ADL: “Les théoriciens du complot blâment les Juifs pour les événements en Syrie”

/in , /by

Original appeared 26 septembre 2013; English version here 

La “respectable association de défense des droits civils” reprend sa vieille habitude. L’ADL me colle l’étiquette de “théoricien de la conspiration” pour avoir présenté des documents qui montrent le soutien général de la communauté juive organisée au principe d’une attaque militaire américaine contre la Syrie (“ADL: Les théoriciens du complot blâment les Juifs pour les événements en Syrie“). Il y a aussi l’affirmation que je suis un “extrémiste” —ce qui semble curieux, de la part d’une organisation qui prône l’immigration vers les États-Unis de dizaines de millions de personnes venant du monde entier.

Kevin McDonald, un professeur antisémite de psychologie à Long Beach, à l’Université d’État de Californie, a écrit sur L’Occidental Observer un article daté du 2 septembre affirmant que “Le contretemps [qui remet à plus tard l’action militaire en Syrie] donne au Lobby pro-israélien l’occasion d’intensifier ses efforts pour faire grimper les résultats des sondages et pour faire pression sur le Congrès. “

Depuis si longtemps que je suis sur leur liste des pires antisémites, on aurait espéré qu’ils apprennent au moins à écrire mon nom correctement. Leur article ne donne aucun lien vers l’article incriminé écrit par moi, si bien que le lecteur se retrouve seulement avec un nom mal orthographié et un lien vers la fiche écrite à mon sujet sur le propre site de l’ADL (où ils réussissent cette fois à bien écrire mon nom). D’ailleurs, ils ne donnent de lien pour aucun des articles ou vidéos produits par les “extrémistes marginaux et anti-sémites” dont le communiqué de presse de l’ADL dresse la liste — sans doute parce que l’ADL préfère que ses lecteurs ne voient pas ce qu’ils ont dit en réalité. Read more

Soutien général de la communauté juive organisée pour une intervention en Syrie

/in , /by

Original posted 6 septembre 2013; English version here

Patrick Cleburne, du blog VDARE, a écrit un article sympathique à propos de la corruption du Parti républicain par Sheldon Adelson (“Syrie: Pourquoi Boehner et Cantor prennent-ils leur base électorale et leur pays à rebrousse-poil ? Parce qu’ils sont atteints du syndrome ADD ! “). [NdT: ADD = Attention Deficit Disorder (Trouble de Déficit de l’Attention)]. Mais ici en fait, le syndrome ADD signifie Adelson Dollar Disorder. Cette expression désigne le penchant des politiciens républicains (Newt Gringrich en est le meilleur exemple) à se prosterner devant l’argent d’Adelson. Cet argent sert principalement à soutenir ceux qui en Israël se montrent les plus agressifs et les plus portés au nationalisme et au racialisme. Cleburne fait également remarquer qu’Adelson illustre parfaitement l’hypocrisie et les doubles standards qui gouvernent les politiques défendues d’une part pour Israël, où Adelson préconise une clôture frontalière inviolable et l’expulsion des clandestins, et d’autre part pour les États-Unis, où il préconise l’amnistie des clandestins, et aucune expulsion.

Une illusion dont se bercent souvent les Juifs est l’idée de “deux Juifs, trois opinions“ — c’est-à-dire l’idée que les Juifs ont toujours tendance à être en désaccord les uns avec les autres. Mais en fait, sur les questions cruciales telles qu’Israël, l’immigration, le multiculturalisme, et le christianisme sur la place publique, la communauté juive parle d’une seule (et très influente) voix. Cleburne signale un article de Bloomberg qui montre le large soutien juif à l’idée d’attaquer la Syrie. (“Soutien de cercles juifs à l’intervention en Syrie – Adelson, nouvel allié d’Obama“). Ce très large soutien est d’autant plus surprenant que, dans le reste de l’Amérique, le Congrès constate une “opposition record” à l’idée d’un raid aérien.

