Such a comparison warrants the most extreme and violent response because National Socialism is the epitome of evil in the current Western lexicon. A nationalist, ethnically conscious white nation is the worst nightmare of these elites because it represents a shining counterexample to their managed destruction of white racial identity and the traditional culture of the West. We can expect that these elites will respond with all of the power they can muster.

A white, racially conscious Russia is dangerous to these elites because it may well become a shining city on the hill while other Western nations sink into multiculturalism and whites become minorities victimized by affirmative action, anti-white crime, and ever more hostile coalitions of the non-white majority.

Imagine a world in 20 years when whites in the US are on the verge of becoming a minority. (The Census Bureau recently moved the year of whites becoming a minority to 2042, and this landmark event will doubtless be ratcheted down as the pro-immigration forces gain yet more steam). But imagine also at this time a Russia that is prosperous and proud, technologically advanced, and energy independent; with a birthrate that has rebounded from its horrendous decline; that has remained ethnically Russian and has resisted the many pressures to open the floodgates to other peoples; and that has retained its culture and its sense of peoplehood.

No doubt the chattering classes in the West will continue to condemn it and continue to complain about its lack of democracy. But the glaring differences between the fate of whites in Russia and in the enlightened, multicultural West will become too obvious to ignore. This would indeed produce a crisis of epic proportions.

The Neocons Versus Russia

/8 Comments/in , /by

The Russian invasion of Georgia following Georgia’s attempt to reestablish its dominance over its secessionist province of South Ossetia has certainly infuriated the neocons. Max Boot and Charles Krauthammer have called for various moves to isolate Russia from the West and from the international economic community. The Weekly Standard has an article by Stuart Koehl urging Georgians to fight on with US aid, and an article by Charlie Szrom of the American Enterprise Institute (aka neocon central) advocating massive US aid and alliances among Eastern European countries.

We know that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement — the news having finally reached the mainstream media with books like Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. Now imagine for a moment that you are a typical Jewish neocon — that is, someone who sees the world fundamentally through Zionist  lenses and, for starters, cannot fathom any difference between the interests of the United States and Israel. Or, what amounts to the same thing, imagine that you are an Israeli geopolitical strategizer. How  would such a person think of the situation? 

Quite clearly, you would be very unhappy that Russia has managed to crush the Georgian military and threaten regime change in Georgia. Israel has strong connections to Georgia. It has provided weapons and training to the Georgian military (although it recently stopped providing weapons after Russian complaints). Israel also has over $1.5 billion invested in Georgia, and Israel is proposing that the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline be extended to the  Israeli port of Ashkelon for transshipment to south and  east Asia. Two top ministers  of the Georgian government are Jews with strong ties to Israel, including Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili who is a former Israeli fluent in Hebrew.

The other side of the equation is that neocons have been hostile toward Russia. They supported the war that resulted in independence of Kosovo from Serbia, an ally of Russia. They also support Chechnyan independence from Russia, NATO membership for Eastern European countries formerly dominated by the USSR,  and the aggressive US policy of providing missiles to Poland and the Czech Republic.

Why the neocon hostility toward Russia? We could certainly imagine that if Russia was controlled by the Israel Lobby and Jewish interests in the same way that the United States is, this would not be happening. Indeed, a major neocon complaint is that Russia delayed sanctions against Israel’s arch-enemy Iran and has supplied Iran with nuclear material as well as weaponry designed to protect its nuclear installations.

Quite simply, we think that neocon hostility stems from the fact that Russia under Vladimir Putin proved to be far more nationalistic than is good for the Jews or for Israel. A landmark event was Putin’s crackdown on the oligarchs — that small, overwhelmingly Jewish group of tycoons that came to control the industrial base of the USSR during the shift to capitalism. The oligarchs pumped huge amounts of money into the campaign to keep Boris Yeltsin in office and enrich themselves. They also supported Putin at first, but Putin gradually cut into the  dominance of the oligarchs.

When in 1996 it appeared that Yeltsin might lose his reelection to the Communists, the oligarchs poured millions into Yeltsin’s campaign and began flooding the television airwaves (which they owned) with pro-Yeltsin “news” items while conspicuously failing to give any airtime to the opposition. With Yeltsin’s victory, the loans-for-shares deal was finalized, catapulting the oligarchs from a small group of millionaires to a small group of billionaires. A few years later the oligarchs “guaranteed” (to use Berezovsky’s term) that Vladimir Putin, like Yeltsin before him, would get elected in Russia’s 2000 Presidential elections.

