Amazon Bans Culture of Critique and Separation and Its Discontents

/49 Comments/in , /by

Twenty-one years after a respected academic publisher, Praeger, published Culture of Critique and Separation and Its Discontents, they have been banned on Amazon. A People that Shall Dwell Alone is still available. This comes only around two weeks after they banned books by Jared Taylor and Greg Johnson. This is an extension of the de-platforming from financial sites and PayPal, Patreon, Coinbase, and credit card companies that has hit pretty much all sites on the dissident right, including TOO and TOQ. Clearly the establishment is terrified that these ideas are gaining traction, and it illustrates once again, that the culturally dominant left cares nothing for free speech as a pillar of American civilization. I am now deeply worried that if the left obtains power in the next election, what has happened thus far will pale in comparison to what lies ahead. Private companies like Amazon cannot impose criminal penalties, but if the left manages to redefine the First Amendment, as they would certainly love to do, there will be a very real prospect of imprisonment and heavy fines — even for well-argued, well-supported statements and writings.  This has already happened in several parts of the EU, and the left has already developed sophisticated legal theories aimed at getting around the First Amendment. Supreme Court liberals, like Elena Kagan (who has already shown her proclivities in this area), are sure to be thinking along these lines.

Like pretty much everyone associated with the dissident right, I celebrated the election of Donald Trump. However, it’s clear that the populist, anti-immigration themes of Trump’s rhetoric have energized the left to a fever pitch. Trump has been unsuccessful or unwilling to carry through his promises on immigration, and there has been a barrage of investigations and impeachment talk beginning as soon as he took office. The liberal/left cultural establishment might have let things continue as they had been going for several decades if Jeb or Hillary had been elected. From the perspective on the left, everything was on course. There would be polite disagreements between Democrats and Republicans while the latter gradually ceded ever more ground in the culture wars; in the not too distant future, the Republican viability in national elections would be destroyed by the new Democrat voters they collaborated in importing. But it would all be very gradual.

However, Trump won, and to make things worse, there were populist stirrings in Europe, with the success of Brexit and with several European governments openly defying their EU masters on immigration and the ideal of multiculturalism. The response of the left, which should have been completely predictable, has been to do everything they can to ramp up immigration and even lower the voting age so that they are assured of winning future elections. And they have targeted the ideas of the dissident/populist right for suppression. Again, we are just seeing the beginning of what promises to be a very ugly war.

Like others on the dissident/populist right, we will not stop doing what we are doing, even if it means less visibility for our ideas and less financial support. It’s inevitable that Whites wake up to their dispossession and to the increasing hate directed against them from our cultural elites. Barring a USSR-type government, I’m not at all sure that our ideas can be prevented from triumphing. And that has our hostile elites very worried.

These books are still available from the publisher:
Culture of Critique
Separation and Its Discontents

From Barnes & Nobel (when I click on the link, I get a pop-up with a 15% discount)”
Culture of Critique
Separation and Its Discontents

In Canada, at
Culture of Critique
Separation and Its Discontents

This is what I got from Amazon. In subsequent emails, they just keep repeating that these books were found to violate “content guidelines,” even though I pointed out that they were published 21 years ago by a respected academic publisher. No specifics. No appeal process.

From: Kindle Direct Publishing kindlecontent-review@amazon.com
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2019 4:37 PM
To: Kevin MacDonald
Subject: Alert from Amazon KDP for 2 Title(s)

Hello,

We’re contacting you regarding the following book:

Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism by MacDonald, Kevin (AUTHOR) (ID: 4392904)
The Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements by MacDonald, Kevin (AUTHOR) (ID: 3285482)

During our review process, we found that this content is in violation of our content guidelines. As a result, we cannot offer this book for sale. If we identify additional submissions with similar content that violates our guidelines you may lose access to optional KDP services and/or face account level actions up to and including termination.

You can find our content guidelines on the KDP website:

https://kdp.amazon.com/help?topicId=A2TOZW0SV7IR1U<https://www.amazon.com/gp/f.html?C=2NXN4UFTTG5Z6&K=95RQOE6HNW93&M=urn:rtn:msg:20190311233725fdf99199909246f994ec0eb6a720p0na&R=35Y0X1UGCIMUT&T=C&U=https%3A%2F%2Fkdp.amazon.com%2Fhelp%3FtopicId%3DA2TOZW0SV7IR1U%26ref_%3Dpe_3052080_269936200&H=CS0VQ5SUHSPKZJQSXWE9BORDSOIA&ref_=pe_3052080_269936200>

Best regards,

Amazon KDP

Failed Crypsis and Its Discontents: Past and Present

/24 Comments/in , , /by

“Some accuse me of being a Jew; some excuse me for being one; some even praise me for being a Jew. But all think about it.” Thus wrote the nineteenth-century writer and journalist Judah Loew Baruch (1786—1837) who, after ostensibly converting to Christianity, assimilating, and renaming himself Ludwig Börne, struggled to understand why Germans insisted on seeing him as a Jew.

