General

Summer 2019 Issue of The Occidental Quarterly: Vol. 19, no.2.

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Summer 2019 journal Vol. 19, No. 2, The Occidental Quarterly, contains eight essays and 137 pages:

  • The Summer issue leads off with Dr. Andrew Joyce’s groundbreaking article on Jewish involvement in shaping American attitudes on race in the post-World War II era: “‘Modify the Standards of the In-Group’: On Jews and Mass Communication.” This article describes the successful effort of a major interlocking group of Jews in the elite media and universities to saturate the mass media with messages promoting positive attitudes toward non-White groups, particularly Blacks and Jews.
  • Grégoire Canlorbe interviews Dr. Ricardo Duchesne, reviewing Duchesne’s previous work on the Faustian spirit of the West in his classic The Uniqueness of Western Civilization as well as Duchesne’s recent insights and additions to this body of theory, particularly as it relates to the discovery of the self and self-consciousness by the peoples of the West.
  • Dr. Nelson Rosit revisits Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, presenting Murray’s data on the decline of the White working class within the framework of life history theory in biology based on a reading of Steven C. Hertler’s, Life History Evolution and Sociology.
  • Andrew Gladwell’s essay draws on psychological research on cognitive dissonance to explain the imperviousness of liberal attitudes to disconfirmation by, e.g., downplaying, ignoring, or rationalizing conflicting information.
  • Dr. Tomislav Sunic’s essay describes the history of Western thought on decadence, particularly as it relates to attitudes on miscegenation and race. Sunic traces this tradition from its beginnings in the Roman world of antiquity with the writings of Sallust and Juvenal, to its resurfacing in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with writers such as Arthur de Gobineau and Oswald Spengler, and continuing into the present era characterized by the decadent behavior and attitudes on race typical of leftist intellectuals.
  • Dr. F. Roger Devlin contributes a review essay on Edward Dutton’s The Silent Rape Epidemic: How the Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers. Although non-White migration came late to Finland, we encounter the typical phenomena seen repeatedly throughout the West: The silence of media and political elites regarding migrant crime, particularly large-scale rape of Finnish women, and regarding the negative effects of migration on social cohesion. Devlin deftly presents Dutton’s evolutionary life history perspective on the Finnish people’s intelligence, hyper-conformity, and susceptibility to guilt.
  • TOQ editor, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, contributes a review essay on Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile. Despite its many shortcomings, Wheatland’s book adds to the material on the Frankfurt School presented in one of Dr. MacDonald’s landmark books, The Culture of Critique.
  • Finally, Dr. Andrew Joyce reviews an apologetic book on Jewish involvement in communism: Paul Hanebrink’s A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism. Joyce presents Hanebrink’s work as typical of the fact-free claims promulgated by elite universities and intended to whitewash the reality of Jewish involvement in communism in the Soviet Union and throughout the West during much of the twentieth century.

 

Featured Video Play Icon

A reminder of what’s at stake: The world we may lose

/4 Comments/in , /by

A Reminder of What a Well-Functioning White Culture Looks Like: Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen

/6 Comments/in /by

An Update to “Why Are Professors Liberals?”: Jewish Influence Firmly Ensconced in Academia by the 1960s

/3 Comments/in , /by

Recently a blog titled “Ideas and Data” posted a very interesting and important article by an anonymous blogger, “The Jewish Question: An Empirical Examination.” I’ll have more to say about this blog in the future, but here I discuss a study on Jewish academic influence that I was unaware of.

This is the video version:

First, some introductory material from my paper, “Why Are Professors Liberals?.”

Gross and Fosse point out that it was during the 1960s when universities became strongly associated with the political left in the eyes of friends and foes alike — enough to result in self-selection processes in which conservatives would feel unwelcome in the university:

Higher education was a crucial micromobilization context for a number of left social movements in the 1960s and 1970s, which further enhanced the institution’s liberal reputation; with concerted cultural efforts by American conservatives, especially from the 1950s on, to build a collective identity for their movement around differentiation from various categories of “liberal elites,” not least liberal professors; with restricted opportunities for Americans on the far left to enter other institutional spheres; and with self-reinforcing processes by which selfselection into the academic profession by liberals resulted in a more liberal professoriate whose reputation for liberalism was thereby maintained or enhanced. (pp. 158–159)

