On the Moral Code: An Exchange among Lasha Darkmoon, E. Michael Jones, and Kevin MacDonald

/293 Comments/in , /by

This is an online discussion between E. Michael Jones and Lasha Darkmoon on the moral code, arising out of a brief exchange of ideas on the same subject between E. Michael Jones and Kevin MacDonald in Culture Wars magazine. Following the original discussion as it appeared in Culture Wars (reprinted with permission), MacDonald appends a comment.

E. MICHAEL JONES: It was kind of Professor MacDonald to respond to my critique of his writing in Jewish Nazis, but I don’t feel that he has made me want to change what I said. His claim that “My moral sense certainly does not come from Catholicism but is intimately tied up with evolutionary thinking” is preposterous.

It is impossible to derive the moral order from biology much less evolution, which is an ideology which attempts to use biology to justify capitalism. From an evolutionary point of view, KMac should be a philosemite. Haven’t the Jews won out in the struggle for existence in the United States, and therefore, the world? His evolution undermines his morality and vice versa. He reminds me of Adam Smith, whose insights into economics were vitiated by his ideological commitment to moral Newtonianism, the English ideology of his day.

According to Georg Ratzinger, the Jews succeeded in getting the economy of states like Austria and Hungary under their control, not because they were more intelligent (or had “higher IQs than Caucasians,” as Professor MacDonald claims) but because their internalization of Talmudic culture had allowed them to become “skilled in the deceptions of economic warfare”. Read more

California Assembly Attempts to Stifle Reasonable Debate on Israel and Jewish Power

/191 Comments/in , /by

First Amendment protection of speech liberals don’t like is under siege. Leading the charge is Prof. Jeremy Waldron, whose book was ably dismantled by Jared Taylor (“Why we should ban ‘Hate Speech’“; see also Anthony Hilton’s “‘Hate’ Laws” on Waldron’s earlier work). It’s clear that the entire focus of Waldron’s ire is the hurt feelings (“dignity”) of the targets of speech. As both Taylor and Hilton point out, in Waldron’s world true statements about group characteristics would be subject to ban. The outrageous basis for this is the claim that any departure from liberal orthodoxy—e.g., that races have the same talents and abilities and that multiculturalism is just wonderful for everyone—are so obviously false that they can easily be banned without any loss to legitimate debate. Waldron claims that  “In fact, the fundamental debate about race is over—won; finished.” Race is “no longer a live issue.” Taylor summarizes Waldron’s position:

Diversity is glorious, the races are interchangeable, and any white who wants to live among other whites is a hatemonger. Professor Waldron would say that these ideas are now part of the “settled features” of our way of life, and so to crush dissent takes nothing away from the search for truth or legitimate debate.

Throughout the Western world, Jewish organizations are the main force in favor of this sort of legislation (“The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?“). From the Jewish perspective, such legislation has several benefits, not the least of which is to ban honest, fact-based discussions of Jewish power and Israeli behavior. This can be seen in a recent resolution, adopted without debate by the California Assembly: House Resolution 35: Relative to Anti-Semitism. Introduced by two Jewish legislators, the bill artfully includes behaviors that would be illegal in any case (e.g., physical aggression against Jews) with a whole slew of items whose intention is to shut down open debate about Israeli behavior and Jewish power in America. The key section: Read more

Elena Kagan’s “diversity problem” and Jewish privilege

/388 Comments/in , , , /by

The reaction to the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court in 2010 was a case study in how taboos are maintained in our society regarding the 600-pound gorilla of Jewish power. It is not just that little was said about the fact that she would be the third Jewish justice on the nine-member court in a country barely two percent Jewish, leaving the majority-Protestant country without a Protestant on the high court. It is not just that she was generally lacking in qualifications for the appointment and for pretty much every other job she has ever gotten. What was really interesting was how the Jewish media diverted attention from the phenomenon of Jewish power and privilege by raising the specter of White privilege. And when I say specter, I really mean ghost, because White privilege for all intents and purposes is dead and gone, as the Elena Kagan nomination “controversy” illustrates.