Börne’s lament is a classic of failed Jewish crypsis, and one of my personal favorites. Looking back, one wonders how Börne could ever be surprised. The reasons of the Germans were surely not that difficult to surmise. Börne was an acerbic ethnic activist who used his journalism to pour sarcastic scorn on German Romanticism and folk nationality that he clearly feared and despised. He was a key figure in the Junges Deustchland (Young Germany) movement, a social reform and literary movement in nineteenth-century Germany (c.1830—50), influenced by French revolutionary ideas, which acted as a vehicle for culturally hostile Jewish ideas and opposed the German Romanticism and nationalism then current. Members of Young Germany considered themselves to possess formidable intellectual and literary gifts, and they engaged in a scathing culture of critique. But they failed to inspire much enthusiasm, instead exciting widespread animosity. This is because “Young Germany” was more like “Young Israel,” being intellectually inspired by the Jewish converts Börne and Heinrich Heine, and given a European face by a ‘social justice’ gang of philo-Semites and Leftists who had married Jewish women (e.g., Georg Herwegh). In the words of one Young Germany leader, Karl Gutzkow, “It needed two Jews— Heine and Börne — to overthrow the old ideology and shake all illusions.”[1] Many Germans agreed, which resulted in the movement being discussed colloquially as “Young Palestine,” and the banning of many of its publications. When it came to Jewishness, much to Börne’s despair, all thought about it.

Ludwig Börne

This early alliance of Leftists and Jews, each aware of the destructive power and potential of the other, would result in the promotion of Young Germany novels like Wally, die Zweiflerin, (Wally, the Doubter) that attacked marriage and preached “sexual emancipation.” Such activities, now all too familiar to us, marked an initial confluence of interests between Jews and non-Jewish radicals, since both were keen, as Gutzkow put it, to “overthrow the old ideology and shake all illusions.”

We are now almost two centuries removed from the Young Germany-Young Palestine controversy of 1835, and this confluence of perceived interests seems to have sustained the Left-Jewish alliance for almost the entirety of the intervening years. And yet, if recent events are anything to go by, this alliance appears to be fraying at the edges. The main reason for this fraying, I suggest, is that the initial goal of overthrowing the old cultural and political status quo has now been largely achieved. As we progress into a Cultural Marxist endgame, the alliance is being revised by some, and the most radical on the Left are reassessing their erstwhile partners. What are they getting out of this? Who exactly are these people and what are their interests? How valid are their victimhood credentials? Most important has been the apparently novel discovery that far from being among “the oppressed,” Jews are incredibly influential and bear all the hallmarks of an elite. The mask slips and crypsis fails. The resurgence of Börne’s crisis — the lament of failed crypsis — and with it a revision of perceptions of interests, is thus an old/new characteristic of present-day politics.  Read more

Jewish Efforts to Restrict Free Speech in the UK, 1945 to the Present

/9 Comments/in , /by
Jez Turner addressing a rally

Jez Turner addressing a rally

First posted on March 12, 2017.

“The judiciary itself, which has for so long been the last safeguard of our liberty and honor, seems to have forgotten the difference between ‘just’ and ‘unjust’ in the general collapse of public morality and equity.”
Alphonse Toussenel, The Jews: Kings of the Epoch, 1847.

When I was younger, and first learning to play chess, the part of the game I found most difficult was learning to interpret the intentions of my opponent and anticipate his course of action. Like most novices, my focus was on moving pawns out of the way in order to bring more powerful pieces into play. It was only as time progressed that I realized the importance and inherent power of the pawns themselves, and with that realization came an appreciation for my opponent’s opening strategy.

I was very recently reminded of this learning curve by the slowly unveiling strategy of one of Britain’s Jewish ‘charities,’ the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA), which has placed free speech in check and threatens mate at any moment. In a case that will have devastating repercussions for free speech in Britain, CAA has proven itself even more influential than the government’s Crown Prosecution Service, which has now capitulated to the Jewish group and granted a judicial review into its earlier decision not to prosecute Jeremy Bedford-Turner, known among colleagues as Jez Turner, for a 2015 speech.

