ADL: “Conspiracy Theorists Blame Jews for Events in Syria”

/1 Comment/in /by

The “respected civil rights organization” is at it again. The ADL labels me a “conspiracy theorist” for documenting the wall-to-wall support of the organized Jewish community for a U.S. military strike on Syria (“ADL: Conspiracy Theorists Blame Jews for Events in Syria.”) There is also the claim that I am an “extremist”—which seems odd coming from an organization that favors the immigration to the U.S. of tens of millions of people from all over the world.

Kevin McDonald, an anti-Semitic professor of psychology at California State University at Long Beach wrote a September 2 article in The Occidental Observer stating that, “The delay [in military action in Syria] provides an opportunity for the Israel Lobby to get into high gear in order to bump up the poll numbers and exert its power over Congress.”

You’d think that after all this time with me being on their Most Wanted list, they could at least spell my name right. The article doesn’t have a link to the offending article by me, which would leave the reader stuck with only a misspelled name and the link to the article about me on the ADL’s website (where they do manage to spell my name right). Indeed, there are no links for any of the articles and videos by the “fringe extremists and anti-Semites” listed in the ADL press release — presumably because the ADL doesn’t want its readers to see what they actually wrote.

The ADL’s ire is directed at an article posted on September 1, “The Israel Lobby and the Organized Jewish Community Want Regime Change in Syria,” where I looked at all the Jewish and (what is more or less the same) neocon websites I could think of to see what they were saying about a war with Syria. This included the ADL, and I noted that the respected civil rights organization had engaged in double talk on Assad’s responsibility and had once again used the Holocaust to establish their moral authority in a morally dubious situation. The only conclusion possible was that the ADL wanted regime change. Since the ADL didn’t complain about that, I guess they agree with my assessment. Read more

Bill Kristol: Israel must save the West

/2 Comments/in /by

It’s amazing to me that anyone with any brains takes neocons seriously. The Weekly Standard crowd shilled for a war with Syria by claiming that  the president must act “to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America” — as if Assad has a battery of ICBM’s ready to rain down terror on America.

Now Bill Kristol is  deeply concerned that peace might break out in the Middle East before the U.S. has destroyed every last enemy of Israel (“From Bad to Worse“). The piece is replete with comparisons to Hitler and  Mussolini, e.g.:

There will be no Rhineland this time. Iran isn’t 1930s Germany, and the United States is more formidable than Britain. For now, Iran will have to achieve its goals by stealth and diplomacy, while Hitler achieved his by bravado and force. But the accommodation of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons lies ahead as surely as the accommodation of Nazi Germany’s expansionist dreams.

They’re going to be stealthy about it, but the next thing you know, the Iranians will be in Cleveland.

Western Civilization is under attack, and as we all know, the neocons are nothing if not devoted to preserving Western Civilization; after all Kristol is a disciple of neocon godfather Leo Strauss.

The only country that can save the West just happens to be Kristol’s favorite country: Israel.

As Iran moves closer to nuclear weapons, undeterred by the West’s leading power, a 21st-century tragedy threatens to unfold. Unless. Unless a dramatis persona who didn’t exist in 1936 intervenes: Israel. Ariel Sharon once famously said that Israel would not play the role of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s. Nor will it play the role of Poland. Despite imprecations from the Obama administration, Israel will act. One prays it will not be too late.

It is a strange course of events, heavy with historical irony, that has made the prime minister of Israel for now the leader of the West. But irony is better than tragedy.

Israel is a Western society? Nothing more than a proposition culture dedicated to democracy and human rights, as the neocons would have it? I think not. Kristol, like Strauss, is a hypocrite: a strong Jewish identity that informs everything he does, while being a leader in pushing the Republican Party to the anti-White left. As we all know, Israel is the Jewish ethnostate, dedicated to an ethnically-based immigration policy, and ethnic cleansing and apartheid for the Palestinians. Would that he advocated that for Western societies.

