General

Letter to The Wall Street Journal re Jewish Involvement in Immigration Policy

/5 Comments/in /by

The Wall Street Journal published my reply to Abraham Miller’s op-ed critical of my work on Jewish involvement in immigration policy. They had a very limited maximum word count (272) and removed the references. I previously posted a longer version on this site.

12 COMMENTS

In dismissing my argument that Jewish organizations have been disproportionately influential in U.S. immigration policy, Abraham Miller fails to confront the data compiled in my 1998 book “The Culture of Critique,” which also describes changes in academic attitudes on race critical to passage of the 1965 Immigration Act (“The Theory Behind That Charlottesville Slogan,” op-ed, April 3). It was absolutely understood by both restrictionists and antirestrictionists in Congress that Jewish organizations spearheaded opposition against the 1924 law’s national origins, despite little public support. Jewish organizations also organized, funded and performed most of the work of a variety of umbrella organizations aimed at combating the 1924 law. The 1965 reform was thus not the result of popular pressure but rather of a 40-year program of activism.

Rep. Michael Feighan did indeed shape family based immigration in the 1965 law. But family based, rather than skills-based immigration, had been advocated by Jewish organizations since at least the 1920s. Feighan would be horrified at the results given his long record of support for the 1924 law (see NPR.org: “In 1965 A Conservative Tried to Keep America White. His Plan Backfired”). He may well have been deceived by the 1965 reform’s proponents, who insisted it wouldn’t change the ethnic balance of the U.S. by dramatically increasing non-European immigration.

Far from being unusual, my view of the role of Jewish organizations is shared by, e.g., University of California, Santa Barbara historian Otis Graham and Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham.

Em. Prof. Kevin MacDonald

Calif. State University, Long Beach

Second Reply to Nathan Cofnas

/35 Comments/in /by

I have posted a second reply to Nathan Cofnas, this one on his comments to my first reply. It is long and tedious but I thought I would post the Introduction and an excerpt from the exchange on immigration.

Introduction

Nathan Cofnas has responded to my reply to his review of The Culture of Critique. Prior to getting into the details of his rejoinder, there are several general points that should be kept in mind.

  1. CofC stands or falls depending on whether I have adequately described certain specific intellectual and political movements as Jewish. In doing so, I focused on movements that were or are influential and provide evidence of their influence. In describing these movements, I focus on the main figures, discuss their Jewish identities and their concern with specific Jewish issues, such as combatting anti-Semitism. I discuss the dynamics of these movements—the authoritarian atmosphere, the guru phenomenon, ethnic networking, and non-Jews who participate in the movement. I am not attempting to discuss all well-known Jewish intellectuals if they are not part of these movements. Thus, I never claim that Marx was part of a specifically Jewish intellectual/political movement, since he died long before the rise of the Jewish left in the twentieth century which is the focus of CofC. Noam Chomsky is a well-known Jewish intellectual, but he doesn’t fit into any of the movements I discuss, and I have never investigated the nature of his Jewish identity (or lack of it) or how he sees Jewish interests. The same could be said for someone like Paul Gottfried who is linked to paleoconservatism. Paleoconservatism is not a Jewish intellectual movement, and indeed neoconservatism, which I argue is a Jewish movement, played a decisive role in the eclipse of paleoconservatism (see “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement”). Or one could point to a Jewish supporter of the populist positions of President Trump, but the existence of such a person does not make populism a Jewish movement or erase the effective opposition of the New York Intellectuals to American populism in prior decades as discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 of CofC.
  2. Individual influential Jews or a separate influential Jewish intellectual movement may be critical of a specific Jewish intellectual movement that I discuss. The split beginning in the 1930s between the Stalinist left, which is the topic of Chapter 3, and the Trotskyist left which is a topic of Chapter 6 and “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,” comes to mind. It is possible that opposition to the Israel Lobby may also be reasonably analyzed as a Jewish movement. I have not attempted this, although I have noted in several places that criticism of Israel is increasing among Jews and non-Jews. But in order to establish that critics of Israel constitute a Jewish movement, one would have to pursue the program presented in CofC: discuss whether participants have a Jewish identity and whether they see their activities as furthering Jewish interests as well as explore the dynamics of these movements—whether there is any evidence for an authoritarian atmosphere, the guru phenomenon, ethnic networking, and the status of non-Jews who participate in the movement.

This project would thus go well beyond the “default hypothesis” of Jewish IQ as explaining Jewish involvement in intellectual movements. Such situations may be analogized to arguments between different factions in the Knesset—both dominated by Jews but with different perceptions of Jewish interests.

