Jewish Support for Multiculturalism

The Jewish War on White Australia: Colin Tatz and the Genocide Charge — PART ONE of FOUR

/21 Comments/in , /by

Captain James Cook statue, with graffiti

January 26 is Australia Day, a national public holiday marking the date the first permanent British settlers (mostly convicts) arrived in Sydney in 1788. These thousand or so souls — transported to the other side of the world and told to fend for themselves — laid the foundations for one of the most successful nations in history. Traditionally a day to celebrate this remarkable achievement, Australia Day has, in recent years, been attacked by leftwing activists who, emboldened by the escalating anti-White rhetoric of the intellectual establishment, have rebranded it “Invasion Day.” Every year sees shrill demands for Australia Day to be moved to another date, recast as a day of mourning, or abolished altogether. Despite the growing agitation against Australia Day, two-thirds of Australians favor retaining the date as a national public holiday.

Speaking to an “Invasion Day” protest rally in Melbourne this year, Aboriginal activist Tarneen Onus-Williams, screamed: “Fuck Australia,” expressing her hope “it burns to the ground.” A statement produced by her organization, the so-called Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance (WAR), drew freely on the Cultural Marxist lexicon, insisting they “would not rest until this entire rotten settler colony called Australia, illegally and violently imposed on stolen Aboriginal land at the expense of the blood of countless thousands, burns to the fucking ground, until every corrupt and illegal institution of white supremacist, patriarchal, capitalist settler colonial power forced upon us is no more… Fuck your flag, your anthem and your precious national day. … Abolish Australia, not just Australia Day.” Aboriginal activist Tony Birch insisted Australia “does not deserve a national celebration in any capacity,” while Onus-Williams later claimed “people who celebrate Australia Day are celebrating the genocide of Aboriginal people, waving Australian flags in our faces. It’s disgusting.” Aboriginal activist Dan Sultan likewise maintained that Australia Day marks the “day that started the ongoing genocide of our people.” A local councilor for the city of Moreland (in Melbourne) claimed that commemorating Australia Day is “like celebrating the Nazi Holocaust.” Read more

The Origins of Swedish Multiculturalism

/101 Comments/in , /by

How Sweden became Multicultural
M. Eckehart
Helsingborg, Sweden: Logik Förlag, 2017

This brief (96 pages) study of the historical origins of Sweden’s multicultural policy was published ten years ago in Swedish, but has just now been made available to the English reading public. It is not a history of immigration to Sweden, which would require a much longer treatment, but of the spread and triumph of the multicultural idea. Massive extra-European immigration only happened afterwards, partly as a consequence of this shift in thinking.

In the early 1960s, when the story begins, the most significant minority ethnic groups in the country were of northern European stock: Finns were most numerous, followed by Estonians and the Sami, or Lapps, native to northern Sweden itself.

But following the end of World War II, others began arriving. In 1963–4, calls for restricting immigration began to be heard. This helped spark a series of debates in the press on the status of ethnic minorities in Sweden. It is generally agreed that the multicultural policy formally inaugurated in 1975 had its origin in these debates; but as the author of the present study points out, the background of the debaters and their motivations have seldom been inquired into.

Their initiator and most important contributor was David Schwarz (1928–2008), a Polish-born Jew who arrived in Sweden in 1950 for medical treatment related to typhus and tuberculosis he had contracted while a concentration camp inmate in Germany.

On October 21, 1964, Schwarz published “The Foreigner Problem in Sweden” in Dagens Nyheter, one of several Swedish dailies published by the Jewish-owned Bonnier Group, writing:

Before the Second World War Sweden was relatively restrictive with regards to allowing in refugees. The need for labor was not as great as it is today, and some professions feared foreign competition. But by the end of the war the government’s attitude changed, and over time 14,000 Jews and many others were transferred here from the German concentration camps. Simultaneously tens of thousands of Baltic refugees and several thousand stateless people fleeing the Russians came. Since then Sweden has continued to receive foreigners […] In other words Sweden got a large group of people, approximately 400,000, who were not born in the country.

