Jewish Support for Multiculturalism

Lance Welton on Jewish ethnocentrism: Fairness, Paranoia, and Self-Deception

Lance Welton’s article on VDARE is a nice summary of research on Jewish ethnocentrism and its consequences: “Did the ADL Think It Could Get Away with  Hypocrisy on Replacement in U.S. vs. Israel? Answer: It Probably Didn’t Think At All.” As noted below, some of his presentation touches on my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition as well as my books on Judaism.

Welton:

“Fairness,” as I noted in my article on blacks, is “impartial and just treatment or behavior without favoritism or discrimination.” This is a high-order value which demands that you put aside nepotism, ethnocentrism, and even personal gain, in favor of this abstract goal. So, on this basis, would we expect Jews to be as high in “fairness” as Whites?

No. Firstly, there is abundant evidence that Jews are more ethnocentric than whites; meaning they cooperate strongly with their own people and are hostile to other peoples. Jews have been stereotyped as being highly ethnocentric throughout their history, as Kevin MacDonald showed in his 1994 book A People That Shall Dwell Alone [Chap 8, 228ff]. There is overwhelming evidence that racial stereotypes, like all stereotypes, tend to be true; that’s why they develop [Social Perception and Social RealityBy Lee Jussim, 2012].

This goes very deep. Jewish babies react with far greater horror to strangers of a different ethnic group than do German babies [Security of Infant-Mother, -Father, and -Metapelet Attachments Among Kibbutz-Reared Israeli Children, by Abraham Sagi et al., Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1985].

Data from the University of Wisconsin’s MIDUS survey of middle-aged Americans demonstrated that among Whites there is a positive correlation between how religious you are and how group-oriented you are. However, the same study found that Jews are the most ethnocentric—group-oriented religious group—even though they were the least religious group of those surveyed. When factors such as intelligence (which tends to make people less ethnocentric) and religiousness level were controlled for, Jews were still way more ethnocentric than the gentile White groups. (This is discussed in Religiosity as a Predictor of In-Group Favoritism Within and Between Religious Groups, by Curtis Dunkel & Edward Dutton, Personality and Individual Differences, 2016).

If you take into account the number of Jews in a population compared to the number of Whites, then the extent to which Jews “marry out” is far lower. Jews are about 49 times less likely to marry someone of a different faith than Protestants are, for example. [See Andrew Joyce’s “The Cofnas Problem.“]. The most obvious explanation for this, in the context of the other research: ethnocentrism. Jews seem to be evolved to be higher in ethnocentrism [see “A Genetic Perspective on Individualism/Collectivism,” A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 8: p. 236ff], something that would be heightened by their small gene pool; with people tending to be more ethnocentric when the gene pool is small [Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence, By Gregory Cochran et al., Journal of Biosocial Science, 2006]. This higher ethnocentrism would make them less able to suppress ethnocentric instincts in favor of creating fairness than are gentile Whites.

Fairness is one of the traits that is higher in Western societies based on individualism versus the kinship-based societies of the rest of the world. Joseph Henrich and colleagues reviewed research showing differences between subjects from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) nations and subjects in a wide range of other cultures, finding important differences in fairness and moral reasoning. This is reviewed in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: 

In non-Western societies based on extended kinship, morality is defined in terms of whether an action satisfies obligations within the family or kinship group, whereas in individualist societies, morality is thought of as satisfying abstract notions of justice such as Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Act according to the maxim that you could wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law. … The differences between individualist and collectivist cultures—whether in fairness and altruistic punishment, moral reasoning, cognition, or perception—are all “of a piece;” they all fit into a consistent pattern in which Westerners detach themselves from social, cognitive, and perceptual contexts, whereas non-Westerners see the world in a deeply embedded manner. This pattern is highly consistent with Western peoples being more prone to scientific reasoning (p. 110).

On the other hand, collectivist cultures—my view is that Judaism is a paradigmatic collectivist culture—see the world from the standpoint of group interests, so that even scientific reasoning in the social sciences is performed through the lens of group interests. Hence, The Culture of Critique.

The Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) people discussed in Chapter 3 developed scientific and scholarly associations in the post-medieval West which assume groups are permeable and highly subject to defection—that there is a marketplace of ideas in which individuals may defect from current scientific views when they believe that the data support alternate perspectives. On the other hand, collectivist cultures create group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions, fealty to group leaders, ethnic networking, and expulsion of dissenters [i.e., the thesis of The Culture of Critique]. …

Moreover, … WEIRD people tend more toward analytical reasoning (detaching objects from context, attending to characteristics of the object and developing rules for explaining and predicting phenomena) as opposed to holistic reasoning (attending to relationships between objects and surrounding field). Westerners tend to categorize objects on the basis of rules that are independent of function and hence more abstract whereas non-Westerners are more likely to categorize on the basis of function and contextual relationship. Science is fundamentally concerned with creating abstract rules independent of context and developing explanations and predictions of phenomena in the empirical world. Such traits, which can be seen even in the ancient Greco-Roman world of antiquity, clearly predispose to scientific thinking. …

For collectivists, moral reasoning involves taking account of the social context, which is fundamentally centered on fitting into and strengthening a kinship group. For individualists, the social world involves a greater need to interact with strangers and to consider their reputation for respecting impersonal rules. …

Individuals are evaluated as individuals on traits—e.g., honesty, intelligence, military talent, and the logic and usefulness of their arguments—in abstraction from their (relatively weak) kinship connections. Moral situations are evaluated in terms of abstract concepts of justice that apply to all individuals rather than being vitally concerned with social obligations to particular people enmeshed in a particular extended kinship network. When confronting the natural world, individualists more easily abstract from social context and personal experience, seeking out and applying universally applicable laws of nature.

Back to Welton:

In addition, there is evidence that Jews are perfectly happy for a situation to be unfair. One study compared religious groups in the US—Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Jews, and Atheists/Agnostics—and asked people what they thought was most important to live a “good life.” Jews, in contrast to all the other groups, highlighted “extra money” [“For Tomorrow We Die”? Testing the Accuracy of Stereotypes about Atheists and Agnostics, by Edward Dutton & Curtis Dunkel, Mankind Quarterly, 2019]. They see it as important to be richer than other people in a way that the whites do not, which implies that they are less concerned about a possibly unfair situation as long as they benefit. And, being more intelligent than gentile Whites on average (as Richard Lynn has shown in his book The Chosen People) they will better be able to rationalize achieving such an advantage, as intelligent people are typically better at finding ways of rationalizing their biases [Why smart people aren’t better at transcending their biased views, by Tauriq Mousa, The Big Think, June 13, 2012].

Finally, Jews are less mentally stable than Whites. Ashkenazi Jews have significantly elevated levels of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, both of which can make people paranoid [Genome-Wide Association Study of Schizophrenia in Ashkenazi Jews, by Fernando Goes et al., American Journal of Medical Genetics, 2015]. When people are paranoid, they are less interested in what is “fair”—they are interested simply in surviving and doing so may involve being very “unfair.” People with paranoid personalities tend to be hypocritical and self-seeking [Understanding Paranoia, by Martin Kantor, 2004, p.71].

Because Jews are better at finding ways of rationalizing away their bias and hypocrisy, they may well not believe that they are being “unfair” at all [a kind of self-deception one expects to find among highly ethnocentric people—Ch. 8 of Separation and Its Discontents  and elaborated by Andrew Joyce here]. In this sense, it can be said that intelligent yet paranoid people do not “know themselves”—meaning that they live in a fantasy world in which there is nothing wrong with them; only with others.

