While (Western) Europe Slept, Part 1

/37 Comments/in , , /by

“Women of different faiths, races and backgrounds joined together on London’s Westminster Bridge, forming a human chain to show their solidarity for the victims [perpetrator?] of Wednesday’s terrorist attack in the city. Sunday’s demonstration, organized by Women’s March on London, covered the length of the bridge, with participants wearing blue as a symbol of hope and peace.” (here)

Shortly before the knife and vehicle attack Wednesday on the streets of London, Turkish President Erdoğan warned Europeans worldwide of dire consequences if Europe continued to resist his ability to appeal to the Turkish diaspora there. While President Erdoğan has threatened the safety of Europeans before, this latest threat appeared to be a call to action.

If you continue to behave like this, not a single European, not a single Westerner will be able to take a step on the road safely anytime in the world,” Erdoğan said at a press conference adding: “We as Turkey are calling on Europe to respect human rights and democracy. (Note the irony here.)

Many Turks living in countries like the UK, Germany and the Netherlands have expressed massive support for Erdoğan following the failed coup attempt last year.

Shortly after the coup, tens of thousands of Turkish expats attended a rally in Cologne, Germany, to express support for Erdoğan. Then, last week, when two Turkish ministers were refused entry in the Netherlands a week ago, hundreds of Turks flooded the streets of Rotterdam and rioted.

Erdoğan has suspended high-level diplomatic relations with the Dutch calling them “Nazi remnants,” and the pro-Erdoğan Turkish press depicted German Chancellor Angela Merkel as a Nazi on the cover of newspaper Gunes.

In still another threat to Europeans, Erdoğan said the EU can “forget about” the migrant deal and that it is, for all intents and purposes, dead anyway. This threat appears quite real as a recent report showed an abnormal increase in the number of migrant arrivals over the past week. Read more

Jews and Immigration: Time for Change

/67 Comments/in , /by

Our country and its Jewish intelligentsia are currently torn by a debate about immigration. On one side the Trump administration is trying to pass executive orders limiting immigration from particular, though certainly not all, Muslim-majority countries while also deporting people — largely from Mexico or Central America — who are in the US illegally.

On the other side are activist judges shutting down these executive orders and what seems like the entire constellation of journalists, pundits and activists in the country decrying these moves. From looking at the writers of many op-ed pieces or from looking through Jewish publications such as Forward, it is clear that Jews are disproportionately lobbying in favor of immigration and against deportation or immigration restrictions. Jewish organizations ostensibly formed to lobby for Jewish interests are on the side of resettling more Muslim refugees. Some voices on this side go so far as to call for “open borders” as in a recent piece in Salon. Most of the left has long decried the idea of White interests or White rights as being inherently racist in a way that Black rights or Latino interests aren’t. See for instance David Aaronovitch’s recent op-ed “Defending ‘white interests’ can never be right” in the Financial Times.

I think Jews are on the wrong side of this debate, and have been for decades. Countries are not arbitrary designations on a map; and borders are not imaginary lines. Countries are defined by their people, and borders generally demarcate necessary walls between peoples. Good fences make good neighbors, as the saying goes. Globalization and mass immigration result in what amounts to demographic invasion. It is natural for host populations to resist this being forced upon them.

The Jewish support for so-called “immigrant rights” is supposed to be rooted in the Jewish experience of diaspora and constant movement. Being exiled from our home in ancient times, we should feel sympathy with others who need to leave their homes in modern times. Jews have prospered in America because it is a multicultural society with such a rainbow of peoples that no true majority exists, or will soon, if current demographic trends continue.

I think Jews should be looking at this in another way. Read more

On Neocons and Neurotics: Yaron Brook and the Folly of Preemption

/47 Comments/in , /by

Yaron Brook

Though America is undoubtedly more politically polarized than ever, the view that the War in Iraq was a fiasco is something that almost everyone outside of think tanks or the military industrial complex can agree on. For those familiar with the works of paleocons like Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried, the idea that the war was a gross waste of American lives and treasure is a recurring theme. That many neocons remain unrepentant (and unaccountable) is not surprising. What may perhaps surprise the reader is that there are some intellectuals who believe the problem with our intervention is that we didn’t go far enough.

Yaron Brook is an Israeli-American who writes for The Objective Standard, a kind of Randian objectivist/rational egoist outlet that makes Bill Kristol’s The Weekly Standard look reasonable. In “‘Just War Theory’ versus American Self-Defense” Brook wastes no time in getting to the heart of the matter when he informs the audience (the piece is adapted from a talk) that in order for the US to win decisively in the Middle East it would have been necessary to “inflict suffering on complicit civilian populations” deliberately.

His models for what should have been done in Iraq include the Allied attacks on Japanese and German cities, which he acknowledges killed “hundreds of thousands.” Brook even approvingly quotes Winston Churchill, who wrote “the severe ruthless bombing of Germany on an ever-increasing scale will not only cripple her war effort…but will create conditions intolerable to the mass of the German population.”

Apparently, the threat of what Brook calls “Islamic Totalitarianism” is to be dealt with in the same way as “the Nazi and Japanese imperialist threats,” which were in no small part resolved by “America’s dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.” Read more

Death of John Peel: Biology, Brujeria and Big Mother

/14 Comments/in , /by

If you’re a stale pale male of a certain age and intellect, John Peel might at times have been the most important person in your life. Indeed, he may still be. He was the BBC disc-jockey who reigned as Britain’s musical arbiter elegantiarum from the late 1960s until his premature death early in the twentieth-first century. Champion of both the melodic and the discordant, he helped launch the careers of everyone from Altered Images to Zvuki Mu, from Dr Feelgood to The Datsuns. He was regarded as a national treasure at the death of his death in 2004 and his lustre remains undimmed thirteen years later.

