Advance Ethnic Warfare. Chill Criticism: The Moral and Political Fraud of Anti-Semitic Theory

/41 Comments/in , , /by

Jewish gatekeepers are concerned. And for good reason. Anti-Semitism is once again ‘on the rise’.  Even new strains of anti-Semitism are threatening to break loose. This is where the scientific study of anti-Semitism comes in.

One scholar that’s devoted to this subject is Dr. Charles Ascher Small, founder and director of the New York based Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP).  ISGAP now has offices on college campuses in Canada, Europe and the US.  Recently, the Jerusalem Post interviewed Dr. Small who, not surprisingly, sees himself an expert on this subject. Small offered these provocative insights:

[Anti-Semitism] is inherently genocidal, because when the dominant way of perceiving reality was through the lens of religion, the Jews were the wrong religion and they were blinded by evil for not accepting the Christian notion of the messiah, so in order for the individual Jew to redeemed he or she had to accept the Christian version of the messiah.

Small, like virtually all of the world’s ‘experts’ on anti-Semitism (including the bizarre Dr. Theodore Isaac Rubin whose profundities were recently reviewed in TOO by Andrew Joyce), happens to be Jewish. Acknowledging that Muslims and atheists can also be ‘anti-Semitic’, Dr. Small nuances his analysis by saying that other groups mistakenly tar the Jews unfairly by viewing them through the lens of racial (impurity) or other xenophobic avenues.

‘”In contemporary times, says Dr. Small, “Israel, as the Jewish nation-state, has become a stand-in for the Jew in this regard.
“Now people in governments in the Western world, in the United States and Europe, say that for the world to be saved the stubborn Jew has to change. Not only to they have to change to protect their own society, but if only the stubborn Israelis would change, jihadism and radical Islam will dissipate.
The world will be saved.
And this is a very dangerous aspect of anti-Semitism that is irrational,” he asserted.’

Dr. Small has given the world a very concise and multi-purpose theory. It reveals a lot. Mostly, it reveals the self-serving mission of Jewish theories of Anti-Semitism. Dr.Small’s familiar storyline goes this way:

Jews are continuously persecuted but always blameless. This is because ‘anti-Semitism’ is a disease. And for murky reasons, Jews are the only target of this unique sickness. Key axioms baked into anti-Semitic theory include: (1) Jewish innocence, and (2) eternal and unjustified outside hostility which Small says is ‘irrational’.

How shall we explain this to the Palestinians? Read more

Lawmakers attack The Political Cesspool at House Judiciary Committee hearing

/9 Comments/in , , /by

I had the distinct honor of being denounced by multiple lawmakers at last week’s House Judicary Committee hearing on the “Adequacy and Enforcement of Our Nation’s Immigration Laws,” where our old friend Sherrif Paul Babeu was one of the witnesses called to testify. From the Arizona Daily Star:

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu’s opinion of the state of the border and the administration’s policies was in high demand Tuesday as he testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary.The Arizona sheriff, known for his hardline stance on border security and illegal immigration, was one of four witnesses to testify during a hearing titled “Examining the adequacy and enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.”

Pinal County is about 85 miles north of the border, but Babeu says a lot of the smuggling funnels through his county.

As proof, he said his office led a multiagency investigation that led to a $3 billion cartel drug bust and netted 76 arrests and 108 weapons seized.

“This is on American soil,” he said. “As sheriffs, where our primary job is answering 911 calls, how on earth did we get to this place?”

Read more

Verbal Aggression and Moral Superiority as Components of the Jewish Approach to Immigration

/53 Comments/in /by

It’s refreshing to see John Derbyshire’s comment on his experience at National Review with conservatives dealing with immigration policy.

Words have power—magic—and sometimes they have so much of it that we can no longer discuss rationally the things they refer to.

That has been the case with National Question issues for as long as I have been engaged with them. It has especially been the case with immigration. The whole topic has had an aura about it, a glow of magic, which acted as a kind of force field repelling all rational discussion. …

You could never get [conservatives] to engage with immigration. It seemed that in their minds there was something sacrilegious about doing so, something … unclean.

This was especially the case with Jewish conservatives (for them, I suppose, the correct term would be treyf). John Podhoretz, with whom for a while I shared blogging privileges at National Review Online, was particularly splenetic towards anyone who dared suggest that immigration on any scale is other than an unqualified good. (“John Derbyshire Detects the De-Sacralization (At Last) of Immigration Policy”)

I think that a major part of the problem is that Jews, whether in academic departments or at intellectual magazines like National Review, or pretty much everywhere else, have managed to pose as the ultimate moral paragons.  There is a long history of this, from the ancient world up to the present, recounted in Chapter 7 of Separation and Its Discontents, continuing into the present with the pervasive culture of the holocaust. And this feeling that Jews are morally superior extends to policies that Jews favor, including immigration policy and policy in the Middle East.  Read more

“Birth of a Nation” at 100 Years Old

/28 Comments/in , , /by

dwgriffith

Liberals and multiculturalists hate it when confronted with works of obvious genius which don’t fall into the pattern of their worldview. Along with angst-fuelled hand-wringing over certain works by Shakespeare and Wagner, a more modern manifestation of the problem is the cinematic landmark, The Birth of a Nation (available in part here), which will quietly celebrate its centenary this week. Compelling, innovative, trend-setting, and epic in scale, D.W. Griffith’s astonishing and unflinching vision of the Civil War and Reconstruction-era South remains powerful viewing even on its hundredth birthday.