When Obama was set to make his second nomination for the Supreme Court, Kagan’s selection was neither a surprise nor ever seriously in doubt. She had already been on the short list of candidates to fill the first vacancy, which eventually went to Sonia Sotomayor. There were some voices raised, mostly on the “right,” regarding Kagan’s complete lack of judicial experience and her relative lack of courtroom experience. However, the truly interesting objections were raised by observers on the “left” regarding the lack of “diversity” in her recruitment of professors while she was the dean of Harvard Law School.

The liberal on-line magazine Salon published an article by four law professors from less prestigious schools noting that all but one of the 32 tenure-track professors hired while Kagan was dean were White. These professors, two of whom were black, one south Asian, and one with a half-Hispanic hyphenated surname (Luis Fuentes-Rohwer), make seven references to Whites in their 1679-word piece, yet never once use the word “Jew.” Read more

Chris Matthews: Reality Check on Racial Fantasies

/363 Comments/in , /by

If you ever had any doubts about how out of touch with reality MSNBC’s media pundits are on race then look no further than Schlock-Meister Chris Matthews and the Chutzpah-challenged crew at MSNBC during the recent coverage of the Republican National Convention in Tampa, which includes convicted slanderer and race hustler Al Sharpton. (For a good report on Sharpton, see here.)

What was once a suspected case of cerebral hypoxia seems more like cerebral anoxia — not merely a reduction but complete lack of oxygen flow to the brain of the ever-obnoxious Matthews. MSNBC producers should keep fully stocked oxygen tanks on the set of Hardball — not that, in the final analysis, it would make much of a difference to the brain-dead political hacks at the far-Left network.

For starters, Matthews claimed that any reference to Obama’s Chicago connection was racist because it’s a code word for poor Blacks. “They keep saying Chicago … have you noticed?  They keep saying Chicago.  That’s another thing that sends that message—this guy’s helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the ‘burbs.” His guest, John Hielemann of New York Magazine completed the thought by noting there are a lot of Black people in Chicago.

The mind-boggling dishonesty reached a new delusional realm on Tuesday evening when Matthews was wound tighter than a Joan Rivers’ facelift. In an unrestrained rant on welfare—viewed by liberals view as an unmentionable topic —— Matthews tied Mitt Romney to Ronald Reagan, George Wallace and David Duke because “they all talked about welfare.” (In reality, racially aware politicians simply connected with middle class Whites on an implicit level, which reflected the negative experience of many Whites. Ronald Reagan’s campaign stops in 1980, certainly his swing through Louisville, Kentucky, would have given Matthews cardiac arrest with his appeals to White voters with themes like “welfare queens, opposition to busing and big government.) Read more

For the GOP, Turning Right Means Turning White—No Matter How It Looked on Tuesday Night

/98 Comments/in /by

There is a lot of angst out there about the racialization of American politics and in particular that the GOP has become a White people’s party. As noted in “The Republicans’ Last Hurrah,” the basic racial politics of the election come down to Romney needing at least 61% of the White vote to win and for Whites to make up 74% of the electorate.

Then, in a New York Times article entitled, “Making the Election about Race,” Thomas Edsall noted that the Romney-Ryan campaign not only understands the need to appeal to Whites but is acting accordingly. “The Republican ticket is flooding the airwaves with commercials that develop two themes designed to turn the presidential contest into a racially freighted resource competition pitting middle class white voters against the minority poor.”

Of course, it’s not just the minority poor. Edsall still lives in a world where all non-Whites are poor, kept in poverty by those evil White folks. (Probably part of the job description at the NYTimes.) In fact, at least 80% of all non-Whites are expected to vote for Obama. It’s the non-Whites versus the Whites, with a lot of working class Whites voting Republican and a lot of well-off non-Whites voting for Obama (such as Jews, 80% of whom voted for Obama in 2008). In 2008, only 40% of Whites with less than a college education voted for Obama, whereas 83% of the non-White working class voted for Obama (see here).

