The Jewish War on White Australia: The Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 3 of 4

/20 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

EXCERPT 3: “I was brought up in a racist country”

Brett Kaye: So somebody asked the question of whether I was brought up in a racist household. The answer is no. But I was brought up in a racist country.

Child: What country’s that?

Brett Kaye: I grew up in South Africa, and let me tell you how it is racist. When I was your age …, I grew up in a political system that was called this…

Child: Apartheid? …

 

Brett Kaye: You remember me from last year. So, apartheid, made up of two words in a language called Afrikaans which is kinda like Dutch, means separate-ness. And what apartheid meant, realistically, was because I’m a white fella, life for me was good. A-OK. It meant I would live in the best areas of the city, it meant I could go to the beach (other people couldn’t), it meant people who were white went to white schools, Indians went to Indian schools, blacks went to black schools. Whites lived in black… in white neighborhoods, Indians in Indian neighborhoods, blacks in black neighborhoods. When I was at the park there was a park bench that said [banging the table] “White People Only.” Public transport? There was a bus just for white people, a bus just for Indian people, and a bus just for black people.

Child: Isn’t Indian black?

Brett Kaye: Nup. They were considered to be three separate classifications, Hospitals for white people, hospitals just for Indian people, hospitals just for black people. Black people and White people were not allowed to get married, were not allowed to live in the same house. … What it meant was that white kids and black kids and Indian ones would never ever spend time together because they weren’t allowed to be in the same areas. How do you think a White kid your age, a black kid your age would have felt about white people. Think about it. How do you think black kids who lived two hours out, who lived in houses with no electricity, no running water, no power, made their houses out of whatever materials they could find around? How would that black kid feel about white kids?

Child: Spoilt or jealous?

Brett Kaye: That they were spoilt, that they were jealous, and what does jealousy lead to?

Child: Hate?

Brett Kaye: Hate. There was a lot of hate. What do you think a white kid might have felt about a black kid? Yeah…

Child: Maybe they thought that it was unfair and feel sorry.

Brett Kaye: Maybe. Sorry for them. What do you think maybe if I said to my parents “I want to go hang out two hours away in this neighborhood?” What do you think my parents might have said to me?

Child: No

Brett Kaye: Why?

Child: Because they’re a black person?

Brett Kaye: So they wouldn’t have wanted me to hang out with a black kid because it wasn’t the right thing to do. Hang out with black kids. So there was a lot of racial hatred happening.

Kaye gives the misleading impression that White South Africans simply stole all of the housing, electricity, running water and other infrastructure that existed in South Africa and selfishly hoarded it for themselves, rather than being responsible for the creation of these things which never previously existed in southern Africa. For Kaye, apartheid South Africa was “racist” because “Black and White people were not allowed to get married.” Somehow, the prohibition of marriage between Jews and non-Jews in Israel (which is subject to a two-year prison term), the walls of separation between Palestinians and Israelis on the West Bank, and the different legal treatment forPalestinians and Israelis don’t render that state “racist,” but is an indispensable part of the Jewish people’s right to “self-determination.” Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: The Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 2 of 4

/16 Comments/in , /by

As discussed in Part 1 of this article, “Click Against Hate” was devised by the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) as an “early-intervention” program for Australian schoolchildren. I was recently forwarded a recording of a “Click Against Hate” session conducted by a Jewish activist named Brett Kaye (featured in the above photograph). At no point during the session does Kaye acknowledge that he represents the ADC, a Jewish activist organization. Instead he presents himself as a deeply moral and caring person who is involved in the program for purely humanitarian and altruistic reasons. In concealing his organizational affiliation, the children remain oblivious that “Click Against Hate” is not a politically neutral cyber-safety and anti-bullying program, but a carefully designed propaganda tool designed to serve Jewish ethnic interests in promoting “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” and the suppression of “hate” speech (i.e., speech professional Jews don’t like).

Kaye asks the children why they hate someone and they volunteer a variety of answers, such as jealousy and doing something bad to you. So he gives them a hint at what he is really after:

EXCERPT 1: “Psychologist time”

Brett Kaye: I’m gonna ask you a question that’s gonna help you: “Why would I hate somebody because of the color of their skin or because of their religion? Why would I hate somebody because the color of their skin or because of their religion? Why would I?

Child: Because of racism?

Brett Kaye: Yes. Why would I be racist?

Child: Because you were brought up not to like these people

Brett Kaye: AH! So my parents teach me how to be a racist. In other words, if I’m brought up in a racist household and therefore that could be my view too. Excellent answer.

Child: Wait, are you saying you were?

Brett Kaye: I’m not saying I was, but I’m saying based on what he said, what’s your name?

