Tom Perkins’ faux pas

/1 Comment/in /by

There’s a bit of civic tension in San Francisco these days, pitting mostly young, relatively rich employees of tech companies against the older residents. Rents and housing prices are skyrocketing, forcing some of the previous residents to flee. The most visible results of this upheaval are the tech company buses that roam the streets, picking up and dropping off techies. Lately there have been protests of the buses, including threats of violence. A NY Times report:

Demonstrators regularly block the shuttles. Last week, a group of activists stalked a Google engineer at his East Bay house, urging the masses to “Fight evil. Join the revolution.” A prominent venture capitalist struck back, comparing the tech elite with persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany?? This stems from what Tom Perkins, the “prominent venture capitalist,”  wrote to the Wall Street Journal:

Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its “one percent,” namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the “rich.”

From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent. There is outraged public reaction to the Google buses carrying technology workers from the city to the peninsula high-tech companies which employ them. We have outrage over the rising real-estate prices which these “techno geeks” can pay. …

This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant “progressive” radicalism unthinkable now? Read more

The Amnesty/ Immigration Surge And Senator Schumer’s War Against “White Anglo-Saxons”

/3 Comments/in , /by

This article is also posted at VDARE.

Senator Chuck Schumer, one of the notorious Eight Banditos, gave a revealing speech to the Center for American Progress about the Tea Party  the other day. Conservatism Inc. types like  Bill O’Reillycriticized Schumer’s remarkably blatant call for the IRS to be used against the Tea Party. But more important was Schumer’s equally blatant acknowledgement of the ethnic agenda behind post-1965 immigration policy—and behind the implacable drive for some form of Amnesty/ Immigration Surge, which the House GOP Leadership appears to endorse this week.

Basically, according to Schumer, Tea Partiers are afraid of change. He drew an analogy with the Temperance Movement of the 1920s as a reaction to the changes wrought by the last 1880–1924 immigration Great Wave:

This reaction against social and cultural changes isn’t new to us. Edward Shils, a professor from the University of Chicago, wrote about the Temperance Movement identifying that it was about much more than abolishing liquor.  In the 1880s the U.S. was a rural country and people were on farms and small towns living a clean, God-fearing life. By 1920, America had been urbanized and diversified because of manufacturing, immigration, and so many other forces.

And the cities were a totally different way of life with slums, bars and dance clubs, emerging suburbs and country clubs.  Prohibition was not simply about abolishing alcohol; it was an attempt by rural Americans to pull their country back to a Jeffersonian agricultural ideal that was being rapidly replaced by a new cultural and economic order.

Today, we see the Tea Party doing much of the same thing. Tea Party adherents see an America that’s not reflective of themselves, and the America they have known, and they just don’t like it. [Emphases added throughout].

The reference to Edward Shils is revealing: Shils, a member of the New York Intellectuals—a Jewish intellectual movement reviewed in Chapter 6 of my book The Culture of Critique—was a leading theorist of the idea that attempts by majorities to resist the increase in the power and influence of other groups are contrary to the democratic process. A defining feature of the New York Intellectuals was their hostile reinterpretation of Populism, the anti-elite insurrectionary movement of the 1890s. Read more

Racial Forensics in an Age of Race Denial

/2 Comments/in /by

What happens when a forensic anthropologist is asked to identify the race of skeletal remains in a politically-charged climate where “race is a social construct”?  A classic case of doublethink: simultaneously accepting two contradictory beliefs as correct.  An article titled Forensic Identification of “Race” published in the journal Current Anthropology states:

The identification of the “race” of human remains by forensic anthropologists in New Zealand provides Maori with a service that is both helpful and contentious…Doing so is ethically paradoxical because the estimation of “race” implies that races exist, a concept that has been questioned and rejected by most anthropologists. (Cox et al. 2006)

The Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand who share a similar history with Native Americans in that they were largely displaced by colonial Europeans and have since earned their valued non-Western victimhood status which is currently being used for political redress in lieu of historical grievances.

