General

‘Patriots’ Owner’s Wife Says Her Sons Could Fight for Israel, Not U.S.

/1 Comment/in /by

I’ve been urged to do more newsy blog items. It’s a good idea because there’s lots of news items where there is little to add.

Here’s one: Philip Weiss calls out Myra Kraft, wife of the owner of the New England Patriots football team (‘Patriots’ Owner’s Wife Says Her Sons Could Fight for Israel, Not U.S.” (Note: This article is from 2008. Mrs. Kraft has since died.)

On her recent visit to the Jewish state, the Jerusalem Post asked Myra Kraft, a leader in American Jewish philanthropy to Israel and the wife of Robert Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, how she would feel about one of her four sons moving to Israel and joining the army.

I would go with him. I always wanted to live here. As for joining the army, over Vietnam, I would have had an issue,
because I didn’t believe in it. The same goes for the war in Iraq. I don’t know why we’re there. I would hate to have one of my sons fighting there. Iran’s the problem, not Iraq. But, as far as fighting for Israel is concerned, there is no problem.

The JPost asked what issues she’ll take into account in the coming U.S. election:

Israel, the economy, the plans for getting out of Iraq quickly.

I find Myra Kraft’s comments both troubling and understandable. Understandable because she is the daughter of a Lithuanian Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Massachusetts. As a little girl she collected money from neighbors for  Palestine. I imagine she has never felt completely secure in the west emotionally, given her father’s experience. His family was annihilated. So she feels great loyalty to Israel. I know Zionists like this.

I’m troubled because of her indifference to the larger American scene, in which she is a player. … Mostly I’m troubled by her parochialism. She is a member of the American establishment, and she thinks always of Israel. Is this the way leaders should act?

No it isn’t, but it’s what we’ve come to expect in an age when Stanley Fischer, who held a policy making position in the Israeli government, is headed for a high-level position at the Federal Reserve.  For Myra Kraft, the Israel-Lobby promoted war with Iraq is over and should be wound up as soon as possible (leaving civil war in its wake). Now it’s on to Iran. But don’t expect her to encourage Jews to enlist in the U.S. military.

The allegiances of, say, Mexicans for their national soccer team are merely irritating. But when a minority basically runs U.S. foreign policy and is urgently pushing for yet another costly and disastrous war that has nothing to do with American interests, it’s far more than irritating. It’s treasonous.

Let’s Dawk: Science and the Supernatural

/2 Comments/in /by

The hum of the hive-mind. If you thought it was loud at the Guardian, you should try the New Statesman. Or maybe you shouldn’t. You might get tinnitus. Particularly if you read an article by the famous religious leader Richard Dawkins, who leads the world-wide cult of liberal atheism. He’s been writing about the greatest miracle on earth — the Miracle of Human Equality. In fact, this miracle is even bigger than I previously realized:

Human beings have only recently shown how very special they are. Fifty thousand years ago we had the same bodies and brains as today and we probably had language. But we didn’t have much by way of art, and our artefacts were limited to the functional — stone tools for hunting and butchering, for instance. (Apes with big brains: Richard Dawkins on what makes us human, The New Statesman, 6th January 2013)

Pope Richard Dawkins

Pope Richard Dawkins

So Dawkins thinks that it’s only “probable,” not certain, that human beings had language fifty thousand years ago. It follows, then, that he thinks language is a supernatural phenomenon, floating free of biology and genetics. After all, those ancient humans had the “same brains” as we have today. If language depended on the brain, Dawkins would conclude that ancient humans certainly had language. He doesn’t and so, to the chief liberal atheist, language must be a supernatural phenomenon.

Culture must be supernatural too:

That changed around 40,000 years ago, when the archaeological record shows a sudden magnificent flowering of art and even musical instruments. Cultural evolution — which outpaces by orders of magnitude the superficially similar genetic evolution that had given rise to our big brains in the first place — went into overdrive. Next came the transition from the hunter/gatherer to the settled agriculture way of life, soon to be followed by cities, markets, governments, religion and war. The Industrial Revolution expanded cities to megalopolises, propelling our species to worldwide (and potentially disastrous) domination, and even to reach out to the moon and planets. (Apes with big brains)