A turning point was the arrest and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the head of Yukos, the oil giant. Arch-neocon Richard Perle led the charge against Putin, calling for the ouster of Russia from the G-8 — the  same sort of policy the neocons are proposing in the wake of the invasion of Georgia. Khodorkosky was viewed as without any feeling for Russian nationalism and far too friendly with the United States:

Khodorkovsky has spent years pursuing what is essentially a personal, pro-American foreign policy, cultivating contacts with the most influential politicians, diplomats, bankers and public relations specialists in Washington — actions the siloviki, a group of hawks in the Kremlin made up of former KGB men, consider reprehensible….

Compounding this perceived threat are Khodorkovsky’s efforts to endear himself to the White House. One only need look at the people who have rallied to Khodorkovsky’s defense [the article mentions Stuart Eizenstat, Richard Perle, George Soros, and John McCain (!)] to see how the siloviki could make a convincing case to cut Khodorkovsky down to size.

The crackdown against the oligarchs resulted in agonized complaints about the demise of democracy in Russia, and we are sure to see more such complaints in the wake of the invasion of Georgia. The neocons much preferred a democracy in which the Jewish oligarchs completely controlled the media and could buy large blocs of the Duma — in other words, a democracy that much more resembles our own.

The fact that Soros and Eizenstat — both associated with the left — also condemned Khodorkovsky’s arrest suggests a Jewish consensus on this issue. Soros was also deeply involved in the so-called Rose Revolution that vaulted Mikheil Saakashvili into the presidency of Georgia.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Moreover, the most recent ADL document on anti-Semitism in Russia notes that despite better relations between the Russian government and Jews within Russia, there have been no changes in Russia’s foreign policy toward Iran or its policy of engagement with the Palestinian group Hamas. This contrasts with the ADL’s stance early in Vladimir Putin’s presidency when the ADL complained that the Russian leadership did not immediately condemn what the ADL terms “Governor [of Kursk Alexander] Mikhailov’s blatantly anti-Semitic statement.”  Mikhailov had expressed his gratitude for the support Putin had given him in his struggle against “filth” — a reference to the previous governor of Kursk, Alexander Rutskoy, Boris Berezovsky, and the All-Russian Jewish Congress. Berezovsky is a former Russian-Jewish media tycoon who used his control of the main television channel to promote Boris Yeltsin for president in 1996 but fled Russia after the ascent of Putin after being charged with fraud. Rutskoy, who is Jewish, was seen as allied with Berezovsky. The ADL complained that the Russian leadership chastised Mikhailov only after a “storm of protest that Mikhailov’s conduct generated among Jews and the mainstream media in Russia and abroad.”

No wonder Pat Buchanan recently termed democracy a “flickering  star” because  democratic governments are so often out of touch with the people they rule, whereas governments like China and Russia enjoy overwhelming popular support. This is so on a wide range of issues in the US —  immigration policy being the most egregious example. In the area of foreign policy we have seen that a small cabal of neocons could successfully promote US involvement in a costly and disastrous war in Iraq — a war on behalf of Israel and certainly not in the interests of the United States.

And speaking of democracy, the fact that John McCain came to the defense of Khodorkovsky is yet another indication that he is completely tied into the neocon foreign policy establishment. Just recently it became  known that Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s foreign policy adviser, was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of Georgia. Scheunemann was also President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, sponsored by Bill Kristols’ Project for a New American Century. Kristol, like the other neocons, is eager for the US to stand up to Russia over Georgia: “Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?” Ah, the old argumentum ad Hitlerum.

There can be no greater condemnation of American democracy than that John McCain will be the candidate of  one of the  major parties, while the other party will nominate Barack Obama.

Finally, we should remember that from 1881 until the fall of the Czar, in addition to dominating the revolutionary movement in Russia, there was a Jewish consensus to use their influence in Europe and America to oppose Russia. This had an effect on a wide range of issues, including the financing of Japan in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, the abrogation of the American-Russian trade agreement in 1908, and the financing of revolutionaries within Russia by wealthy Jews such as Jacob Schiff.

The triumph  of Bolshevism resulted in a period of Jewish dominance in the Soviet  Union and unimaginable horrors for the Russian people. This period of Jewish dominance and its disastrous effects on the Russian people are doubtless not far from the minds of Russia’s current leaders.

