Deluded and Dangerous: Auster’s Insight Ten Years On

/in /by

Christopher Hitchens was a sociable extrovert who worshiped Leon Trotsky and wrote with all the grace, delicacy and intelligence of a bomb-delivery by the neo-cons. Naturally enough, when he died in 2011 he was honoured around the world in the mainstream media. Larry Auster was a prickly introvert who converted to Christianity and wrote with clarity, vigour and insight. Naturally enough, when he died in 2013 he was ignored by the mainstream media. Hitchens devoted his life to the pursuit of fame; Auster devoted his to the pursuit of understanding. Both men found what they sought. This is Auster writing a decade ago on the roots of multi-culturalism and mass immigration:

Just the other week I was telling a secular, leftist Jew of my acquaintance, a man in his late sixties, about my idea that the only way to make ourselves safe from the specter of domestic Moslem terrorism is to deport all jihad-supporting Moslems from this country. He replied with emotion that if America deported Moslem fundamentalists, it would immediately start doing the same thing to Jews as well. “It’s frightening, it’s scary,” he said heatedly, as if the Jews were already on the verge of being rounded up. In the eyes of this normally phlegmatic and easy-going man, America is just a shout away from the mass persecution, detention, and even physical expulsion of Jews. Given the wildly overwrought suspicions that some Jews harbor about the American Christian majority who are in fact the Jews’ best friends in the world, it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews. (Why Jews Welcome Muslims, Front Page Magazine, 22nd June, 2004) Read more

Review of “Dark Albion” by David Abbott

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Dark Albion
by David Abbott
Sparrow Book Publishers,  £10

There is a long and distinguished tradition of travel books by English authors  such as Patrick Leigh Fermor and Colin Thubron who travelled to exotic and  distant lands and tell of the strange ways of the people who lived there.

It is into this category that Dark Albion — A requiem for the English by David Abbott falls but this native South Londoner has not had to make much of a journey to find himself a stranger in a strange land. Instead he has just had to step outside the door of his house in the London borough of Greenwich and walk around and see how  the streets he grew up in have been utterly transformed by the largest wave of immigration that has ever hit our shores.

This is a story that could be told time and again in communities across England. It is the story of the gradual dispossession of the native English without public debate, without permission, without a shot being fired.

It is a howl of anger from a south London resident outraged at the betrayal of his people by their own elites. Read more

Laura Ingraham KO’s George Will in Amnesty Debate on “FNS”, 2/9/2014

/1 Comment/in , /by

Well, it was awesome to watch: on Fox News Sunday’s February 9th show, the fight card matched up the (normally) well-spoken Pulitzer-prize-winning-columnist, baseball aficionado, political philosopher “Gentleman George” Will against the attractive, blonde, recent-Catholic-convert and brawler Laura Ingraham, the talk-radio host, author, Fox News commentator, and frequent (and often Traditionalist-sounding) fill-in for Conservatism Inc.’s CEO, Bill O’Reilly. The subject: amnesty. Will was bloodied and bowed — sprawled on the mat, and unable to get up, by the end of the go-round on the panel segment.

From his corner, the (typically) articulate Will came out swinging, though a bit wildly, stating the “national interest…is in considerable more immigration.” Ingraham was not thrown off her game by this nonsense from the new Wise Man of Fox, the man who gets even more deference from his coworkers than the House Rabbi at FNC, Charles “I Never Met a War That Might Benefit Israel I Didn’t Like” Krauthammer. (Krauthammer, of course, is a dark, morose, wheelchair-bound former doctor who, very possibly, paralyzed himself after drinking and/or drugging, when he skipped class at Harvard Medical School one day with a friend, to enjoy a spring day in Boston in the early ‘70’s, returned to campus, and – instead of taking a shower, decided to cool off by… diving into a swimming pool.) (?!?)