Child: James

Brett Kaye: Based on what James said, if somebody is brought up in racist household might they themselves become racist?

Child: Um maybe difference?

Brett Kaye: Difference. That’s an excellent answer too. Someone who is different to who I am: I don’t like people who are different, I don’t like their food, I don’t like the way they dress, I don’t like the way that they talk a funny language, they talk in an accent, and all of a sudden that difference can translate into hate. I don’t know about that. I’m ignorant about that. Nobody’s taught me about that. I’ve never learnt about that. Why are they doing all these funny things? Why are singing in this funny way? Why do they talk in this funny way? Why do they dress in this funny way? All that sort of stuff can lead to hatred. Have a look at my answers boys and girls and I think they’re close to yours: someone hurts you or someone you love (we got it), jealousy (Bam! Smacked it on the head), ignorance or lack of education, and what we learn at home.

Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia: The Anti-Defamation Commission and “Click Against Hate,” Part 1 of 4

/39 Comments/in , , , /by


The Australian Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) is the Australian equivalent of America’s Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Both organizations fall under the umbrella of B’nai B’rith International which holds NGO status at the United Nations. The stated mission of the ADC is to make Australia “a better place” by fighting “anti-Semitism and all forms of racism” and combatting “the defamation of the Jewish people and Israel.” Describing itself as a “harm prevention charity,” the ADC claims to be dedicated to “promoting tolerance, justice and multiculturalism.” But despite its pious pretentions to universal benevolence, the ADC, like countless other Jewish activist organizations around the world, exists to promote the ethnic interests of Jews. The “harm” this organization is determined to prevent is any harm to these perceived interests.

Regarding the plethora of Jewish activist organizations in the United States, the Jewish academic and journalist Adam Garfinkle has observed:

The main mass-membership advocacy organizations of American Jewry — B’nai B’rith and its Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the National Conference of Jewish Federations, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (a kind of steering group for the major organizations), to mention only a few — are not religious organizations but ethnic ones. It is not necessary to have any Jewish religious affiliation to be a member in good standing in these organizations, and their leaderships are composed mainly of people who are not religious or Jewishly learned Jews.

We need not go into foundational texts and statements of purpose on the question of origins, for the answer is simple enough: organizations like B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee were created to lobby for particular Jewish interests. … In time, these and most other Jewish organizations became explicitly or implicitly Zionist, and thereafter existed to one degree or another to support, first, a Jewish home in Palestine, and then, after 1948, the security and prosperity of the State of Israel. In other words, all these organizations have depended, and still depend, on the validity of their serving parochial Jewish ethnic interests that are simultaneously distinct from the broader American interest but not related directly to religion. [Emphasis added][1]

Contrary to the propaganda put out by the ADC for non-Jewish consumption, the interests of Jews are not the same as those of the broader Australian community, particularly the White Australian community. While the ADC — whose motto is “Promoting Diversity” — pretends that all conflicting group interests can be reconciled through “education” and “mutual understanding,” the interests of different racial and religious groups are often fundamentally opposed and irreconcilable. The group evolutionary interests of White Australians are absolutely harmed by the mass importation of non-Whites into the country — compounded by ideological commitments by state and federal governments to “diversity” and “multiculturalism.” Read more

Review: How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Passivity in the Face of Nazism, Part 2 of 2

/45 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

After the outbreak of war, Jews were instrumental in restructuring the American economy in order to finance the cost of fighting it — ushering in what has been called ‘the military-industrial complex” and the massive expansion of government power. One of the key features of the Jewish historical profile has been the involvement of Jews in systems of taxation. In keeping with this trend, during the early 1940s Jews were conspicuous in transforming the American economy to one based on mass taxation. The Treasury Department was of course headed by Henry Morgenthau, but what is less remarked upon is the fact that Morgenthau staffed his department very heavily with fellow Jews including Jacob Viner, Walter Salant, Herbert Stein and Milton Friedman. Ginsberg states that these Jews “fundamentally changed America’s tax system.”[1] It is not without irony that while Roosevelt was effectively pardoning high-ranking media Jews such as Joseph Schenk for large-scale income tax evasion, the Jews in his administration were championing the introduction of payroll withholding or “collection at the source” taxation for the common working man.

Although the Constitution’s Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, allowed the levying of an income tax, exemptions and thresholds meant that prior to the New Deal only 3 percent of Americans were subject to it. By 1940, Morgenthau’s Jewish team had added more than 5 million Americans to the income tax machine. The same team’s 1942 Revenue Act brought the number of Americans paying income tax to 40 million — a move Ginsberg describes as a “turning point in the history of American income taxation.” Since closely administering such a huge transition would be difficult, Jews employed much the same style of propaganda as their counterparts in the Soviet Union did to ensure popular compliance in the war effort — blanket efforts of persuasion and coercion.