Les récents sondages montraient déjà le peu d’appétit du peuple américain pour une intervention militaire en Syrie. Un sondage publié mardi par le Pew Research Center estime qu’à peine 29% des Américains approuvent l’idée de raids aériens “suite aux témoignages selon lesquels le gouvernement syrien a utilisé des armes chimiques”. Et le même jour, un sondage Washington Post/ABC donnait un chiffre de 36% d’Américains favorables à des raids aériens. … Le député Alan Grayson (Démocrate de Floride), un opposant virulent aux frappes militaires contre le gouvernement syrien, a déclaré aux journalistes après le briefing de mardi dernier qu’un vote pour le recours à la force militaire en Syrie ne passerait pas. “La Chambre n’est pas d’accord, le peuple américain n’est pas d’accord. Ici, on écoute les électeurs”, a t-il déclaré. “Premièrement, l’opinion publique est totalement contre. Deuxièmement, l’opinion publique est violemment contre.” (“Selon les législateurs américains, les électeurs refusent l’intervention en Syrie – Une opposition plus forte que jamais“) Read more

Review of Paul Gottfried’s “Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America,” Part 2

/1 Comment/in , /by

Part 1.

2. The “Lockean Founding” of the United States

Gottfried is apparently attracted to the anti-rationalist Burkean tradition of conservatism, which in effect claims that history is smarter than reason, therefore, we should take our guidance from historically evolved institutions and conventions rather than rational constructs. This form of conservatism is, of course, dismissed by the Straussians as “historicism.” Gottfried counters that the Straussians

seek to ignore . . . the ethnic and cultural preconditions for the creation of political orders. Straussians focus on those who invent regimes because they wish to present the construction of government as an open-ended, rationalist process. All children of the Enlightenment, once properly instructed, should be able to carry out this constructivist task, given enough support from the American government or American military. (pp. 3–4)

In the American context, historicist conservatism stresses the Anglo-Protestant identity of American culture and institutions. This leads to skepticism about the ability of American institutions to assimilate immigrants from around the globe and the possibility of exporting American institutions to the rest of the world.

Moreover, a historicist Anglo-Protestant American conservatism, no matter how “Judaizing” its fixation on the Old Testament, would still regard Jews as outsiders. Thus Straussians, like other Jewish intellectual movements, have promoted an abstract, “propositional” conception of American identity. Of course, Gottfried himself is a Jew, but perhaps he has the intellectual integrity to base his philosophy on his arguments rather than his ethnic interests

(Catholic Straussians are equally hostile to an Anglo-Protestant conception of America, but while Jewish Straussians have changed American politics to suit their interests, Catholic Straussians have gotten nothing for their services but an opportunity to vent spleen against modernity.) Read more

Review of Paul Gottfried’s “Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America,” Part 1

/1 Comment/in , /by

Paul Edward Gottfried
Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012

Paul Gottfried’s admirable book on Leo Strauss is an unusual and welcome critique from the Right.

Leo Strauss (1899–1973) was a German-born Jewish political theorist who moved to the United States in 1937. Strauss taught at the New School for Social Research in New York City before moving to the University of Chicago, where he was Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor until his retirement in 1969. In the familiar pattern of Jewish intellectual movements as diverse of Psychoanalysis, Marxism, and Objectivism, Strauss was a charismatic teacher who founded a cultish school of thought, the Straussians, which continues to this day to spread his ideas and influence throughout academia, think tanks, the media, and the government.

The Straussians have not, however, gone unopposed. There are three basic kinds of critiques: (1) critiques from the Left, which range from paranoid, middlebrow, journalistic smears from such writers as Alan Wolfe, Nicholas Xenos, and John P. McCormick, to more scholarly critiques by such writers as Shadia Drury and Anne Norton, (2) scholarly critiques of the Straussian method and Straussian interpretations from philosophers and intellectual historians such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Quentin Skinner, and (3) scholarly critiques from the Right.

As Gottfried points out, the Straussians tend only to engage their critics on the Left. This makes sense, since their Leftist critics raise the cultural visibility of the Straussian school. The critics are also easily defeated, which raises Straussian credibility as well. Like all debates within the parameters of Jewish hegemony, the partisans in the Strauss wars share a whole raft of assumptions which are never called into question. Thus these controversies look somewhat farcical and managed to those who reject liberalism and Jewish hegemony root and branch. Read more

Is White Nationalism Real?

/in /by

Theoretically, White Nationalism is the political ideology supporting the formation of a homogenous state or “homeland” for the White race.  Although the definition might vary somewhat, the concept is universally consistent. Obviously the philosophy is real, but is the movement endorsing the dogma a reality?  Is White Nationalism figurative terminology in efforts to make the ideology more socially acceptable (i.e. “I’m a White Nationalist, not a racist”), or is it an actual movement?