The Historical and Political Context

Context is crucial, and it is important to note that the Turner case is the culmination of a strategy that long precedes even the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. This strategy, which in Britain can be traced back to the 1910s, concerns repeated and consistent attempts to bring about the criminalization of ‘anti-Semitism,’ or in other words, to make criticism of Jews illegal. Although the precise nature of these attempts have fluctuated slightly over time, Jews have been remarkably prominent in the introduction of laws, or influencing the interpretation of laws, that negatively impact on free speech. Following the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946, Jewish delegates attempted to pass a resolution “outlawing anti-Semitism” at that year’s annual Labour Party Conference. [1] However, the bombing immediately cost the Zionists a great many non-Jewish friends within the Labour movement, and the proposal was emphatically crushed. Following the notorious Sergeant’s Affair, in which Jewish terrorists murdered British soldiers in barbaric fashion, another explicit proposal to outlaw anti-Semitism was introduced in the House of Commons, but was rejected at its first reading in 1948. Direct and explicit efforts such as these continued to fail. In Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policy Making Since the 1960s, Erik Bleich notes that “during the late 1950s and early 1960s Jewish groups sought laws against anti-Semitic public speeches made during this era, but there is little evidence that this pressure achieved substantial results.”[2] Read more

Update on Atty. Glen Allen’s Lawsuit against the SPLC

/5 Comments/in , /by

Editor’s note: Atty. Glen Allen sent the below email to update what is happening in his lawsuit against the SPLC. As I noted in a previous article, this is a very worthy cause. A victory against the SPLC would be a huge win for our cause. 

*   *   *

March 7, 2019

Friends, Supporters, and Interested Persons:

This is my second email update on my litigation against the SPLC, Heidi Beirich, and Mark Potok.  Since I have new friends and supporters (and thank you!), I have copied below my first email update, dated January 31, 2019, along with its attachments.

The SPLC defendants, as expected, filed two motions to dismiss on Monday evening.  The first seeks dismissal of all nine of my claims;  the second seeks dismissal of Potok on grounds that the Maryland court lacks personal jurisdiction over him because — so he asserts — he has no contacts with Maryland.  I anticipated all of the defendants’ arguments and am hard at work, together with my co-counsel, in preparing an opposition, which is due March 18.  If you would like to see pdfs of these motions to dismiss, please send an email to editors@theoccidentalobserver.net  If any of you have comments regarding them, please get in touch with me.  I would be particularly interested to know if anyone has any information about Potok’s activities — what exactly he did at the SPLC, what he does now, and whether he ever visited or had other contacts with Maryland or any surrounding states.

As far as I know, no plaintiff has ever survived a motion to dismiss in litigation against the SPLC.   Trust me, I’m putting my heart into becoming the first.  If I do, the next phase will be discovery — document requests, depositions, etc.  I believe the SPLC has never been subjected to discovery in any prior litigation.

I am deeply grateful for your past support, and will respectfully ask that this support, moral and financial, continue into this new phase, if you are in a position help.  Donations can be made directly to me at P.O. Box 10441, Baltimore, MD 21209, or through my Breathing Space for Dissent website.

Best to you all,

Glen Allen

Read more

Power to the Perverts!: Cultural Marxism, Jonathan Yaniv and the Lunacies of Transgenderism

/13 Comments/in /by

In the cult of minority worship, the British feminist Linda Bellos (born 1950) is the highest of high priestesses, an intersectional ipsissima who stands at the top of the victimhood hierarchy. She’s a Black-Jewish lesbian who has spent many years celebrating diversity, immigration and multiculturalism, opposing racism, sexism and homophobia, battling to overthrow patriarchy, capitalism and Eurocentrism. Surely she leaves all White men on the planet choking in her dust as her intersectional chariot sweeps past them towards the golden progressive future.

Bounding above Bellos

But in fact, no: she isn’t superior to all stale pale males. Some of them are armed with a superpower that allows them to bound above Bellos in the victimhood hierarchy. Astonishingly, they’ve managed to brand Bellos as a hater from whom they need protection. Just let that sink in: some stale pale males have successfully claimed to be the victims of an elderly Black-Jewish lesbian. In 2017 they got Bellos banned from making a speech to a feminist society at Cambridge University, one of England’s biggest cult-centres of minority worship. Even more impressively, they set the police on her the following year: she was “interviewed under caution” after being accused of committing a hate-crime against them.

High Priestess of Hate: Linda Bellos, OBE, TERF

What on earth is going on? Well, I can explain it in a single short acronym: TERF. That stands for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist” and for many modern progressives it’s a very bad thing to be. Linda Bellos is a TERF (or terf, now a word in its own right). Like many other old-school feminists, she doesn’t accept the lunatic claims and megalomaniac demands of the highly aggressive and self-righteous “transgender community.” Quite rightly, she denies that men can become real women and that lesbians can have penises. But she doesn’t accept something else: her own role in the lunacy and megalomania of the trannies. Bellos has been a cultural Marxist since the 1970s. She has fed the beast for decades and now the beast has turned on her.