According to Edsall, the two themes of Romney’s ads are:

  • Accusing President Obama of gutting the work requirements enacted in the 1996 welfare reform legislation; and
  • Alleging that  Obama has taken $716 billion from Medicare. Read more

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 2

/68 Comments/in , , , , /by

Go to Part I.

The Cousinhood on the World Stage.

In 1847, London’s Jewish community had produced a statement for public consumption stressing that the election of Lionel de Rothschild would represent nothing more than the election of another politician who would work for “the welfare of the nation, and the prosperity of his country.”[33] However, later actions by members of the Cousinhood who had taken places in the legislature and in government would provide cause for pondering precisely which nation was being referred to. David Feldman has revealed that entry into the legislature facilitated greater Jewish involvement in the administration of the British Empire, and that the Cousinhood was involved in a succession of financial and political scandals which had at their root “family and religious connections,” “the pursuit of profit,” and attempts to “influence colonial affairs when it deemed [global] Jewish interests were at stake.”[34]

By 1900, through a process of ethnic and familial networking, the Cousinhood had secured many of the most significant administrative positions in the Empire. Feldman notes that the Nathan family alone had by that date secured the positions of Governor of the Gold Coast, Hong Kong and Natal, Attorney-General and Chief Justice in Trinidad, Private Secretary to the Viceroy of India, Officiating Chief Secretary to the Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam,  and Postmaster-General of Bengal.[35] In Parliament, Lionel Abrahams was Permanent Assistant Under-Secretary at the India Office, working under his cousin Edwin Montagu who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for India.[36] Read more

The Republicans’ Last Hurrah?

/266 Comments/in /by

In ‘The New Math’ Ronald Brownstein once again rehashes the dismal future of the Republican Party (see TOO articles on Brownstein and the racialization of American politics). This time he produces an exercise in number crunching showing why 2012 may be the last election in which White (read non-Jewish, European-derived) voters can determine who will be the next President of the United States of America.

Here’s the demographic electoral calculus:

  • Assumption, if not Truism, Number 1 — at least since the 1968 election, the Republicans have been the ‘implicitly White’ party, receiving around 90% of their votes from Whites; the Democrats, the ‘implicitly non-White’ (minority) party.
  • Number 2 – The factors that determine a winner in American presidential elections are turnout and support.
  • For Obama in 2012 and Democratic presidential candidates to follow, the winning formula reduces to 80/40 — get 80 percent of the minority vote and at least 40% of the White vote — provided minority turnout meets or exceeds the 26% of the vote it made up in 2008. Because the Romney-Ryan ticket is about the most egregiously White ticket imaginable, the non-White vote may be even higher than 80% for Obama. (Recall the aversion of the NYTimes’ Lee Siegal to Romney and his large White family.) And it won’t help that Ryan has a reputation for fiscal austerity—not exactly a winning formula for non-White voters dependent on government benefits. Indeed, Romney ads have accused Obama of easing the work requirement for welfare in order to appeal to his “base.”   (However, Ryan is advertising that he has a Black girlfriend and a Black sister-in-law, presumably to show his heart’s in the right place when it comes to Blacks.)
  • For Romney, in 2012 and Republican candidates to follow, the winning formula is 61/74 — he must get at least 61 percent of the White vote and Whites must turn out in high enough numbers to make up 74 percent of the votes cast on November 6th — with the caveat that minority voters aren’t enthusiastic enough about Obama and the Democrats or angry enough at Romney and the Republicans to up their turnout.
  • Hence the critical importance of ‘easing’ voter registration procedures and extending the Voting Rights Act for all eternity on the part of Dems and of insuring ‘ballot integrity’ and chipping away at the Act on the part of the GOP. Forget ‘Fast-and-Furious’; this is what the fight over Attorney General Eric Holder is really all about. If Obama gets over 80% of the minority vote, he could win re-election with less than 38% of the White vote! Read more