Heavens! Those huge cultural advances took place without any influence on or from the genes. None whatsoever. It was all done with the “same brain” (contra Cochran and Harpending) even though some of those advances were confined to particular regions and are still unevenly distributed around the world (per J. Philippe Rushton). Science is a European invention, for example, and White Europeans have contributed by far the most to its development. Look at Charles Darwin, the Great Prophet of the Liberal Atheist Cult: he was English, just like his disciple Dawkins. But Darwin would have been very surprised to hear that all groups of human have had the “same brain” for “fifty thousand years.” Read more

The Catholic League on the Weinstein Brothers

/in , , /by

As part of our Christmas program here at TOO we highlighted Bad Santa, a film by the Weinstein brothers. The Catholic League has a number of posts on another Weinstein film, Philomena, which is currently in release. This brief comment notes several other anti-Christian movies by the Weinsteins:

[An ad for Philomena in the New York Times] gives high profile to a review by the Times’ Stephen Holden, which says, in part, that the film’s “political subtext” is its “comparison of the church’s oppression and punishment of unmarried sex…with homophobia and the United States government’s reluctance to deal with the AIDS crisis in the 1980s.”

This is a straightforward pitch to anti-Catholic bigots. The Weinsteins are no strangers to Catholic bashing, having made a good living off of it. In 1995, they offered “Priest,” a film featuring nothing but miscreant priests; I succeeded in getting the movie’s opening date moved from Good Friday. In 1998, they gave us “The Butcher Boy,” which starred Sinead O’Connor as a foul-mouthed Virgin Mary. In 1999, we were treated to “Dogma,” where the audience learned of a descendant of Mary and Joseph who works in an abortion clinic. In 2002, they released “40 Days and 40 Nights,” a film that ridiculed a Catholic for giving up sex for Lent. Also opening in 2002 was “The Magdalene Sisters,” a movie that smeared nuns. In 2003, “Bad Santa” opened for the holidays; Santa was cast as a chain-smoking, drunken, foul-mouthed, suicidal, sexual predator. In 2006, “Black Christmas” made a predictably dark statement about the holiday.

In 2013, the Weinsteins released “Philomena,” a tale about an Irish teenager who abandoned her out-of-wedlock son, and who, because of the good efforts of nuns, was adopted by an American couple. Of course, the movie maligns the nuns, as well as Catholic teachings.

It is the sexual maniacs in Hollywood who nurture a debased culture, one that breeds illegitimacy and AIDS. Yet the Weinsteins, and the Times, never stop blaming the Catholic Church, which counsels restraint. Thus have they inverted the victim and the victimizer. Read more

Cultural Insurrections Reissued

/in /by

insurrections_coverThe hardcover edition of Cultural Insurrections has been reprinted after being out of print for some time. (There’s also a recent Kindle edition of The Culture of Critique.)  Cultural Insurrections  is available at the Charles Martel Society website (here), described as follows:

Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism
By Kevin MacDonald

Jewish intellectual and political movements are a powerful force in Western societies. Marxism, Zionism, neoconservatism, psychoanalysis, and multiculturalism have transformed Western self-consciousness, shattered ancient political orders through wars and revolutions, and promoted the ongoing demographic dispossession of European peoples by Third World immigrants. The Jewish role in these movements is often the subject of fierce partisanship, on all sides, but is seldom the subject of careful and dispassionate scientific analysis. …

In the present volume, MacDonald extends and refines his analyses in chapters on Zionism and the Jewish role in Soviet Communism, neoconservatism, and the promotion of racial integration. MacDonald also devotes chapters to the anti-Semitism of Henry Ford, the psychological basis of ethnocentrism, the unique characteristics of Western civilization, and what Jewish group evolutionary strategies can contribute to its survival. …

CONTENTS

Foreword by Virginia Abernethy
Introduction

Jewish Influence
1. Background Traits for Jewish Activism
2. Stalin’s Willing Executioners
3. Zionism and the Internal Dynamics of the Jewish Community
4. Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement
5. Neoconservative Portraits
6. Jews, Blacks, and Race

Anti-Semitism
7. Henry Ford and the Jewish Question
8. Enemies of My Enemy

Western Civilization
9. What Makes Western Culture Unique?
10. Psychology and White Ethnocentrism
11. Biological Roots of Ethnocentrism and Group Conflict
12. Immigration and Ethnic Interests
13. Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-Off “Racist”?
14. Can the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?