I was an impressionable eighteen-year-old college student when I first viewed it. Despite the admonitions and careful commentaries of my film and media professor, I remember seeing past the fact that it was silent and interspersed with grainy captions and being impressed by its ‘modern’ style and appearance, and the smoothness of the editorial process. But it was some years later before I came to truly appreciate the scale and meaning of what Griffith had committed to film. On this occasion I watched it in North Carolina, at the home of my wife’s very elderly grandfather. This remarkable old man was every inch a Southerner, and a true gentleman at that. There one humid May evening, with the AC broken down and the windows wide open, the old man pulled out some Civil War relics that he had collected over the years. Presenting a series of antique rifles, medals, and pictures of Lee and Jackson, his eyes regained a youthful spark as he spoke of his own family memories and connections (real or imagined) to a host of Confederate heroes. Later in the evening, after we set down the relics of war in favor of cigars and Scotch, he pulled out a dusty VHS from an old bookcase. It was Birth of a Nation. It’s a long movie, clocking in at over three hours, and the old man drifted off to sleep within the first half hour. But I kept watching. And it was that night, with the firebugs glowing and buzzing by the open windows, and with the fragrant Southern air drifting slowly inside, that I felt what Griffith had aimed to portray — pride of land, pride of culture, and pride of blood. Read more

2015 KMEA National Anthem

/in /by

The Sharks of Marx: Science vs Censorship

/39 Comments/in /by

Some people want to understand the world and some want to control it. But some want to understand the world in order to control it. Science is offering better tools to tyrants, but this means that tyrants may be better able to deny science. If certain facts about the world are ideologically unacceptable, modern technology will make it easier for a tyrant to suppress them.

For example, the Western world is presently governed by the dogma of human equality, namely, that all groups are psychologically and intellectually equal and that any apparent differences are caused by environment and culture, not by genetics. It is highly inconvenient that, scientifically speaking, this dogma is either a naïve fantasy or a self-serving lie. Many dogmatists would therefore like to end the inconvenience by ending the science:

I’m torn over how to respond to research on race and intelligence. Part of me wants to scientifically rebut the IQ-related claims of Herrnstein, Murray, Watson and Richwine. For example, to my mind the single most important finding related to the debate over IQ and heredity is the dramatic rise in IQ scores over the past century. This so-called Flynn effect, which was discovered by psychologist James Flynn, undercuts claims that intelligence stems primarily from nature and not nurture.

But another part of me wonders whether research on race and intelligence — given the persistence of racism in the U.S. and elsewhere — should simply be banned. I don’t say this lightly. For the most part, I am a hard-core defender of freedom of speech and science. But research on race and intelligence — no matter what its conclusions are — seems to me to have no redeeming value. (John Horgan, Should Research on Race and IQ Be Banned?, Scientific American, 16th May 2013)

Horgan’s proposal is neo-Stalinist, but that isn’t surprising. The modern dogma of egalitarianism is based on Marxism and the doyen of the dogmatists, the Jewish-American biologist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002), was the Lysenko of our day. And who was Lysenko? He was a Ukrainian biologist who revived Lamarckism under Stalin and enforced belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Insisting that there was no true distinction between genotype and phenotype, he enjoyed power and prestige for decades. But now he is listed in the “Pseudoscientific biologists” category at Wikipedia. I hope that Gould joins him there one day.

Lysenko’s enemies were sent to slave-labour camps and paid with their lives for being genuine scientists. In the modern West, the consequences of disagreeing with the dogma of absolute racial equality have, so far, extended no further than loss of job and reputation. There is still a tradition of free enquiry and free speech to destroy before the communist ideal can be realized in America and Western Europe. The Polish philosopher and historian Leszek Kołakowski (1927–2009) was very familiar with that ideal, because communism ruled his homeland and drove him into exile. He wrote about Stalin’s tyranny in Main Currents of Marxism (1978), which discusses Marxism in three volumes from its foundations through its golden age to its breakdown. In the third volume he described the fate of the “eminent genetician” Nikolay Vavilov, who disagreed with Lysenko’s scientific nonsense. Vavilov was “arrested in 1940 and perished in the Kolyma concentration camp” (op. cit., pg. 103). Read more

Charlie Hebdo — The Gift That Keeps Giving

/23 Comments/in /by

The Charlie Hebdo affair is the gift that keeps on giving if you want to understand the contours of power in the West today. There are many past incidents which, although trifling at the time, now take on a whole new importance  when seen through the lens of Charlie Hebdo — this solid gold BBC radio debate is one of them.

On Holocaust Memorial Day 2013 the Sunday Times ran a Gerald Scarfe cartoon which showed a bloodthirsty Binyamin Netanyaju cementing up a wall with the bodies of dead Palestinians. It was a gory, tasteless work which was par for the course for the artist and which would seem to fall well within the lampoonists terms of engagement as claimed by the post-modern supporters of #JeSuisCharlie  — i.e. nothing is sacred and no-one is beyond satire.

Except, as Gerald Scarfe was to discover, it turned out that some things are very much untouchable and unsayable. For the organised Jewish community reacted with predictable well-orchestrated incandescent rage and, equally predictably, the fearless News International caved in, withdrew the cartoon and responded with a fulsome apology from Rupert Murdoch himself. Read more