Schwarz went on to argue that immigrant groups should face no pressure to assimilate; they should unconditionally be permitted to retain their cultural particularity. He recommended the appointment of a parliamentary inquiry with a view to formulating a culturally pluralist immigration and minority policy. Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: The Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 2 of 4

/16 Comments/in , /by

As discussed in Part 1 of this article, “Click Against Hate” was devised by the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) as an “early-intervention” program for Australian schoolchildren. I was recently forwarded a recording of a “Click Against Hate” session conducted by a Jewish activist named Brett Kaye (featured in the above photograph). At no point during the session does Kaye acknowledge that he represents the ADC, a Jewish activist organization. Instead he presents himself as a deeply moral and caring person who is involved in the program for purely humanitarian and altruistic reasons. In concealing his organizational affiliation, the children remain oblivious that “Click Against Hate” is not a politically neutral cyber-safety and anti-bullying program, but a carefully designed propaganda tool designed to serve Jewish ethnic interests in promoting “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” and the suppression of “hate” speech (i.e., speech professional Jews don’t like).

Kaye asks the children why they hate someone and they volunteer a variety of answers, such as jealousy and doing something bad to you. So he gives them a hint at what he is really after:

EXCERPT 1: “Psychologist time”

Brett Kaye: I’m gonna ask you a question that’s gonna help you: “Why would I hate somebody because of the color of their skin or because of their religion? Why would I hate somebody because the color of their skin or because of their religion? Why would I?

Child: Because of racism?

Brett Kaye: Yes. Why would I be racist?

Child: Because you were brought up not to like these people

Brett Kaye: AH! So my parents teach me how to be a racist. In other words, if I’m brought up in a racist household and therefore that could be my view too. Excellent answer.

Child: Wait, are you saying you were?

Brett Kaye: I’m not saying I was, but I’m saying based on what he said, what’s your name?

Child: James

Brett Kaye: Based on what James said, if somebody is brought up in racist household might they themselves become racist?

Child: Um maybe difference?

Brett Kaye: Difference. That’s an excellent answer too. Someone who is different to who I am: I don’t like people who are different, I don’t like their food, I don’t like the way they dress, I don’t like the way that they talk a funny language, they talk in an accent, and all of a sudden that difference can translate into hate. I don’t know about that. I’m ignorant about that. Nobody’s taught me about that. I’ve never learnt about that. Why are they doing all these funny things? Why are singing in this funny way? Why do they talk in this funny way? Why do they dress in this funny way? All that sort of stuff can lead to hatred. Have a look at my answers boys and girls and I think they’re close to yours: someone hurts you or someone you love (we got it), jealousy (Bam! Smacked it on the head), ignorance or lack of education, and what we learn at home.

Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: The Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 1 of 4

/39 Comments/in , , , /by


The Australian Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) is the Australian equivalent of America’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both organizations fall under the umbrella of B’nai B’rith International which holds NGO status at the United Nations. The stated mission of the ADC is to make Australia “a better place” by fighting “anti-Semitism and all forms of racism” and combatting “the defamation of the Jewish people and Israel.” Describing itself as a “harm prevention charity,” the ADC claims to be dedicated to “promoting tolerance, justice and multiculturalism.” But despite its pious pretentions to universal benevolence, the ADC, like countless other Jewish activist organizations around the world, exists to promote the ethnic interests of Jews. The “harm” this organization is determined to prevent is any harm to these perceived interests.

Regarding the plethora of Jewish activist organizations in the United States, the Jewish academic and journalist Adam Garfinkle has observed:

The main mass-membership advocacy organizations of American Jewry — B’nai B’rith and its Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the National Conference of Jewish Federations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (a kind of steering group for the major organizations), to mention only a few — are not religious organizations but ethnic ones. It is not necessary to have any Jewish religious affiliation to be a member in good standing in these organizations, and their leaderships are composed mainly of people who are not religious or Jewishly learned Jews.