We can expect a similarly long and persistent Jewish campaign against Russia, waged with all the intensity of the 1881–1917 campaign. In an age of nuclear weapons the stakes are very high for the entire planet.

The Order of Canada to an Abortionist?

/1 Comment/in /by

Dr. Henry Morgentaler has been named to the Order of Canada for his efforts in promoting and legalizing abortion.  The event provoked controversy. Not a surprise. But it got me thinking about it more seriously in two respects. First, how do I feel about it? And, second, what are the implications for our people?

My gut reaction is negative. I don’t like the whole idea of it being done to any woman, especially those I love. My god, what would it mean if my daughter became pregnant and considered an abortion? It would mean that something had gone very badly, no?

Of course if the fetus were obviously defective, e.g., with a genetic disease like Downs syndrome, there would seem to be no rational (as opposed to religious, aesthetic or emotional) argument against aborting such a fetus. Abortion in all such cases (6% of all abortions) is surely eugenic and is performed for precisely that reason even if the term “eugenic” is rarely used. Even if the “defective” individual were sterile, the parental and societal investment would, from a strictly biological and economic standpoint, constitute a waste of resources. True, even if the politically correct don’t want to think about it.

It’s the same in cases of rape (less than 1% of abortions). Abortion is rational, over and above the psychological trauma of rape (hatred, fear, alienation, sadness), since the pregnancy would not have been the result of the woman’s choice of mate. Women’s choice prevents parasitism by violence-prone males who will not invest in the child’s future. It can be thought of as a minimal selection mechanism for good genes — as well as an element (among many) for promoting a healthy psychological environment for a child.  

But what if there is no evidence of defect in the fetus nor of rape (absence of female choice) (93% of all abortions)? Here it depends on whether you’ve bought an “individualistic” view of humanity or one which assumes an inherent and inevitable interconnectedness and interdependence of people within a society (especially family, extended family and ethny/nation).1 According to the former view, a woman should be able to do anything she wants with herself and her unborn child since no one else is presumed to be directly affected. However, the interdependence position assumes that no one is an island and that we all have some responsibilities toward others in our family and our race.

While people obviously will disagree on the nature and degree of such responsibilities, other members of a woman’s family and extended family do have a legitimate interest in her reproduction. Parents of a woman will typically place great hope in their daughter having children. Ideally, they want their daughter to have a successful marriage (meaning first choosing and then getting a man with good genes, character and capacity to be a good, supportive father to her children). But if things are not ideal (e.g., marriage is not a possibility), the parents may still want the daughter to give birth and at the very least give it up for adoption if they are unable to care for the baby themselves. The strong demand for healthy white babies as adoptees is well known.

Such concerns are not a matter of a (negotiated) “social contract” between the woman and her parents any more than there was a “social contract” governing the parental care of that same woman when she was a child: Her parents simply feel instinctively that they don’t want to lose a grandchild, and obviously there are good evolutionary grounds for such feelings. One could even speculate that such instinctive feelings are the basis for “moral” judgments in such matters which for many are manifested as religious convictions.

Suppose there has been no rape or incest and no obvious defect in the fetus. Could abortion in such cases ever be considered biologically adaptive, meaning promoting the long-term genetic interests of the mother and her family members, their survival and continued reproduction? Well, yes. (Historically, so has infanticide, e.g., when a family’s survival was at stake). All sorts of variables, both genetic and environmental, can have an “adaptive” influence: the quality of the father, the economic circumstances and current health of the mother as compared to what she could anticipate later on, were she to postpone having a child. But having an abortion because of “unfortunate circumstances” has to be weighed against the health hazards of abortion, including risk to future fertility, and against the psychological damage abortion can cause in many if not all women. Incidentally, what sort of women find themselves in such a pickle? If memory serves, in the old days having had an abortion was not a “good sign” of a quality candidate for marriage, although there were sometimes extenuating circumstances. Perhaps today, given the environment that girls are brought up in, it may not signify all that much.

A striking element in this whole business is that many of the most talented people — across all races — are not replacing themselves and abortion would seem to have played at least some role in this trend. E.g., more than half of abortions are for women with family incomes over $30,000, and about twenty percent are for married women. Such patterns are surely dysgenic for an ethny. Reducing the planet’s human population is all well and good, but the place to begin is with those members of an ethny who are least able to provide for a family — as was once the case in N. Europe in the centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution. That revolution may in fact have been facilitated by the preceding differences in reproduction.