It was unfortunate that when host Chris (Jewish ethno-nepotism-beneficiary) Wallace read an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial bemoaning Boehner’s “retreat,” which it said would just mean 11 million illegals continuing to work with fake documents, Ingraham did not bring up the fact that the e-Verify system is still not mandated to be used by all US employers! But, she cleaned Will’s clock, all the same. Boy, did she ever! Read more

Victoria Nuland’s family ties: The Permanent Government in action

/6 Comments/in , /by

Intertwined Jewish power families are an important aspect of Jewish history, cementing business relationships by creating networks of close relatives who married only among themselves—e.g., the Court Jews of 17th- and 18th-century Europe (see here, pp 150-152).  We see echoes of that in the contemporary world, as among the neocons.

As with the other Jewish intellectual movements I have studied, neoconservatives have a history of mutual admiration, close, mutually supportive personal, professional, and familial relationships, and focused cooperation in pursuit of common goals. For example, Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of Commentary, is the father of John Podhoretz, a neoconservative editor and columnist. Norman Podhoretz is also the father-in-law of Elliott Abrams, the former head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (a neoconservative think tank) and the director of Near Eastern affairs at the National Security Council. Norman’s wife, Midge Decter, recently published a hagiographic biography of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose number-two and number-three deputies at the Pentagon, respectively, are Wolfowitz and Feith. Perle is a fellow at the AEI. He originally helped Wolfowitz obtain a job with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1973. In 1982, Perle, as Deputy Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, hired Feith for a position as his Special Counsel, and then as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy. In 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz helped Feith obtain an appointment as Undersecretary for Policy. Feith then appointed Perle as chairman of the Defense Policy Board. This is only the tip of a very large iceberg. “Neoconservatism as a Jewish movement” (p. 32)
Ethnic networking and ties cemented by marriage are on display in the flap over Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s phone conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. As VDARE’s Steve Sailer puts it, Nuland is a member of
a talented, energetic [Jewish] family that is part of the Permanent Government of the United States. It doesn’t really matter who wins the Presidential election: some Kagan-Nuland will be doing something somewhere in your name and on your dime.
The Kagan connection is via her husband, Robert Kagan. As noted by Your Lying Eyes, “Robert and brother Fred seem to have strategically implanted themselves in key policy-making positions within the Democratic and Republican party apparatus. Robert is embedded at Brookings, while Fred is ensconsed at AEI.”
So we have another Jewish neocon family tree, beginning with Donald Kagan, a Yale historian whose history of the Peloponnesia War has been used by neocons as a rationale for invasions of countries Israel doesn’t like (see Sailer). Donald Kagan was also a signatory to a 2002 letter to George W. Bush put out by Bill Kristol’s Project for the New American Century (PNAC) equating threats to Israel (Iran, Syria, Iraq) with threats to the U.S.
The next generation, Fred Kagan (American Enterprise Institute) and Robert Kagan (Brookings) are neocon stalwarts as well. (E.g., Donald, Robert and Frederick are all signatories to the neocon manifesto, Rebuilding America’s Defenses (2000), put out by PNAC.)   They and their wives, are all graduates of elite universities and well entrenched in the neocon thinktank/government infrastructure. Fred’s wife Kimberly (nee Kessler) is the head of the Institute for the Study of War and holds typical neocon positions.
And although U.S. policy toward Ukraine likely stems from other issues besides the neocon hostility toward Russia (the latter due to issues such as Putin’s crackdown on the oligarchs and Russia’s support of Israel’s enemies, Iran and Syria), there be little doubt that Nuland’s energetic support of the pro-EU opposition to the Yanukovych government dovetails with the attitudes of her neocon network. Our Permanent Government at work.

Tragedy and Myth in Ancient Europe and Modern Politics

/2 Comments/in , /by

 

“Saturn (Kronos) Devouring His Son”, by Francisco de Goya, 1821

“Saturn (Kronos) Devouring His Son”, by Francisco de Goya, 1821

The following is an abridged version of my speech given at the London Forum, February 1, 2014, London, UK. The video of the whole speech is available here.