We need not go into foundational texts and statements of purpose on the question of origins, for the answer is simple enough: organizations like B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee were created to lobby for particular Jewish interests. … In time, these and most other Jewish organizations became explicitly or implicitly Zionist, and thereafter existed to one degree or another to support, first, a Jewish home in Palestine, and then, after 1948, the security and prosperity of the State of Israel. In other words, all these organizations have depended, and still depend, on the validity of their serving parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from the broader American interest but not related directly to religion. [Emphasis added][1]

Contrary to the propaganda put out by the ADC for non-Jewish consumption, the interests of Jews are not the same as those of the broader Australian community, particularly the White Australian community. While the ADC — whose motto is “Promoting Diversity” — pretends that all conflicting group interests can be reconciled through “education” and “mutual understanding,” the interests of different racial and religious groups are often fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable. The group evolutionary interests of White Australians are absolutely harmed by the mass importation of non-Whites into the country — compounded by ideological commitments by state and federal governments to “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Read more

TEAM Westport: A Case Study in anti-White Activism

/60 Comments/in , /by

“This is an exciting moment to be working on this. There are more non-white kids being born now than white kids.” TEAM Westport, October 7 2014.

“We should continue working with the Board of Education here in Westport to prepare students for the world from a multicultural point of view.” TEAM Westport, May 3 2011.

Introduction

Westport, Connecticut is a pleasant coastal town with a population of 26,000 that boasts above-average incomes and is 92.6% White. It has a busy library, a number of successful and respected schools, several pristine public squares, an observatory, a natural history museum, and a number of independent news outlets. Unfortunately, since 1994 the town has also been home to a rather innocuously named organization called TEAM Westport. Its purpose is anything but innocuous. TEAM is an acronym for: Together Effectively Achieving Multiculturalism, and for over 20 years this group has been insidiously poisoning the socio-cultural well of its surroundings with a persistence that is as remarkable as it is sickening. For more than 20 years its efforts have attracted little attention beyond the precincts of the town. This changed a few weeks ago when one TEAM project caused the briefest of blips on the national radar, which in turn brought it to my attention.

The project in question was TEAM’s annual essay contest, now in its fourth year. Although TEAM is not an official part of the school district, or indeed the school system, its network of influence has allowed the essay contests to be promoted among children via the schools and other educational avenues. The annual contest has always engaged in race-baiting among the young. However, this year’s contest was presumably a step too far, or too soon, for those behind it. The prompt, unveiled in January, reads:

In 1,000 words or less, describe how you understand the term ‘white privilege’. To what extent do you think this privilege exists? What impact do you think it has had in your life — whatever your racial or ethnic identity — and in our society more broadly?

The subversive nature of the question wasn’t lost on the growing number of Whites who, in the Trump era, are becoming increasingly sensitive to such manoeuvres, and less hesitant in expressing their opposition. In its predictably biased reporting of reactions to this year’s essay contest, the New York Times reported that “merely mentioning white privilege seems to have struck a nerve, with much of the criticism coming from out of town.” This was presumably in response to comments appearing on TEAM’s Facebook page, which included the astute observation: “This is nothing more than race baiting. You are a joke.” The New York Times, like TEAM Westport representatives, dismissed such reactions as “hand-wringing among adults,” while focussing on the more susceptible and intellectually and ideologically vulnerable children, who, in the words of the New York Times, “appear to have greeted the essay contest and the resulting uproar with a shrug.” Journalistic investigation into the history and activities of TEAM Westport both began and ended at this single essay contest, and the story appears to have been mentioned only in order to sneer at those who objected to the concept of “White guilt.”

I found this slanted and superficial coverage profoundly dissatisfying, and resolved to conduct my own investigation into the deeper roots of this affair. As a White ethno-nationalist, I have certain beliefs about multiculturalism and its advance in recent decades. In particular, it is my belief that multiculturalism is both an ideology and a deliberate process. By the latter, I mean that multiculturalism is not something that occurs “naturally,” but is rather a process advanced with programmatic design.  Although I have tested and confirmed these beliefs many times previously, the career of TEAM Westport would provide an opportunity to test these beliefs once more in the form of a case study. In light of my pre-existing understanding of multiculturalism, a number of questions presented themselves immediately: Who are the members of TEAM Westport, and what is their ideological and cultural background? Is there any evidence of Jewish influence in and around this organization? How and why has the group been given extensive access to the local educational establishment? Where does this group get its funding, and what does it use this funding for? What does the group mean by “achieving multiculturalism,” and what are the chief methods by which this group seeks to achieve it? What role, if any, does pathological altruism play in the activities of the organization? Read more

Why Do Jewish Organizations Want Anti-Israel Refugees?

