Jewish Support for Multiculturalism

The Jewish hidden hand behind Muslim ethnic antagonism in the UK

You could fill the pages of TOO with examples of hostile Jewish strategies designed to advance the cause of White dispossession, but here are two case studies from the UK which are particularly instructive.

One involves an organisation which has been exposed for false or exaggerated claims about White violence towards Muslims. The second involves the concealment of the ethnic dimension of grooming gangs which targeted White girls. In both cases it is the role of the Jewish hidden hand in exploiting these ethnic conflicts that is interesting.

TellMama  — Mama stands for ‘Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks’ — styles itself as Britain’s foremost anti-Muslim hate organisation and has received hundreds of thousands of pounds from the government to “monitor and combat hate crimes” against Muslims.

Initially it was a government project set up by the Conservatives in 2012 with a fairly overt remit to demonise any White reaction to Muslim predation. It seems to have been the brainchild of a Muslim “social entrepreneur” called Fiyaz Mughal who figured out there is big money in setting up sock-puppet outfits that peddle the government line.

Tell Mama shot to national prominence in the wake of the murder of Lee Rigby on 22 May, 2013 when the off-duty Fusilier was hacked to death by Muslims in a busy street in south east London. Read more

Towards ‘Kosher Nationalism’? (2): On Jewish Intellectual Power Struggles

Part 1.

I do not think there is a conscious Jewish endgame[1] but I would like to suggest a pattern, whether caused by Jewish culture, social position (especially, being a minority) or psychological predisposition, in the behavior of many Jewish intellectuals and their power struggles. It goes something like this:

  • The young intellectual settles into an ideological system, which is, consciously or unconsciously, a rationalization of his ethnic interests in that particular time and place.
  • The intellectual will then powerfully and eloquently argue for this intellectual system, ruthlessly criticizing and ridiculing alternative systems (after all, all systems and societies have flaws). If he triumphs, he attains prestige and cultural power for both himself and, indirectly, his community.
  • The intellectual will enter into pitched battles with other Jewish intellectuals if they have sharply opposing systems, typically challenging the ideology of Jews from a previous generation or different social milieu. The most eloquent critics of a particular Jewish ideology are often rival or successor Jews. (For example, Alan Dershowitz on the previous generation’s Communism or the current ongoing struggles between liberal Jews like Paul Krugman and Glenn Greenwald and overtly ethnocentric Jews such as American neoconservatives and Israeli nationalists).

In this context, an ideology is a system of rules and values which is turned into a kind of “cultural programming” for any given society. The society’s trajectory will be powerfully influenced by the particular rules, values, norms, taboos and so on that it has internalized. Ideology determines what is normal behavior, who is moral, and who are pariahs.

As the historian Paul Johnson has noted:

For 1,500 years Jewish society had been designed to produce intellectuals… Jewish society was geared to support them… Rich merchants married sages’ daughters; …Quite suddenly, around the year 1800, this ancient and highly efficient social machine for the production of intellectuals began to shift its output. Instead of pouring all its products into the closed circuit of rabbinical studies, …it unleashed a significant and evergrowing proportion of them into secular life. This was an event of shattering importance in world history.[2]

Read more

Towards ‘Kosher Nationalism’? (1): The Unstable Jewish-Gentile Dialectic

 

I have been somewhat puzzled by recent developments in the French media, namely, the emergence of the so-called “nouveaux réactionnaires (new reactionaries) advocating restriction of (overwhelmingly African/Muslim) immigration and a defense of French identity. “None of the neo-reactionnaires – not even Camus – claims allegiance to the FN [French National Front],” the BBC helpfully notes. “Many of them are Jewish.”

That would be an understatement. Four of the five listed in the article are Jewish: Éric Zemmour, Alain Finkielkraut, Élisabeth Lévy and Gil Mihaely (an Israeli dual national), all of whom strongly identifying as Jews. The only non-Jew mentioned is Renaud Camus, who has been blackballed for years for criticizing Muslim immigration (he coined the term Grand Remplacement or “Great Displacement”) and for once noting that a radio show on France Culture was entirely run by Jews. All of this is a bit of a théâtre juif (Jewish theater) as Alain Soral might say.