White Flight

How could it not? John Peel was on the right side of history. He loved music and hated racism, firmly convinced that there is only one race — the Human Race. He contributed regularly to the Guardian and his shows always contained a healthy quota of Black music. He championed the same things in his politics as he did on the air: vibrancy, diversity and continual change.

But here’s a curious thing. Like his BBC colleague Andy Kershaw, he didn’t live as he listened. Both of them loved Black music while keeping well away from Blacks in their private lives. Peel abandoned ethnically enriched London to live with his attractive White wife and four children in rural Norfolk. Kershaw travelled even further from London, choosing to live on the Isle of Man in the middle of the Irish Sea. Greg Dyke, the former (and possibly Jewish) Director-General of the BBC, once described the corporation as “hideously white,” saying that it needed to employ many more non-Whites. Norfolk and the Isle of Man are much more deserving of that label than the BBC.

So was John Peel’s funeral:

It was a strange sound, coming from somewhere else. It took everyone by surprise. For a moment no one knew what it was. … It was the sound of thousands nearby cheering — a spontaneous, uncontrollable cheer of gratitude, of appreciation of talent, of respect, of love. The people who gave it were not celebrities, but fans. Most of the two thousand people who stood outside the radio DJ John Peel’s funeral at Bury St Edmund’s Cathedral on Friday 12 November 2004 and cheered his coffin as it was borne outside were, simply, his listeners. (The Peel Sessions, Ken Garner, BBC Books 2007)

Stale pale mourners at John Peel’s funeral

Nearly all of those fans were White and most of them were men. It was a stale pale male occasion for a stale pale male icon. John Peel’s show did not appeal to many non-Whites. It was too intelligent, too ironic and too eclectic. But one of the show’s ironies was unintended. John Peel and his BBC producer John Walters were White males who devoted their intelligence and talent to an institution that hates Whites in general and White males in particular. In short, Peel and Walters were suicide liberals and spent their lives sawing at the wrong side of the branch they were sitting on. Read more

Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi: Ideological Father of the EU

/30 Comments/in , /by

This article describes a mixed-race political figure, basically a professional activist, who projected a benevolent exterior, yet brought destruction in his wake.  Count Richard Nikolaus Eijiro von Coudenhove-Kalergi is today an obscure political figure, though in his time he was kind of a minor celebrity, and began the concept leading to the European Union.

His father descended from Byzantine nobility, and also with ancestry from lineages all over Europe.  This citizen of the world was a diplomat and married a Japanese woman whose parents were quite displeased, throwing her out of the family.  Richard was born in 1894, the second of seven children.  In his infancy, they moved from Tokyo to a small town near the present-day Czech-German border.

When Richard was twenty years old, his father died, leaving him wealth of which the vast majority can only dream and freeing him to pursue his hobby full-time.  Much like Karl Marx, Richard wrote a lot but never had a real job in his life.  The major difference was that he was a scion of landed gentry, while Marx was basically a bum plotting worldwide revolution while swilling beer at London pubs. Read more

Trump can’t lose White working class voters with a bad AHCA

/61 Comments/in , /by

It’s no secret that the Alt Right supported Donald Trump in the election — indeed, we were the only recognizable intellectual perspective to endorse him. What we liked about him — and continue to like about him — are, first and foremost, his attitudes on immigration, but also his America First economic nationalism and his foreign policy pronouncements in opposition to neocon nation building. It’s also well known that Trump won the election by getting out the vote in several key swing states among White rural and working class voters who saw Trump as supporting their interests in rolling back immigration that depresses wages and disrupts traditional homogeneous White communities that are still common in rural America. Trump’s stated trade policy and economic nationalism also benefit working class Americans because of the promise to keep jobs in America. All of these policies were opposed by powerful factions in the GOP, particularly big business interests and neoconservatives, not to mention the left. Read more

The Fate of Populism in Europe: The Dutch Election and a Preview of France, Germany, and Italy

/50 Comments/in , /by

On Wednesday the Dutch voted in huge numbers (82% turnout) in the first of three crucial Eurozone elections this year. Rarely has a Dutch election drawn this much global interest and financial-market attention. Preliminary, unofficial results indicate that incumbent Prime Minister Rutte’s party won 33 seats in the 150-member legislature while Wilders’ party won 20 seats.

Rutte is now poised for a third term as prime minister. He seems to have profited from co-opting much of Wilder’s thunder in the hard line he drew in a diplomatic standoff with Turkey over the past week. The fight erupted over the Netherlands’ refusal to let two Turkish government ministers address rallies in Rotterdam about a referendum that could give Turkey’s President Erdogan more powers. It gave Rutte an opportunity to show his new-found nationalism by refusing to bow to foreign pressure, a stance with widespread backing in the nation.

Wilders, who campaigned on radical pledges to close borders to migrants from Muslim nations, close mosques, ban the Quran and take the Netherlands out of the EU, had insisted that whatever the result of the election, the kind of populist politics he and others in Europe represent aren’t going away. After the results were reported, Wilders commented,

We were the third biggest party, but now we are the second biggest party in the Dutch Parliament and a major political force. I promise you: Next time we will be first! The genie cannot be put back in the bottle.

I assure you: We will not stop trying to save our beautiful country, the Netherlands, our European civilization and our Western freedoms.

Still, it’s hard to be cheerful given that Wilders polled only around 13% of the vote — after all the horror stories related to African and Islamic migration  to Europe that have appeared since the last election. Read more