When human remains are found in New Zealand, the Maori request forensic analysis to determine whether the bones are their own ancestors or instead of European descent.  This process is guided by a set of codes adopted in the New Zealand government which protect the rights of Maori to have their traditions and beliefs respected.  These codes acknowledge the special significance of Maori human remains because of the Maori view that human remains retain the spirit of the deceased after death. Read more

The Jewish War on White Australia Continues

/3 Comments/in , /by

censored

 In my extended essay ‘The War on White Australia,’ I explored how Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism were pivotal in ending the White Australia policy — a policy change opposed by the vast majority of the Australian population. Australian Jews take enormous pride in this achievement. For instance, the national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges that: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” The Jewish promotion of non-White immigration and multiculturalism in Australia has been (and continues to be) a form of ethnic warfare aimed at destroying Australia’s traditional White racial homogeneity — and with it supposedly any potential for a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Australia.

The history of multiculturalism in Australia (and indeed throughout the West) is in large part an object lesson in how a small but highly organised and motivated group of activists can successfully hijack the demographic destiny of a nation for its own ends. Acknowledging that Australian multiculturalism is first and foremost a manifestation of Jewish ethno-politics, Jewish historian William Rubinstein observed that: “Thus far, any serious questioning of multiculturalism has not resulted in an anti-Semitic backlash; nevertheless, the Jewish community would certainly be exceedingly disturbed by any basic reversal of the commitment to multiculturalism by successive governments.”[i] In addition to opening the floodgates to mass non-White immigration, a key part of this Jewish campaign to radically reengineer Australian society in their own interests has been to shut down speech critical of this immigration and multiculturalism — and particularly of the role of Jews in foisting these disastrous policies on a resentful White Australian population.

In Part 3 of my essay I discussed how, under the chairmanship (and behind the scenes influence) of the Jewish activist Walter Lippmann, the influential Committee on Community Relations delivered a report to the Australian Parliament in 1975 which placed “multiculturalism” at the heart of Australian government policy. It recommended that Australian social policy be formulated on the basis of four key elements. One of these recommendations, as summarised by the Jewish academic Andrew Markus, was that: “legislation was required to outlaw racial discrimination and uphold and promote rights through the establishment of a human rights commission.”[ii] Read more

The Israel Lobby: Nowhere to Hide

/4 Comments/in , /by

Mondoweiss excerpted a talk by a rabbi, Melissa Weintraub, on strategies used by the Jewish community for dealing with Israel. The difficulty that Jews have is that they are the vanguard of the liberal, pro-immigration/multicultural anti-White left in the U.S., while at the same time their favorite country, Israel, is energetically engaged in apartheid and ethnic cleansing. This leads to cognitive dissonance and intense politicking in the Jewish community. But it’s clear that the most common strategy is simply avoidance (two versions).

Israel has become the most volatile wedge issue in American Jewish life, by most observers, journalists, rabbis, people who are immersed in this field. We’ve got 3 prevailing avenues for Israel engagement, currently.

One is avoidance. Nearly every American Jewish social justice organization– I was recently in a room with all the luminaries of the Jewish social justice movement and veritably every one of them has an organizational policy to avoid Israel. The rabbis of every denomination and from across the political spectrum talk about what actually a local rabbi Scott Perlo who’s at 6th and I calls the “the death by Israel sermon”, which means we can talk about anything but Israel. We can talk about health care or guns or other controversial issues, but say anything about Israel and we could be fired. It seems every day I hear of another organization that’s banned Israel from its listserve….

So that’s avoidance, the first pattern… The first pattern is really reacting to the second pattern, but I stated avoidance first because it’s become most ubiquitous…

The Second pattern is more overt antagonism; vilification, demonization; attacks and counter attacks on op ed pages, funding threats, boards and executive directors in utter terror, paralyzed, because they are in damned if you do and damned if you don’t situations on a regular basis. A lot of this is outside of public view, but I can tell you as someone who works in this field that I hear dozens of institutions facing these kinds of dilemmas every month.

And you know equally as damaging: reckless caricatures of each other’s positions, distortions, quoting each other out of context, impugning each other’s motives, antagonism.