We have this strange phenomenon where Jews are on television promoting FN talking points on Islam and immigration. Simultaneously, the FN is still informally excluded from making political alliances with mainstream parties. There has also been backlash from parts of the Jewish community against the new reactionaries, and in particular against Zemmour, who has lost one of three media jobs. Read more

Jews, Multiculturalism, and the War on Free Speech: A TOO Case File

One of the most important functions that TOO has played in recent years has been to catalogue Jewish efforts to promote multiculturalism and muzzle with extremely repressive legal measures any speech critical of multiculturalism and the Jewish role in relentlessly pushing it. At the beginning of this year, Brenton Sanderson offered stunning further insight into the Jewish war on White Australia, remarking that “in addition to opening the floodgates to mass non-White immigration, a key part of this Jewish campaign to radically reengineer Australian society in their own interests has been to shut down speech critical of this immigration and multiculturalism — and particularly of the role of Jews in foisting these disastrous policies on a resentful White Australian population.”

Sanderson indicated the primary methods by which organized Jewry developed and employed their influence on both fronts, for example, through the formation of “think-tanks” and the dissemination of “reports,” which were then carried into government. The influence of unelected Jews in this process is not only breath-taking in scope, but also exposes the fiction that we live in democratic societies. For example, Sanderson noted that

under the chairmanship (and behind the scenes influence) of the Jewish activist Walter Lippmann, the influential Committee on Community Relations delivered a report to the Australian Parliament in 1975 which placed “multiculturalism” at the heart of Australian government policy. It recommended that Australian social policy be formulated on the basis of four key elements. One of these recommendations, as summarised by the Jewish academic Andrew Markus, was that: “legislation was required to outlaw racial discrimination and uphold and promote rights through the establishment of a human rights commission. In response to this and the Committee’s other recommendations, which were essentially Lippmann’s recommendations, “multiculturalism” was adopted as official government policy in Australia in the 1970s, and extended under the Fraser [1975–1983] and Hawke governments [1983-1991] in the 1980s. Thus, in order to achieve the goals of multiculturalism, Jewish activists were determined from the beginning to bar and punish any speech that was critical of non-White immigration and multiculturalism. The new politically correct speech code was soon enforced by the weight of law with the enactment of racial and religious vilification laws that criminalized dissenting speech.

At the outset of my series of essays on the Jewish effort to raise Spinoza to almost cosmic importance in the intellectual history of the West, I indicated the importance of acknowledging patterns, trends and commonalities in how Jews, as a group, approach a given task. In the case of Spinoza, I linked Jewish efforts to exaggerate his legacy with broader Jewish efforts to perpetuate the notion of ‘Jewish genius.’ I took extra care to point to the precise processes, stages and methods involved. Read more

Comment on Francis Carr Begbie’s “The Nicholas Winton Kindertransport Myth Comes Off the Rails”

It’s well known that the Holocaust Industry has functioned to legitimize Israel. As historian Peter Novick noted,

Jewish organizations … [portrayed] Israel’s difficulties as stemming from the world’s having forgotten the Holocaust. The Holocaust framework allowed one to put aside as irrelevant any legitimate ground for criticizing Israel, to avoid even considering the possibility that the rights and wrongs were complex. (Peter Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, 1999, 155)

Less widely known perhaps is that another prime function has been to promote immigration and multiculturalism in Western societies. There has been

a large scale educational effort (including mandated courses in the public schools of several states) spearheaded by Jewish organizations and staffed by thousands of Holocaust professionals aimed at conveying the lesson that ‘tolerance and diversity [are] good; hate [is] bad, the overall rubric [being] ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ — (pp. 258-259). The Holocaust has thus become an instrument of Jewish ethnic interests not only as a symbol intended to create moral revulsion at violence directed at minority ethnic groups — prototypically the Jews, but also as an instrument to silence opponents of high levels of multi-ethnic immigration into Western societies. (Kevin MacDonald, Preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique (here, p. xlii; inner quote from Novick).

