Jews as a Hostile Elite

“Unrepentant Marxist” Eric Hobsbawm Still Celebrated as Britain’s Greatest Historian

Hobsbawm

Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm lamented, “To this day, I notice myself treating the memory and tradition of the USSR with indulgence and tenderness.”

I met up with a conservative former professor of mine, for a few rounds of drinks and some lively political conversation this past Thursday, as we do from time to time when he’s up north.

Although the good professor teaches Colonial History at a liberal British university and no doubt watches his P’s and Q’s around this particular former student, after several pints of ale and a few laughs, he’s typically quite forthright.

We touched on an array of topics over lunch, including Britain’s current immigration crisis, my ‘misguided decision’ to volunteer my services as spokesman for the British National Party, Nigel Farage’s being against maternity leave due to all the lasses he’s impregnated, and the All-Blacks incredible victory over the Aussies at last week’s Rugby World Cup Final.

As the third anniversary of Eric Hobsbawm’s death had just passed, I felt it befitting to introduce the man’s name into the conversation at some point.

After all, Marxist historian Hobsbawm had also read history at Cambridge, and in spite of his unrepentant Marxist views, is still widely regarded as Britain’s most influential historian.

“Were you aware that Eric Hobsbawm expired with almost two million quid to his name?” (1) I snickered, as I attempted to mop up wayward gravy with my third Yorkshire pudding.  Read more

Jill Soloway and the “Transgender” Agenda, Part 2

Part 1.

Promoting the idea of “gender fluidity”

The ideological glue that holds Jill Soloway’s Transparent together is the deconstruction of the whole concept of gender. What does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman? As one character in the show puts it, “We’re just a bunch of bodies, that’s it. No penis, no vagina, what does it matter?” According to Soloway, “The show questions the binary; trans people question the binary. Trans-ness demands that people live in the gray. The word ‘trans’ is about traveling the space between the binary. Judaism/feminism/trans politics — they can all really be woven together. Living at that ground zero place of otherness is inspiring to me.” Soloway is passionate about normalizing the concept of “gender fluidity”: Paste Magazine notes that: “In Transparent sexual identity loses its ‘statehood’ and becomes fluid, treated like an ongoing process with its own ebbs and flows.”

As Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital, noted, the reality, as distinct from Soloway’s ideologically-driven fantasies, , is that far from being a normal healthy behavior, “transgenderism” is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment. Noting that changing sex is “biologically impossible,” McHugh observes that “people who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.” Read more

“The Wolf of Wall Street” — the Book

How many times have you heard about financial crimes and frauds perpetrated by people who happen to be Jewish? How many times have you heard about the association of Jews and Wall Street? For most TOO readers, these themes should be amply familiar.

Now let’s consider yet another instance of the above. Just before the economic meltdown of 2008, an important book about Wall Street appeared and became a bestseller. It was stockbroker Jordan Belfort’s first book about his crimes called The Wolf of Wall Street and was published in 2007 by major publisher Bantam Dell, a division of Random House.

Let’s allow an official overview to set up the tale:

By day he made thousands of dollars a minute. By night he spent it as fast as he could, on drugs, sex, and international globe-trotting. From the binge that sank a 170 foot motor yacht, crashed a Gulfstream jet, and ran up a $700,000 hotel tab, to the wife and kids who waited for him at home and the fast-talking, hard-partying young stockbrokers who called him king and did his bidding, here, in his own inimitable words, is the story of the ill-fated genius they called … “Wolf of Wall Street.” In the 1990s Jordan Belfort, former kingpin of the notorious investment firm Stratton Oakmont, became one of the most infamous names in American finance: a brilliant, conniving stock-chopper who led his merry mob on a wild ride out of the canyons of Wall Street and into a massive office on Long Island. Now, in this tell-all autobiography, Belfort narrates a story of greed, power, and excess no one could invent — the extraordinary story of an ordinary guy who went from hustling Italian ices at sixteen to making hundreds of millions. Until it all came crashing down.

Refreshingly, throughout the book Belfort openly and explicitly notes his marked Jewish identity and that of all of his close co-conspirators. It amounts to a fascinating look at the inner workings of a corrupt Jewish financial organization — and Belfort succeeds magnificently in narrating the rollicking affair. No wonder one newspaper called it “A cross between Tom Wolfe’s The Bonfire of the Vanities and Scorsese’s GoodFellas. The comparison to Wolfe is apt, but rather than Scorsese’s GoodFellas, Belfort’s tale should be compared to Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas because it shares the same non-stop extreme adventure and use of mind-altering drugs. Read more

Anti-White themes in Hollywood movies: Jews as elite outsiders

Hatred and [the] spirit of sacrifice . . . are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren. (Illuminations, Walter Benjamin 1968, 262)

I recently came across a very well-done video featuring Edmund Connelly’s TOO article “Reel Bad WASPs,” part of his excellent 8-part “Eye on Hollywood” series. I don’t know who produced the video, but it’s a great example of the effectiveness of this medium for getting out our ideas, with spot-on clips from the movies, and a calm, “just the facts” voice over.