/49 Comments/in , , /by
 The 2014 WaPo caption: “People hold a banner” — they mean “Arab Immigrants hold a banner”

Previously posted at VDARE.

The Main Stream Media predicts Donald J. Trump will appeal for “national unity” in his Inaugural Address this Friday, but they’ve been mistaken before. One way he could wrong-foot the Narrative: by announcing an immediate pause in “refugee” admissions, currently surging, to be followed by a zero quota for the next fiscal year—something that, by a legal quirk, he has absolute authority to do. There would be hysteria, in which the major Jewish organizations would, almost certainly, join. My question: why would they do that?

The major Jewish organizations have certainly been in the forefront welcoming Syrian refugees [For Jewish Groups, Syrian Refugees are a Reminder, Not a Threat By Ron Kampeas, JTA.org, November 24, 2015; As Anti-Refugee Sentiment Builds, Jewish Agencies Push for Settlement, Greg Salisbury, JewishExponent.com, November 25, 2015]. This seems bizarre, given the well-known anti-Jewish, anti-Israel sentiments common among Muslims.

The Jewish leaders’ own rationales—which we should take seriously—generally derive from how they view the past. And it’s the fact that Jews were sometimes denied the ability to flee Hitler’s Germany.

But in privileging their own perceived interests, the Jewish organizations obviously are not taking into account the legitimate concerns of Americans about refugee resettlement’s impact on terrorism, social cohesion, unemployment, crime, and welfare costs—not to mention the ethnic genetic interests of whites. The entire issue is seen through the lens of Jewish memories. There is no attempt to make a case that admitting “refugees” will actually benefit America— the vast majority are uneducated and cannot be expected to contribute to a First World economy. [An ill wind, The Economist,January 23, 2016,]

Moreover, even granting that denying refuge to Jews in the 1930s was indefensible (and I don’t agree) there are solutions to the refugee problem that would not mean more unassimilable, non-White immigrants. Thus Trump has already proposed providing a Mid-East safe zone.

But why are Jewish organizations so sanguine about immigrants who harbor anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli attitudes?

Given that Jewish organizations do not promote anti-Jewish immigration to Israel—or, indeed, any non-Jewish immigration to Israel—we can rule out high humanitarian principles.

Rather we must seek an answer in terms of Jewish perceptions of their self-interest.

But for an evolutionary psychologist, this immediately presents a problem. There are several mechanisms implicated in the evolved psychological basis of ethnic conflict, But the most relevant: people have negative stereotypes of outgroups, and to discriminate against them. So why would Jews promote admitting people into Western countries even though they (like everyone else) are inclined to see the migrants negatively?

Separation and Its DiscontentsFor Jews living in Western societies, however, the migrants aren’t the only outgroup. Western peoples and cultures themselves are an outgroup— see my book Separation and Its Discontents. Hence one would expect Jewish negative attitudes toward both immigrants and the host white culture.

So Jewish attitudes could be analyzed as simply whichever outgroup summons up the greater hostility. And Jewish attitudes are primarily determined by their hostility towards whites.

Still, humans have rational thought processesthat process culturally-available information and can suppress negative attitudes toward outgroups, while inducing empathy and guilt. In my view, these processes are central to understanding why so many Europeans wholeheartedly welcome refugees—after reading empathy-inducing accounts of suffering women and children in the Main Stream Media, and after being exposed to guilt-inducingeducation.

(And, of course, the anti-White revolution is nothing if not massively incentivized.)

But what rational calculations might lead Jewish organizations to promote the refugee invasion of Europe?

