La Judaïté importe-t-elle ?

/1 Comment/in /by

English version: “Does Jewishness Matter?”

Article d’origine publié le 10 avril 2015

Il y a quelque temps, une mini tempête médiatique a éclaté à l’UCLA [Université de Californie – Los Angeles] au cours de la procédure de confirmation d’une étudiante juive à un poste au Comité Juridique du conseil des étudiants. L’étudiante s’est vu poser une série de questions pour déterminer si ses engagements juifs pourraient influencer son travail au conseil. Cela violait évidemment un grand tabou. Extrait du compte-rendu du New York Times:

“Étant donné que vous êtes une étudiante juive très active dans la communauté juive,” a déclaré Fabienne Roth, membre du Conseil de l’Association des Étudiants de premier cycle, en regardant Mme Beyda à l’autre bout de la salle, “est-ce que vous vous voyez garder un point de vue impartial ? ”

Pendant les 40 minutes suivantes, après qu’on se soit débarrassé de Mme [Rachel] Beyda, le conseil s’est enferré dans un débat pour déterminer si la religion et l’appartenance de cette dernière à des organisations juives, y compris son association d’étudiantes et le populaire club d’étudiants Hillel, signifiait qu’elle ne pourrait pas être impartiale sur les questions sensibles de gouvernance dont traite le conseil, l’équivalent de la Cour Suprême sur le campus.

D’après les étudiants et responsables juifs, cette discussion, consignée dans le procès verbal et enregistrée en vidéo, semblait faire écho aux questions, préjugés et stéréotypes qui visent les Juifs depuis des siècles à travers le monde — en particulier au sujet de leurs loyautés tiraillées.

Le conseil, réuni le 10 février, a d’abord voté le rejet de la nomination de Mme Beyda, car quatre membres s’y opposaient. Mais ensuite, à l’insistance d’un conseiller de la faculté qui a fait remarquer que l’appartenance à des organisations juives ne constituait pas un conflit d’intérêts, les étudiants ont réexaminé la question et admis la candidate au bureau à l’unanimité. …

“On n’aime pas agiter le drapeau de l’antisémitisme, mais dans ce cas, c’est différent,” a déclaré le rabbin Aaron Lerner, nouveau directeur général de la section Hillel à l’UCLA, à propos du vote contre Mme Beyda. “C’est de la bigoterie. C’est de la discrimination contre quelqu’un en raison de son identité”.

Le chancelier de l’université, Gene D. Block, a publié une déclaration dénonçant les attaques contre Mme Beyda. “Il est intellectuellement et moralement inacceptable de supposer que tout membre d’un groupe est forcément partial, ou motivé par la haine”, a-t-il dit. “Quand des stéréotypes blessants –quel que soit le groupe visé– sont brandis pour délégitimer les autres, nous nous sentons tous salis.”

Le distingué Dr Block, dont l’identité juive n’a sûrement aucun rapport avec sa déclaration, va bien au-delà de ce qui est prouvé en affirmant qu’on a supposé au cours des délibérations que “tout membre d’un groupe est forcément partial”. La raison évidente de ces questions est qu’il y avait un doute, pas une certitude. Toute personne saine d’esprit comprend bien que ce ne serait pas exactement une surprise si Mme Beyda laissait son identité juive influencer sa façon de voter sur de nombreuses questions, en particulier sur Israël et sur les controverses maintenant fréquentes à propos des activités du mouvement BDS [NdT: une organisation pro-palestinienne] sur le campus. Read more

Jews Continue Pressure for Internet Censorship

/74 Comments/in , /by

Back in March TOO came under sustained cyber-attack from the enemies of our people. This vital resource for truth was brought to a stand-still by a large number of bogus service requests, with Kevin MacDonald noting that one IP address in Israel “attempted to access the site 13,125 times within the span of three days.” Our mission of enlightenment and liberation is deeply loathed by those intent on bringing our race to its knees. The Occidental Observer is a truly unique site, and we can be sure that the commentary and research it continues to present is giving our enemies sleepless nights. I’m certain that TOO, and other sites sharing our goals and worldview, have a special place in the hateful hearts of the alien elite. They won’t stop until they have found a way to silence us. But cyber-attack is just one prong in this assault on truth and our right to self-determination. Another major frontline in the assault on our mission is the international legislative effort to permanently shut us down.