This personality type will see the world as packed full of hostile persecutors who want to destroy them, meaning that an obviously Mostly Peaceful protest at the Capitol becomes an “insurrection” in which people could have been killed.

This personality type will also engage in “paranoid projection,” whereby they purport to find an aspect of themselves they dislike in others, causing them to despise these people. “I hate them” becomes “They hate me,” based on finding some minor evidence of this. Hence the Leftist obsession with how “hateful” their opponents are [8 Key Traits of Paranoid Thinkersby Shahram Heshmat, Psychology TodayFebruary 24, 2016].

It’s interesting in this regard that paranoia about the surrounding world is a very central aspect of Jewish culture—analyzed as what behavior geneticists label genotype-environment correlation (e.g., paranoid parents with genetic predispositions to paranoia would socialize their children (who share their genes for paranoia) in a manner that would reinforce a worldview that the outside world is dangerous). From A People That Shall Dwell Alone, Ch. 7:

A permanent sense of imminent threat appears to be common among Jews. Writing on the clinical profile of Jewish families, Herz and Rosen (1982) note that for Jewish families a “sense of persecution (or its imminence) is part of a cultural heritage and is usually assumed with pride. Suffering is even a form of sharing with one’s fellow-Jews. It binds Jews with their heritage—with the suffering of Jews throughout history.” Zborowski and Herzog (1952, 153) note that the homes of wealthy Jews in traditional Eastern European shtetl communities sometimes had secret passages for use in times of anti-Semitic pogroms, and that their existence was “part of the imagery of the children who played around them, just as the half-effaced memory was part of every Jew’s mental equipment.”

This evolved response to external threat is often manipulated by Jewish authorities attempting to inculcate a stronger sense of group identification. Hartung (1992) provides anecdotal data on the emphasis on Jewish suffering and its exaggeration as aspects of modern synagogue service. Such practices have a long history. Roth (1978, 62) notes that Jewish “martyrologists” maintained lists of Jewish martyrs for commemoration during synagogue services during the Middle Ages, and Jordan (1989, 20) refers to the “forbidding martyrocentric self-image” during this period.

Woocher (1986) shows that Jewish survival in a threatening world is a theme of Judaism as a civil religion in contemporary America. Within this world view, the gentile world is viewed as fundamentally hostile, with Jewish life always on the verge of ceasing to exist entirely. “Like many other generations of Jews who have felt similarly, the leaders of the polity who fear that the end may be near have transformed this concern into a survivalist weapon” (Woocher 1986, 73). Woocher (1986) notes that there has been a major effort since the 1960s to have American Jews visit Israel in an effort to strengthen Jewish identification, with a prominent aspect of the visit being a trip to a border outpost “where the ongoing threat to Israel’s security is palpable” (p. 150).

Or, as Elliott Abrams (Faith or Fear, 190) wrote, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

Hence the Jewish motivation for diversifying America, the theme of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique (corroborated by Otis Graham (Unguarded Gates [2004]: 80), who notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). (Culture of Critique, Ch. 7).

Welton concludes:

The self-centeredness and implicit unfairness of the ADL operatives’ fantasy world means they indeed might very well not have thought at all about what to any outside observer appears to be the utter hypocrisy of their position on the Great Replacement [via immigration] in the U.S. as opposed to Israel.

For such people, objective truth is “defamation”—but their “defamation” of others is objective truth.

Any objective observer would indeed have to agree that the ADL is utterly hypocritical in its stance toward immigration in Israel versus the United States. But activist Jews like Jonathan Greenblatt may not even be aware of it due to their powerful tendencies toward ethnocentrism and its corollary of self-deception. And now these people are firmly ensconced in the hostile elite that is running the United States. A dire situation indeed for the traditional White population of America.

Tucker Carlson Doubles Down on Replacement, Explicitly Mentions White Replacement, and Targets the ADL’s Hypocrisy(!)

In a previous article I noted that Tucker Carlson’s comments on ‘replacement’ in the context of immigration had unleashed a torrent of hatred from the ADL and the liberal media. When the ADL goes after public figures, the usual response is groveling apology in a typically futile effort to prevent getting ostracized or fired. After all, the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt had tweeted that Carlson’s comments were “anti-Semitic, racist, and toxic.” Accusations of racism—and especially anti-Semitism—are pretty much a death sentence for anyone so accused.

So I was gratified that Carlson didn’t back down. Indeed, he doubled down, with a 20-minute opening monologue elaborating on exactly why the Democrat Party is completely wedded to importing a new electorate and has been doing so for decades. He also mentioned that Whites (and Blacks) are being replaced as voters, that the entire project is immoral, and he called out the hypocrisy of the ADL. As he notes, it’s not about compassion as usually advertised, but about power. And anyone with any brains knows it.

To date, Carlson’s monologue is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the mainstream media that Whites—as Whites—have an interest in immigration. Indeed, a vital interest. In making his argument, he discussed states like California and Virginia that have become reliably Democrat because of immigration, and he mentions Vermont that is now blue because of disenchanted New Yorkers who brought their politics with them when they moved there. He says the same thing is happening to Montana and Idaho as yoga instructors, Google vice-presidents, and assorted rich White folks leave California for greener pastures. It will happen to your state. And the result will be permanent hegemony of the left because the imported electorate are reliable clients of the Democrat Party. ‘Client’ is the right word (from the Latin for ‘dependent’) because these people come to the U.S. for better pay and all the free stuff — medical care, welfare if they have children, and the promise of eventual citizenship and the right to bring in their relatives. This description applies at least to the Mexicans, Central Americans, and Africans who have flooded our shores (that IQ thing again). They remain toward the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder and dependent on the government. Hence reliably Democrat. California went from being the envy of the world to having poverty levels on par with Mississippi. Without explicitly mentioning Whites, he notes that the middle class is leaving in droves, resulting in the cost of a U-Haul being five times higher for people leaving the state as for entering. He portrays the middle class as one of the victim groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile, ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters.

Tucker also doubled down on his voter-replacement logic, but this time he was explicit about White people’s vote being replaced, noting that Whites went from 90 percent of Californians to 30 percent since 1960, which means that how White people vote matters much less than it used to. It’s shocking to hear someone in the mainstream media claim that Whites and their vital interests are victims of the immigration tsunami. One can easily imagine a situation where, even if White Californians woke up (far too many are still drinking the Kool-Aid), they couldn’t win a statewide election.  And that’s the whole point. Permanent hegemony.

But because the interests of Whites are definitely not supposed to be paramount, he emphasized that Blacks in California have also been losing political clout rapidly, with very large declines in cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. In my previous article, I noted that the voter replacement argument doesn’t apply so much to Blacks because the people replacing them have pretty much the same politics. But I stand corrected. Identity politics has changed everything. Black Californian politicos like Maxine Waters, Willy Brown, and Kamala Harris may well become a thing of the past. Harris was replaced by Alex Padilla, a Latino, after being elevated to the vice-presidency, a result that was not warmly greeted by the Black political establishment.

California progressives had pushed [Gov. Gavin] Newsom to appoint Representative Barbara Lee [who is Black] or another like-minded Democrat. Mr. Newsom was also under pressure to appoint a Black woman to take the place of Ms. Harris, the only Black woman in the Senate. Representative Karen Bass and Ms. Lee were at the top of that list. … The Congressional Hispanic Caucus strongly backed Mr. Padilla. The L.G.B.T.Q. community and Equality California lobbied for Robert Garcia, the mayor of Long Beach. Black Women United, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, and a range of Black elected officials pushed for Ms. Bass or Ms. Lee.

