Guilty of Working While White: The Tom Kawczynski Interview

/27 Comments/in , /by

Tom KawczynskiOn Friday afternoon January 19, after what seemed like an interminably long two-hour drive from my home on the coast to Bangor, I finally pulled into a parking spot outside the small Irish pub where I had previously arranged to meet Tom Kawczynski. We had spoken over the phone a few times and been interacting on social media for a few months, and for the last several weeks we had been trying to work out a time and place to meet, but since we lived about four hours apart – on opposite sides of the state – this was the first chance we had to do so.

I walked in and immediately absorbed the old-country feel, the distressed wooden tables and the smell of beer and cottage pie in the air. I didn’t know what Tom looked like, but I recognized a voice that belonged to a man sitting at a small back table with his back to the door, animatedly talking on a phone. Little did I know, I had just walked into a media firestorm, in which the national media had sparked an attack on Tom’s character in an effort to get him fired from his job as the town manager of Jackman, ME a — tiny but growing tourist hub in the northwestern part of the state.

I sat down at the bar and ordered a Murphy’s Stout, when the waitress inquired if I wanted a menu, I explained that I was waiting for a friend and thought I recognized his voice, and asked if she would see if the man at the back table was waiting for someone named Russ. She came back a few seconds later and said he was. I moved to the seat across from Tom and caught his side of an intense conversation. That was the start of an establishment witch-hunt to prevent yet another White Rights Advocate from working while White. Here’s his side of the story:

Russell James: Before we begin the interview proper, why don’t you tell the readers your story, starting with the first MSM attack on you and ending with you resigning as the Jackman, ME town manager.

Tom Kawczynski: I knew a story was brewing around 1:00 pm on Friday, January 19th when I got a phone call from a freelance journalist calling me about a story he was working on for the Bangor Daily News, a left leaning daily rag. Interestingly, the reporter had a New Jersey number, but he called asking me questions about certain posts I had made through my social media account at www.gab.ai as well as at my website on www.newalbion.org. I could tell from the leading questions he was asking that a hit piece was incoming, which was interesting because I had always kept my personal advocacy separate from my professional responsibilities as Town Manager of Jackman, Maine. That first story broke about 3 hours later, and everything that followed in the media was largely a recapitulation of the initial story.

As I would later come to understand, there was a dedicated team that went through all the social media posts of not just myself, but also my wife across the whole of the internet (sic). It has always been very curious to me how they have such resources to invest on a town of 862 people in the rural fringe of western Maine, but I’ve come to realize firsthand both how much power the media has and how deceitful the mainstream truly is. In the interests of protecting my good name, I tried doing several interviews over the next 48 hours to offer clarification of my views. As was clearly stated on the New Albion website, I maintained a cultural movement that was inclusive but dared to be White-friendly. Read more

Trashing the Torah: Justice, Freedom and Israel’s Assault on Jewish Values

/34 Comments/in /by

Precise definition is the keystone of liberty under law. A vaguely worded or imprecise law is an invitation to injustice, a judicial club that an overweening state can wield against its defenceless citizens. Laws should not be clubs but scalpels, used precisely and deftly to cut out only the malignancy of crime and corruption, not to harm the vital organs of a free society.

Right judgments and true laws (Neh. 9:13)

And no group should understand the importance of precise legal definition better than Jews. After all, they are a community whose religion and culture have, for millennia, centred on the meaning, application and extensibility of “statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel” (Lev 26:46). Indeed, The Torah, as the oldest and most sacred part of the Jewish Bible is known, has the literal meaning of “The Law” (Ha-Tôrāh, הַתּוֹרָה, in Hebrew). This long history of legal argument and textual analysis has equipped Jews to flourish in those stereotypically Jewish professions of law and medicine, which demand mastery of complex, endlessly ramifying systems and skill in minute description, interpretation and diagnosis.

That’s why you would expect Jews to greet a certain new legal definition with horror and disbelief. The definition is vague, arbitrary and deplorably imprecise. Any law based on it truly will be an invitation to injustice and a club in the hand of the overweening state. The deplorable definition goes 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.

… It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

When I first read that definition, I found it hard to believe it wasn’t a joke. How could any intelligent adult, let alone any lawyer, take it seriously? But the definition isn’t a joke and it’s being taken seriously by more and more organizations and institutions. British citizens can find it laid out on the official government website under the title “A definition of antisemitism.” The website says that it is taken from “the UK’s College of Policing” (UKCoP), where it is used as “guidance to police forces in the UK.” Read more

A Review of “Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism” — PART 3

/14 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

The psychological impact of the Hitler Stalin pact

Radical Jewish militants were deeply traumatized by the pact between Hitler and Stalin just prior to the start of the World War II. The dilemma facing Jewish communists, the contradiction between their “visceral anti-fascism” and what was now presented to them as an imperative of realpolitik for the USSR, repeatedly cropped up in testimony of those interviewed for Revolutionary Yiddishland. One of these, Louis Gronowski, recalled:

I remember my disarray, the inner conflict. This pact was repugnant to me, it went against my sentiments, against everything I had maintained until then in my statements and writings. For all those years, we had presented Hitlerite Germany as the enemy of humanity and progress, and above all, the enemy of the Jewish people and the Soviet Union. And now the Soviet Union signed a pact with its sworn enemy, permitting the invasion of Poland and even taking part in its partition. It was the collapse of the whole argument forged over these long years. But I was a responsible Communist cadre, and my duty was to overcome my disgust.[i]        

For many radical Jews, Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 provided a sense of “relief that was paradoxical but none the less immense. They had finally found their political compass again, recovered their footing; in short, they would be able to launch all their forces into the struggle against the Nazis without fear of sinning against the ‘line.’”[ii]

In late 1941, with the outcome of the battle for Moscow uncertain, Stalin, contemplating the possibility of defeat, acted decisively to ensure the field was not left open for the former Trotskyist faction. He ordered the execution of two historical leaders of the Bund, Victor Adler and Henryk Ehrlich, just after Soviet officials had offered them the presidency of the World Jewish Congress. For Stalin, “all the militants of the Bund and other Polish Jewish socialist parties who were refugees in the USSR were considered a priori political adversaries — particularly when they refused to adopt Soviet nationality — and treated accordingly.”[iii]  Read more

A Review of “Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism” — PART 2

/22 Comments/in , /by

Cover of the original 1983 French edition of Revolutionary Yiddishland

Go to Part 1.

The Pale of Settlement

The Revolutionary Yiddishland of the book’s title refers to the former Pale of Settlement which was comprised of twenty-six governorships in Eastern Europe where Jews were allowed to live, but only in cities and towns. Out of the eleven million Jews in the world in the early twentieth century, Russia held more than five million, and of these, four and a half million resided in the cities and towns of the Pale. For the authors, this “Yiddishland” was not just a geographical territory, but a “social and cultural space, a linguistic and religious world.”[i] According to historian John Klier, the much-maligned Pale of Settlement was the only response the tsarist authorities could come up with when faced with how to deal with the “fanaticism of ultra-Orthodox Jewry” which was “unassimilable to official purposes.”

The social hierarchy of Jews in the Pale was, according to Brossat and Klingberg, made up of a wealthy financial bourgeoisie, a middling bourgeoisie which was “intellectual and commercial,” and “an immense Jewish proletariat.”[ii] The use of the term “proletariat” to describe poorer Jews in the Pale is questionable given that they typically operated as petty traders rather than industrial employees. Jewish peddlers were notorious throughout the Pale as smugglers of contraband (as referenced in Gogol’s Dead Souls). This large number of poorer Jews was the direct result of the Jewish population explosion in Eastern Europe in the nineteenth century when their numbers grew from about 1.5 million at the beginning of the century to almost eight million by 1913.

This Jewish “proletariat,” a hotbed of radicalism characterized by “powerful organization,” played a “decisive part” in the “strikes and insurrections that broke out right across the Pale in the course of the 1905 Revolution.” Regarding revolutionary agitators at this time, Tsar Nicholas II claimed that “nine-tenths of the troublemakers are Jews” who also dominated the newspapers where “some Jew or another sits … making it his business to stir up passions of people against each other.”[iii]

The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw millions of these poorer Jews migrate to destinations as diverse as North and South America, France, South Africa, Australia and Palestine. The ideological zealotry of these Jewish migrants directly influenced American immigration policy around this time, with Muller noting:

The image of the Jew as Communist played an often overlooked role in the history not only of Jews in America, but of the millions of Jews in Eastern Europe who would have liked to emigrate to the United States after World War I, but who were prevented from doing so by the immigration restrictions enacted in the early 1920s, culminating in the Reed-Johnson Act of 1924. For those restrictions were motivated in part by the identification of Jews with political radicalism.’[iv]

The prominent Jewish intellectual and writer Chaim Bermant observed that “To many minds, at the beginning of this [twentieth] century, the very words ‘radical’ and ‘Jew’ were almost one, and many a left-wing thinker or politician was taken to be Jewish through the very fact of his radicalism.”[v] Read more

Reflections on the Chabloz Case

/37 Comments/in , /by

I’ll sing my way to court in high heels and a frock
Give the press a winning smile from inside the dock…
      Alison Chabloz song, Find me guilty

Mr Gideon Falter, 34, who runs the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAAS) was the chief witness for the Crown Prosecution service’s (CPS) against the British minstrel Alison Chabloz. On January 10th at Marylebone Magistrate’s Court we heard him swear the oath, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He then proceeded to give the court various hearsay conjectures, about what effect Ms Chabloz’ songs might be exerting, upon unspecified persons.

He averred for example that they were ‘spreading anti-semitic hatred’ and were ‘inciting to racial hatred.’ The Court was not given evidence for this,[1] nor advised where or in whom these emotions were being generated. Should he not have called witnesses to testify in support of these conjectures, or better still a psychologist to affirm that they were or had been generated?