Further, because elite universities attempt to most represent the zeitgeist of the field, Gross and Fosse point out they will offer positions to scholars they see as exemplary; political attitudes are a major part of being exemplary. As noted above, Inbar and Lammers (2012) found that many liberal academics openly acknowledge that they would discriminate against a conservative job candidate. This rigorous policing of the attitudes of professors at elite institutions in turn leads to elite institutions being to the left of lesser institutions. In the academic hierarchy, the result is that graduate students coming from elite institutions are most representative of the leftist academic culture, either because of their socialization in the academic environment or simply because of self-interest as a member of a group (e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, homosexuals) whose interests are championed by the left. This becomes progressively diluted as one goes to the second- and third-tier schools and eventually down to K–12 education. The result is a liberal social environment at all levels of the educational system which in turn has measurable effects on student attitudes. Public opinion surveys carried out since the 1960s show that going to college results in attitude change in a liberal direction compared to parents. If education level remained the same, there was little change in attitudes (Kaufmann, 2004, p. 191).

Thus, academia is a top-down system in which the highest levels are rigorously policed to ensure liberal ideological conformity. Read more

Fraser Anning’s Open Letter on the New Zealand Murders

/31 Comments/in /by

Fraser Anning is a Senator from Queensland in the Australian Parliament. His letter appeared in Pickering Post, March 27, 2019.

AN OPEN LETTER TO

PRIME MINISTER SCOTT MORRISON

from

Senator Fraser Anning

Prime Minister Morrison,

You are threatening to censure me in the Australian Parliament for statements I made following the mass murder of New Zealand Muslims on Friday the 15th of March. Labor leader Bill Shorten agrees with your intentions.

You accuse me of blaming the victims in my initial response to the atrocity. This, despite the fact that my statement unequivocally condemned this heinous act of murderous violence.

One of the victims of this rampage was a toddler. All were innocent. The perpetrator is a monster and no sane person would think otherwise.

There are no mitigating factors which could in any way excuse this evil act. The person responsible needs to feel the full force of the law.

After putting the immediate blame where it belongs, I looked for contributing causes. I said: “The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand”.

I was referring, obviously, to terrorists and the backlash they potentially incite. Nowhere in that statement did I imply that any of the victims were fanatics. They were hapless victims.

My brief comment was not an academic treatise seeking to identify all the causes. Instead I zeroed in on the New Zealand government’s indiscriminate immigration policies, which are very much in line with your own.

The censure motion is an attempt to deflect attention from your reckless policies, which are causing run-away diversity – a well-documented risk factor for communal conflict. Shame on you.

Your exploitation of the killing has helped open the door to the far left. Now, innocent conservatives and even the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation are being accused of guilt for mass murder on the flimsy basis that the killer’s manifesto opposed Islamic immigration to Europe.

This guilt by association has the same level of honesty as your own accusation against me. As Douglas Murray states, “Beliefs held by millions [are] not rendered invalid by [the] actions of a maniac.”

What distinguished the killer from others concerned about Islamic immigration is that he abandoned politics and took up terrorism. To blame conservatives for Christchurch, as is now happening, is as irrational as blaming democratic socialists for Communist mass murder.

It is completely appropriate to consider contributing causes. This mass murder is clearly a form of inter-ethnic, inter-religious and inter-cultural violence.

It is a matter of fact that in recent times, these kinds of deadly attacks have proliferated in Western countries. Initially, these attacks were mostly committed by Muslims but more recently, have been committed against them.

It is a matter of causation, not moral blame, that until recently we were largely immune to this problem because until the 1970s Western populations were, for the most part, ethnically, culturally and religiously homogenous.

I believe that these changes were initiated by governments, not requested by the people, who generally wished to retain their way of life, as did others around the world.

The Japanese people have no wish to bring in millions of Vietnamese and grant them citizenship. The Chinese don’t want to be swamped with Indians.

No people wish for this. We didn’t vote for it and we weren’t asked. Yet every Prime Minister since Whitlam has embraced the policy of indiscriminate immigration. The only choice has been in how quickly we would become a minority.

“We the people,” were given no democratic option to oppose this madness. Every major party supported it.

For example, you recently critisised Bill Shorten’s refugee policy. You said it was reckless as it would double the number of refugees at a cost of six billion dollars every year.

You implied that your own policy was somehow responsible because you would import only half that number at a cost of three billion dollars per year.

Are Australians supposed to thank you for driving us over the fiscal cliff at half the speed?