As Blacks become less of a demographic force, they will also become less of a political force. There will be less official sympathy for Black issues like BLM, reparations, dealing with criminals, and centering on Black grievance in the educational system.

Tucker also did some dog-whistling on Jewish involvement by mentioning Michelle Goldberg’s NYTimes op-ed, “We can replace them,” which celebrates replacing the White electorate by doing a screen shot of Goldberg’s statement: “The potential is there; Georgia is less than 53 percent non-Hispanic White.” He didn’t mention Goldberg’s ethnicity, but anyone who knows anything about the media knows she is a strongly identified Jew writing for a Jewish-owned publication that is the crown jewel of the elite liberal-left media. As Tucker noted, Goldberg is “a New York Times columnist, not some QAnon blogger.”

The left pretends that demographic replacement is an obsession on the right, but in fact, it’s an obsession on the left. “It’s the central idea of the modern Democratic Party.” So true. And so refreshing to hear it in the mainstream media.

As always, the left pretends that their plan to replace the White population is a moral imperative. In 2019 then-Senator Harris condemned Trump’s plan to deport illegals on the basis that Trump was trying to “remake the demographics of the country”; she tweeted that such actions are “deeply reprehensible and an affront to our values.” Of course, the left would never think of remaking the demographics of the country!

What’s immoral—and obviously so— is the left’s scheme to remake  the electorate in opposition to the legitimate interests of the traditional White majority. Tucker confronted the issue head-on, turning the tables on the leftist moralizers by framing their actions as “cheating.” This is an important message for Whites to hear. What is happening to the White population of America is profoundly immoral. It’s an important message because we Whites are uniquely prone to framing our actions in moral terms. As often discussed here, a major weakness of uniquely individualist culture characteristic of the West is that individualists are highly prone to forming moral communities rather than kinship-based communities typical of the rest of the world. It’s a very exploitable weakness, and our hostile elites have taken full advantage by defining the legitimate interests of Whites as immoral, as Greenblatt and Harris do. Moral communities are fine as long as they serve the community’s interests, and in the long history of the West, they have indeed been a strength. But the problem now is that the people who define the moral communities of the West since World War II are the hostile elite who have shaped academic and media culture, i.e., strongly identified Jews and Jewish-owned mainstream media like the New York Times. So now a substantial proportion of Whites think it’s a moral imperative to replace the White population. No other culture anywhere at any time has ever felt a moral imperative to replace its founding population.

However, the best part about Tucker’s monologue was that he confronted the ADL directly by highlighting their lack of principle. Confronting any powerful Jewish organization is virtually unheard of in American media and political culture where groveling, apologies, and firing are the norm. And he chose a particularly glaring weakness in Jewish rationalizations of the adversarial culture they have championed in the U.S.: Jewish hypocrisy in claiming the moral high ground in America by insisting that any opposition to immigration is racist and hence immoral, while legitimizing Israel’s ethnocentric immigration policy because it threatens the legitimate interests of its Jewish population. In fact, these activist Jews are consummate ethnic nationalists—exactly what they condemn in White Americans. White Americans deserve just what the ADL and the rest of the activist Jewish community want for Jews, a safe homeland that remains theirs.

Granted, Carlson didn’t mention that the ADL was leading the charge against him, but anyone paying the least bit of attention to this episode knows damn well that the ADL is leading the campaign against him. Carlson quoted from the ADL website:

With historically high birth rates among Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority in a bi-national state, thus ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be politically—and potentially physically—vulnerable. It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect the Jewish population to expect the state of Israel to voluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and national identity and become a vulnerable minority in what was once its own territory.

This is another recurrent theme on TOO—that the traditional White majority will become a hated and oppressed minority (58 articles) because of the immigration of non-Whites in a culture dominated by an elite with a long history of hatred toward the White majority of the U.S. We already see a multitude of examples of hatred toward Whites emanating from the elite media, liberal-left politicians, and just ordinary non-Whites (like this one from James Edwards on Twitter), and hate crimes against Whites are ignored or quickly buried. Why would anyone think this will stop if and when Whites become a minority? It will increase. But the ADL thinks that Jews, who have been and continue to be the leading force enacting a multicultural United States, beginning with their influence in passing the 1965 immigration law, should retain sovereignty in Israel because ceding sovereignty would be dangerous for Jews. This is massively hypocritical, as Tucker implies, and he invited Greenblatt on his show to explain why the same principles that he champions for Israel should not exist in the United States. I rather doubt that will happen.

In fact, Greenblatt repeated his attacks on Carlson in a letter to Fox News, demanding that he be fired while never mentioning that Carlson had broached the  hypocrisy of the ADL. Pretty clearly he wants to avoid the issue like the plague. Fox News CEO Lachlan Murdoch responded with a typical mainstream media mantra: “Fox Corporation shares your values and abhors anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism of any kind.” But he rejected the argument that Carlson had endorsed “anti-semitism, white supremacy and racism,” retreating to Carlson’s original voting rights argument. Always a safe move to refuse to avoid issues that vitally affect White America by presenting them in non-racial terms.

In his letter to Murdoch, Greenblatt claimed that Carlson “did not accidentally echo these talking points; he knowingly escalated this well-worn racist rhetoric. … At a time of intense polarization, this kind of rhetoric galvanizes extremists and lights the fire of violence.”

Intense polarization indeed. That’s what happens when there is a powerful attempt to dispossess the founding population of the country. Ultimately the polarization is a result of Jewish activism which has been a necessary condition for the immigration and multiculturalism that is tearing the country apart.

Greenblatt thinks that Tucker’s message will galvanize “extremists.” Let’s hope that it does indeed galvanize the White population. In any case, it’s important for Carlson to not let this issue drop. It was courageous of him to broach the issue, but it needs to be repeated, just as the messages of the left on race and multiculturalism are continually repeated on TV, movies, print media, and throughout the educational system.

The message of White replacement is powerful. As I noted in Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare [and when they occur, they are subjected to vicious attacks, as has happened to Carlson]. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.[1]

In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn’t changed while the population centers of New York, California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites’ higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.

White replacement is our most powerful message. Let’s hope Tucker continues to repeat it. We certainly will.


[1] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, “Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.

 

Tucker Carlson mentions replacement in the context of immigration. Hatred ensues.

The ADL, always attuned to any indication that their subjects are getting restless, is insisting that Tucker Carlson be fired. What brought on their ire was Tucker’s use of the word ‘replacement’ in the context of a discussion of Joe Biden’s Open Border policy. Mentioning replacement in the context of immigration is pretty much in the same category as doubting that all races have the same potentialities or the official holocaust narrative. Be prepared for hatred. Tucker, as quoted in The Hill:

“I know that the left and all the little gatekeepers on Twitter become literally hysterical if you use the term ‘replacement,’ if you suggest that the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate,” Carlson said. “But they become hysterical because that’s what’s happening actually. Let’s just say it. That’s true.

Of course it’s true, and what’s being replaced is the traditional White population of the country. But Tucker couldn’t say that without even more outrage. So he made it all about the current electorate, which is certainly not just White people.

“I mean, everyone’s making a racial issue out of it. Oh, the, you know, white replacement? No, no, this is a voting rights question,” Carlson added later, saying changes to the population “dilute the political power” of current registered voters.