As reflected in their statements, first and foremost is the perception that racially-conscious, racially-homogeneous Germany turned against Jews during the National Socialist period; and that other European and European-derived countries (such as the U.S.) failed eagerly to accept Jewish refugees.

Lack of racial/ethnic homogeneity in diaspora countries is therefore seen as making Jews safer (see, e.g., here, p. 246).

Moreover, Jewish intellectual movements—prototypically, the Frankfurt School—have successfully portrayed ethnocentrism among Europeans as pathological—hence talk about the “virus” of anti-Semitism. Fear and loathing of White, Christian America runs deep. It is seen as a far greater threat than importing a substantial but relatively small community of Muslims, even if they are prone to terrorism and anti-Jewish attitudes.

Terrorism, after all is a strategy pursued by non-elite groups. An elite group like American Jews pursue their interests in the MSM, the legislative process, and the judicial system—top-down influence that is far more compatible with oligarchy than democracy. (An oligarchic model fits U.S. politics much better than a democratic model—see Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page in Perspectives on Politics, September 2014, Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens).

Muslim immigrants, given their proneness to street crime and low academic achievement, are no threat to the elite status of Jews. Nor are they a threat to the current oligarchical power structure of Western societies, an unholy alliance between large donors, politicians, and MSM and academia elites.

Moreover, the idea of any limitation on immigration to the West by a particular racial/ethnic or religious group is completely at odds with the ideology of multiculturalism and diversity, the “we’re all the same” mantra, and the ideology that Western countries are “proposition nations” committed only to abstract ideas like “freedom” and “democracy,” with no ethnic or religious content. And this ideology has been promoted by Jewish intellectual movementsat least since World War II—a theme of The Culture of Critique. It has been internalized across the elite spectrum—by Republicans and Democrats, Jews and non-Jews alike

Commitment to immigration and multiculturalism is thus a central aspect of Jewish self-identity. It would be something like getting the Jewish community to turn its back on Zionism if it became politically costly as a result of pro-Palestinian activism. Not going to happen.

The late Lawrence Auster, a Jewish convert to Christianity, framed Jewish attitudes in terms of a “slippery slope” argument:

Now when Jews put together the idea that “any social prejudice or exclusion directed against Jews leads potentially to Auschwitz” with the idea that “all bigotry is indivisible,” they must reach the conclusion that any exclusion of any group, no matter how alien it may be to the host society, is a potential Auschwitz.

So there it is. We have identified the core Jewish conviction that makes Jews keep pushing relentlessly for mass immigration, even the mass immigration of their deadliest enemies. In the thought-process of Jews, to keep Jew-hating Muslims out of America would feed exclusionary attitudes among America’s white Gentile majority that could result in another Jewish Holocaust. Why Jews welcome Muslims The View from the Right, December 9, 2002.

Moreover, Jewish organizations have combined advocating high levels of immigration with simultaneously advocating intensification of police-state-type controls to ensure Jewish security. For example, in Germany even before the refugee influx, synagogues, Jewish schools and other organizations have been under constant police protection. [Migrant Influx In Germany Raises Fears Of Anti-Semitism, By Alison Smale, NYT, January 26, 2016]

Thus, for Jewish organizations, an obvious upside of refugee crime is that it provide a rationale for policies that have long been advocated by many in the Jewish community—especially curbs on free speech, and in particular speech related to ethnicity and immigration. It is no accident that, for example, in Germany, the migrant crisis has led to a campaign to shut down Facebook criticism of the invasion—with the full cooperation of fanatical immigration enthusiast Mark Zuckerberg.

As a result, the consensus view among Jews seems to be that the transformation of the West is manageable. And if some non-elite Jews, like the upward of 9,000 who left France in 2015 [French immigration to Israel surges in summer of 2015, YNet News, June 17, 2015], emigrate to Israel because of Muslim street-level hostility, this will not impact the Jewish elites.

