The Jewish War on White Australia: Colin Tatz and the Genocide Charge—PART TWO

/13 Comments/in , /by

Professor Colin Tatz

Go to Part 1

Colin Tatz is a stereotypical Jewish intellectual activist whose mindset is characterized by an intense ethnocentrism and an equally intense hostility to the traditional people and culture of the West. He reflexively subjects White people and Western societies to radical critique while exempting Jews from any equivalent evaluation. Identifying with, and taking great pride in the Jewish penchant for critiquing Western societies, Tatz claims that “Whatever else, I am a ‘product’ of Lasswell, of Cecil Roth and his notion that Jews (or some Jews) are the eternal protest-ants, of the doctrine of the Jewish Sages about tikkun olam. It is a synonym for social action, a conscious manipulating of skills to be proactive rather than reflective or contemplative.”[1]

Cecil Roth, a Jewish historian, had argued “Jewish intellectualism” was primarily about “protesting at the insufficiency of the status quo.” Tatz agrees, and points to “a Jewish existential value which asserts that history has taught us that whatever is, no matter what it is, it is not good enough—hence the moral dictate of tikkun olam, that one is compelled to try to repair a flawed world.”[2] Of course, for “fiercely argumentative” Jews like Tatz, a “flawed world” is any world where Jewish interests are not forever prioritized. Tatz claims that “My activism is motivated by both personal and societal alienation,” and the “inner dynamic of my life, the foremost factor, is my version and interpretation of my Jewishness.” He notes that a “related if not conjoined propulsion” is “a lifelong devotion to matters of race and racism.”[3]

Tatz makes no pretense of Jewishness being anything but an essentially biological phenomenon. Despite being an avowed atheist he remains a proud Jew, declaring his “unshakeable admiration, even a veneration for what I call Jewishness,” observing how “I remain within even while lacking faith, ritual, observance or any sense of Covenant.”[4] For Tatz, Jews comprise an easily identifiable ethnic type characterized by “body mannerisms, the shrugs, distains, the ever-present deprecatory and interrogative tenses of body and voice.”[5]

Tatz is a descendent of the Litvaks, the Jews from Lithuania who, prior to their recent mass exodus from post-Apartheid South Africa to countries like Britain and Australia, made up ninety per cent of that country’s 120,000 Jews. According to Tatz, Lithuanian Jews were “economically forlorn and politically intimidated” and left Lithuania in “hordes” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the majority landing in England, the United States and South Africa. He notes that “In South Africa I learned to live in a Lithuanian communitas, a transposed shtetl world of like-minded, like-speaking, like-behaving people. It was a society in transition from Tsarist oppression to a semi-welcomed ethnic minority moving into modernity.”[6] The hyper-ethnocentric mentality of South Africa’s Lithuanian Jews was encapsulated in “daily pontification about the Jewish-goyishe divide” and his grandfather’s refrain that “The worst of ours are better than the best of theirs.”[7]

During World War II the South African government officially supported the Allies, with Prime Minister Jan Smuts appointed to Britain’s war cabinet. Despite this, most Afrikaners backed the Germans, and Tatz claims his childhood in South Africa in the 1940s was dominated by awareness of “a raging world war, civil strife between the pro- and anti-war forces, between English- and Afrikaans-speakers for political power, violent anti-Semitism in a country rife with fascist movements, the seeming calamity for Jews when the Nationalist Party came to power in the late 1940s, the fear of rising racial tensions of the 1940s, 1950s and beyond.”[8] Tatz claims to still be haunted by “domains that are oppressively black and cruelly white; and me, not quite a crowd—Jewish, alienated, migratory, and deeply troubled by food.” Read more