This is disingenuous but I suppose it’s what you have to say to keep your job in the mainstream media—and even that might not be enough. Carlson’s statement is consistent with his repeated assertions of color-blindness, and he’s careful to restrict his comments to illegal immigration. His argument is completely color-blind: “every time they import a new voter, I become disenfranchised as a current voter”—an argument that would apply to any American citizen no matter what their race. “How dare you think I care particularly about White voters!” But isn’t it obvious that such an argument would also apply to legal immigration?

Of course the ADL immediately labeled his comments as “white supremacy”:

Not clear how replacement theory is “anti-Semitic,” but I suppose that Greenblatt considers anything he dislikes as anti-Semitism. After quoting Greenblatt’s tweet, The Hill noted that “the ADL head explained that the “Great Replacement” theory “is a white supremacist tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites,” linking to a Daily Beast article saying the whole idea was a “racist lie.” But how much of a “racist lie” is it when the White population is steadily dwindling, probably to around 60 percent, and the left wants to dramatically increase the rate at which it is dwindling?

Greenblatt also emailed Fox News, writing “Carlson’s full-on embrace of the white supremacist replacement theory on yesterday’s show and his repeated allusions to racist themes in past segments are a bridge too far. Given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.” This assertion that Carlson is making a “full-on embrace of white supremacist replacement theory” is a bald-faced lie, but obvious lies seem to be more and more common in high places these days—witness Biden’s lie about the new Georgia voting laws as “Jim Crow on steroids.” A full-on embrace of “white supremacist replacement theory” would at least reference a specific concern for White people losing political clout. Instead, Carlson religiously repeats his mainstream conservative, color-blind mantras firmly rooted in individualist ideology (“every time they import a new voter…”). Officially, he could care less about White people as White people. One wonders if Fox would stand by their most popular talking head if he did come out and just say it. I am pretty sure he believes it.

Officially, Carlson’s heart is bleeding for all those Black, Brown, and Asian citizen-voters whose political clout is being diluted. But of course, that would be wildly inaccurate, particularly in the age of identity politics where non-Whites are strongly encouraged to identify with their racial group and do all they can to advance its interests. The collective power of non-Whites is being increased by immigration and everyone knows it, and White political power is decreasing in an age when hatred of Whites is becoming increasingly obvious—at a time when Critical Race Theory is dominating the educational establishment and corporate board rooms. CRT is a theory that essentially says it’s fine for non-Whites to hate Whites while at the same time encouraging White guilt about the supposed sins of their ancestors. One can only imagine the horrors that await a politically powerless White minority.

And it’s not just White political power that is waning. There is clearly a program to replace Whites as part of the American elite.

Given the voting behavior of non-Whites, it doesn’t make much sense to say that America’s non-White voters are being replaced when they are being “replaced” by more non-White voters, although I suppose one could make the argument that the traditional American Black population will have less political clout given that the preponderance of immigrants are from Latin America and Asia. But in any case, they ain’t White, and the ADL and the Democrats are quite well aware that all non-White groups strongly skew Democrat. In general, the Democrats are in favor of increased legal immigration, amnesty for illegals, and non-enforcement at the border, all of which are on the table with Biden in the White House and a Democrat Congress. Putting these ideas into law along with allowing no-ID voting would give Democrats more or less immediate and permanent hegemony given that Texas and Florida are the largest destinations of immigrants—as noted in my comments on the January 6 “insurrection,” The Left Will Now Enact Permanent Hegemony.”  Their strategy also includes packing the Supreme Court, in case some of their laws are challenged; Biden is already laying the groundwork by establishing a commission packed with a super-majority of liberals.

Biden’s immigration plan calls for an increase in “diversity” visas to 80,000 from 55,000 and has an emphasis on family unification—a code word for chain migration and a bedrock of Jewish attitudes on immigration since the 1920s and continuing up to the 1965 immigration law (here, p. 283) and beyond. What this means is that one lucky visa recipient from, say, Africa, could bring in his immediate (likely large) family and when they became citizens, they could bring in their brothers and sisters outside the quota limit, who could in turn bring in their spouses and children, etc. All these new people would be able to immigrate outside the quota system for legal immigrants. And all could become citizens.

Tucker Carlson Is a Mass Murdering Terrorist!

Comment on the left has explicitly compared Carlson’s mild comments to the manifesto of the Christchurch and El Paso murderers.

I found the above clip from The Daily Show on Max Boot’s Twitter feed. Boot, former neocon (i.e., a liberal-leftie masquerading as a conservative active in promoting U.S. fealty to Israel and moving the GOP to the left on social issues). And now, because of obsessive Trump hate, he is firmly and explicitly ensconced on the left at The Washington Post. Boot wrote that Carlson “the top-rated host on Fox “News” Channel, has been attracting attention for a while with his vile rhetoric against immigrants. Yet now he’s reached a new low.”

As the left-leaning Media Matters for America has chronicled, Carlson has a long history of ugly statements. He has called Iraqis “semiliterate primitive monkeys” and said that Afghanistan is “never going to be a civilized country because the people aren’t civilized.” He has complained that an influx of poor immigrants “makes our own country poor and dirtier and more divided.” He has repeatedly described immigration as an “invasion,” and called the urgent threat posed by white supremacists a “hoax” and “a conspiracy theory used to divide the country and keep a hold on power.”

And here is what the fiend who killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques said in his manifesto: “Why is diversity said to be our greatest strength? Does anyone even ask why? It is spoken like a mantra and repeated ad infinitum …. But no one ever seems to give a reason why. What gives a nation strength? And how does diversity increase that strength?”

On Thursday night, Carlson moved even closer to white supremacist ideology by explicitly endorsing the Great Replacement theory, which holds that shadowy elites are orchestrating a plot to replace native-born White people with immigrants of color. The New Zealand shooter’s manifesto was literally headlined “The Great Replacement,” and the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville chanted “Jews will not replace us.”

The Long History of Jewish Efforts to Replace the White population of America

The lack of concern on the part of Boot and Greenblatt for White Americans is entirely typical of the organized Jewish community. The following is based on Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique along with some more recent research—the point being that the organized Jewish community has long had the aim of diluting the White population of the U.S., motivated by fear and loathing of the White population. The culture of critique is the erection of an adversarial culture that is hostile to the traditional White population of the U.S.

Jewish activists on immigration rejected the ethnic status quo put in place by the 1924 and 1952 immigration laws. Otis Graham (2004: 80) notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration was not only the most effective force in enacting the 1965 law, their activism “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community thus differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws.

Stuar Svonkin ( 1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

Writing long after the passage of the 1965 law, prominent Jewish social scientist and ethnic activist Earl Raab remarked very positively on the success of American immigration policy in altering the ethnic composition of the United States. Writing for a Jewish publication, Raab noted that the Jewish community had taken a leadership role in changing the northwestern European bias of American immigration policy (Raab, 1993a, 17), and he also maintained that one factor inhibiting anti-Semitism in the contemporary United States is that “an increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop” (Raab, 1995b, 91). Similarly, Elliott Abrams (1999, 190) noted, “the American Jewish community clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.”

In 1952 President Truman’s President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) pointedly noted that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in maintaining the racial status quo, and that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was not the national origins system, because there were already high levels of nonquota immigrants and because the countries of Northern and Western Europe did not fill their quotas. Rather, the report noted that the main barrier to changing the racial status quo was the total number of immigrants.

