On Jews, History and “Refugees”

“There landed yesterday at Southampton from the transport Cheshire over 600 so-called refugees, their passages having been paid out of the Lord Mayor’s Fund. . .There was scarce a hundred of them that had, by right, deserved such help, and these were the Englishmen of the party. The rest were Jews. . . . When the Relief Committee passed by they hid their gold and fawned and whined, and, in broken English, asked for money for their train fare.”
Daily Mail, February 3, 1900

All of a sudden, ‘refugee’ is the most ubiquitous word in common parlance. Every other housewife has become an armchair aid worker. Every other college student has become an expert on geopolitics, migration and ethnic conflict. Every other man has demanded his government do something. And, of course, every dissenter from the binge on empathy has become a “racist.” Although I have touched on the subject of pathological altruism before (see here and here), I have to confess to being almost stupefied by the manipulative blitzkrieg recently unleashed by the mass media and the controllers of culture, as well as the astonishingly successful response it has provoked among our people. My two closest friends, who share my worldview entirely, recently confided that they too were stunned into despondent silence by the sudden escalation of the demographic assault on European man. One sent me a message stating simply: “This is it. The invasion has well and truly started. This is the beginning of the end.”

Panic and pessimism aside, there is room for sober reflection on the nature and context of what is currently transpiring across the West. We may be aghast at these developments, but we cannot pretend to be surprised by them. This latest demographic onslaught is merely the gross acceleration of a process that has in fact been several decades in the making. The invasion didn’t start last week, or last year. The invasion started when we handed over power and influence in politics, the media, education, and finance to foreign, treasonous and hostile elites. Unlike previous invasions, the hordes now streaming into White nations aren’t armed. They don’t have to be. The keys to our territories were handed over many years ago, when we allowed the gates of our culture and the minds of our children to be infiltrated by perfidious doctrines. The territories the dark peoples are presently engaged in seizing are not robust, cohesive White nation states. If they were, we could rest assured that the invasion would fail. Unfortunately, the majority of White nations are now characterized by apathy, cowardice, degeneracy and wanton self-destruction. Following from that fact, there is little or no resistance. The West has doused itself in gasoline for decades — now is simply the moment of its self-immolation. Read more

Britain’s Labour Party ditches the Israel Lobby

“What was not so long ago unthinkable has come to pass.” Thus the Jewish Chronicle‘s verdict on the election of hard-left pro-Palestinian Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Britain’s Labour Party. It was a typically astonished reaction to the news that, for the first time in decades, there would be a British party leader who was not in the pocket of the Israel lobby.

Two Jewish shadow cabinet members, Ed Miliband and Rachel Reeves, have already led an exodus of senior resignations from Labour’s front bench, of those not prepared to work for Corbyn. Virtually all of them are members of Labour Friends of Israel. Rather than settle anything, it seems Corbyn’s election will trigger a civil war in Britain’s main opposition party.

There has been a palpable shock amongst Jewish commentators on both left and right that this could have happened. For months former Blairites like David Aaronovitch and dyed-in-the wool Conservatives like Lord Finkelstein have been united in their position that Corbyn would be a disaster for Labour and Britain. Although Nick Cohen did the definite anti-Corbyn hatchet job. The decision was unanimous — Corbyn was bad for the Jews.

One wag commented that Jewish journalists are so quick to trot out a heart-rending tales of their own refugee family’s flight to Britain.  Now they have got a refugee-friendly politician who would flood Britain with refugees in a moment, if he could, and all they do is offload on him. What is their problem, he asks disingenuously. Read more

‘No More Immigrants — We’ve Had Enough!’

invasion

Extracts from writers on the Occidental Observer

Selected and arranged in a collage of quotations, with additional commentary and emphases by Lasha Darkmoon

“The migratory tsunami we are witnessing is adding up to a disaster.”
— Alain de Benoist, French New Right philosopher