Interestingly, Afro-Americans and Hispanics have by far the highest abortion rates in the USA. It has been claimed that such abortions have lowered the crime rate thanks to potential criminals being aborted. If true, that would be eugenic for those groups (and good for the rest of the world), but the hypothesis remains controversial.

Now then, what about Dr. Morgentaler? He was honored for promoting abortion not for cases of defective fetuses or rape and incest (since such abortions were already available in hospitals) but essentially for healthy women and their fetuses when the women simply didn’t want a child at that moment.

[adrotate group=”1″]

It is sometimes said that such abortions are encouraged by Jewish doctors (e.g., Morgentaler) primarily for non-Jewish women as one of several strategies for reducing the dominance of non-Jewish ethnies. Given the influence of Jews in promoting non-white immigration and the anti-white (and anti-Arab) themes of so many Jewish controlled Hollywood films, this is not an unreasonable hypothesis.

Jewish views on abortion are quite varied. Orthodox or highly religious Jews have almost none at all, obeying the Talmudic dictum to “be fruitful and multiply”; they might well get an abortion if the mother’s life were at stake, but even when the fetus is defective quite often they refuse an abortion. Indeed, Orthodox Jews have eagerly embraced reproductive technology, and Israel has strong pro-natalist policies aimed at producing Jewish babies.

Jewish researchers have been largely responsible for screening for Tay Sachs, a genetic disease common among Ashkenazi Jews, and drastically reducing its incidence in part through abortion (but there are other strategies that avoid abortion).  Since Jews make up only a small percentage of the population of N. America, the sample sizes in statistical studies may be too small for very refined analysis of Jewish abortion rates, but their reported portion of abortions overall (1-2%) seems to be proportional to and not far removed from their reported portion of the general population (2-3%). But that still would mean that in absolute numbers, gentiles are having a vastly higher number of abortions.

It is also said that most abortionists are Jewish and that that is evidence of an ethnic conflict factor. This is possible. The case of Felix Theilhaber, a racial Zionist working in Germany in the early twentieth century, certainly suggests ethnic conflict. 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.

It would be worthwhile documenting the ethny (not just religion) of both abortion providers and recipients (and not just the present racial categories of black, Hispanic and white). If it turns out that abortion on demand really is almost entirely provided by Jewish doctors for gentile women, then that aspect should be highly publicized in the context of a general discussion of how our people can make healthier life choices within a healthier life style. Those who are responsible for interfering in this quest should be held accountable.

My conclusion concerning Dr. Morgentaler:

It seems quite possible that the promotion of abortions as a routine method of birth control has contributed to the devaluation in Western cultures of the sentiment of “sacredness” surrounding pregnancy and birth of a child. For that reason I’m dismayed by the celebration of Dr. Morgentaler’s “achievements” with an Order of Canada. To the contrary, aborting healthy babies ought to be re-stigmatized. Of course girls would have to be raised to appreciate the nature of abortion rather than left to their own devices in this world of pro-abortion propaganda. That should be part of a major “consciousness raising” for our women — and men — in a campaign to encourage the healthiest and most talented (and not only the best educated) to have plenty of children, while encouraging those who are not healthy or who are unable to be productive citizens to exercise responsible restraint when it comes to reproducing and thereby avoid saddling the rest of society with the cost of their children’s upbringing. (How to put into practice such a policy requires another essay.)

Condemning abortion is only part of the matter, however. Other birth control methods seem likely to have been much more important in promoting non-reproductive sex both inside and outside of marriage. Fortunately, the abortion rate is gradually declining in the West (down 13% over 9 years in Canada). Unfortunately, the population of Western ethnies, relative to the rest of the world, is also decreasing.

Note also that the success of a country like Iran in reducing its birth rate and avoiding catastrophic overpopulation has depended much more on methods other than abortion — which is available there only for extreme cases (including defective fetuses or threat to the physical or psychological health of the mother) and not as a routine birth control method. I would favor such a policy for my own family and people, but with the added stipulation of encouraging reproduction in those responsible enough to raise a healthy, smart and honorable next generation — within their ethny.

Anthony Hilton is Assoc. Prof. (retired) in the Psychology Department, Concordia University, Montreal. He thanks the editor for valuable suggestions.

[1] See Alain de Benoist: Critique of Liberal Ideology, The Occidental Quarterly, Winter 2007-2008, vol. 7, No. 4, 9-30.