The [PCIN] thus viewed changing the racial status quo of the United States as a desirable goal, and to that end made a major point of the desirability of increasing the total number of immigrants (PCIN 1953, 42). As Bennett (1963, 164) notes, in the eyes of the PCIN, the 1924 legislation reducing the total number of immigrants “was a very bad thing because of its finding that one race is just as good as another for American citizenship or any other purpose.” Correspondingly, the defenders of the 1952 legislation conceptualized the issue as fundamentally one of ethnic warfare. Senator Pat McCarran stated that subverting the national origins system “would, in the course of a generation or so, tend to change the ethnic and cultural composition of this nation” (in Bennett 1963, 185)—a result that has indeed come to pass. (The Culture of Critique, 1998/2002: 281)

The chairman of the PCIN was Philip B. Perlman, and the staff of the commission contained a high percentage of Jews, headed by Harry N. Rosenfield (Executive Director) and Elliot Shirk (Assistant to the Executive Director); its report was wholeheartedly endorsed by the AJCongress (see Congress Weekly, Jan. 12, 1952: 3). The proceedings were printed as the report Whom We Shall Welcome (PCIN, 1953) with the cooperation of Rep. Emanuel Celler and with an essay by Oscar Handlin, the Jewish academic activist (see below).

The American Jewish Congress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”[i] During this period the Congress Weekly, the newsletter of the AJCongress, regularly denounced the national origins provisions as based on the “myth of the existence of superior and inferior racial stocks” (Oct. 17, 1955: 3) and advocated immigration on the basis of “need and other criteria unrelated to race or national origin” (May 4, 1953: 3). Dr. Israel Goldstein (1952a, 6), president of the AJCongress, wrote that “The national origins formula “is outrageous now . . . when our national experience has confirmed beyond a doubt that our very strength lies in the diversity of our peoples” (Goldstein 1952b, 5), thus presaging the current mantra promulgated by American media and politicians that “Diversity is our greatest strength.”

Prominent Jewish intellectuals, such as Harvard historian and public intellectual Oscar Handlin, published pro-immigration books (e.g., The Uprooted [1951/1973]) and articles. Handlin’s (1952) article, “The immigration fight has only begun,” was published in Commentary (published by the American Jewish Committee) shortly after the Democrat-controlled Congress overrode President Truman’s veto of the restrictionist 1952 law. In a telling comment indicating Jewish leadership of the pro-immigration forces, Handlin complained about the apathy of other “hyphenated Americans” in joining the immigration battle. He repeatedly uses the term “we”—as in “if we cannot beat [Sen. Pat] McCarran and his cohorts with their own weapons, we can do much to destroy the efficacy of those weapons” (p. 4)—suggesting Handlin’s belief in a unified Jewish interest in liberal immigration policy and presaging a prolonged “chipping away” of the 1952 legislation in the ensuing years mentioned by Graham (2003) as part of the context of the 1965 law and noted by Cofnas.

Handlin clearly rejected an ethnic status quo, arguing that it was “illusory [to expect] that the composition of American population will remain as it is” (Handlin, 1947, 6). And he never addressed the stated justification used by restrictionists in the 1924 debates, describing their attitudes as follows: “The hordes of inferior breeds, even then freely pouring into the country in complete disregard for the precepts of the new racial learning, would mix promiscuously with the Anglo-Saxon and inevitably produce a deterioration of the species” (1951/1973: 257).  Handlin thus ignored the actual argument used by restrictionists during the Congressional debates of 1924—that the national origins formula was fair to all ethnic groups in the country because it created an ethnic status quo (MacDonald, 1998/202: 263) with its implicit and entirely defensible assumption from an evolutionary perspective that different ethnic groups have conflicts of interest on immigration (e.g., conflicts between Palestinians and Jews in Israel over a Palestinian right of return).

Handlin was a critical figure in the decades leading up to the passage of the 1965 law:

Handlin’s thinking on immigration policy both reflected and shaped the course of reform in the postwar period. He may be credited with popularizing a new interpretation of American history—one that conceptualized immigration at the heart of American economic and democratic development. In creating this framework for immediate political reform, he founded a normative theory of immigration history—one we popularly known as “a nation of immigrants” (Ngai, 2013, 62).


[i]. Joint Hearings Before the Subcommittees of the Committees on the Judiciary, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess., on S. 716, H.R. 2379, and H.R. 2816, March 6–April 9, 1951, 410.

Abrams, E. (1999). Faith or fear: How Jews can survive in a Christian America.

Graham, O. (2004). Unguarded gates: A history of American’s immigration crisis. Rowman & Littlefield.

Handlin, O. (1947). Democracy and America’s future. Commentary 3: 1–6.

Handlin, O. (1951/1973). The uprooted, 2nd ed. Little Brown and Co.

Handlin, O. (1952). The immigration fight has only begun. Commentary 14(July), 1–7.

Isaacs, S. D. (1974). Jews and American Politics. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Ngai, M.M. (2013). Oscar Handlin and immigration policy reform in the 1950s and 1960s. Journal of American Ethnic History, 32(3), 62–67.

President’s Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (PCIN) (1953). Whom we shall welcome. De Capo Press.

Svonkin, S. (1997). Jews against prejudice: American Jews and the fight for civil liberties. Columbia University Press.

Lack of Self-Awareness (Self-Deception?) at The Tablet

Tablet came out with an article relating level of education to attitudes toward Jewish issues. As they note, it’s long been a bedrock belief among Jews that higher levels of education are linked to lower levels of anti-Jewish attitudes—think decades of Jewish-owned media portraying people with anti-Jewish attitudes as illiterate hillbilly types with some missing teeth. But, as the authors note, the problem for doing this kind of research is that educated people are much less likely to agree with classic anti-Jewish statements like “Jews have too much power in international financial markets” or “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind” (although there’s more than a grain of truth in them).   And this could well be because educated people are more aware that such statements are simply not the sort of thing one says in polite society and if it’s one thing educated people want, it’s to feel that they are good people.

But this study shows or at least suggests that in some areas educated people are more “anti-Semitic” based on asking people with different education levels similar questions but with one set of subjects given questions related to a Jewish example, another set of subjects given questions related to a non-Jewish example. For example, one set of subjects  was asked a question such as “a person’s attachment to another country creates a conflict of interest when advocating in support of certain U.S. foreign policy positions.” One set of subjects got Israel as an example, while the other got Mexico. More subjects thought loyalty created a conflict of interest when Israel was the example than with Mexico.  Their theory was that even though particular individuals will have different opinions on the different questions, on average the responses should be the same for the two groups.

The report only includes three more examples: whether the government should set minimum requirements for what is taught in private schools,” with Orthodox Jewish or Montessori schools given as the illustrating example; whether “the U.S. military should be allowed to forbid the wearing of religious headgear as part of the uniform,” with a Jewish yarmulke or Sikh turban offered as illustrating examples; and whether public gatherings during the pandemic “posed a threat to public health and should have been prevented,” with Orthodox Jewish funerals or Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests offered as illustrating examples.

The Orthodox Jewish/Montessori example showed no difference, but the other three showed differences with the educated responding in a more Jewish-critical way, although, as you might expect given that more educated people trend to the left, more educated people wanted more government control over education.

The question on wearing religious symbols in the military seems clean and suggests a distaste for religious Jews—interesting, but that may not translate to distaste for the many very powerful and influential Jews who don’t wear outward signs of Jewish identity.