First off, simply put, movements move.  Understandably, Rome wasn’t built in a day, but the concept of White Nationalism is nearing the age of needing heart meds (literally and metaphorically).  Excluding a handful of leafleteers and diversity dodgers, the only movement is that of fingers on a keyboard.  The keyboards allow for just enough recycled thought to prevent total ideological stagnation. Through the years, numerous would-be White Nationalists have searched the realms of Cyberia in hopes of finding White camaraderie in their geographical region; only to eventually permanently “log out” after discovering the movement is primarily an internet based phenomenon.  It doesn’t take the intellectual to comprehend keyboard removal will simultaneously induce movement default.

Sure, there will be those in the movement who disagree with my pessimistic observation, but isn’t White Nationalism comprised in racial realism, which is fundamentally supported by social and biological truths? One can’t pick and choose the truths they accept, for the truth doesn’t lie.  As Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Read more

Conversion to White Advocacy: The Social Nexus

/2 Comments/in , /by

Greg Johnson asked me to comment on my conversion to my present political views in his essay on William James’s ideas on religious conversion “The Psychology of Conversion” (December 17, 2013).  I agree with the general point that people who convert have already come to accept a new set of ideas, so that conversion for me was a matter of re-prioritizing beliefs already there. As an evolutionary biologist by training, I was open to the idea that the human mind was shaped by natural selection. I could see that in many ways, particularly in the area of sex differences. But when scientists like J. Philippe Rushton came out with data on race differences in IQ, I saw this work as subject to the same standards of scientific scholarship as any other.

I had long been aware that the opponents of sociobiology were often the same people who made hysterical, blatantly political pronouncements on race differences, and from my days as a graduate student, I was aware that the most prominent among them were Jews in elite academic positions—most notably, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. Much of this then became the focus of Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique, which may be seen as a sort of intellectual, footnoted version of what started out as a gut level reaction to my surroundings and readings as a graduate student in the 1970s.

And at an even more basic level, an appreciation of the process of evolution makes one aware that the name of the game is competition between different gene pools—a basic idea underlying my writing on Judaism from an evolutionary perspective. Again, the same people who were trashing sociobiology and the science of race differences were creating an evolutionary biology of humans in which fitness (what Frank Salter labels “ethnic genetic interests”), particularly relative fitness between groups, didn’t matter at all. Quite frankly, I became very concerned about the future of the people from my gene pool—would we prosper in the future, or even survive at all. Going the way of the dinosaurs is more than an expression. Where are the Samaritans now? The decline of Whites and their culture is happening with breathtaking speed. As humans, we can decide not to play the evolutionary game. But if you don’t play, you lose. Animals instinctively play the game—they are engineered to do nothing else. But at this point and given the importance of culture for humans (the culture of White pathology), White people have to decide that the game is worth playing and that it is morally acceptable to play. Read more

Two Ingroup Morality Items

/4 Comments/in , /by

infiltration_pesach_400As noted ad nauseum at TOO, while Diaspora Jews in the West continue to promote immigration and multiculturalism as intrinsic goods and unquestioned moral ideals, in Israel the whole point of public policy is to retain its Jewish character. The most recent example is shipping to Sweden dozens of African refugees living in Israel. Patrick Cleburne’s account at VDARE says it all:

  • The similar size and ethnic diversity of the two countries means that the only rationale for sending Africans to Sweden is that Sweden cares nothing about retaining a Swedish identity, whereas Israel cares deeply about remaining a Jewish state;
  • While the U.S. government policy on immigration and multiculturalism remains at odds with the interests of the traditional people of the West, especially the working class (so, as Cleburne notes, we can expect many of these African refugees to end up in the U.S.), the Israeli government sticks up for their own people: Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar said he was “not very impressed with all the crying and complaining” by business owners whose employees were on strike. “With all due respect to the restaurant and café owners in crisis, or those whose cleaning staff didn’t show up, this will not determine Israel’s national policy. On the contrary, let’s think about those Israelis who have lost their jobs [to migrant workers].”

Given that immigration and multiculturalism are presented as moral imperatives in the West, this results in a double moral standard—one morality for the ingroup and a quite different morality toward the outgroup; the theme of Jewish moral particularism. Unlike the addiction of the West to moral universalism, Jewish groups behave as a foreign policy realist (or evolutionary psychologist) expects states to behave. They simply pursue their interests with the aim of surviving and prospering.

And that means pursuing radically different strategies depending on whether Jews are a demographic majority or a tiny minority. In the West, the organized Jewish community avidly pursues displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism as tools to render the traditional majorities relatively powerless and incapable of mounting attacks on Jews. In Israel, the goal is to retain Jewish identity and minimize the presence and the influence of non-Jews—goals that are enthusiastically supported by Diaspora Jews and Jewish organizations.

Read more