Starlets of David: Two Vicious Anti-Semitic Stereotypes in the Jewish Chronicle

/18 Comments/in , /by

As I’ve described in the articles “Free Speech Must Die!” and “Trashing the Torah,” Jews across the West are promoting a ludicrously vague definition of anti-Semitism devised by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition is designed to end free speech about Jewish power and runs like this:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The alleged priorities of Jews

The definition has been adopted “in full” by the British Conservative party, the Florida House of government, and many other Western institutions and organizations. It’s accompanied by a long list of “contemporary examples of antisemitism,” one of which runs like this:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

And yes, anti-Semites certainly do accuse “Jewish citizens” of disloyalty to the gentile nations in which they currently live. For example, in “A Shameless Shabbos Shiksa,” I said that Stuart Polak, a former director of Conservative Friends of Israel, was concerned only about Israel and Jewish interests, not about Britain. But it isn’t only hate-sites like the Occidental Observer that promote this horrible stereotype of Jewish disloyalty. You can also find the stereotype promoted in Britain’s oldest and most successful Jewish newspaper, the Jewish Chronicle.

More loyal to Israel

How is that possible? Very easily, it appears. The Jewish Chronicle has recently reported that the all-Jewish soccer team Maccabi London Lions F.C. sent some of its junior players to an all-Jewish soccer tournament in Holland called Jom Ha Voetbal, or “Day of Football” (Jom Ha means “Day (of) the” in Hebrew and Voetbal means “Football” in Dutch). In celebration of their success at the tournament, a junior Maccabi team and its two adult supervisors posed on the playing field with a Maccabi F.C. flag like this:

Starlets of David: Maccabi London F.C. pose with an Israeli flag

As you can see, eleven Jewish citizens of Britain chose to celebrate by posing proudly not with a British or English flag, but with an Israeli flag bearing the Star of David. Are these Jewish citizens “more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nation”? Well, what other conclusion can you draw? And when the Jewish Chronicle ran that photo in July 2019, it did so under the approving headline “Maccabi London starlets sparkle on European stage.” In other words, the Jewish Chronicle is very happy to promote a “contemporary example of antisemitism.” The Jewish Chronicle takes primary loyalty to Israel as a given among British Jews, while simultaneously condemning all gentiles who point out this primary loyalty. Read more

Reparations for Slavery? It’s Not a One-Way Street.

/39 Comments/in /by

Talk is in the air again about paying reparations to Blacks for slavery. I am all for it, but only if we can have a grand final reckoning. The two-way nature of this issue seems to escape most of those who advocate paying Blacks for their sufferings. If Blacks suffered in this country, and have theoretical credits to their account, they also have benefited in important ways, and I at least would have them acknowledge certain debts. Since the Civil War and the end of slavery, the White portion of this nation has poured out immense treasure upon the hapless Blacks. In addition, Blacks have steadily imposed various costs upon society. If all the accounts are perused and balanced, I am confident that Whites will be on the positive side of the ledger.

I would like to offer a few thoughts on the problem that I find interesting or overlooked. This will not be a full treatment of reparations and costs, or the pros and cons of paying them. I know there are very good arguments against paying reparations.

I will begin by saying that I think that the Blacks did suffer a very great injustice in being transported to a far-flung continent and kept in chattel slavery. I used to recount the ways that slavery wasn’t really all that bad, but that’s sort of beside the point, isn’t it? They were slaves. This is not to point the finger at the slave-owners, either, for the institution of slavery was as old as mankind, nearly universal, and socially and legally accepted until the nineteenth century when White people (and only White people) ended it. When the time came to decide their post-slavery fate, however, the government—Republicans, really—unfortunately made matters far worse by emancipating them in the worst possible manner. They were not sent back to their ancestral home, but rather thrown onto their own devices in this highly competitive (alien, one could say) Western society and economy. If they had to remain here, they should have been placed in some sort of special political status until they rose to a level from which they could participate in our system on roughly equal terms. (Of course, whether they could effect that rise, with what we know about race and IQ, is highly doubtful.) Throwing them into equality and independence did them and us no favors; they too often became wards of various sectors of society, or lapsed into poverty. Even worse, they also became prey to the revolutionary designs of the Jews.[1]

Thus, Whites shucked off all responsibility and launched the slaves into abrupt, stark independence — unjustly in my opinion. Therefore, I tentatively acknowledge a debt.

How much? Read more

Dr. Ralph Scott’s Forty-year Battle for Science in Research on Forced Busing: Angela Saini, Barry Mehler, and the Academic Left

/23 Comments/in /by

Angela Saini, who describes herself as a “freelance science journalist,” has written a propaganda piece on race for the Guardian (“Why race science is on the rise again”), a precis of a now-released book of the same title. You know what you are up against right from the beginning, with the phrase “so-called ‘races,’” with ‘races’ in scare quotes. She describes herself as growing up in an “Indian-Punjabi household” and appears to be yet another non-White who is campaigning against the idea that Whites are a real group—a group with interests and a long, proud history.[1] In other words, she is promoting her own ethnic interests in dismantling the West as an ethnic entity and sees herself as a lifelong victim of White racism (“racism was the backdrop to my teenage years”) because there was a White nationalist bookstore in her neighborhood and because of the murder of one Black person — Stephen Lawrence who has since been elevated to sainthood by the same activists and media that have systematically ignored or downplayed victimization of native Brits by non-White immigrants; see Tobias Langdon, “Black Saints, White Demons: The Martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence”).