In the area of persuasion, Jewish treasury officials “presented tax payment as a patriotic duty and launched an extensive propaganda campaign to convince Americans that paying taxes was a form of sacrifice required to win the war.”[2] Ginsberg adds that “Jewish films studios and radio networks, as well as Jewish composers and media personalities, played an active role.” At Mogenthau’s request his co-ethnic Irving Berlin wrote a song, “played incessantly on the radio,” titled “I Paid My Income Tax Today,” aimed at lower-income Americans who had never previously been asked to pay income taxes. Suspicious that this wouldn’t be enough, Morgenthau, along with Milton Friedman and Elisha Friedman, pushed for a permanent coercive system of payroll withholding. Ginsberg comments that:

The result of the gradual increase in tax rates mandated every year between 1940 and the end of the war, accompanied by payroll withholding, was conversion of the income tax from a minor tax levied on wealthy Americans into a major tax levied on all Americans — from a class tax to a mass tax…According to Elisha Friedman, one key, in addition to collection at the source, was gradualism. Raising taxes gradually, Friedman told the Congress, “got the people’s minds accustomed to things” and lessened the chance of tax resistance and political opposition.[3]

Gradualism has of course also been applied with devastating effect in European societies in relation to immigration and the slow erosion of rights and freedoms. Read more

Serena, Ingrid, and the Story of My Time

/45 Comments/in /by

The August, 2017 issue of Vanity Fair magazine has the naked and very pregnant tennis star Serena Williams on the cover.   When I saw it, a thought flashed to my mind: “Ingrid Bergman wasn’t naked on the cover of Life in Dad’s shop.”   I’ll explain.

My dad was a barber in downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota.   This was back around 1950; I was a little kid.   Dad’s shop—Walt’s Barber Shop—had magazines on a small table for his customers to read while they were waiting for their haircuts.  Among them was Life, a popular magazine like Vanity Fair is today, lots of photographs, news of the day, profiles.  The Paramount movie theater next door gave Dad free passes to its movies for having a sign in his shop advertising the current feature.  Mother, Dad, and I used to go to the movie that was showing at the Paramount just about every week.

One early evening when we went to the Paramount to go to the movie, there were eight or ten people with picket signs marching back and forth in front of the theater—don’t go to this movie.   I didn’t catch on to the details, but I knew it had to do with the actress Ingrid Bergman, who was starring in the movie and very big at the time—Casablanca, etc.—doing something really bad.   What it was, I later found out, was she had had an illegitimate child with the film director Roberto Rossellini; both of them were married to other people at the time.  The outrage over that had led people to picket her movies.   It was a major scandal.  She was denounced on the floor of the U.S. Senate no less—“moral turpitude” and so on (see Marlow Stern, “When Congress Slut-Shamed Ingrid Bergman”).

Flash forward from the beginning of my life to now, near its end, and there’s unmarried, unclothed, and sort of overwhelmingly pregnant Serena Williams—the father, Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit—on the cover of Vanity Fair. No way, adultery a part of it or not, that Ingrid Bergman would have been naked and pregnant with Roberto Rossellini’s child on the cover of one of Dad’s Life magazines. 

The cover article in Vanity Fair by Buzz Bissinger doesn’t condemn Serena, just the opposite, and illegitimacy never comes up.   Its beginning gives a sense of the direction it takes:

This is a love story.

It wasn’t seamless, starry eyes at first light.  There was a discovery, unexpected and shocking.   There were moments of really getting pissed and the standard irritation that comes when one half of the whole kept leaving the suitcase in the hallway.  But there were also moments of unplanned intimacy that is the only true kind of intimacy in a love story, soft touches and laughter and absurdity, because you need absurdity in a love story, since love is slightly absurd anyway, a feeling that, like eternity, is indefinable.

I’ve checked into it, and that’s certainly not how they wrote about Ingrid Bergman and Roberto Rossellini (including using words like “pissed” and writing under names like “Buzz”),

Also, the author of a Life magazine article back then would have kept his sexual preferences to himself, unlike Buzz Bissinger, who has made known to all his cross dressing (“the right foundation and cheek blush and eyeliner and lipstick can do wonders for the pallid complexion”) and his encounters with a dominatrix (leather is “irresistible,” as are “extreme feelings of restraint and taking pain”).

And it should be noted that if there had been a racial element to the Ingrid Bergman affair (Williams is black, Ohanian white), it would have been front and center in the Life magazine article, with the word “miscegenation” in there somewhere.  Race is never mentioned in Vanity Fair.

