Jewish Support for Multiculturalism

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

/18 Comments/in , , /by

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

/34 Comments/in , , , /by


“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

/17 Comments/in , /by

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”

/12 Comments/in , , /by

[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

Perceptions of Jewish History Drive the War of the Hostile Elite Against the Trump Presidency

/21 Comments/in , , /by

I begin with a thumbnail sketch of Jewish perceptions of their own history as a prologue to thinking about why a long-term goal of the organized Jewish community has been to make alliances with other groups with grievances against the traditional American nation. Jewish perceptions of their own history reflect traditional Jewish fear and loathing of outgroups with power, particularly given their perceptions of their “lachrymose history” among Europeans as nothing but a vale of tears.

This lachrymose view has major implications for understanding contemporary Jewish political behavior in the Diaspora. It proposes that, beginning with an unfortunate theological belief (that Jews killed God), Jews have been passive, innocent victims of marauding non-Jews. The lesson that Jews learned from the Middle Ages carries down to today: [According to Norman Podhoretz,” the Jews

“emerged from the Middle Ages knowing for a certainty that — individual exceptions duly noted — the worst enemy they had in the world was Christianity: the churches in which it was embodied — whether Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Protestant — and the people who prayed in and were shaped by them. It was a knowledge that Jewish experience in the ages to come would do very little, if indeed anything at all, to help future generations to forget” (Review of Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberals?, p. 29).

These perceptions are fundamental to Jewish education and to Jewish identity. Jews therefore—far more than non-Jewish Europeans—have an overwhelming sense of their own history. From far left to the neoconservative right, Jews socialized in the Jewish community imbibe a history of what they see as vicious persecution of blameless Jews in the West going back even prior to Christianity—to the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D.

Within this worldview, the Middle Ages were a period of completely unjustified expulsions from many areas on Western Europe, motivated not at all by Jewish behavior but by vicious, fundamentally anti-Semitic Christian theology. The Enlightenment resulted in “Jewish emancipation” in the sense that the paradigm had shifted from a corporate Christendom with its anti-Jewish theology to an individualist model of society where each citizen was to be stripped of group allegiances.

Jews were welcomed into these newly reconstructed Western societies, but the tensions remained. Jews were now accused of remaining Jews in societies of individualists—of remaining a “state within a state,” failing to shed their ethnic identities, and continuing to engage in ethnic networking, not only in business and professional relationships, but also establishing organizations in the West dedicated to helping Jews in foreign lands, at times against the perceived interests of the nations they were residing in. Read more

An Academic Book on Jewish Subversion of Christmas

/4 Comments/in , , /by

Editor’s note: Originally posted in 2012, this article gets at the Jewish ethnic angle behind the “War on Christmas.”

A new book, Joshua Eli Plaut’s A Kosher Christmas: ’Tis the Season to Be Jewish, documents what we have known all along: The Jews did indeed subvert Christmas.  This book deserves a full review, but Ethan Schwartz’s summary and comment (“Twas the night after Christmas“) deserve scrutiny. First the summary:

Jews have been the vanguard of an effort to “transform Christmastime into a holiday season belonging to all Americans,” without religious exclusivity.  The most important Jewish mechanisms of secularization are comedy and parody, for laughter undermines religious awe.  Take, for example, Hanukkah Harry from “Saturday Night Live”, who heroically steps in for a bedridden Santa by delivering presents from a cart pulled by donkeys named Moishe, Hershel, and Shlomo.  Remarkably, Hanukkah Harry has emerged as a real Santa-alternative for many American Jews.  Plaut sees such things not as attempts at assimilation but as an intentional subversion of Christmas traditions.  “Through these parodies,” he writes, “Jews could envision not having to be captivated by the allure of ubiquitous Christmas symbols.”  And it isn’t just Jews: for Americans in general, Jewish parody helps ensure that Christmas “not be taken too seriously” and that the celebrations of other traditions “be accorded equal respect and opportunity.”

There seem to be two messages here. One is the message of subversion utilizing ridicule among other methods. The other is that Jews are seen as high-mindedly making Christmas  “into a holiday season belonging to all Americans.” The end result is that Christmas is not “taken too seriously” and the Christian religious aspect central to the traditional holiday is de-emphasized.

People who take their religion seriously do not allow their religion to be ridiculed. One need only think of the Muslim reactions to cartoons ridiculing Mohammed. The fact that Jews have been able to ridicule Christianity without any serious negative consequences is an important marker of Jewish power and an equally strong indication of the decline of Christian religious belief. I suspect that the organized Jewish community would react in outrage if non-Jews ridiculed religious Judaism. Indeed, any criticism of Jews as Jews is off limits in the mainstream media. (A topical short list of verboten topics: the loyalties of neocon Jews and their role in promoting the war in Iraq, the Jewish aspect of the Ivy League admissions scandal, how Jewish control of Hollywood influences media content.) Read more

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 1 of 5

/7 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s note: Brenton Sanderson has written several articles on the Jewish war on White Australia. This is the first one, posted originally on August 13, 2012 as a 5-part series. Well worth reading or re-reading — and thinking about the world we have lost. 

Results from the 2011 Australian Census reveal that, for the first time in that nation’s history, the majority of migrants are now arriving from Asia instead of Europe. Indians and Chinese have become the fastest growing sections of the Australian population. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of Australian permanent residents born in India increased by 100 per cent, those born in China increased by 54 per cent, while those born in the Philippines by 42 per cent. These startling figures do not even include those born in Australia to Indian or Chinese parents. The Census also revealed that other non-White immigrant groups are also expanding rapidly, including various African groups. All of this is dismal news for White Australians and, indeed, for White people everywhere. Unfortunately, these figures only mirror what is happening throughout the West, where White people are under demographic and cultural siege from race-replacing levels of Third World immigration and the official embrace of “multiculturalism.”

In just a few decades these malignant policies have transformed Western societies to the detriment of their European-derived populations and culture. It is a remarkable fact that this revolution in immigration and social policy throughout the West occurred at around the same time (1962-1973), and that in all countries these changes reflected the attitude of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. Changes in immigration policy and the imposition of multiculturalism were imposed on resentful European populations despite overwhelming popular opposition to non-European immigration. The driving force behind this totally undemocratic shift in policy was the Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism that Kevin MacDonald documented in The Culture of Critique. For those aware of the pivotal role of Jews in driving the demographic and cultural transformation of the United States, the story of the Jewish role in radically reengineering Australian society will have a depressingly familiar ring to it. Read more