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

Rape and Murder in the Heartland

/18 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: This is a scanned version of a very prescient article written in 2001 by Nelson Rosit about the 1999 murder of Cally Jo Larson, a case that is sadly similar to the recent case of Mollie Tibbetts. Obvoiusly, this has been going on for a long time. As Rosit notes, anticipating the findings of sociologist Robert Putnam (2007), the result is less trust and less involvement with the community. He also lays the blame ultimately on your hostile elites: “The political and economic elites have told these small Midwestern towns that they have no choice but to become part of the global system or die; while the mass media continually promotes the idea of an inescapable multiracial, multicultural future for America that will be better for everyone.” As now, the citizens of Waseca did not mention race or immigration status in their comments. But because Donald Trump is president and because race has come to dominate all our discussions, it has been raised in the case of Mollie Tibbetts, with inevitable backlash from the mainstream media (and Tibbetts’s family). I suppose that’s progress, but obviously we still have a long way to go before Americans can rightly be outraged by events like the rapes and murders of Cally Jo and Mollie. And do what needs to be done.

 

 

Poison for the Goyim: More Hysteria and Hyperbole about Labour Anti-Semitism

/26 Comments/in , /by

Jeremy Corbyn has a beard. So has Jonathan Sacks. But this shared philopogony hasn’t brought the two men closer together. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi of Britain and, to be fair, I think we would be better off if more Jews were like him. He doesn’t seem to hate Whites and the Christian religion in the way so many of his co-ethnics do.

Battle of the Beards

But that doesn’t mean Sacks is a reasonable or objective man where his own race is concerned. He can be ethnocentric and apply double standards with the best of them, as he’s just proved by his comments on his fellow beardie:

Jeremy Corbyn is “an anti-Semite” who has “given support to racists, terrorists and dealers of hate”, the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said. In an exclusive interview with the New Statesman, the peer described Corbyn’s recently reported 2013 remarks on “Zionists” as “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”.

Sacks, who was chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, added: “It was divisive, hateful and like Powell’s speech it undermines the existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting them as essentially alien.”

At a speech made at the Palestinian Return Centre in London in 2013, Corbyn said of a group of British “Zionists”: “They clearly have two problems. One is they don’t want to study history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.” (Corbyn’s “Zionist” remarks were “most offensive” since Enoch Powell, says ex-chief rabbi, The New Statesman, 28th August 2018)

Jonathan Sacks is given an award by the war-criminal Tony Blair

Enoch Powell predicted that mass immigration would lead to race war. Jeremy Corbyn said that some Zionists don’t get “English irony.” Whether or not you agree with Powell, is it reasonable to compare the words of the two men? Are they “hateful” and “divisive” in a similar way? I’d say no, they’re obviously not, and the vast majority of British Whites probably agree with me.

Sacks doesn’t agree with me, and he has the Community with him, according to the Jewish Chronicle: “Reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead Synagogue said that, while the Enoch Powell analogy may have shocked people, ‘it accurately reflected what most British Jews feel.’” Read more

The Decline and Fall of Merrie England

/59 Comments/in , /by

“Remember you are an Englishman and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life.” — Cecil Rhodes, British imperialist, 1910

“Almost the entire population of Britain looks as though it has let itself go.  Where once emotional restraint and self-control were admired, now it is emotional incontinence. It is no surprise that the British are despised around the world.” — Theodore Dalrymple, British author and psychiatrist, 2018

A new dystopia, rising from the ashes of World War II, now rears its ugly head and casts its shadow over England’s no longer “green and pleasant land”.

Merrie England! Was it ever that merry? A beautiful mirage! Maybe such a happy land never existed except in fantasy and in the perceptions of a privileged few blessed with all the felicities of the Good Life. And yet it has always existed in longing, where all utopias and earthly paradises germinate, as in the fevered imagination of William Blake who longed to build ‘Jerusalem’—Civitas Dei, or the City of God—in ‘England’s green and pleasant land’. Blake’s thoughts on this subject will be presented at the end of this article in one of the most beautiful and profoundly moving videos you are ever likely to see on the internet.

Meanwhile, let this literary gem by George Orwell on the three main races inhabiting the British Isles—the English, the Scots and the Irish—serve as a light-hearted introduction to this otherwise sombre article. “The English are not happy unless they are miserable, the Irish are not at peace unless they are at war, and the Scots are not at home unless they are abroad.”