But like Strauss who reinterprets the past to convince conservatives that Western Civilization has no racial content, Kristol frames Israel as a Western society to convince conservatives that they have a duty to defend it, no matter how Israel behaves. After all, they’re just like us.

The only sense in which Israel is a Western society is that Israel Firsters like Kristol dominate the foreign policy of Western societies. They are the moving force behind the violence unleashed by the West on the  enemies of Israel — the wars that have become the face of the West to the rest of the world. And despite all the high-flown rhetoric about freedom and human rights, it is an ugly face indeed.

Paul Gottfried and Claes Ryn on Leo Strauss

/4 Comments/in , /by

The academic life is probably like many careers in that ultimately you have to find an audience. Professors spend months or years on a major project, then try to get it published in the best possible venue. Then they hope for positive reviews and, ultimately, acclaim and influence. I suspect that if one did a study based on exit interviews of academics as they retired from the profession, not a few of them would express the feeling that the game was somehow stacked against them—that their work did not get the attention it deserved, that it should have been discussed in all the elite intellectual venues—the New York Times Book Review, the New York Review of Books, and ultimately, perhaps, become assigned reading in college courses everywhere. They should have been somebody.

Lots of academics probably feel this way, but no one has so explicitly expressed it quite like Paul Gottfried has. In his recent VDARE.com piece, “Claes Ryn, Allan Bloom, Leo Strauss, and Me,” Gottfried is clearly frustrated. He managed to get his book, Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America, published by an elite academic publisher, Cambridge University Press—no mean feat. But intellectual fame and fortune haven’t happened, and Gottfried is not pleased:

I shall lay my cards on the table. I am outraged at how the usual suspects kept my book from being discussed. Despite my well-known views on certain delicate subjects, I tried to produce a fair study of a difficult topic and bent backward in showing sympathy for the movement’s founder and at least some of his disciples. The successful attempt to white out my work has annoyed me no end.

In order to explain this lack of attention, Gottfried refers to Claes Ryn’s  “Allan Bloom and Straussian Alienation“:

The arguments marshaled by [Claes] Ryn indicate, as does my book, why Straussians reign in the NYT’s Sunday Book Review Section as well as in Conservatism, Inc. Although Ryn does not make this last point explicitly, perhaps for fear of reprisal, a fuller explanation is at least implicit in what he does tell us. His comments may also explain why my book, initially marketed by Cambridge with high hopes and considerable promo, received absolutely no attention in the national Main Stream Media.

For fear of the Straussians.

So how have the Straussians been able to dominate all the high ground of American culture? And in particular, how they have managed to completely co-opt what passes for conservatism? These questions are not really answered by either Gottfried and Ryn, but there are hints. Both emphasize that Straussian ideology has functioned to pave the way for a new elite with no ethnic or cultural ties to the old elite by conceptualizing America as a proposition nation without specific ethnic or religious roots. Given the very large role of Jewish intellectuals among the new elite, the motivation is obvious: If one doesn’t share the ethnic, religious, and historical roots of a society but wants to be accepted as the new intellectual elite, then define the society as having no ethnic, religious, or historical roots. Ryn notes that

the desire to have America be something different from its historical past and to make it perhaps also more palatable to an aspiring new elite is probably most evident and explicit in Bloom’s fellow Straussian Harry Jaffa. Jaffa has made a career of asserting that America must not, repeat, not, be understood as owing anything of importance to an old historical heritage. It must be seen as born out of a radical break with the past and as based on abstract principles of an essentially Lockean cast—Lockeanism understood concomitantly as a departure from earlier thought.

The subterfuge of the Straussians was to attempt to locate this proposition culture in the deep wellsprings of Western culture in order to make it more palatable to conservatives, a position that required them to completely disregard normal standards of scholarship. Thus Plato is presented as an ardent democrat. Ryn:

Allan Bloom contends that Plato, whose iconic status and authority he would like to invoke on behalf of his own beliefs, is markedly different from how a long tradition of classicist scholarship has understood him. Contrary to all appearances, Plato is not scornful of democracy and democratic man. He is a democrat in disguise.