Lunacies of her own

After all, as a radical feminist and anti-racist, Bellos believes in lunacies of her own. For example, she denies the existence of race and blames the failure of non-Whites on White racism, not on non-White genetics. Similarly, she thinks that men’s and women’s brains are effectively the same. It is sexism, not biology, that explains why women don’t match men’s achievements in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

For a cultural Marxist like Bellos, inequality arises from corrupt ideology, not from any differences of biology and evolution. And corrupt ideology, of course, arises from corrupt will. Therefore the White male malevolence that causes inequality can be countered by the non-White and female benevolence of anti-racist feminists like Linda Bellos. Nietzsche proclaimed the will to power; Marx proclaimed the will to progress.

Forcing one’s will upon the majority

But once an ideology accepts “progress” as a goal and “will” as the means to that goal, one very big question immediately arises. As Lenin put it: Кто кого? Kto kogo? ― “Who whom?” Whose will is to prevail? Who is to crush whom? Lenin had no time for democratic consensus or objective standards, as you can see in this passage quoted by the Polish philosopher Leszek Kołakowski from Lenin’s Collected Works: “in time of revolution it is not enough to ascertain the ‘will of the majority’ — you must prove to be stronger at the decisive moment and at the decisive place; you must win. … We have seen innumerable examples of the better-organized, more politically conscious and better-armed minority forcing its will upon the majority and defeating it.” Which is exactly what made the Bolshevik Revolution successful, thereby paving the way for many millions of murders.

Minority worship requires minority warriors, that is, minorities that have the will, aggression and self-belief to fight for progress, which means, of course, power over the majority. Lenin achieved that power: his small Bolshevik party, staffed with disproportionate numbers of racial minorities like Jews, Latvians and Georgians, eventually won control of the vast Russian empire. Lenin himself had German, Mongol and Jewish ancestry, and his most important lieutenant was the Jew Leon Trotsky (né Lev Bronshtein). Together Lenin and Trotsky seized power, fought and won a vicious civil war, and created a giant communist state. It was a triumph of the totalitarian will that has blazed as a beacon for megalomaniacs right to the present day. Read more

Roche’s Revenge: How Jews See Muslims as “Natural Allies” in their War on Whites

/30 Comments/in /by

“Two Jews, three opinions.” It’s a very common saying, but it’s also a very dishonest one. Jews and their gentile allies use it to suggest that Jews are on all sides of every political argument, so they don’t have a decisive influence one way or another. But on some matters there’s an overwhelming consensus among Jews and it’s decisive in shaping important policies. For example, back in 2004 the Jewish intellectual David Aaronovitch, a fixture of the British commentariat, was musing in the Guardian on “The Joy of Diversity.” He first ludicrously claimed that a vapid “respect for diversity” can “bind” completely different groups “together,” then went on to bash those Whites who don’t accept nonsense like that:

Respecting diversity can almost be a value in itself, one which binds together the girl from Hunan who served me with coffee in Starbucks yesterday and the assortment of quiet, paper-reading ethnicities who shared my tube carriage on Friday. It is the BNP [British National Party] supporter in Burnley who seems like an exotic, incomprehensible stranger to me. (The Joy of Diversity, The Guardian, 29th February 2004)

Burnley is a town in Lancashire where large numbers of Pakistani Muslims have settled against the wishes of the native White inhabitants. Those Whites turned to the British National Party, the only party prepared to stand up for them rather than demonize them and dismiss their concerns as racist and Islamophobic. David Aaronovitch is supposedly British, but he claims that British Whites who stand up for their own interests are “exotic, incomprehensible strangers.”

The “ex-communist” David Aaronovitch

He’s lying even as he says that. He doesn’t find White BNP-supporters “incomprehensible.” He understands their behaviour perfectly and finds it threatening, which is why he inverts the truth and labels those Whites “exotic.” He’s trying to pathologize entirely normal people who are behaving in an entirely natural way. In other words, he’s promoting a culture of critique identified by Kevin MacDonald as central to Jewish politics.

And part of that culture of critique has been to promote immigration and ethnic diversity from all the countries of the world into the West, typically clothed in high-flown moralisms (that they don’t apply to Israel). There is no Jewish organization of any stature that opposes this process. All of the financial, political, and media power of the Jewish community is pushing in one direction only: the replacement of Western populations. Millions of Jews and, in effect, one opinion.
Read more