The English, by common consensus, are the maddest of the bunch.

Once famous for their stiff-upper lip attitude to life, a characteristic still found among the educated upper classes and a conservative older generation, the British as a whole have undergone a startling change of national character in the last two decades. This is almost certainly due to the toxic influence of television, trashy Hollywood movies, and the mind-destroying excesses of the internet. The Brits have lost their self-confidence, their customary aplomb, their cheerful joie de vivre. Why? Because  they have become demoralised. Thoroughly demoralised.  “In every face”, to quote William Blake, you now see “marks of weakness, marks of woe”.

The narcissistic younger generation in particular, confident in their own omniscience, bear little resemblance to their parents and grandparents whom they tend to belittle as inferior beings with all the wrong ideas and attitudes. Read more

Bad Medicine II: The Escalating Problem of Third World Doctors

/33 Comments/in , /by

For some time now I’ve been receiving requests to produce a sequel to a September 2017 piece on the disastrous consequences of the mass importation of doctors from the Third World to Britain. Until recently I resisted the temptation to do so because I felt the original article was definitive in outlining the major thematic issues: Third World doctors are responsible for at least 80% of malpractice cases at U.K. Medical Tribunals; Third World doctors are significantly more likely than native British doctors to engage in the sexual abuse of their patients; and, finally, the medical establishment seems to be complicit in both the covering up of these crimes, mainly via the imposition of extraordinarily lenient sanctions. A number of recent stories, however, from the United States and Australia as well as the U.K., have proven sufficiently unsettling and infuriating that further coverage and discussion of this horrific epidemic is necessary.

One thing that has become very clear in recent months is that the U.K. medical establishment is utterly beholden to multicultural dogma on “racism,” as well as a Soviet-like atmosphere of fear, spying, and denunciation. Take, for example, the case of Peter Duffy, a surgeon, consultant urologist, and one-time “Doctor of the Year” at England’s Royal Lancaster Infirmary. In 2005, this exceptional physician made the mistake of stating that “a doctor of Indian descent had missed an operation on a patient with suspected gangrene because he was out playing golf. He also said two other colleagues of Asian heritage were involved in possible overtime fraud.” Rather than leading to an investigation of these issues of malpractice, Duffy reports:

after flagging these concerns, he was subjected to “malicious, toxic and utterly false” allegations over the period of a decade, culminating in accusations made to the police that he was racist. In particular, tribunal documents showed that four anonymous letters were sent to the General Medical Council (GMC), Duffy’s professional regulator, between 2012 and 2014. Employment Judge Slater said that, from the contents of the letters, they appeared to written by someone within Duffy’s department and “alleged matters which, if true, may have called into question [his] fitness to practice.” [Emphasis added]

Under scrutiny and suspected of having “racist” tendencies, in 2015 Duffy transferred to another hospital. It was at this hospital that Duffy was voted Doctor of the Year by patients and colleagues. A lingering cloud of suspicion appears to have lingered over him, however, and he resigned in July 2016 after he claiming he was still unable to shake off insinuations relating to his issues with the three foreign doctors. After resigning, he was awarded £102,000 in compensation by an employment tribunal that judged he had been unfairly treated. Read more

Yet another exchange with Nathan Cofnas

/13 Comments/in /by

Nathan Cofnas has replied to my critique of his comments on Ed Dutton (see list of my three previous exchanges with Cofnas in the References section; I realize this is getting confusing).

There is nothing new here. Again, there is the tendency to ignore critical passages of Culture of Critique (CofC) as well as my previous replies. And once again, as throughout this exchange, he fails to grasp the theoretical structure of CofC. As a result, his attempts at refutation typically consist of points that, even when true (e.g., contemporary rates of Jewish intermarriage are quite high), are irrelevant to a proper critique of CofC. There is indeed a strong empirical basis to CofC. But to refute it, fundamentally one would have to dispute the Jewish identifications and sense of pursuing Jewish interests among the key figures.

To continue, please go to Research Gate.