The third pattern I call avoidance 2.0. And that is congregating with, conferencing with those who agree with our own politics, and dismissing everybody else as loony, or malicious, or dangerous. Taking pride in the numbers of those who are with us, categorically, one dimensionally dismissing everyone else. And that is becoming increasingly common as well.

So whatever happens with the current campaign for war with Iran, don’t expect American Jews to change their status as the backbone of the anti-White left. They may avoid the issue or do a lot of screaming at each other, but it won’t affect their attitudes on the core issues facing White America.

The rabbi’s remarks indicate an uptick in anxiety about Israel  among American Jews. For one thing, the BDS movement, and in particular the recent anti-Israel resolutions by the American Studies Association and the Modern Language Association, indicates a shift in elite opinion where non-Jewish liberals feel the need to act on their principles. Israel as a pariah state is increasingly obvious to everyone.

Secondly, and more immediately, there is the push for war with Iran which, as everyone who is not living under a rock knows, is a project of Israel and its fifth column in the U.S. Indeed, although the New York Times failed to mention the Lobby in a recent article on the Kirk-Menendez-Schumer Iran war bill in the Senate, the role of the Israel Lobby is obvious.  The Economist gets it:

economistobama-12014

  Read more

Review of Derek Penslar’s “Jews and the Military”

/2 Comments/in , /by

Jews and the Military: A History
Derek Penslar
Princeton University Press, 2013

“The rate of draft-dodging for the peasant population in the Pale of Settlement was 6%; for the Jews it was 34%. Jews evaded the law and misused the court system, even as they demanded special protection from the authorities.” Professor John Klier, Russians, Jews and the Pogroms of 1881–1882 [1] 

PenslarThe subject of Jewish attitudes to military service, particularly in the diaspora, has been a key interest of mine for some time. Since ancient times, military service has been regarded as the touchstone of true citizenship and patriotism and, to me at least, it seemed the perfect backdrop against which Jewish identity and its hierarchy of loyalties might be seen more clearly. Though never given truly comprehensive scholarly attention, there are countless brief references to Jewish attitudes and actions in taking up arms in works ranging from flagrant Jewish apologetic, to the productions of the racialist right. Most of these references pertain to accusations that Jews historically have shirked military service and often resorted to the most elaborate, and often ridiculous, methods in order to avoid doing “their share” in the defence of the nation-state.

More or less dissatisfied by much of the fare on offer from both sides, I was quite interested late last year to hear of the publication, by no less than Princeton University Press, of Derek Penslar’s Jews and the Military: A History — the jacket of which promised “the first comprehensive and comparative look at Jews’ involvement in the military and their attitudes toward war from the 1600s until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.” Penslar promised to show “that although Jews have often been described as people who shun the army, in fact they have frequently been willing, even eager, to do military service.”

Read more

The “Black Code”: Blacks discriminate against other Blacks who socialize with Whites

/3 Comments/in , /by

You know all those ads where Blacks (usually cool and competent) and  Whites (often dorky and behaving weirdly) are hanging out together, often drinking beer while watching football. Best friends forever. The Hollywood/Madison Ave. image of America’s harmonious multicultural future.

Now we all know that this is a fantasy of the people who run the media. But its implausibility derives from not only because White people prefer being with other Whites—the phenomenon of implicit Whiteness. The  same goes for Blacks, and a recent academic paper goes further, showing that Blacks disapprove of Blacks who socialize with Whites (which makes me think that  such commercials are not going to be effective with either race) (“Testing the ”Black Code”: Does Having White Close Friends Elicit Identity Denial and Decreased Empathy from Black In-Group Members?“).

The “Black Code” referred to in the title refers to the attitude among Blacks that ‘‘relationships with whites must be kept at arm’s length maintaining a silent us against them mindset. Blacks who appear too friendly and comfortable around whites are viewed with suspicion; their blackness in question.”

Prior to presenting their own data, the authors review findings that “Blacks, more than any other racial group, show empathy toward members of their in-group.” In the  experiment Black college students (mostly female from an all-Black college) observed a  Facebook page of a White person alone, a Black person alone, and a Black person and a White person in two conditions, with same-race friends or opposite-race friends. Read more