The largest effect of education was the Orthodox funeral/BLM item for people with more than a four-year degree (a difference of 36 percentage points). I suspect that more educated people are generally way more enthusiastic about BLM, so that the item doesn’t really get at being critical of Jews. And again it’s Orthodox Jews, so it may not apply to the people who run Hollywood, etc.

Re the loyalty issue, I suspect that more highly educated people are more aware of Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy, despite such news being confined to the fringes of  political discourse. In other words, they are simply more aware of the reality of U.S. subservience to the Israel Lobby and the incredibly costly wars that has resulted in, not to mention the $3.8 billion/year, and high-profile spying cases like the recently repatriated Jonathan Pollard—not to mention support for Pollard in the Jewish mainstream. Israeli oppression of the Palestinians may also be a factor, even though it’s not directly relevant to the loyalty issue. More educated people then to be more liberal and are likely more aware of the oppression. It’s well known that support for Israel is dwindling on the left. As is often the case, being anti-Jewish is simply about knowing more of what’s going on.

Of this bunch, the loyalty question is by far the most interesting because it gets at a central feature of Jewish activism. And it suggests that more educated people are aware of what should be obvious to the non-braindead—that America has indeed suffered greatly because of the subservience to Israel and that this is entirely due to the activism of American Jews.

But of course, for a very Jewish magazine like the Tablet, any hint that educated people are not completely enthusiastic about Jews is cause of alarm and activism. After all, educated people have more power, and it certainly behooves any community to understand where the real threat lies (same goes for White activism, which is why we stress Jewish issues at TOO). But what really bothers the authors is that “educating” the public may not be the answer. Jews have always relied on their very large influence on the mass media and academic opinion to provide positive images of Jews and completely omit anything that might suggest conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews. Since the authors are so confident that there could never be any serious criticism of the Jewish activist community, they suggest that providing facts is not enough to rectify the situation:

Strategies for addressing intolerance in general, and anti-Semitism in particular, tend to revolve around the belief that group-hatred is caused by ignorance, and that the solution is more education. Yet if more-highly educated people are more hostile with respect to Jews, higher educational levels and more courses and training could increase prejudice, rather than diminish it.

This of course leaves out the very strong possibility that more educated Americans are more aware of Jewish power and in particular how Jewish power has been focused on Israeli interests at the expense of American interests. Such information is leaking out despite their best efforts (to date) to shut down negative information about Israel in the mainstream media and even make criticism of Israel illegal, as with the recent spate of anti-BDS laws in several states.

So what to do?

At the very least, it seems that an education that simply provides information about historical events, civil liberties, and other cultural groups is insufficient. Addressing anti-Semitism and prejudice more generally may require the cultivation of virtue. Specifically, it requires the formation of a kind of character that is not only familiar with other outgroups and democratic norms, but also has the integrity to behave in ways that demonstrate consideration of their interests and restraint in the use of political power in the pursuit of personal interests.

This shows an amazing lack of self-awareness, even self-deception. Anyone with the slightest understanding of where the power of the Jewish community has been directed realizes that Jewish power has fundamentally been arrayed against the interests of the traditional White majority.

In fact, the activist Jewish community clearly has not had the integrity to respect the legitimate interests of White Americans, nor have they used restraint in their pursuit of their interests. They have not done unto the White majority as they would like the White majority to do unto them. In their long history of conflict with surrounding peoples, Jews have never been treated better than they have throughout the West, at least since World War II.

In the contemporary U.S., besides the conflict between Israeli and U.S. interests, Jewish activism is strongly focused on curtailing free speech, especially on diversity issues and most especially on assertions of White identity and White interests. And it is strongly focused on supporting replacement-level immigration which is lessening the power of Whites and will ultimately result in Whites being unable to achieve their interests in a democratic manner. And much worse if Whites become a relatively powerless minority.

Immigration is indeed Exhibit A in the Jewish disregard of White interests—the topic of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique where I show that the activist Jewish community rejected the ethnic status which was the aim of the 1924 immigration law—a status quo that was obviously in the legitimate interests of White America as the founding population of the country—and that the main Jewish motivation was fear that a relatively homogeneous White America would inevitably turn on the Jews. Some examples:

Svonkin (1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

The AJCongress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”

Recently I became aware of Otis Graham’s 2004 book Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis. Graham notes that, besides being the most effective force of liberalized immigration, the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely” (80).

I firmly believe that if Jews had had respect for the legitimate interests of White Americans rather than consistently engaging in ethnic hardball against the interests of White America (especially in the post-World War II era when anti-Semitism had been completely marginalized), we and the entire West would be in a very different situation.

The authors conclude:

As Harvard professor and Yiddish scholar Ruth Wisse has argued, anti-Semitism has not thrived because of ignorance, but because it “forms part of a political movement and serves a political purpose.” Those political causes making use of anti-Semitism are increasingly favored by the well-educated in this country. Countering the anti-Semitism of the well-educated will be a political and moral struggle, not one that can be addressed by conventional approaches and conceptions of education.

I agree with Wisse. If indeed there is an anti-Jewish movement in America, it will be aimed at a political purpose for the Whites involved: rectifying historic wrongs inflicted on White America.

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 1


“The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.”
Moshe Kantor,
Manifesto on Secure Tolerance, 2011.

In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.

When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.

There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.

I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight? 

Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist

If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.

As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).

Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist,” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.

Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic.” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?


Moshe Kantor: Dedicated Zionist

Kantor argues that “tolerance,” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance,” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.” Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance,” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:

Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:

Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).

Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.

And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.

There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way,” is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible,” the “making of which, once started, is never to stop,” in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.”

Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the E.U.’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.”

Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial.” He is making speedy progress on all fronts. 

ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain

Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:

non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.

In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[1] The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research:

It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews.[2] One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.”[3] Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.”[4] One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”[5]

But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy,’ in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.”[6] From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936–). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.” In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.” Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. … The Race Relations Act owed much to him.”[7] So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent,’ you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.

One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain. Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that “the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. … When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.”[8] He further writes that “every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”[9]

But Lester wasn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins.[10] Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.[11] Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law  as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.”[12] Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”[13]

In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.”[14] The principles were that: “The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.”[15]

The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making.” This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will. We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop.”

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968. Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions. Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism. The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.

Go to Part 2 of 3.


[1] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.

[2] Donnelly, 115.

[3] Honeyford, 93.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 94.

[6] I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.

[7] W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.

[8] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.

[9] Ibid, 22.

[10] C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.

[11] P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.

[12] Ibid, 323.

[13] Ibid.

[14] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.

[15] Ibid.

The Way Life Should Be?: Maine as a Microcosm of Jewish Activism

The demographic war being waged on the state of Maine has received nothing but glowing press and for good reason—certainly not that it has any legitimacy, but that its beneficiaries are not just protected from scrutiny but praised for their efforts to swamp the indigenous White population by the media establishment. When we understand who controls it, this makes all the sense in the world.

While married to Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, Jewish financier S. Donald Sussman, through his Maine Values LLC, acquired a 75 percent ownership stake in MaineToday Media—the newspaper group that owns the Portland Press Herald, the Maine Sunday Telegram, the Kennebec Journal, the Coastal Journal, and the Morning Sentinel—meaning Sussman now had a controlling interest in most of Maine’s largest newspapers. The Jewish Cliff Schechtman is the editor of the Portland Press Herald, which has published naked propaganda supporting Jewish mayor Ethan Strimling’s call for any and all “migrants” to come to the city. The Press Herald and Sunday Telegram editorial board has endorsed Eliot Cutler[1] (also Jewish and childhood friend of former owner Richard L. Connor) for governor and in Portland’s 2015 Mayoral election, the newspaper endorsed Strimling. The paper has a long history of neglecting to report on essential facts—such as violent felons’ immigration status—and for favoring biased hit pieces. In other words, it is lock-step with its national counterparts in the Jewish-run media.