KEVIN MACDONALD:  Francis Carr Begbie writes,  in an article entitled “Immigrant flood unleashes moral status competition, emotional incontinence and hypocrisy” :

There can be little doubt that the Jewish community favors very generous policies toward refugees. One reason for this is that Jews tend to see the situation in terms of the Jewish experience as refugees during World War II rather than from the point of view of the present interests of the UK and its people. That non-Jewish countries should be open to refugees is widely, if not universally, seen as a basic Jewish interest. Deep in the Jewish psyche is the memory of the voyage of the St. Louis in May, 1939 in which Jewish refugees from Europe were not admitted to Cuba and the U.S. did nothing because of pervasive anti-immigration attitudes at the time.

There is no question that Jews were under intense pressure during the 1930s that went well beyond the U.S. In 1936 Chaim Weizmann observed that “the world seems to be divided into two parts—those places where the Jew cannot live, and those where they cannot enter.”

Anti-Semitism was pervasive. Jewish pressure groups acknowledged the role of anti-Semitism in motivating the rejection of Jews by, for example, couching pro-refugee advertising in universalist terms and not mentioning that the refugees would be Jews. Read more

Glenn Greenwald denounces Hillary Clinton for pandering to Israel-firster Haim Saban

I was very critical of Glenn Greenwald in a recent article for attacking European-American interests and indeed the very notion of nationhood, for advocating lawlessness on immigration, and for being silent on Jewish-Zionist oligarchs’ media and financial influence in the United States. I in turn was criticized by some for being naïve, like the foolish frog inevitably stung by the scorpion in Aesop’s fable.

But I like to give credit where credit is due. In his latest piece attacking Hillary Clinton for a militaristic and imperialistic speech, Greenwald prominently mentions that the presidential candidate is pandering to Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban, who has made no secret of his loyalty to Israel or his significant financial influence over the Democratic Party:

[The] Brookings [Institute] is funded in part by one of the Democratic Party’s favorite billionaires, Haim Saban, who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Israel and once said of himself: “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Pollack advocated for the attack on Iraq while he was “Director of Research of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.” Saban became the Democratic Party’s largest fundraiser — even paying $7 million for the new DNC building — and is now a very substantial funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In exchangeshe’s written a personal letter to him publicly “expressing her strong and unequivocal support for Israel in the face of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.”

And if Saban plays such a large role among the Democrats, it is worth recalling that Sheldon Adelson — who supports Jewish supremacism in Israel and mass immigration to the U.S. — plays a similar role among the Republicans, providing more money to their candidates than the next nine contributors put together.  Read more

Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans

An article in The Forward again shows the true colors of the Republican Jewish Coalition: Liberal politics, abhorrence of White identity, and a powerful loyalty to Israel (Josh Nathan-Kazis, Donald Trump’s Rise Sparks Widespread Angst Among Jewish Republicans).

At a recent board meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition, the big donors and high-powered operatives in the room went around the table to make sure they had someone supporting each potential Republican nominee.

Jeb Bush backers were easy to find. Supporters of Marco Rubio, too, were plentiful. Ted Cruz had friends there, as did Scott Walker, and even George Pataki and Lindsey Graham. The Republican Jewish elite have spread themselves wide across the GOP firmament.

Obviously it’s a good strategy to cultivate all the possibilities, just as the Israel Lobby has traditionally cultivated both sides of the aisle.

Yet Donald Trump, who has topped 20% to lead all other Republicans in recent presidential primary polls, and who also leads the pack in both Iowa and New Hampshire, is a different story. An RJC member who was present at the board meeting said he could not recall if Trump had backers there. What is clear is that, despite his surge in the polls, the anti-immigration hard-liner has strikingly little support among prominent Republican Jewish donors, activists and consultants.