Indeed, in the hands of the Straussians, all of Western philosophy comes down to alienation from society and from tradition—an odd proposal to say the least, and here Ryn also mentions the Frankfurt School as completely on board with the Straussians. The tension arises from the fact that rejection of society and tradition are usually considered to be of the left. As Ryn notes,  “in their disparagement of tradition [they] resemble the open, unqualified left.” In place of tradition and ethnic or cultural particularity, these philosophers opt for universalist abstractions in which the White race or Christianity are excluded as significant categories. Read more

O Lobby Israelense e a comunidade judaica organizada querem mudança de regime na Síria

/in , /by
Tradução e i
O presidente Obama agora está dizendo que sua administração decidiu atacar a Síria mas vai buscar a aprovação do Congresso para fazê-lo. Isto cria uma situação realmente interessante se o Congresso não concordar, como parece bem possível.
A ideia de Obama ordenar um ato de guerra contra a Síria sem apoio internacional significativo e sem um mandado do Congresso sempre foi uma coisa espantosa. Eis aqui nosso presidente de extrema-esquerda advogando mais outra guerra no Oriente Médio depois de se opor à guerra no Iraque quando era senador. O mesmo presidente que tem uma relação gélida com Benjamin Netanyahu e repetidas vezes ficou aquém das exigências do lobby israelense.

Hope on a Rope: Another Blackout in the British Media

/1 Comment/in /by

Like most people, I have a number of quiet ambitions. I’d like to learn the piano, climb the Matterhorn and understand the point of cricket, for example. I’d also like to have Tony Blair hanged. The charge would be high treason, but it would be impossible to name all his victims at his trial. He would die of old age long before the verdict. The war-toll in Iraq and Afghanistan would be enough on its own, but I’m most concerned with my own people. Thousands of White Britons have been murdered, raped or badly injured by the vibrant hordes who poured in when New Labour slyly and secretly opened the borders. Billions of dollars continue to be stolen by or wasted on the incomers. Blair is perhaps the biggest traitor the United Kingdom has ever known, which is why he is now being rewarded so lavishly by the hostile elite.

Tony Blair: Traitor, War-Criminal, Friend of Israel

Tony Blair: Traitor, War-Criminal, Friend of Israel

Thanks to his status and his millions, Blair is surrounded by twenty-four-hour security, so he doesn’t need to worry about close encounters with the vibrancy he has unleashed on ordinary Whites. But it turns out that his daughter Kathryn isn’t so lucky. While out with a group of friends in London — The World’s Most Multi-Culti City — she was threatened at gunpoint by muggers. The story has been in all the papers and the London Metropolitan police are seeking witnesses to the crime.

What details are available? Well, there were two criminals. Both were male. Oh, and we’re told what they were wearing:

A Met spokesman said: “The victims were a man and a woman; the suspects were two males.” Police said one of the suspects was wearing dark clothing and a balaclava, while the other had a scarf wrapped round his face. Officers believe the incident is linked to another attempted robbery which happened in Boston Place about 30 minutes earlier. The earlier episode involved a female victim and a male suspect. (Tony Blair’s daughter Kathryn held at gunpoint in attempted robbery, BBC News, 19th September 2013)

No-one will need telling what this censorship means. The British media are once again concealing a very important truth: that Blacks and other non-Whites: a) commit a hugely disproportionate amount of violent crime; and b) direct that violent crime disproportionately against Whites.

So yes, I’d certainly like to see Tony Blair hanged, but I’d also like to see a lot of liberal editors and journalists on trial with him. I don’t demand the rope for them: long sentences in Third-World jails would be more appropriate. Liberalism is based on lies about human nature and is destroying the West with its lies. Without the internet, liberals would be winning by omission very successfully. With the internet, the fight has gotten a lot less one-sided. So I am hopeful that Blair will pay the price for his treachery one day.

I’m a lot less hopeful about liking cricket.