The Court was advised of one offensive performance by Ms Chabloz, where she sang her songs ‘(((Survivors))) and ‘Nemo’s anti-Semitic Universe’ namely the London Forum in   2016 (September 24th). A problem here could be the signs of mirth and riotous applause in response to the songs: did this really show what Mr Falter had been alleging, or if not, what did?

She was recently introduced as ‘The brilliant comedienne and singer/songwriter Alison Chabloz,’ by Richie Allen, on his popular radio show (18 January).

The point of satire, is that it makes people laugh. Britain has a long tradition of satire from William Hogarth in the 18th century to Private Eye in the present time. Its future is surely at stake in this trial.

In October of 2017 she was arrested and jailed (or, ‘held in custody’) for 48 hours, for posting a video of herself singing a song. This had allegedly broken her ‘bail conditions’. As Ms Chabloz observed, “As far as I am aware, I am the only artist in modern British history to have been jailed for the heinous crime of composing and singing satirical songs which I uploaded to the Internet.”

We live in a society where just about any sacred belief is liable to be satirised for entertainment value, and those being satirised have not generally sought recourse to legal action. When punk-rock bands savagely mocked the Royal family for example, no-one prosecuted them. Read more

What Hitler Believed

/86 Comments/in /by

All my life, it’s been Hitler this and Hitler that.  For me, it was like the Norm Macdonald joke, the more I heard about the guy, the more I didn’t care for him.  Finally, I took it upon myself to read Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf, and see what I could pick up about him for myself.

Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggle) while he was in prison for an unsuccessful putsch (political insurrection) in November of 1923.  The book gives his account of his life, outlines the ideology of National Socialism, and relates the history of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (commonly known as the Nazi Party) and its plans for the future.  The book was published in two volumes, in 1925 and 1926.   It became a best seller in Germany, though with its 688 pages of pedestrian prose, it might have been more purchased than read.

I skipped over parts of the book in deference to my purpose for reading it: I was looking for Hitler’s core beliefs.  Behind his own story and all the politics and programs and particulars, what were Hitler’s fundamental assumptions and values?  This is a report of what I came up with.

I think it’s important that you keep in mind what this writing isn’t as well as what it is.   I’m not a trained social scientist or philosopher.  My knowledge of Hitler and his time doesn’t go beyond what the average reasonably literate person picks up in the normal course of things.  I’m not getting into Hitler’s merits as a human being, or the wisdom or morality of anything he did while he was in power.  I’m not making a case for him or putting him down.  I read his book (or pretty much), and this is what I got out of it about his basic convictions.  That’s all this is.  Reading the book and putting this material together has given me a better handle on what Hitler believed than before; that’s as much as I can say with any certainty.  So take this for what it’s worth.

The quotes are from Mein Kampf, Hitler’s words. Read more

Authentic Heidegger vs. Inauthentic “Fake” News, Part 2

/21 Comments/in , /by

Martin Heidegger, 1889–1976

Go to Part 1.

The expression “fake news” has a generic purpose whose meaning varies with each individual user. This phrase, alongside a number of other phrases describing language manipulation in the media, can be ranked in the category of Heidegger’s “idle talk.” The political effects of idle talk and its related word “newspeak” were also well illustrated by the novelist and essayist George Orwell.[14] Attempting to grasp the meaning of liberal political propaganda while skipping over the study of Heidegger’s idle talk, or Orwell’s newspeak, is a nonstarter. Orwell had done a revolutionary work by demystifying idle talk and fake news by exposing frequent falsehood in modern political communication.

Needless to say a White nationalist in Europe or in America today will define differently Orwell’s description of newspeak than his globalist-minded liberal or antifascist counterpart. Blaming only Joseph Goebbels, the former National Socialist minister, for being the first to launch fake news in Germany, or for that matter for being the first in standardizing political lies and self-deception in public discourse, is false.  Ironically, it was Goebbels himself, much earlier than Orwell, who had pointed out in his books and his speeches the rising tide of idle talk or fake news in the liberal media: “And if we are to tell the truth, then we must simply confess that we are slowly getting sick of this idle talk (“Gerede”) about morality and humanity that is travelling, column by column, through the English press today.”[15]

The event which has acquired lately a historic importance and which makes modern opinion makers in the US and EU extremely worried is that charges against fake news media are being levelled by a man who represents the most influential and the most liberal country on earth—Donald Trump, president of the United States. If Trump doesn’t shy away from calling out mainstream news as fake news, he might someday start calling out the names and describe the ethnic origin of major fake news distributors in America. Trump’s labeling of major news outlets as providers of fake news is an  unprecedented indictment in the entire history of Liberalism — all the more so because the much-lauded so-called free press is viewed as the main pillar of liberalism or for that matter of the official, i.e., “deep state”  America today. Read more