A few days ago the fifth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, mainly its many-tentacled Foreign Ministry, the Global Forum makes a priority of fighting ‘cyber hate.’ A few days ago it issued statements recommending steps for international governments and major websites to radically restrict material critical of Jews and Israel. The Forum has also very cleverly presented the issue of restricting internet freedom as a moral imperative — our enemies are obviously playing to our weakness. A statement issued by the Forum on Thursday night read:

Given the pervasive, expansive and transnational nature of the internet and the viral nature of hate materials, counter-speech alone is not a sufficient response to cyber hate. The right to free expression does not require or obligate the internet industry to disseminate hate materials. They too are moral actors, free to pursue internet commerce in line with ethics, social responsibility, and a mutually agreed code of conduct.

The Forum should be seen as an exercise in the spread and influence of international Jewish power and activism. The number of representatives alone from various organizations totalled just over one thousand. That number also includes a number of non-Jewish representatives and delegates from governments under Jewish influence. The latest convention of the Forum, the largest of its kind in the world, included the Justice Ministers of Germany and Romania, the Education Minister of Bulgaria, the Mayor of Paris, and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism from Canada. More predictably, leaders from many of our most prominent opposition groups were in attendance, including the Anti-Defamation League; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy. Read more

Interview with Jack Sen, Part 4 of 4

/27 Comments/in , /by

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

You are quite familiar with the situation in South Africa. How would you describe it now, and how do you see it in 10–20 years? Given the conditions in South Africa, should White South Africans be allowed to immigrate to countries like the UK and the Netherlands where their ancestors originated? If so, how can this be facilitated?

I’ve been exposing the injustices facing minority South Africans for several years now.

My commentary on the ongoing genocide perpetrated against South Africa’s minority communities, of which my Afrikaner grandmother and Anglo-Indian grandfather were part of, and work as Director and Spokesman for the NGO, Stop the Killing, has been shared in literally dozens of English and Afrikaans South African publications, including Dan Roodt’s Praag.

Dan in fact wrote an open letter to Nigel Farage after my suspension, informing him that UKIP’s actions would result in the loss of tens of thousands of South African expat votes.

My desire to see political recognition of the genocide of all Western people was one of the primary reasons I became involved in UKIP in the first place — the one party I was hopeful would show concern for this very important humanitarian cause. UKIP also knew this early on. Read more

Interview with Jack Sen, Part 3 of 4

/32 Comments/in /by

Part 1
Part 2

Your interview with the European Knights Project was actually quite circumspect in not explicitly mentioning the Jews. But anyone who was informed would be able to join the dots. However even talking in code, it was still enough to get you suspended. So obviously the climate is far worse than many thought, about the frankness over the real causes of White dispossession and cultural Marxism — even within UKIP! Did you overestimate the extent of freedom of speech?

As naive as this may sound, I in fact did overestimate how much free speech one would be afforded when speaking one’s mind about Cultural Marxism and Jewish involvement.

I care about Britain and a part of me believed that my party did, as well. Most of the people who volunteer for UKIP, run as candidates, and support us genuinely do. I firmly believe that. Sadly, I now recognise that party elite are more concerned with how they’re viewed and the interests of their financial backers than the nation they claim they’re fighting for.

Still, as my statement was made with Britain’s best interest at heart, I thought I’d have a little more latitude. I didn’t mention the Jews by name, nor did I blame every Jew, just a few that are making a mess of my beloved homeland.

I honestly — and again this might be naïve — never thought simply alluding to Jews being behind the fall of the South African Nationalist government and subsequent genocide, and as you’ve stated, dispossession of Western European people, and a couple of innocuous tweets would be enough to have UKIP pull the plug on me without a hearing.

I still can’t fathom how it’s possible that I had become a national scandal. Read more

Interview with Jack Sen, Part 2 of 4

/19 Comments/in , /by
Jack Sen (left) with UKIP Deputy Leader MEP Paul Nuttall

Jack Sen (left) with UKIP Deputy Leader MEP Paul Nuttall

Part 1.

In the EKP interview, you mention a “shadowy elite bent on our destruction.” In reading it, I definitely had the impression that you were referring a predominantly Jewish elite, or at least an elite that is substantially Jewish to the point that elite attitudes and policies would have to comport to the interests and attitudes of its Jewish component.