NKVD: Excerpt from Sergei Semanov, The Russian Club

/in , /by

Editor’s note: The horrific events of the first decades of the Soviet Union are an object lesson in the likely consequences of an ethnic majority being ruled by ethnic outsiders, especially ethnic outsiders with historical grudges. As discussed repeatedly on TOO, the West is entering a very dangerous period because its elites have shown repeatedly that they are hostile to its traditional people and culture and that a major aspect of the strategy of these elites is to import millions of ethnic outsiders, lessening the power of European-derived majorities, encouraging non-assimilation, and thus setting the stage for a very grim future for the traditional peoples of the West.

Nationalities of NKVD Purge Officials Identified

By Sergei Semanov

Translated and edited by Dan Michaels from Sergei Semanov, The Russian Club: Why the Jews Will Not Win. Algoritm Publisher, Moscow, 2012, pp. 169-179.

Following is the official list of the most notorious NKVD officials operating during the Stalinist purges (1934-1938) under Yagoda and Yezhov. By the time Beria took charge of the NKVD in 1940 hardly a single individual from the original list remained alive. On Stalin’s order, most of the purgers were – in time – themselves purged, thereby leaving no witnesses to incriminate the top political leaders.

In November 1935 NKVD agents were assigned military ranks, like those in the Red Army. Yagoda, the head of the NKVD, was the only official to receive the highest SS (State Security) rank of marshal-general, the others received “general” ranks, i.e., SS Commissar of the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd ranks. The following individuals initiated and conducted the Great Purge from 1936 to 1938, but by 1941 only two of the original purgers still remained alive and Stalin was at liberty to replace the NKVD leadership with Beria’s Georgian mafia. Read more

Sergei Semanov and the “Russianists”

/1 Comment/in , /by

semanovRecently deceased Sergei Semanov (1934–2011), Russian writer and editor, was at times in his life a Stalinist, a critic of the post-Stalinist Soviet governments, an historian, and a public political commentator closely associated with the nationalist Russian political parties and the Russian Club, all of which peaked in popularity in the late 1960s under General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev. The Russian people generally approved of Brezhnev’s 18-year rule (1964–1982). Although known derisively in the West as a period of stagnation, it gave the people time finally to take stock of Russia’s postwar position in the world and plan for a future such as circumstances would permit.

However, even these early subdued expressions of the Russian people’s desire to influence the governance of their country ended abruptly when newly appointed Secretary General Yuri Andropov, an enemy of the nationalists whom he called “Russianists,” had Semanov arrested, interrogated in Lefortovo prison, removed from all his editorial and writing positions, and threatened with expulsion from the Party for the crime of propagating dangerous, possibly treasonous nationalist ideas.

Following the deaths of Stalin and Beria and the gradual disappearance of the military heroes of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR was obliged to choose new leaders to manage the affairs of the Russian State in the nuclear age. Unfortunately, because of the enormity of the wartime destruction and the dearth of energetic youthful Party leaders possessing even a fraction of the stature and authority of Stalin, the Soviet Union found itself lacking strong leadership. Although many native Russian intellectuals personally despised Communism, they nonetheless continued to support it as State doctrine for fear that many of the peripheral countries taken over hundreds of years by the Imperial Russian Empire would break away from Moscow if the combined centripetal forces of Moscow, the Party, and State security were not kept strongly in evidence. This façade of the all-powerful USSR was retained as a protective shield even though Russia was bereft of strong leadership, an effective economy, a reliable agricultural base, and a unified nation.

The enigmatic subtitle of Semanov’s posthumous The Russian Club: Why the Jews Will Not Win refers to a clandestine society of Russian intellectuals – members of the so-called Russian Club.[1] Semanov was one of the Club’s founding officers who met weekly from the 1960s to the early 1980s to discuss the existing state of native Russian cultural and political affairs, often critical of the official Marxist government positions. So influential had the Russian Club become by 1981 that it can take some credit for the collapse of Communism. Read more