The only real cloud on the horizon: the possibility that Leftist political parties, powered by non-Whites and White Social Justice Warriors, will become hostile toward Israel. Thus Muslims in the UK typically end up making alliances with White Leftists critical of Israel. The Labour Party is now dependent on MSM power, Muslim votes and Jewish donors—but Jewish money has been deserting as Labour takes an ever more critical view of Israel.

The same process is brewing in the US but will take a while longer. An important harbinger: President Obama’s abstention for the UN Security Council resolution condemning the West Bank settlements. Another: the fact that Rep. Keith Ellison, who has called Israel an “apartheid state,” is a candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Anti-Israel attitudes are quite common in the Democratic Party—a recent Pew poll of Democrats found a near even split, 33% favoring Israel, 31% favoring the Palestinians. This has led to considerable angst among pro-Israel pundits like James Kirchick. [A Warning to Jewish Democrats: The Time to Fight for Your Party Is Now, by James Kirkchick, The Tablet,January 9, 2017]

If the UK is any indication, the Jewish donor base that is so critical for the Democrats will bail if the Democrats adopt anti-Israel positions. One can even imagine that in the future Jews will be far more likely to vote Republican.

In fact, one might speculate that Trump’s strongly pro-Israel stance is an attempt recruit Jewish support for his other policies, such as a ban on immigration of Muslims—much like Geert Wilders, who, like Trump, has called for restrictions on Muslim immigration while also being very pro-Israel.

I doubt this will succeed, but the logic is certainly there.

Notice that such a shift in Jewish attitudes on immigration would not be the result of low-level street crime and occasional acts of terrorism, but because of a possible loss of political control—because Muslim votes are having an effect on nationwide policy that affects Jewish interests.

To the Jewish Establishment, that is indeed very worrying.

Kevin MacDonald [email him] is emeritus professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. His research has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives in developmental psychology, personality theory, Western culture, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies). He edits and is a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer and The Occidental Quarterly. For his website, click here.

The Jewish Origins of the Open Borders Movement

/47 Comments/in , /by

illegal

In a 2015 essay on ‘Whiteness studies’ I attempted to lay the groundwork and contextualization for a more developed study of the scale and devastating impact of contemporary Jewish intellectual activism in our colleges, universities, and wider culture. In that essay I noted the importance of Jewish activists including Noel Ignatiev, Ruth Frankenberg, Ricky Marcuse, and Terry Berman, who between the mid-1970s and late 1990s engaged in an effort to develop an academic discipline known as ‘Whiteness studies.’ Since its inception, Whiteness studies has occupied a unique space in an increasingly multicultural disciplinary landscape. Unlike Black studies, Jewish studies, or Asian studies, this sphere of academia is not intended to constructively explore the achievements, history, and culture of its scrutinized ethnic group. Rather, the genre exists to subject ‘Whiteness,’ and by implication White people, to a uniquely hostile dialectic consisting of the debasement of White culture, the degradation of White history, and the delegitimization of the European claim to existence. As such, the discipline may be regarded as an act of ethnic warfare, based as it is on the intended conquest of minds and consciences, and eventually, resources and territory.

In all Western countries, Whiteness studies, in both its academic and social justice expressions, remains disproportionately directed by Jews. This is an empirically observable fact. A book could be written on Jewish involvement in this academic “discipline” alone, but it should suffice here for a brief survey of some key examples. These include Syracuse University’s Barbara Applebaum, who has made a career out of advancing notions of ‘White guilt’ and ending what she describes as “White moral innocence.” In a similar vein is Leeds University’s Say Burgin, who teaches a course titled “Why is my curriculum White?,” while University of California’s George Lipsitz, author of How Racism Takes Place, has also written several books on ‘Whiteness’ and White guilt. Jewish feminist Michelle Fine, based at City University of New York, has produced numerous works on “White privilege,” including her book Witnessing Whiteness. Other Jewish academics highly active in the Whiteness Studies field include Lois Weis, David Theo Goldberg, Maurice Berger, Lawrence Grossberg, Jennifer Roth-Gordon, Cynthia Levine-Rasky, Laura S. Abrams, Judith Katz, Melissa Steyn, Paula Rothenberg, and Amy Eshleman. Read more