For example, you stated that “The west is controlled by Leftists that can trace their roots back to former Soviet eastern bloc nations-men like Yossel Slovo [longtime leader of the South African Communist Party], Ed Miliband etc.”  Ed Miliband’s father is Marxist sociologist Ralph Miliband; you stated that “Ralph Miliband emigrated to Britain and did his utmost to destroy his host nation.” You also mention Dan Glass, Eleanor Margolis, Nadine Gordimer (an anti-apartheid activist who received the Nobel Prize for Literature), Barbara Lerner Spectre, and Emily Thornberry. Of these 8 names, only one — Emily Thornberry — is or was not Jewish, and it is well-known that the great majority of UK Jews descend from those who, like Ralph Miliband, immigrated from Eastern Europe.

This would seem to be suggest that you think that Jews have a major role to play in this shadowy elite. We at TOO have claimed that Jews are a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for the current onslaught of immigration and multiculturalism in the US. Am I correct in my impression that you think Jews are a necessary condition for the current program of destruction against the traditional people and culture of the UK?

Certainly. There’s no denying that Jewish radicals are the progenitors of the vast majority of the intellectual and social movements undermining Western culture — from Marxism, the feminism ruining our families, homosexual advancement, and often counterproductive civil rights causes. Most honest people with a proper understanding of history recognize that Jews were and are at the forefront of these movements. Didn’t Barbara Spectre herself admit as much? [Ed.: Yes]

I was certainly quite clear that I thought as much in the interview. Read more

Éric Zemmour: SOS Racisme, a case study in anti-nationalist Jewish activism

/16 Comments/in , /by

By Éric Zemmour, from his Le Suicide français, translated by Guillaume Durocher

sos-racisme-1 (1)

SOS Racisme’s famous logo: “Don’t touch my pal,” urging Europeans and Jews (somewhat patronizingly)
to protect their Black or Muslim “pal.”

Translator’s note: It is common among American readers to suppose that although Jewish groups are quite powerful and are a critical force for immigration and multiculturalism in the U.S., this is not the case in Europe; e.g., Jews are less than 1% of the population of France.

Éric Zemmour, a Sephardic Jew as well as a prominent  journalist and pundit in France, however argues that Jewish ethnic activist and/or leftist organizations have worked to undermine the traditional French nation-state. No doubt he is the “most nationalist” voice allowed in French mainstream media, all but telling people to vote for the Front National. I found his bestselling book Le Suicide français, while sometimes false or circumspect, surprisingly frank on certain issues.

Zemmour observes that “the Jewish far-left, from the Trotskyite movements to the UEJF [Jewish student union], was at the reins” of SOS Racisme, a major “anti-racist” group. In alliance with the institutional left, SOS Racisme worked to divide the right-wing vote, to politically isolate nationalist parties (above all the Front National), to censor nationalist discourse, and to hijack incipient Black/Arab movements. Zemmour argues that SOS Racisme thus “sapped the foundations of the French nation.” Zemmour’s quote from the anti-nationalist Globe founded and financed by the Jewish left is particularly striking:  “Of course, we are resolutely cosmopolitan. Of course, everything that is of the soil, the beret, the bourrée, Breton bagpipes, in short petty-French or chauvinistic, is foreign or even odious to us.” The parallels with the history of groups such as the NAACP, the ADL, and the SPLC are striking. 

The following are extracts taken from Éric Zemmour, Le Suicide français (Albin Michel: 2014), “SOS baleines,” pp. 243-249. The title is editorial. 

* * *

The emergence of the Front National, during the municipal elections of 1983 at Dreux, would be a historic opportunity for the left to stay in power. Yet, [center-right leader] Jacques Chirac had first agreed to a union of the right.[1] Even Raymond Aron had blessed this alliance in L’Express, referring to the left’s totalitarian depravities: “The only fascist-style international in the 1980s is red, not brown.” But the moralistic, anti-racist, anti-fascist discourse of the left ended up riddling the leader of the Gaullist party [Chirac] with guilt, along with the pressures from all sides, of his centrist allies (friends of Simone Veil and Bernard Stasi), the media, and the Jewish organizations, without forgetting the provocations of the FN’s leader (“the detail of history”[2]) which were exploited well. Mitterrand thus avenged himself against the Gaullists who had long [divided the left by] isolating the Communist Party and its popular electorate in their revolutionary ghetto. Read more

Subscribe to Posts

/1 Comment/in /by

There is now a widget on TOO which enables readers to receive new posts by email. It is right below the Amazon Ad (buying from Amazon after clicking on this link is a painless way to help TOO) and Video Archive links. Subscribing makes it easier to keep abreast of what we are up to. No need to give out your name.