  1. I am therefore not attempting to develop a general theory of Jewish viewpoint diversity. I am studying certain specific intellectual and political movements that I attempt to establish as influential. I am not trying to develop a theory of why each Jew or most Jews believe what they do—a much more ambitious project. Thus, for example, I have no interest in describing or explaining the diversity of Jewish attitudes on affirmative action—an interesting question, but not relevant to the thesis of CofC which is that certain specific Jewish movements have the features I describe and that they have been influential. Nevertheless, as discussed below, at particular times and places, there is often substantial consensus within the Jewish community on particular issues, e.g., immigration and refugee policy and church-state relations.
  2. My writing in CofC is restricted to the movements discussed therein—movements that I have argued have been influential in the twentieth century and whose influence often extends into the present. In addition to these movements, it may well be the case that I have left out individual influential Jews, such as Steven Pinker, whose Jewish identity and sense of pursuing Jewish interests would bear investigation and may result in a broader perspective on Jewish influence. Pinker’s recent book, Enlightenment Now,[1] is reminiscent of the hostility toward American populism that characterized the New York Intellectuals whose Jewish identities and sense of Jewish interests were discussed in CofC. However, whatever the results of such an investigation, they would be subsumed into the general topic of Jewish viewpoint diversity.

[1] See Ricardo Duchesne, “Steve Pinker’s Anti-Enlightenment Attack on White Identitarians,” Occidental Quarterly 18, no. 2 (Summer 2018): 49–68; in press. Read more

Rape-Gangs Unlimited: Third-World People Mean Third-World Pathologies

/88 Comments/in , , /by

The horseshoe crab is a living fossil. So is the Daily Mirror. It was traditionally the newspaper of the respectable White working-class in Britain. They voted Labour and believed in hard work and education, but they were hostile to Third-World immigration. They were socially conservative too, rejecting the prurience and soft-core pornography peddled by the staunch philo-Semite Rupert Murdoch in newspapers like the Sun and News of the World. Of course, the Mirror was owned by the Jewish mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell (né Ján Hyman Binyamin Hoch). And it supplied the amoral thug Alastair Campbell as chief propagandist for the very philo-Semitic and Murdoch-friendly Tony Blair.

Abandoned by Labour

But the Mirror has retained enough of its old values to do something today that the modern Labour party would never do: stand up for the White working-class against predatory brown-skinned Muslims. In early March 2018, its Sunday edition ran a “special investigation” into the vibrant activities of Pakistani men in the small and obscure Midlands town of Telford:

Britain’s ‘worst ever’ child grooming scandal exposed: Hundreds of young girls raped, beaten, sold for sex and some even KILLED

SPECIAL SUNDAY MIRROR INVESTIGATION: Authorities failed to act over 40 years – despite repeated warnings to social workers – with up to 1,000 girls, some as young as 11, abused in Telford

Up to 1,000 children could have suffered in Britain’s worst known abuse scandal – where sex gangs targeted girls as young as 11. The rape hell of vulnerable young girls in one town – Telford – went on for a shocking 40 years, the Sunday Mirror can reveal. As many as 1,000 children could have suffered at the merciless hands of perverts and torturers in Telford since the 1980s. Girls as young as 11 have been lured from their families to be drugged, beaten and raped in an epidemic that, say victims, is still ongoing. THREE people were murdered and two others died in tragedies linked to the scandal.

Read more

Reply to Nathan Cofnas’s Review of “The Culture of Critique”

/32 Comments/in /by

“Cutting the Throat of Whiteness”: The Suffering of White South Africans May Redeem the West

/50 Comments/in , /by

“The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice.”

These are the words of Julius Malema, the head off South Africa’s Economic Freedom Fighters party/gang. To use a contemporary cultural reference point, Malema is essentially the Killmonger to Nelson Mandela’s T’challa, a more nuanced take on Black power, but both of which have proved symbiotic.

The words in the quote came in a speech supporting a new bill that was overwhelmingly passed  by the South African Parliament by 241 votes to 83 that makes it now legal for the South African government to seize land and other property without compensation.

The bill was brought before parliament by Malema, who also said, “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land” 400 years ago. And even more ominously: “We are cutting the throat of Whiteness.”

The ANC, seeing the enormous opportunities for graft and personal enrichment as happened in Zimbabwe where the main beneficiaries were politically connected to Mugabe, quickly fell in line, coming up with some choice phrases of their own.