Many Republican Jewish leaders remain unwilling to speak about Trump. …

Jewish Republicans’ critiques of Trump, when they can be convinced to air them, fall into two categories. Most echo the concerns of the Republican establishment, deriding the real estate developer and former reality show star who is advocating selective tax increases on the wealthy as unserious. They worry that he will drive away nontraditional Republican voters. Others, however, have deeper concerns.

Right. A tax on hedge fund profits, as Trump proposes, would be a serious blow to the RJC.

“There are a lot of folks who are, to be charitable, into white identity politics, and to be uncharitable are outright racists, who are supporting Trump,” said Nathan Wurtzel, a Republican political consultant and principal at The Catalyst Group, who is Jewish. “It’s very off-putting and disturbing.”

 

Read more

Report from Sweden: Under siege — from media propaganda on migration

The propaganda here is so extreme right now that I have never seen anything like it before, and in Sweden that says a lot. It started just a couple days after a poll where the Sweden Democrats (SD) got so much support that the front page of Metro, our most read newspaper blared “Now the Sweden Democrats is the biggest party in Sweden.” After that it took four days, and then the propaganda onslaught started. From the fifth day until now the Metro has had big emotional photos and texts about the ”refugees” on the front page on 9 out of 12 covers. Today they even ignored all other news — and the whole paper is only about the ”refugees.” How you can help, good people. Scads of articles on how desperate the situation is for all the refugees, and so on.. And its not only in the papers, it’s on the radio several times per hour (independent on which channel you listen to), and of course on television…
It will be really interesting to see how this campaign will affect the support for the Sweden Democrats. But it have an effect. For example, we have had several really brutal murders here during the summer  by immigrants, and there has been a shift in the debate where more and more people have been talking about the problems with immigration. During this time it has been almost impossible for a big city like Gothenburg to find families that would like to take a refugee ”child” to their home and let it live together with them. (Almost everyone claims that they are below 18 years old and from Somalia or Afghanistan so they can get a permanent residence permit in Sweden. This has led to an avalanche of bearded ”children” coming here. So to make room for them, people get paid by the government to take care of them.) Today they said on state radio that so many people are calling right now to get a ”child” to their home in Gothenburg that the administration can’t even answer all the calls! So the recent propaganda have effect.
I guess that the good side of this is that Sweden will become an even more polarized society. More and more people see the propaganda for what it is  and get really mad about it. That will make a needed changes easier — if only we can get the majority on the side of the Swedish people.

Migrants: “humanitarian” interventions generally make things worse

The interview that follows was first published in Boulevard Voltaire; translated from the French by Tom Sunic

Q: The photo of that Syrian child stranded on the beach is now in the process of turning a new page in European opinion. In our epoch of “storytelling” it evidently suggests that the migrant issue is a “human drama.”

Of course it is a “human drama.” One must have dry heart or be blinded by hatred if not recognizing it. Muslims threatened by jihadist Islamism, entire families fleeing the Middle East destabilized by Western policies — of course this is a “human drama.” But this is also a political issue and even an issue of geopolitics. Hence the need to figure out the relationship between the political sphere and the humanitarian sphere. Well, experience has shown that “humanitarian” interventions generally only aggravate matters further. The dominance of the legal categories over the political categories is one of the major causes of the impotence of the states.

The migratory tsunami which we are witnessing is adding up to a disaster. First, there was a calculation based on thousands of refugees, then tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands. As of now more than 350,000 migrants have crossed the Mediterranean over the recent months. Germany has agreed to accept 800,000 of them, far more than the entire registry of its own birth rates each year. We are way ahead of the interstitial immigration of thirty years ago! Faced with such an onslaught the European countries are asking themselves: “How are we going to welcome them?” Never do they ask themselves:  “How are we going to prevent them from coming in?” Even the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius considers “scandalous” the attitude of the countries wishing to close their borders. Will it be the same way when the number of migrants’ entries is counted by the millions? Will the politicians be then more concerned about countless “human dramas” happening in the world right now than about the common good of their fellow citizens? This is the heart of the matter. Read more