When discussing myths we must first agree on the meaning of words and expressions we intend to employ.  We must also certify that we assign to those words an appropriate meaning regardless of our own individual approach to this subject. The word ‘myth’ has a very specific meaning when we deal with the ancient Greek tragedies, or when we study the early Greek theogony or cosmogony.  By contrast, the fashionable expression today, ‘political mythology’ has a very subjective meaning, often laden with strong value judgments and derisory interpretations. A verbal construct such as the ‘myth of modernity’ may be interpreted by many of us as something legitimate when denouncing political and historical lies of the System we live in. Yet to a modern self-proclaimed supporter of the System, enamored with system-supporting myths of permanent economic progress and the like, speaking of the “myth of economic progress” or the “myth of democracy” is an egregious political insult. It is viewed as a sign of someone’s undemocratic behavior — a word used by an undemocratic opponent not worthy of residing in the modern democratic system.  How does one dare mention such a sacrilegious locution as “the myth of modern democracy,” or “the myth of contemporary historiography,” or the myth of progress” without being punished??!  Modern political mythology is usually enforced against free thinkers by means of social ostracism at the best, or penal codes and imprisonment at the worst.

In hindsight when we study the ancient Greek myths with their surreal settings and hyperreal creatures, few of us will accord them any historical veracity or any empirical or scientific value. However, few of us will reject those ancient European myths as an outright lie. Why is that?  In fact, most of us enjoy reading those ancient European myths because most of us are aware not just of their strong symbolic nature, but also of their didactic message. This is the main reason why the ancient myths and sagas are still so popular among White Europeans. Those ancient myths of ours thrive in timelessness; they are meant to go beyond the historical timeframe; they defy any historicity. They are open to anybody’s “historical revisionism” or interpretation.  Hence the reason that ancient European myths or sagas can never be dogmatic; they never require the intervention of the thought police or a politically correct enforcer in order to make themselves readable or credible. Read more

Les liens familiaux de Victoria Nuland: Le Gouvernement Permanent en action

/in , /by

English version here

Article d’origine publié le 9 février 2014

Les familles juives influentes qui s’entrecroisent sont un aspect marquant de l’histoire juive. Elles cimentent les relations d’affaires en créant des réseaux de proches parents qui se marient seulement entre eux. On peut donner l’exemple des Juifs de cour, dans l’Europe du 17e et 18e siècle (voir ici, pp 150-152). On observe des résurgences de ce phénomène dans le monde contemporain, comme par exemple chez les néoconservateurs.

Comme pour les autres mouvements intellectuels juifs que j’ai étudiés, les néoconservateurs sont connus pour l’admiration mutuelle qu’ils se prodiguent entre eux, pour leurs étroits rapports d’entraide mutuelle sur les plans personnel, professionnel, et familial, et pour leur coopération ciblée autour d’objectifs communs. Par exemple, Norman Podhoretz, l’ancien rédacteur en chef de Commentary, est le père de John Podhoretz, un éditeur et chroniqueur néoconservateur. Norman Podhoretz est aussi le beau-père d’Elliott Abrams, l’ancien chef de l’Ethics and Public Policy Center (un groupe de réflexion néoconservateur) et directeur des Affaires du Proche-Orient au Conseil de Sécurité Nationale. La femme de Norman, Midge Decter, a récemment publié une biographie hagiographique du secrétaire à la Défense Donald Rumsfeld, dont les deuxième et troisième adjoints au Pentagone étaient respectivement Wolfowitz et Feith. Perle est membre de l’American Enterprise Institute. Au départ, il a aidé Wolfowitz à obtenir un poste à l’Agence pour le Désarmement et le Contrôle des Armes [Arms Control and Disarmament Agency] en 1973. En 1982, Perle, en tant que secrétaire adjoint [Assistant Secretary] à la Défense pour la politique de sécurité internationale, a engagé Feith comme son conseiller spécial, puis comme secrétaire adjoint suppléant [Deputy Assistant Secretary] pour la Politique des Négociations. En 2001, le secrétaire adjoint [Deputy Secretary] à la Défense Paul Wolfowitz a aidé Feith à obtenir le poste de sous-secrétaire pour la politique [du département de la défense]. Feith a ensuite nommé Perle président du Defense Policy Board [Comité de la Politique de Défense]. Et ce n’est que la pointe d’un très gros iceberg. “Le néoconservatisme en tant que mouvement juif” (p. 32)

Les réseaux et liens ethniques cimentés par le mariage sont mis en évidence par le récent incident concernant la sous-secrétaire d’État Victoria Nuland, et sa conversation téléphonique avec Geoffrey Pyatt, l’ambassadeur américain en Ukraine. Comme le dit Steve Sailer sur le blog VDARE, Nuland est membre d’une

famille [juive] très talentueuse et énergique, qui fait partie du Gouvernement Permanent des États-Unis. Peu importe qui gagne l’élection présidentielle: il se trouvera un Kagan-Nuland pour travailler on ne sait à quoi, on ne sait où, en votre nom et à vos frais.