The Guardian piece centers around one Barry Mehler, who has been a longtime anti-race realism activist as head of the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, a non-profit housed on the campus of a state-supported university, Ferris State in Michigan.

I’ve long been aware of Mehler, being a target of some his writing. Mehler was the protégé of Jerry Hirsch, a behavior geneticist who devoted much of his professional life to campaigning against sociobiology and against quantitative behavior genetics, especially as applied to humans. Hirsch has a cameo role in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique, so you know what I think of ethnic activists like Hirsch and Mehler.

Indeed, Mehler is Faculty Advisor to Jewish Students at Ferris State University, a good indication that he has a strong Jewish identity. Saini’s article also shows his Jewish identification as informing his crusading against race science: Mehler “immediately saw parallels between the far-right network of intellectuals and the rapid, devastating way in which eugenics research had been used in Nazi Germany, terrifying him with the possibility that the brutal atrocities of the past could happen once more.”

Also indicative of his ethnic activism, Mehler has long been associated with the ADL. A 1995 article on the ADL website describes Mehler as the ADL National Commissioner. Another describes him as the chairman of the ADL’s Latin American Committee working to combat the confiscation of Jewish property and forced exile of Jews by the Sandinista government because of Jewish support for the previous government and because of Jewish support for Israel.

Not much doubt that Mehler is a Jewish academic ethnic activist, an activist ensconced at a state-supported university—the height of establishment respectability.

Once again, we see the confluence of Jewish identity and academic activism aimed at furthering Jewish interests, in this case by someone with no training in evolutionary biology or genetics. Despite the clear ethnic and political motivations characteristic of both Mehler and Saini, Saini has the gall to claim that race science is “innately political,” thereby absolving the activism of people like Mehler and Saini from any taint of extra-scientific interests. Read more

https://youtu.be/E1mm50JVvEU

TOQLive 7-8-2019: Andrew Joyce, with James Edwards and Kevin MacDonald on Jewish influence on Public Opinion on Race, etc.

/in /by

Go here to see deplatformed video free.

Crypto-Jews, German Guilt, and the Wittenberg Jew-Pig

/33 Comments/in , , /by

“Here on our church in Wittenberg a sow is sculpted in stone. Young pigs and Jews lie suckling under her. Behind the sow a rabbi is bent over the sow, lifting up her right leg, holding her tail high and looking intensely under her tail and into her Talmud, as though he were reading something acute or extraordinary, which is certainly where they get their Shemhamphoras [hidden name of God in Kabbalah].
Martin Luther, 1543 

During my early years researching the Jewish Question I was particularly struck by the strident and flamboyant nature of medieval and early modern anti-Jewish folklore and related art. I recall being fascinated at the strangeness and creativity of tales like the 16th-century Jewish woman said to have given birth to twin piglets,[1] the common 15th-century belief that Jewish males menstruate,[2] and speculation that Jews buried their dead with small rocks to throw at Christ in the afterlife. As with much of Jewish history and the historiography of anti-Semitism, the subject of anti-Jewish folklore has been dominated by Jewish scholars. My first introduction to the topic was thus The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic Folklore (1991) by the Jewish UC-Berkeley folklorist Alan Dundes (1934–2005), widely regarded as the field’s pre-eminent, and perhaps only, expert. In the book, as one might well expect, Dundes strips anti-Jewish folklore of context and presents instead a collection of “evil” and “dangerous” fantasies lacking any logical or rational basis.

Aside from the work of Dundes, direct scholarly engagement with the subject of medieval anti-Jewish folklore has been relatively rare, with most Jewish scholars preferring to probe medieval artistic linkages between Jews and the Devil (see, for example, the work of Robert Bonfil, Marvin Perry, and Frederick Schweitzer) rather than some of the more outlandish or colorful “memes” that then circulated. Almost all of these scholarly accounts utilize medieval anti-Jewish folklore as a means of denigrating and indicting medieval Christianity as irrational and prejudiced, and ultimately as the fons et origo of an equally irrational and prejudiced modern anti-Semitism. An explanatory account of medieval and early modern anti-Jewish folklore informed by historical context remains to be written, despite admirable and broadminded texts like The Singular Beast: Jews, Christians, and the Pig (1997) by Claudine Fabre-Vassas. This is a project I am giving serious consideration to undertaking. As luck would have it, it’s also becoming somewhat relevant again.