It completely belies the constant refrain of the ADL that the Jews who dominate Hollywood just happen to be Jews — that their Jewish identity is completely irrelevant to American movies.

Read more

Joe Klein: Immigration will save the U.S. from White racism

Writing in Time, Joe Klein presents the view that it is necessary to import millions of non-Whites as a cure for “our poisonous biracial era.” The subtitle says it all:  “Trayvon’s Death Is an Outrage, But …Thanks to immigration, stronger laws and years of hard work, our poisonous biracial era is ending.”

Yes, we are nearing the promised land of racial harmony that will be possible only when those evil Whites are a minority. Not surprisingly, Klein looks forward eagerly to a non-White majority America:

This is not the 1980s; race isn’t the issue it was 30 years ago. It isn’t binary–black and white–anymore. It’s a kaleidoscope now: Latinos outnumber blacks in the American population, healthy dollops of South and East Asians add to the mix, and the prospect of a nonwhite majority is just around the bend.

Could there ever be  healthy dollops of White folks? Probably not.

The logic is quite familiar—the same logic that has motivated generations of Jewish activists advocating non-White immigration in order to make it safer for Jews. People like Klein pose as moral paragons when their logic is nothing more than self-interested ethnic hardball: Demographically swamp White America so that the political power of Whites declines, making the rise of an anti-Jewish movement among Whites much more difficult. Recall Jewish sociologist Earl Raab, writing in 1995, on the Jewish role in promoting non-White immigration:

An increasing ethnic heterogeneity, as a result of immigration, has made it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop.  … The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever (see here, p. 246)

People like Klein are only using the Black-White racial divide as a weapon against White power. And the result of their anxieties and hatreds is to swamp America with tens of millions of non-White immigrants, making Whites a minority in the country they founded and built.

Of course, the world is still imperfect. For example, Florida still has “barbaric gun laws.” But the main point is that for Klein,

the Republicans can no longer profit from being a predominantly all-white, regional, rural party. The Al Sharpton version of the Democratic Party is 20 years in the past. There will always be injustices like the murder of Trayvon Martin, but in our multiracial future, led by our color-blind children, there will be fewer of them. Read more

Joe Biden’s faux pas

Good  grief!  Joe Biden should  know the ground rules by now. You can praise the contributions of individual Jews. It’s totally permissible to wax eloquent on the accomplishments of  Sigmund Freud, Jonas Salk, or Albert  Einstein—perhaps even implying that humanity would never have come on these ideas and thus be infinitely poorer for it. (John Derbshire seems to agree, but it’s ridiculous on the face of it.) You  can even  praise the Jewish community’s role in enacting public policy on which there is a broad consensus, such as the Civil Rights movement.

But you can’t imply that Jews have real power and have used it to push America in directions most Americans don’t want to go or obviously conflict with the legitimate interests of other  groups—particularly Whites.

The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you … I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you’ve had on the development of this nation. (See Jonathan Chait, “Biden praises Jews, Goes Too Far, Accidentally Thrills Anti-Semites“)

In particular, as noted also at TOO, Biden claims that Jews have been at the vanguard of gay marriage. We have also noted Jewish domination of the gun control movement and their responsibility for the mainstreaming of pornography and for the sexualization of culture. Jewish neocons with their power in the media and in the government were the main force behind the costly war in Iraq. And by far most importantly Jews have been the main force behind displacement-level non-White immigration (see also here regarding the current push for yet more massive increases in non-White immigrants). Biden cheerfully says, ““The embrace of immigration” is part of that, as is the involvement of Jews in social justice movements.” Read more

The new immigration assault on White America: The hostile elite on steroids

In my research on the history of American immigration policy up to the watershed year of 1965, one thing that stood out was that the Jewish approach was that policy should not be tailored to meet the needs of the U.S. but to conform to the loftiest of moral principles—altruism by any other name. The testimony of  Simon H. Rifkind, who represented a very broad range of Jewish organizations in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill in 1951, says it all.

1. Immigration should come from all racial-ethnic groups:

We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. [This is an amazing statement given that the 1924 law restricting immigration and basically excluding Asians and favoring Northwest Europe was still in force.] Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.

2. The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very broad economic and political constraints: “The regulation [of immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability.” Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this very negatively.

3. Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported only to serve the present needs of the United States:

Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights—at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them,” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought.

Looking at immigration from the point of view of the immigrant is, of course, an invitation for altruism. Considering the poverty of so much of the world and the lucrative benefits available to immigrants (see below), taking the view of the immigrant means dramatically ramping up immigration at a cost to the White majority. Read more