ANC deputy chief whip Dorries Eunice Dlakude said, “the current policy instruments, including the willing-buyer willing-seller policy and other provisions of Section 25 of the Constitution may be hindering effective land reform,” while ANC rural affairs minister Gugile Nkwinti added, “The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation. There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation.” Read more

“Too Reflexively Ornery”:  E. Michael Jones and “Culture Wars,” Part 2 of 2

/43 Comments/in , /by

Jones often responds to Letters to the Editor, and the September 2017 issue was no exception, with Jones volunteering that “It is clear that the Jews are orchestrating Muslim migration to destroy European Christian culture.” Yes, Jones has read Kevin MacDonald and is familiar with this and other Culture of Critique theses.

In this issue, Jones concludes his thoughts on Meyer Lansky and ballet, but the topic now becomes homosexuality. Jones notes that even in 1970, “anywhere from 95 to 99 percent of APA [American Psychiatric Association] members believed that homosexuality was pathological.” Well, guess what: by 1973 a cabal of Jews succeeded in removing homosexuality from the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fully in line with his thesis about the revolutionary Jewish spirit, Jones here discusses a “small cabal of revolutionaries,” a “small band of very bright men and women,” who “swindled” the APA into accepting their degenerate definition of homosexuality. In research that few others could achieve, Jones exposes a wide range of actors, from psychiatrists, “liberal-minded easterners,” gay activists, a gay grandfather and his granddaughter.” Jones then asks what this diverse group of activists had in common: “The answer is that they were all Jews.” And the granddaughter who wrote about this failed to mention this fact “because she is Jewish, too.”

This is quintessential E. Michael Jones.

The October issue introduces us to a valuable YouTube site that covers the thesis of Jones’ book The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. Called “The Goy Guide to World History,” it may provide access to Jones’ own revolutionary thought for those who are less than fond of reading.

This issue also gives us the cover essay, “The Rise and Fall of the New Atheism,” in which Jones critiques the arguments of the atheist “Gang of Four” that made big headlines in the beginning of this new century. The four are Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. The topic under discussion certainly deserves a review of its own, so I will ignore it here after adding a few observations.

For instance, did readers know that Christopher Hitchens’ mother died an unnatural death? Jones claims that the mother committed adultery and was subsequently murdered by her lover, who then took his own life, but after a Google search I found a YouTube video where Hitchens himself claims both parties had voluntarily taken drugs, washed down with alcohol, to end their lives. Read more

Fundraising Appeal

/25 Comments/in /by

Your support is important for many of our writers, and we are trying our best to be competitive with other websites in paying them. Donations of all amounts are welcome. As always, the financial base for projects like TOO is dwarfed by the financial resources of our enemies. Nobody is getting rich here. This is basically a one-person show in terms of editing and posting articles.  Writers are not making a living by writing for TOO, but your support is a huge psychological boost for many. We are still trying to get back to normal after getting bounced by PayPal.

The PayPal campaign to cripple the Alt Right financially is part of the new reality, where the SPLC is now participating in censoring You Tube videos, and Alt Righters still on Twitter are wondering when the next round of purges will happen. There does appear to be a bit of pushback against the SPLC lately, since Mark Potok, Heidi Beirich, et al. are now going after mainstream conservatives like Senator Rand Paul and moderate immigration critic Mark Krikorian (who writes for Trump-hating National Review) . I guess going after AltRighters like me wasn’t bringing in enough money.

As Ramzpaul notes, Google uses the ADL and the SPLC, “both are left-wing Jewish organizations,” for advice on censorship. As we have noted, the SPLC is indeed funded predominantly by Jews.

But the bad news is that the mainstream continues to move ever further left. Or maybe it’s good news because the Democrats will nominate someone so far to the left (Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren) that she won’t be able to win even with the usual stratospheric percentages from non-Whites (not to mention voter fraud by illegals) and White people will continue the process of waking up to the reality that there is indeed a hostile elite that hates traditional White America with a passion.

This is from the donations page.

Non-Tax-deductible Donations:

Non-tax-deductible donations can no longer be made to TOO via PayPal but an account has been set up at Patreon. Or, please send check or a money order to:

The Occidental Observer
1750 Delta Waters Rd Suite 102, #374
Medford, OR 97504

Note: If you send a check or money order to the above address and do not wish to be anonymous, we would like to acknowledge your contribution. The easiest way to do this is by email. Please include an email address with your donation if you would like us to acknowledge it personally. Thanks!

Crypto Donations at Coinbase in Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Etherium, and Litecoin: Click here.

Tax-Deductible Donations:

Tax-deductible donations can no longer be sent through the Charles Martel Society via PayPal (part of the campaign against Alt Right sites). If you want a tax deduction, please make it clear that you want a tax deduction and send a check to our NEW MAILBOX:

The Occidental Observer
1750 Delta Waters Rd Suite 102, #374
Medford, OR 97504