Of all the artistic manifestations of anti-Jewish folklore, few are more acute, vehement, and scatological than the imagery of the Judensau, or ‘Jew-Pig.’ In brief, the image, depicted in woodcuts or in stone (often on churches) between the 13th and 15th centuries, is an allegorical reference to Jews drawing sustenance from the Talmud, with Jews shown suckling from a sow and/or examining or eating its feces. The association of Jews with pigs in medieval Christian folklore was longstanding, owing something to the known aversion of the Jews to pork, and produced an array of stories and imagery that flagrantly ignored the ancient dietary commands in Leviticus. In one legend, for example, the aversion to pork dated from the time of Christ, when a sneering Jew challenged Christ to guess the contents of a barrel that the Jew knew to contain a slaughtered pig. Unknown to the Jew, the pig had been removed and his own children were hiding in the barrel. When Jesus answered that the man’s children were in the barrel, he was mocked and told there was a pig inside. “Let them be pigs then,” replied Jesus, and the children were transformed into piglets. From that day onward, so goes the tale, Jews avoided eating pork because for them that would be cannibalism. One suspects that seriousness was never a primary concern in the development of such folk tales — they served as entertaining and memorial “memes” to impart the message that Jews were different and were to be avoided. Read more

The Danger of a Universal Basic Income

/60 Comments/in , /by

As is now well known, not a few people in the Dissident Right are sympathetic to Andrew Yang’s insurgent bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. Though at present a minor candidate, Mr. Yang may well receive a bump after the upcoming debates, and regardless, as 2016 has shown, damn near anything is possible in American politics.

The sympathy is largely derived from his support of a Universal Basic Income (UBI), specifically, $1,000 a month for every citizen. While various economists and politicians have batted around this idea for some time, Mr. Yang backs it as a safety net for all those Americans facing long-term unemployment due to deindustrialization, automation, and the general “precariatization” of our economy. There is an obvious logic to this plan, and its seduction is understandable. With an economy that goes through dramatic changes every few years, perhaps the simplest and most charitable thing we can do for those left behind is give them a bit of money to make ends meet.

While this money would not make anybody rich, the working poor might suddenly be able to make rent and car payments with ease. Many think this UBI would increase fertility as well and (though not purposefully) increase the number of stay-at-home moms, a goal many traditionalists value quite highly. All of that is well and good. I have never viewed government support of the poor as some kind of burdensome overreach. Furthermore, a simple UBI would do much to cut back on the federal government’s unwieldy and inefficient bureaucracy.

But there is one big problem with this plan. In a word: drugs.

I have nothing but sympathy for the citizenry living paycheck to paycheck in our nation’s vast Rust Belt. But that doesn’t change that in the here-and-now, giving them a considerable amount of cash with no strings attached might not be the best thing for them. Some recipients would certainly use the money responsibly to dramatically improve their lot in life: pay off student loans, stop taking taking payday loans, etc. But quite a few others would indulge in America’s latest hobby with a reckless abandon that gives me goosebumps.

The number of overdose deaths is simply staggering.

Read more

Free Speech Must Die! Exploring the Joint Jewish-Muslim Love of Censorship

/15 Comments/in /by

Jonathan Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain. Wes Streeting is a homosexual Labour MP and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. You wouldn’t expect either of these two men to offer aid and comfort to us hate-filled haters at the Occidental Observer.

The process began with Jews

But they have offered aid and comfort to us. At the Occidental Observer, we say that the organized Jewish community has been central to anti-White identity politics and to the war on free speech. In 2007, Sacks told the world that Britain “had been poisoned by … identity politics,” which “began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays.” In 2019, Streeting, who also co-chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPGBM), announced that the APPGBM’s deplorably vague definition of Islamophobia — “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” — was “presented within a framework resembling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.”

Muslims and Jews in alliance: “Yossi Klein Halevi, left, and Abdullah Antepli are co-directors of the Muslim Leadership Initiative”

The IHRA’s deplorably vague definition of anti-Semitism runs like this:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

I argued in “Trashing the Torah” that this definition is intended to end free speech on Jewish power and its effects. The definition has been adopted “in full” by the British Conservative party and numerous other organizations and institutions in the UK. And it is now being adopted in the United States:

On April 11th the FL[orida] House [of government] unanimously (114-0) passed a House Bill 741 which would define anti-Semitism as:

  • “A certain perception of the Jewish people, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jewish people.”
  • “Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed toward a person, his or her property, or toward Jewish community institutions or religious facilities.” …

On April 29th Governor DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet met in Jerusalem (not a joke!) to proclaim their support for “the Jewish state” (sic) and declare that DeSantis will be the most pro-Israel governor in “America” (sic). The fact that holding that meeting abroad is a violation of Florida law did not bother anybody (except The Florida First Amendment Foundation which filed a lawsuit against this outrage). Neither did the fact that Israel is the last openly and officially racist state on our planet. Sadly, Florida is hardly an exception, two dozen other states (including Texas) have passed similar laws. (Sovereignists of All Countries — Unite!, The Unz Review, 7th June 2019)

Having seen Jews attacking free speech so effectively, Muslims and their allies want a slice of the same juicy pie. As many commentators have observed, the definition of Islamophobia devised by Streeting and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims is a clear attack on free speech. Of course, Streeting himself insists otherwise: “Contrary to myth, the definition I helped devise isn’t a threat to free speech.” Read more