In 2015, Sussman sold the controlling interest in MaineToday Media to fellow Jew Reade Brower. In 2017, Brower bought Sun Media Group, parent company of the Sun Journal, in Lewiston. Brower now owns six of Maine’s seven daily newspapers and prints its seventh, the Bangor Daily News. He also owns twenty-one of Maine’s thirty weeklies and a number of other specialty publications.[2] From Brower’s profile in the New York Times (itself adamant that Maine and neighboring New Hampshire are too White and too old and…you know the rest):

Mr. Brower’s hold on the newspaper industry of a single state stands out…Maine’s emergence as a national political hot spot…adds to the influence Mr. Brower could have over the public discourse through his properties.[3]

Who needs state-run media when the unaccountable private sector exerts monopolistic control? So we have a situation in Maine where the entire media apparatus is privately-owned, its refugee re-settlement program has been privatized, and its financial and business interests—fully committed to importing an entirely new population—control its politics.

Speaking of politics, two prominent figures in our saga warrant closer attention: the aforementioned Cutler and current Governor Janet Mills.

Eliot Cutler

Cutler is president of the Board of Directors of the Emanuel and Pauline Lerner Foundation, which is focused on “youth development programming.” If said programming is anything like that of the state’s governmental counterparts in TRIO, this means essentially indoctrinating children. Unfortunately I cannot reproduce the conversation I had with a former TRIO employee who reached out to me to discuss the abuses within the program witnessed over the course of several years, for they had anonymity concerns, but I was given the greenlight to provide a rough outline of the tactics employed and the operant ideology. In effect, “disadvantaged” and low-income students are isolated from their school friends and forbidden from speaking with them over the duration of seasonal “camps,” held at a physical remove, where the threat of expulsion and ostracism from their new “friends” in the group looms if they are found to be in violation of any of the myriad rules or ideological transgressions. Ideologically, the program is designed to facilitate the transmission of anti-White programming and various other Cultural Marxist permutations—including the glorification of African migrants and pushing a pro-mass migration stance, incentivizing identification with “queerness” and gender fluidity, etc.—under the guise of “advanced collegiate preparatory scholarship.” There is no outside oversight.

The Lerner Foundation has also made the following organizations funding priorities: the Holocaust & Human Rights Center of Maine; the Jewish Justin Alfond’s Maine chapter of the League of Young Voters;[4] EqualityMaine; Mano en Mano; Opportunity Alliance; Somali Bantu Youth Association; African Diaspora Institute; Portland Adult Education, which has reoriented itself as essentially a jobs- and language-training program for migrants; Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project (ILAP); Maine Women’s Policy Center; the University of Maine Law School Justice for Women Lecture Series; Community Financial Literacy (described as: financial literacy programs for immigrant/refugee communities); Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI); the United Way; Out! As I Want to Be (for the “expansion of the Gay-Straight-Trans Alliance presence in Midcoast schools”); Maine Initiatives (described as: ethnic community-based organization learning community project); Maine Access Immigrant Network (MAIN); and Franco American Heritage Center, which seems innocuous until you understand that this organization is no longer designed to preserve the Acadian-French culture but rather use the Francophone “heritage” as a justification for settling Congolese in central Maine.

Cutler’s former post-merger firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hoauer, and Feld LLP is deeply embedded in the network of immigration law firms that make significant money undermining federal immigration enforcement and representing the interests of the many large corporations seeking to import workers to undercut American workers’ wages and/or displace said workers. From their site:

With the largest public law and policy practice in the country, Akin Gump often represents clients in matters relating to immigration policy. We conduct analyses of legislative and regulatory proposals, and advocate on behalf of our clients in all areas of immigration policy…In every U.S. Akin Gump office, our lawyers represent clients seeking asylum in the United States. Asylum applications are adjudicated by the USCIS Asylum Office and/or the immigration courts. In either forum, access to a lawyer is key… Since 2007, nearly every Akin Gump summer associate, supervised by Akin Gump lawyers, has represented undocumented women who have been victims of domestic violence and need to “self-petition” for legal residency in the United States. Through this program, more than 150 women have secured permanent residency in the U.S. for themselves and their children…according to a study by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, asylum seekers represented by an attorney are 12 times more likely to be granted asylum than those without attorney representation…. Our experienced team of lawyers is deeply rooted in the immigration law community and is involved with various immigration-related organizations, such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association…Akin Gump’s pro bono work in the area of immigration has been recognized on multiple occasions. An early leader in conducting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) employment authorization clinics, our firm has been involved in hundreds of immigration cases in the last decade. Through corporate and pro bono immigration work, our lawyers have obtained a thorough understanding of the process required to obtain employment authorization, Social Security cards, Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), and the process necessary for foreign nationals to travel abroad and obtain visas at U.S. consulates. We have worked with multiple families ensuring entry of dependents into the United States, filed applications for Employment Authorization Documents and “advance parole,” and communicated with U.S. consulates and ports of entry to ensure the safe return of our clients to the United States…Our immigration practice group provides a broad range of immigration services for business organizations and individual clients in need of assistance. Our lawyers have knowledge and experience in the following areas of immigration law:

  • business immigration
  • employment-based temporary work visas
  • permanent resident (“green”) cards
  • company executive transfers
  • EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program
  • immigration compliance
  • waivers of inadmissibility
  • employee training programs
  • foreign national hiring practices
  • immigration-related internal investigations
  • H-1B visa enforcement issues
  • E-Verify Program
  • policy and lobbying
  • legislative proposals
  • advocacy before executive branch agencies
  • family-based immigration
  • student visas
  • visa issuance abroad
  • travel to and from the United States
  • naturalization[5]

Cutler is senior advisor to the chairman and CEO of Thornburg Investment Management, and is now a member of the board of directors. In the 2018 election cycle, donations originating from individuals with Thornburg went to candidates such as Beto O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Xochitl Torres Small. In 2016, we see money went to Hillary Clinton and in 2012 to Angus King, with whom we are very familiar at this point. Given both Cutler’s and Thornburg’s investment in the Chinese market and its prominent place in the company’s investment portfolios, it’s little surprise the official line on populism is that it is “divisive,” and that tariffs are an impediment to free trade and therefore a bad thing. This is not unusual among the neo-liberal establishment. In fact, it defines it.

Cutler’s MaineAsia LLC has received ample subsidies to explore the uses of “renewable energies,” greenhouse gases, and solar technology in year-round crop production in cold climates, such as Maine’s. Incidentally, Cutler is also a principal investor in ArchSolar, a company “developing more efficient solar electric technologies for sustainable year-round agriculture in northern latitudes.” Interesting. His Maine Seafood Ventures LLC is working to continue to expand the Asian market for Maine’s seafood industry, which will of course need more cheap labor to fish the waters into maritime fauna extinction.

Lastly, should we read into the company one keeps, the progressive-minded Day of Hope featured three Jews as its speakers in 2017—Cutler, Portland mayor Ethan Strimling, and Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project’s Board President Leslie Silverstein.