Le lien avec les Kagan existe via son mari, Robert Kagan. Comme l’ont remarqué Vos yeux qui mentent, “Robert et son frère Fred semblent s’être stratégiquement implantés à des postes clés pour l’élaboration de la politique au sein de l’appareil central des partis Démocrate et Républicain. Robert est incrusté à la Brookings Institution, tandis que Fred est cramponné à l’American Enterprise Institute”.

Nous avons ainsi un nouvel arbre de famille chez les néoconservateurs juifs. Il commence avec Donald Kagan, un historien de l’Université de Yale, dont l’histoire de la Guerre du Péloponnèse a été utilisée par les néoconservateurs pour justifier l’invasion des pays qu’Israël n’aime pas (voir Sailer). Donald Kagan était également signataire de la lettre de 2002 à George W. Bush, rédigée par le PNAC de Bill Kristol (Project for the New American Century – Projet pour le nouveau siècle américain), qui considérait les dangers menaçant Israël (Iran, Syrie, Irak) comme des dangers menaçant l’Amérique.

Dans la génération suivante, Fred Kagan (American Enterprise Institute) et Robert Kagan (Brookings Institution) sont également des piliers du néoconservatisme. (Par exemple, Donald, Robert et Frédéric sont tous signataires du manifeste néoconservateur, Reconstruire les Défenses de l’Amérique, émis par le PNAC en 2000). Eux tous, y compris leurs femmes, sont diplômés d’universités d’élite, et fermement implantés dans l’infrastructure néoconservatrice qui associe gouvernement et groupes de réflexion [think tanks]. La femme de Fred, Kimberly (née Kessler), préside l’Institut pour l’Étude de la Guerre, et défend des positions typiquement néoconservatrices.

Et bien que la politique américaine envers l’Ukraine soit probablement liée à divers problèmes en dehors de l’hostilité des néoconservateurs envers la Russie (hostilité due à divers griefs, comme la répression des oligarques par Poutine, et son soutien à l’Iran et la Syrie, pays ennemis d’Israël), il ne fait pas grand doute que le soutien énergique de Nuland aux opposants pro-européens du gouvernement Ianoukovitch s’accorde bien avec les positions défendues par les réseaux néoconservateurs auxquels elle appartient. Admirez notre gouvernement permanent au travail !

UKIP — Britain’s latest right-turn through a meandering political wilderness

/1 Comment/in , /by

With the European Parliamentary elections imminent, talk of UKIP’s chances of a major breakthrough has reached fever pitch in the mainstream media, with some lauding them as a potential saviour to the British people and their way of life. As is often the case, however, TOO readers have seen several would-be advocates of our culture and heritage succumbing to the all-too-familiar practice of toning down rhetoric, in an ultimately forlorn hope that it will garner wider credibility. Therefore a much more critical appraisal of the party is needed, for amidst the frenzy (which has seen reactions range from enthusiastic praise, to mild approval and in some quarters, outright scathing), a crucial element of critical thought has been largely omitted; many have jumped on their bandwagon and nodded approvingly at what they stand against, but paradoxically, insufficient scrutiny is given to what they actually stand for.

Firstly, it is important to understand why they have risen to prominence, to become acknowledged as England’s third most popular political party, following the capitulation of the Liberal Democrats due to their ill-fated coalition with David Cameron’s “Conservative” party in 2010. While the treachery of New Labour during their 13-year reign of terror has already been comprehensively documented at TOO, it is no co-incidence that it was with the collapse of the BNP that Nigel Farage has taken UKIP from a party perceived merely (but not without merit) as a single-issue, breakaway group of disgruntled, Euro-sceptic conservatives, who bemoan that party’s move to a decidedly more pro-EU centre ground following the internal coup which ousted Margaret Thatcher in 1990. Read more