It is thus no accident that Sir Nicholas Winton is brought in whenever there is a need to rationalize immigration and the contributions of migrants.

Further, the non-Jews who, unlike Winton, actually risked their lives were engaged in altruism because they were helping people, including Jews, who were quite unlike themselves — quite possibly an example of pathological altruism. The participation of Quakers is particularly interesting given their history as quintessential northwestern European moral universalists (e.g., Quakers had a major role in ending the slave trade in England, for moral reasons motivated by empathy for African slaves; here). Read more

The Nicholas Winton Kindertransport Myth Comes Off the Rails

Visitors to Prague railway station are often intrigued by the group of bronze sculptures that stand on Platform One. It is a forlorn scene — a bespectacled man holding a crying child, a sad-looking little girl and a battered suitcase.

These striking figures form the Sir Nicholas Winton Memorial Sculpture and tell the story of the Czech Kindertransport and in particular the “British Schindler” who spirited 669 Jewish children from Czechoslovakia to London in 1939 from under the noses of the German invaders.

More than any other living Jewish person, Sir Nicholas Winton, who has just turned105, represents Britain’s most famous living link to the Holocaust. Since his story was rediscovered by the BBC, he has been lavished with honours, knighted by the Queen and is now a nominee for a Nobel Peace Prize. The torrent of books, films and documentaries about him seem to be never ending.

This week he was honoured again at a magnificent ceremony in Prague Castle where the wheelchair-bound retired banker received the highest award that the Czech Republic could bestow — the Order of the White Lion, presented by the Czech President himself.

It was a splendidly Ruritanian affair. Sir Nicholas was flanked by an honour guard, serenaded by a choir and orchestra, and met by a handful of the tearful survivors of those journeys holding pictures of themselves as children in 1939.

But there is something very wrong with all this. The problem is right there in the bronze tableau at the railway station — for nothing remotely like this ever happened. Sir Nicholas was never at the railway station to see the children off, so he cannot have held any of them in his arms. Nor was he in any real danger himself. He only spent three weeks in Prague over the Christmas break in 1938 and left before the Germans arrived. Read more

Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby on Free Speech Laws

In the face of a coordinated and sustained campaign initiated and led by Jewish activists, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has abandoned his 2013 election promise to water down or remove Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful to act in a manner likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on the basis of race. Abbott said he had made a “leadership decision” to walk away from his pledge despite having promised to remove this outrageous restriction on the free speech after the law was used successfully against conservative columnist Andrew Bolt in 2011.

It is a measure of the power wielded by organized Jewry in Australia that the Prime Minister would rather damage his political credibility by breaking a clear election promise than suffer the consequences of defying the single most powerful group in Australian society. Abbott, who made the announcement while outlining an extension of anti-terrorism laws, attempted to justify his broken promise by claiming “I don’t want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time and so those proposals are now off the table.” Abbott’s apparent desire to not further alienate Australia’s problematic Islamic community by repealing Section 18C (at a time when the government is set to strengthen laws against terrorism) is an obvious political smokescreen. The veteran Jewish journalist, Michael Gawenda, writing in the Business Spectator, identified the real reason behind the Prime Minister walking away from his election commitment:

While Abbott said that the decision to ditch the plan to rid the Racial Discrimination Act of section 18C was taken because of “complications” in dealing with Islamic communities in the context of the proposed tough new terrorism laws, it seems likely that more was involved in this decision. The conflict in Gaza and the coverage and reaction to this appalling, heartbreaking conflagration, in my opinion, made it virtually certain that any move to change or abolish section 18C would extract too high a political price.

The repeal of section 18C was vigorously opposed by the leadership of virtually every ethnic community in the country. But it would be fair to say — without wishing to give succor to those who reckon the Jews are too powerful — that Jewish community leaders have played a crucial role in organizing the opposition to any potential change to the RDA.  It is the opposition of the Jewish communal leaders that had been of major concern to [Attorney General] Brandis and, to a significant extent, Tony Abbott.

Read more