As Prime Minister, you must accept the greatest share of the blame. Sadly, you are not alone. Every other mainstream political party subscribes to the ridiculous trope that diversity is a strength. It is not, and the people know it.

You have pursued these policies against the will of the people. Along with the deep state, you have viciously attacked anyone who opposed this madness.

People have been destroyed by accusations of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, white supremacy and an ever-growing number of slurs.

In order to lock-in permanent mass immigration, you multicultural elitists have annihilated the bedrock principle of Free Speech from our society.

This is the foundational principle on which our system of democracy is built.

This deliberate subversion of democratic rights has been ruthlessly efficient in silencing legitimate criticism.

The dogma of multiculturalism has been imposed under cover of threats and intimidation. Had people not been bullied into silence by political correctness and the threat of Government sanction, they would have figured out the truth much earlier.

The fact is, that multiculturalism is simply minority tribalism turbocharged by the Left.

This is part of a wider trend for Western governments to import the “Clash of Civilisations” into once peaceful societies. If this continues the result will be the dissolution of the nation state.

Your policy of multiculturalism encourages all minorities to remain culturally separate. It encourages them to remain loyal to their tribal, religious, ethnic or cultural identities instead of to the Australian nation.

Unless of course it is white Australians who express loyalty to their group, in which case it is referred to the so-called Human Rights Commission under the hated Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Thus, you espouse tribalism from one side of your mouth while decrying it from the other.

The problem is, that minority groups vote for their own interests.

Politicians know this from experience. You are constantly pandering to them. The level of largesse which you offer, is in direct proportion to the numbers of each group in marginal electorates or donations to party coffers.

The key demand of these minority groups is always the same. More migrants from their own “tribe” to bolster the power of their own voting bloc.

Mr. Morrison, you enable this minority supremacism, as did your predecessors. You promote it. And you profit from it. This tribalism is not shared by the majority, who do not yet understand the need to vote for their own ethnic interests.

They are told to think of themselves as individuals, not as parts of a cohesive nation. Unless the majority realise the benefits of voting for their ethnic group interests – democracy will be finished. In its place we will have intractable sectarianism and Australia will be just another failed state.

The horror in New Zealand is so newsworthy because it is not yet a failed state. In the three weeks before the shooting in Christchurch, 120 Christians in Nigeria were shot or hacked to death by Muslims.

This tragedy was not reported in a single Australian news outlet that I am aware of. In January, much closer to home in the Philippines, a cathedral was bombed by Muslims and twenty innocents were killed.

Why did you and your Government not issue statements denouncing the killers? Perhaps because murderous attacks are so common in these countries.

Since September 2001, there have been more than 34,000 terrorist attacks conducted in the name of Islam. This is a staggering number. Most have been committed in countries with large Islamic populations.

As you and your predecessors have increased the Muslim population in our country, we have suffered a growing series of attacks on our soil.

Fortunately, our security forces have thwarted most of them. The Islamic community is expanding rapidly, however. Soon we will not have the resources to control the situation.

The likelihood of a backlash from other groups increases with every attack. As our society splits along racial, religious and ethnic lines, the possibility of escalating conflict increases.

Australia is not the world’s most successful multicultural society. We were once united and peaceful with a secure national identity.

Our children had bright futures. Now cohesion and trust are falling. The data shows it. There is no net benefit to traditional Australians from your multicultural dogma.

Your policies will lead to white Australians – the heart of our nation – becoming a minority within a few decades. Your own figures confirm this.

You, Mr. Morrison, are part of the problem. How dare you judge me. How dare you hold your head up in the light.

You and your cabinet have no real analysis of the national question. Instead you offer vacuous slogans fed to you by equally vacuous senior public servants – “diversity”, “vibrancy”, “inclusion”, “religion of peace”.

You have no vision for Australia situated in our region. No analysis of how to manage diversity and identity in a sustainable, peaceful way. All we get is politics; saying anything to stay in power.

This lack of principle and positive direction indicates that you and your Labor clones are puppets of powerful vested interests. These interests give a damn only for profits, not diversity, identity or belonging.

The present election campaign in New South Wales offers a horrible example of multicultural politics at work. In September of last year, the Labor leader, Michael Daley, gave a speech to a predominantly Anglo audience in the Blue Mountains.

[snip]

This is the tragedy of your beloved diversity, that it weaponises positive human bonds. It turns good people against one another.

