Le Lobby pro-israélien: Impossible de se cacher

/in , /by

English version here

Article d’origine publié le 25 Janvier 2013

Le site Mondoweiss a reproduit un extrait du discours d’un rabbin, Melissa Weintraub, sur les stratégies utilisées par la communauté juive pour gérer les relations avec Israël. Le problème pour les Juifs est qu’aux États-Unis, ils représentent l’avant-garde de la gauche libérale, pro-immigration, pro-multiculturelle, et anti-blanche, et qu’au même moment, leur pays préféré, Israël, se lance allègrement dans l’apartheid et le nettoyage ethnique. Cela provoque une dissonance cognitive et une grande agitation politique dans la communauté juive. Mais la réaction la plus commune reste simplement la stratégie d’évitement (en deux versions) :

Israël est devenu le motif de division le plus explosif dans la vie juive américaine, selon la plupart des observateurs, journalistes, rabbins, et tous ceux qui baignent dans le milieu. Actuellement, on a 3 façons principales d’aborder Israël.

L’une est l’évitement. Pour presque toutes les associations juives américaines qui sont dans le domaine de la justice sociale… J’étais récemment dans une salle, avec toutes les sommités du mouvement juif de justice sociale, et ils ont tous mis en place pour leur organisation une politique d’évitement du sujet d’Israël. Les rabbins de toutes sectes et tous horizons politiques discutent du “sermon qui tue par allusion à Israël” d’après l’expression de Scott Perlo, un rabbin ordinaire du site 6th and I. Cela signifie qu’un sermon peut parler de tout, sauf d’Israël. On peut parler du système de santé, des armes à feu, ou d’autres questions controversées, mais un seul mot sur Israël et on risque le renvoi. Il semble que chaque jour, une nouvelle organisation interdise le sujet d’Israël sur sa liste de diffusion….

Voilà pour l’évitement, le premier type de réaction… Le premier type est en fait une réponse au second type de réaction, mais je cite l’évitement en premier parce que c’est devenu la réaction la plus répandue…

La deuxième façon habituelle de réagir se caractérise par une agressivité ouverte ; avec dénigrement, diabolisation ; des attaques et contre-attaques dans les éditoriaux, des menaces à propos des sources de financement, des directeurs et conseils d’administration terrorisés et pétrifiés du fait qu’ils sont régulièrement dans des situations impossibles où ils sont désavoués quoi qu’ils fassent. Cela se passe en grande partie hors de vue du public, mais c’est le domaine où j’interviens, et je peux vous dire que j’entends tous les mois des dizaines d’institutions qui ont le même genre de problème.

Et tout aussi destructif, il y a la caricature grossière de l’attitude des autres, la déformation, les citations hors contexte, les procès d’intention, les antagonismes.

Le troisième type de réaction est ce que j’appelle la stratégie d’évitement, version 2.0. Cela consiste à se réunir et faire des conférences avec ceux qui approuvent notre politique particulière, et à rejeter tous les autres comme s’ils étaient loufoques, malveillants, ou dangereux. Se flatter du nombre d’alliés qui sont avec nous, et rejeter tous les autres de façon catégorique et unidimensionnelle. Et cela aussi, c’est de plus en plus courant.

Donc, quel que soit le résultat de la campagne actuelle pour la guerre avec l’Iran, il ne faut pas s’attendre à ce que les Juifs américains renoncent à leur rôle d’épine dorsale de la gauche anti-blanche. Ils auront beau éviter la question, ou vociférer les uns contre les autres, cela n’affectera pas leur attitude envers l’Amérique blanche et les problèmes fondamentaux qui la menacent. Read more

Teaching the World to Sting: Sailer on Feminism and Multi-Culti

/2 Comments/in /by

Steve Sailer has been mining comedy gold in the rich seam of 21st-century feminism:

Feminism: “Feelings / Nothing more than Feelings”

From The Nation, an article about how black feminists scream at white feminists and then other white feminists pile on those vicious racist white feminists. And how “trans” feminists can get very, very upset at the Vagina Monologues-type feminists who actually have vaginas:

… In a revolution-eats-its-own irony, some online feminists have even deemed the word “vagina” problematic. In January, the actress and activist Martha Plimpton tweeted about a benefit for Texas abortion funds called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas,” sponsored by A Is For, a reproductive rights organization she’s involved with. Plimpton was surprised when some offended Internet feminists urged people to stay away, arguing that emphasizing “vaginas” hurts trans men who don’t want their reproductive organs coded as female. …

Reading this more closely, I realize I may have gotten this backward. The protesters may be individuals who have vaginas but are objecting to the cultural stereotypes that encodes vaginas as being – in some socially constructed sense – female. (Feminism: “Feelings / Nothing more than Feelings”, iSteve, 29th January 2013)

The article in question, Michelle Goldberg’s Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars (The Nation, 29th January 2013), is simultaneously funny, freakish, frightening and fascinating. I was particularly struck by this paragraph:

Similarly, there’s a norm that intention doesn’t matter — indeed, if you offend someone and then try to explain that you were misunderstood, this is seen as compounding the original injury. Again, there’s a significant insight here: people often behave in bigoted ways without meaning to, and their benign intention doesn’t make the prejudice less painful for those subjected to it. However, “that became a rule where you say intentions never matter; there is no added value to understanding the intentions of the speaker,” Cross says. Read more

My Question For Sean Hannity

/in /by

The joke by the now-unemployed MSNBC tweeter, who said that the ‘rightwing’ [sic] would hate the new Cheerios ad celebrating miscegenation, wasn’t bad. I smiled, if not guffawed.

You know what’s bad? Amnesty.

The shocked and outraged commentators at Fox News deny that conservatives are racist, save a few bad apples. They strive to show through video clips how monstrously racist the folks at MSNBC are, seeming to save their fiercest wrath for the White-hating ethnomasochist and on-air burper Chris Matthews. (So they are particularly incensed by… a race traitor?! How unenlightened!)

The MSNBC tweeter was partially right: the right wing of course includes some “racists.” That’s what the Fox outrage-discussion is always limited to… “Sure there are maybe three racist conservatives out there…but the rest are PC when it comes to race…and immigration.”

Of course there is never any discussion of racial realism, or of White genocide. This is television. But, this is “conservative” Fox. And on this “conservative” channel, there is hardly even a mention of non-assimilation, balkanization, and the differing attitudes between the native-born and immigrants on a number of issues such as capitalism, government’s role in society, the Constitution, and patriotism. Rarely will a Pat Buchanan or an Ann Coulter get a few words in edgewise about such issues — usually gaining a disapproving look, a saccharine-sweet counter-argument about our ‘propositional nation’ (which is, of course, “A Nation Of Immigrants ®”), and perhaps a quick description of the host’s (Northern European) indigent immigrant grandparents. And then a hard break to the commercial. Read more

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