Janet Mills

In previous installments of this series, we’ve traced Mills’s sources of funding and her use of institutional support to aid in the importation of more African migrants into the state, but her track record before becoming governor also bears further scrutiny. The widow of real estate developer Stanley Kuklinski, Mills is notoriously cagey, frequently frustrating attempts by transparency organizations such as Vote Smart to provide an un-curated image of her.

As Attorney General, Mills repeatedly either declined to prosecute or delayed investigations of African migrants in Lewiston accused of violent crimes, including one brutal assault near Kennedy Park which ultimately resulted in the White victim’s death. In an absolutely grotesque display, Mills led a rally the following year in the very same Kennedy Park called Standing Up Against Hate, where “intolerance” was condemned— not the violent intolerance of the African imports toward their White neighbors, but the violence of the mosque shooting half a world away in New Zealand. South Portland City Council member Deqa Dhalac echoed Mills’s condemnations of “White supremacy” in stating:

“I am asking my non-Muslim brothers and sisters to stand with us in solidarity, and support us with your love and strong words to condemn White supremacy and Islamophobia.” Naomi Mayer of Portland represented March Forth, a social justice group based in Portland. She expressed dismay at the killings. “Fifty people (gathered) where they thought they were safe? How would you like it if you were having a party with your friends, and someone came in and killed all of you?” she said (my note: hmmm…more on this in a second).[6],[7]

Ethan Strimling was there as well, of course:

“We know better in the state of Maine about the importance of diversity and the importance of immigration,” he said. “Probably what I am most proud of is how we do stand up and say we do not tolerate intolerance every time it occurs.”

This must be little consolation to the family of the deceased Donald Giusti, who died three days after being savagely beaten by a gang of Somalis and Congolese:

In the days after the fight, several people insisted the attack on Giusti and his friends had been racially motivated, the result of tensions that had existed in and around the park since the end of winter…One witness, who videotaped part of the fight, told police a “White guy” had been running backward and had stumbled. After righting himself, “he was struck in the head with a brick, which caused him to fall to the ground.”…“After he fell, the Somali and Congolese group ‘stomped’ him for about 10 seconds, before they took off running,” Maine State Police Detective John L. Kyle II wrote in an affidavit. That witness said several people were armed with sticks, BB guns and a bat… Witnesses said the groups began fighting on Knox Street after teens in a car drove past the park and shot pellets and BBs at a group gathered there, striking several people… Police had said the investigation took longer than some because of the sheer number of people involved and because many were juveniles.[8]

That last claim is absolutely untrue, as I have on good authority the police were ordered to table the investigation until after Mills’s election.

Once again we see the obscuring of the true sources of racial tension and violence, a tried-and-true tactic practiced by the authorities from Sweden to Germany to the UK to Maine. The media is also complicit in refusing to cover that which does not fit their narrative. In 1980, there were 640 Somalis in the entire country. Now, there are at minimum 6,000 in Lewiston alone, and they are almost solely responsible—along with the Congolese—for all of the crime in the city. That said, from the “Immigrant and Refugee Integration and Policy Development Working Group Final Report” for the City of Lewiston, December 2017:

Immigrant and refugee youth of color can experience repeat encounters with the American juvenile justice system due in part to a lack of understanding around the way the system works [my note: we know that not to be the case].[9]

So in other words, the thirty Africans who shot at and assaulted a group of Whites outnumbered two-to-one didn’t understand the legal complexities of not beating someone to death on purely racial grounds, so they should be absolved of any wrongdoing. A hate crime—or a crime at all—this apparently is not. But wanting to not have this done to you and your friends and family, to your fellow citizens—that is very hateful indeed.

PS-If you aren’t already outraged, go ahead and read these two paywalled articles: “Waterville Man Deported to Haiti Pardoned by Governor“;  “Kicked Out of Shelter, Family Pitches a Tent and Struggles with Homelessness.”

 


[1] You might find it interesting that all six of Maine’s largest newspapers endorsed Cutler in his gubernatorial bid.

[2] Brower has also expanded into Vermont, purchasing the Rutland Herald and the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus.

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/business/media/reade-brower-maine-newspapers.html

[4] The League of Young Voters U.S. is a national advocacy organization which organizes progressive voter guides and voter blocs nationwide, particularly geared towards the 18–34 age group.

[5] https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/practices/regulatory/immigration-law-and-policy.html

[6] https://www.sunjournal.com/2019/03/17/governor-state-leaders-condemn-recent-killings/

[7] Organizer of 2017 Portland rally “against White supremacy, neo-Nazism, the Ku Klux Klan and President Trump,” Naomi Mayer, told the crowd at that rally: “I’m not here because I’m Jewish. I’m here, and all of you are here, because we are human. None of you were born to hate. It wasn’t in our DNA.” Yes, Strimling was also there, “proud of his city for standing against hate.” https://www.centralmaine.com/2017/08/13/more-than-400-rally-in-portland-in-solidarity-with-charlottesville/

[8] https://www.sunjournal.com/2019/04/24/state-seeks-to-try-lewiston-teen-as-adult-on-manslaughter-charge/; side note: Maine’s first Somali Moslem police officer, Zahra Munye Abu, was arrested at a Ja Rule and Ashanti concert and was charged with assault, battery, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and trespassing.

[9] https://www.lewistonmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8885/REPORT—ImmigrantandRefugeeIntegrationandPolicyDevelopmentWorkingGroupFinalReport

“Bad Santa” and Eli Plaut’s “A Kosher Christmas”

[This article was originally posted on Dec. 24, 2013; it is a comment on an article that appeared in Tablet on Dec. 17, 2013. Tablet has seen fit to repost it in 2014, on Christmas eve, so I thought I would repost my comment.]

Billy Bob Thornton and Tony Cox in Bad Santa.

It’s that time of year again. Time for Jewish angst about Christmas. The Tablet has a revealing article by Adam Chandler that gets at the Jewish view of the season (“All-Star Team of Jews Defiles Christmas in Billy Bob Thornton’s ‘Bad Santa’: How the Coen brothers and Terry Zwigoff helped create a holiday classic that angers gentiles“). Described as “the greatest Christmas movie of all time,”

ten years after its release, Terry Zwigoff’s Bad Santa, a rail whiskey blend of Brecht and Bukowski, has become a holiday standard. Brought to life by a Jew from Wisconsin (Zwigoff) and four Jewish brothers (two Coens and two Weinsteins), it is regarded as a classic send-up of Christmas culture gone awry. The crude, brilliant movie is a staple of Comedy Central’s December line-up.  …

With an assault of impiety, the film makes Christmastime in America seem an impossible place to be if you live at the margins. The way that message is conveyed throughout the movie, however, is more fluid than solid. After his introductory monologue, Willie stumbles into the alley behind the bar where, with the Chopin nocturne still lilting, he upchucks loudly into the snow. It’s a beautiful shot, retching Santa and all, that ends with the postcard appearance of the movie title in red lettering.

Uplifting stuff for the holidays. The artistic contribution of the Coen brothers is critical:

In an interview last year, director Terry Zwigoff explained how the Coen Brothers turned Bad Santa from holiday pastiche into scorched earth. “Like the kid would ask Santa, ‘Do you and Mrs. Santa ever think of having kids?’ And in the original script it was just, ‘No, thank God.’ And the Coens made that into, ‘No, thank the fuck Christ.’ That’s their gift. They have a gift for dialogue.”

Such an improvement! The gleeful desecration of all that is held dear by the hated and resented outgroup.

Read more