Your immigration policies have turned Australia into a squabbling Tower of Babel. Those policies really should be criminalised. They should be made unconstitutional.

The Australian nation is dying in the big cities. Congested, progressively foreign, replaced, colonised, self-segregated, hurt by falling trust and loss of belonging. Why are you doing this to us? Where is your soul? Where is your decency?

Stop thinking about your parliamentary pension and media reputation and start thinking about your people, our people. Isn’t it obvious that the nation is in crisis? Why can you not stand tall and actually lead our people?

Our children and grandchildren will curse you if you are remembered at all. You have no right to transform their society without the people’s permission. You have no right to inflict this legacy on them, to become a minority in their own country.

Let me be doubly clear that I condemn you and Mr. Shorten in the strongest terms imaginable – as traitors to truth and traitors to social cohesion.

You have even turned your back on your Christian faith and values. Multiculturalism means “fewer Christians.” Is that really your intention?

Without mass immigration and multiculturalism, neither the Islamic attacks in Australia or this appalling reaction to them would have occurred.

Without your reckless policies, the Australian people would still be living in a peaceful, stable and secure nation state as the Japanese do today.

The New Zealand government is using this hideous attack to further its cynical agenda. Instead of offering their people a vote on ruinous immigration policies, they are further strangling free speech and suppressing opposition.

Censorship of the media was hardly mentioned after terror attacks on Australian soil. Now however, after an attack by an opponent of multiculturalism, The State is demanding censorship of the internet.

Any website which does not embrace your extreme multicultural agenda is coming under scrutiny.

This foreshadows darkness and tyranny which were once unimaginable to Australians. You and your cohorts are driving us there at full speed.

Australia is on the path to a police state, fomented and legitimised by multiculturalist ideology.

Again, Mr Morrison, your government leads the charge, by allowing people to be persecuted under ill-defined accusations of hate speech, when most just hate oppression.

I implore all politicians to step back and think again about what you are doing to this nation.

Do not oppress us in a knee-jerk reaction to this tragedy born of fanaticism.

Any response must be measured and sane. It must not be at the price of this nation’s cohesion and unity.

Free Speech is always the first target of ham-fisted tyranny. The Christchurch killer’s intent was to topple our traditions by his evil scheme. Do not become pawns in his game.

Australia once trusted its citizens to discuss the most extreme ideas peacefully. We have a long history of rejecting radical ideas.

It is clear that our elites cannot be trusted with controlling our borders. I don’t just mean the few thousand illegals coming in boats but the millions coming legally by jet.

We as a nation need to take a breather. We need time to assimilate those already here. We need a plebiscite on immigration!

We the people, not you the elites, have a right to decide who comes here.

Fraser Anning

Shock & horror: Anti-Semitism spreads to China

/19 Comments/in /by

Reposted with Permission from IrishSavant.com

All right-minded people will be saddened to learn that the growing scourge of anti-Semitism has now spread to China. One Jewish writer says ‘I live in China, and in the last few weeks I’ve been alarmed at the amount of antisemitic propaganda being published by Baidu News. Baidu is China’s equivalent of Google, so it reaches a truly enormous readership, and is state owned.‘ He goes on to cite two reports, one of which essentially denies that the Holocaust  happened, and claims that the number of Jews really killed numbered only in the “tens of thousands.” Another article claims, wait for it, that ‘the Jews themselves have responsibility for the Holocaust for being too greedy and self-interested. The truth is that Hitler never slaughtered the Jews. Hitler broke the financial dragon egg in order to establish the values ​​of labor. He did indeed shoot a few financial oligarchs, but did not massacre the Jews. 
 And a new best-seller called Currency Wars has really set the cat among the pigeons. The book’s author, Song Hongbing, claims that behind world-changing events like the battle of Waterloo, Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, President Kennedy’s assassination, and the deep recession in Asia during the 1990s stood an intricate conspiracy aimed at increasing Jews’ wealth and influence. In fact he claims that almost every defining historical moment has been instigated by Jewish bankers, and mainly the Rothschild family, which Song says dominates the global banking system, including the US Federal Reserve System.

And the Chinese are supposed to be clever. How the hell did they get those crazy ideas? Incidentally the articles and the associated comments provide an insight into the sperg-like amorality of the Chinese mind which assesses profound moral issues like genocide and treason in strictly utilitarian terms. I’d hate to be at the mercy of these guys.

Like the Africans soon will be.