Hive Alive: Something’s Stirring in the Liberal Subconscious

/2 Comments/in /by

Is the liberal hive-mind in Britain about to shift its thinking on mass immigration? Maybe it is. If so, it’s a very encouraging sign that elites are at least having difficulty defending their program of displacement of the White population.  Here are two important buzzes from the Queen Bee, a.k.a. The Guardian:

Most glaring was Labour’s fear of a resurgence of union power. They didn’t want people banding together to insist on higher pay and better conditions. A steady supply of people for whom just working in Britain offered higher pay and better conditions than they would otherwise expect served to reduce cohesion in the workforce, making common purpose harder to achieve. It’s easy to see why this was not a perceived benefit of immigration that Labour was keen to advertise, or even explicitly acknowledge within the party. … “Better at being Tory than the Tories” was not a vote-winning slogan. Yet it was true. The City of London, its wants pandered to, was becoming the largest, most important financial centre in the world, even as the divide between rich and poor, north and south, haves and have-nots was widening. Britain had become so divided that consequences incredibly damaging to one group of people were fantastically advantageous to others. And anything that was advantageous to the wealthy was unchallengeable, as long as taxes were rolling in. (If Labour want to start apologising, it shouldn’t be over economic migration, The Guardian, 15th November 2013) Read more

After the Fall: Beyond Nationalism

/2 Comments/in , , /by

What follows is my speech delivered at the NPI conference at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington DC, on October 26, 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We could replace the noun ‘the fall’ with other related words having stronger, more loaded meanings, such as ‘the end time’ or ‘chaos’ — or ‘the end of a world,’ if not ‘the end of the world.’  These words and expressions come to my mind along with many fear-inspiring images related to our present and future identities.

I hope that none of us here claims to be a futurologist. In hindsight most futurologists have been proven wrong.  Remember the recent break-up of the Soviet Union, a phenomenon which not a single American or European sovietologist could predict. My main thesis is that prophecies about the fall are nothing new.  Since time immemorial, there have been stories, tales, and myths that have presaged the fall, the decline, or the end of time.  The vast majority of European thinkers and authors, from antiquity to postmodernity, have dealt with the notion of the fall and its aftermath.

On the opposite side of the fall there is historical optimism and the belief in Progress.  Progress has become a secular religion today, but fortunately it seems to be showing cracks and is being subject to critical inquires. The belief in progress and its advocates have had a very loud voice over the last 200 hundred years — and particularly over the last 70 years.  Modern advocates of Progress are usually wrapped up in different garbs, such as the Liberal or the Communist garb, or even the Christian garb. Somewhat pejoratively, we can call these people world improvers.  Read more

Nick the Priest: Bigotry, Balderdash and Britain’s Biggest Suicide-Cult

/in /by

Piety and Preaching

Self-righteous stupidity? Pious posturing? It’s impossible to beat a devout liberal atheist. One of my favourites is the neo-con journalist Nick Cohen. His irrational dogma and logical contortions are always entertaining to watch. He doesn’t write articles: he preaches sermons. After all, his surname means “priest” in Hebrew. But he would react badly to the suggestion that his ideology owes anything to his genetics. Like Richard Dawkins, the leader of his cult, and the late Christopher Hitchens, another of Dawkins’ disciples, he believes fervently in One Human Brain, in which  differences between different groups float mystically free of evolution and biology.

Nick Cohen

Nick “The Priest” Cohen

In a recent sermon in the neo-con Spectator, Cohen defended his cult-leader against attacks by other liberals. Dawkins has been criticizing the Muslim world for its failure to match Western achievements in science. The vast majority of Muslims are non-White, so Dawkins has been accused of blasphemy, that is, racism. Cohen rejects this accusation and goes on the offensive, saying that Dawkins’ critics are cowards. He points out that, unlike them, Dawkins “attacks Muslim bigots, not just Christian ones.” So far, so reasonable. But then Cohen begins his pious posturing. He raises the case of Nahla Mahmoud, a “Sudanese refugee who became a leading figure in the British Council of ex-Muslims.” But she is not receiving support from the supposedly feminist and freedom-loving liberals who are criticizing Dawkins.

“Abusing Islam is NOT free speech”

Mahmoud is an opponent of Sharia law, the violent and corrupt Muslim legal system. But, having crossed the border that Britain shares with Sudan, she “was shocked to find the same system here in her land of refuge.” She made a brief appearance on British television to support secular law for all. She and her family are now under threat for what Cohen calls her “simple moral clarity.” Cohen could, but doesn’t, say that this is yet another example of how Muslims hate free speech and do all they can to destroy it. Cohen himself pretends to adore free speech. But has he ever pointed out how bad Muslim immigration is for free speech? Read more