What am I left with?  That a naked, pregnant Ingrid Bergman on the cover of Life magazine along with a fawning cover article about her wasn’t in my dad’s barber shop, and now would be, sums up the progress, regression, however you want to look at it, that’s taken place over the span of my life.  And that how that happened is the big story of my time on earth.

Review: How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Passivity in the Face of Nazism, Part One of Two

/40 Comments/in , /by

At the close of my review of the late David Cesarani’s Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933–1949, I remarked that “the Holocaust,” as a cultural concept, had performed one of the greatest vanishing acts in history — the disappearance of the Jews as active participants during World War II.[1] Faced with an almost blanket portrayal of Jewish victimhood and passivity during the period, I commented: “Examining the thousands upon thousands of histories of World War II, one would get the impression that there was not only one war, but also only one aggressor. Quite how and why “the Jews” leave the historical stage as belligerents in 1939, when the preceding six years had witnessed them engaging in international propaganda wars, political maneuvering, and targeted assassinations in several European countries, has been surprisingly overlooked.” Benjamin Ginsberg’s relatively short but efficient work, How the Jews Defeated Hitler (2013, First Paperback 2016), may be considered a significant exception to this overwhelming omission, offering an argument that Jews played “a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.”[2]

In the introduction to his text, Ginsberg, a Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, outlines the structure of his argument along with his definition of Jewish resistance to the advance of National Socialism in Europe. Ginsberg’s definition of Jewish resistance is important because it differs significantly, in terms of its discursive parameters, from those generally employed in Holocaust historiography and its offshoots. For those interested in a more detailed exploration of the issue of Jewish resistance during World War II, as a subject of historiographical debate, The Holocaust in History by Michael R. Marrus (Penguin, 1989) and Histories of the Holocaust by Dan Stone (Oxford University Press, 2010) are perhaps the best and most succinct introductions to the most pertinent themes. However, in brief, historiographical argument prior to the 2010s was limited to two strands of thought, each biased and deeply flawed. The first strand of ‘resistance’ historiography was the negation of the idea of Jewish resistance. This involved lachrymose assertions that Jews offered no opposition to an unprovoked and irrational German hostility, and were led to sensationalized forms of mass murder like ‘lambs to the slaughter.’ A prime example within this strand is Martin Gilbert’s The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy (Harper Collins, 1986), and is also strongly associated with Raul Hilberg’s assessment that “the reaction pattern of the Jews is characterised by almost complete lack of resistance.” This first strand of argument was particularly popular in the diaspora, and in the United States and Great Britain in particular. The Holocaust developed as a cultural trope in these countries in tandem with the development of this lachrymose strand of historiography. Read more

The War on Donald Trump: Embracing the Post Objective-Reality World

/21 Comments/in , /by

This article was completed just before the latest turn in the Russian collusion saga regarding Donald Trump Jr’s meeting with the Russian lawyer.  I fear that the coherence of the article will be the least of the fallout from what is perhaps the strangest turn yet in this matter.  Ultimately, I still maintain that there was no collusion with Russia; however, one has to question Donald Trump Jr’s intelligence in attending a meeting advertised (quite possibly falsely) as connected to the Russian government. Regardless, we can be sure that the phenomenon of divergent objective realities between our side and the Cultural Marxists will continue….

We are living in a time with no agreed upon objective reality.  Often one hears leftists lament this, longing for the days of three television networks and the consequent stranglehold on information.  Staid, venerable journalists lament that we no longer have a “shared set of facts.”  Alas, those were never “the facts.”

This post-objective reality world—isn’t it thrilling?  Unmoored by tradition, the world has no static reference points, and therefore boundless opportunities.  In this “anything goes” environment, Alt-Right ideology is poised to take off.  It is simply a matter of embracing the absurdity of the situation.

Yet despite the lack of all agreed upon reference points, we continue to use the vocabulary of an objective reality in order to persuade others to our point of view.  We talk about “evidence” and “reason” and “facts,” and then lay them out in a heavy-handed manner which betrays the lack of all three. This is echoed in the left, with their insistence on having all of the facts, and raining down contempt on any who would dare contradict them.

Of course, to discuss evidence in terms of a realistic view on race or gender, all the data are on our side.  But that isn’t “evidence,” you see, because the elite establishment is the entity which confers the status of “evidence”; and conversely, non-welcome data and arguments are simply labeled “hate,” and they get no funding from the universities or the government. The response to us from mainstream America is, ‘Why do you even want to know that?’  And perhaps the best answer to that question is, ‘I want to know because you don’t want me to know.’ Read more