Justice Denied: Thoughts on Truth, ‘Canards’ and the Marc Rich Case: Part One of Two

/in , , /by

‘When someone does you wrong, do not judge things as he interprets them or would like you to interpret them. Just see them as they are, in plain truth.’
Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book Four: Verse Eleven.

In my humble opinion, one of the most intriguing features of the posturing of the Anti-Defamation League, and other Jewish ethnic activist organizations, is their frequent discussion of what they call ‘canards.’ There are, I am informed, many ‘canards’ ranging from allegations that ‘the Jews’ killed God and mutilated communion wafers, to allegations that Jews control the media and have inordinate influence in the areas of culture and politics.

For many years I had been vaguely aware of this list of ‘canards’, and one or two things had consistently bothered me about it. For a start, the many attempts by Jewish writers to lay emphasis on the importance and impact of superstition appeared to me to be little more than crude efforts to shift the blame for ethnic conflict onto Christianity and an allegedly ‘irrational’ populace, and away from some of the harsher realities of resource competition in the Middle Ages. While I have no doubt that the so-called ‘Blood Libel’ contributed to violent actions taken against Jews, I have never been convinced that this charge, and others like it, was in any way sufficient in itself to spark violence. Even adopting the mentality of the age, thickly populated with tales of spectres and demons, it is difficult to imagine that the animosity which arose was rooted solely in such charges.

In fact, I am completely convinced by the theory of respected historian and folklorist Gillian Bennett, who argues that “where accusations of ritual murder were made in this period…it is more probable that they were cause celebres around which anti-Jewish feeling could crystallize, rather than the cause of anti-Semitism in the first place.”[1] The posturing of Jewish ethnic activists about the ‘potency’ of this particular set of ‘canards’, both in the past and the present, can be attributed to their desire to deceive others and themselves. Read more

Heather MacDonald on the corruption of the new hostile elite that runs the University of California

/1 Comment/in /by

At TOO we often emphasize that the new elite is not only hostile but corrupt. Usually, our main culprit is Jewish ethnic networking, but it extends far beyond that. Heather MacDonald has a great article on the corruption of the University of California by the new multicultural elite (“Multiculti U.: The budget-strapped University of California squanders millions on mindless diversity programs“).

For an alternative view, which blames Gov. Ronald Reagan’s actions in 1969 for UC’s current problems (!!!), see “Reagan and the fall of UC” by Seth Rosenfeld (LATimes, 5/10/2013.) Rosenfeld ignores the budget crisis since 2008 and the massive diversity bureaucracy and lowered standards for faculty and students targeted by MacDonald. Obviously intended to promote his book (which condemns the FBI’s  role in resisting 1960s student radicalism), Rosenfeld paints a fantasy world where one might be led to believe that UC is being destroyed by a shadowy conspiracy put into motion by Reagan and somehow continuing to the present despite the fact that California is Exhibit A for the dominance of the multicultural left throughout state government. As MacDonald shows, this dominance of the multicultural left is obvious at UC (and, one might add, pretty much every other American university).

There is so much to like in MacDonald’s article, beginning with her comments on Peter Schrag, an op-ed writer for the Sacramento Bee, who claimed that the university needs more money so that it can pass on the tradition of a whole lot of dead White folks. MacDonald responds:

Stingy state taxpayers aren’t endangering the transmission of great literature, philosophy, and art; the university itself is. No UC administrator would dare to invoke Schrag’s list of mostly white, mostly male thinkers [including Madison and Jefferson,  Melville, Dickinson and Hawthorne; Shakespeare, Milton and Chaucer; Dante and Cervantes; Charlotte Brontë and Jane Austen; Goethe and Molière; Mozart, Rembrandt and Michelangelo; Plato and Aristotle, Homer and Sophocles and Euripides,  Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky] as an essential element of a UC education; no UC campus has sought to ensure that its undergraduates get any exposure to even one of Schrag’s seminal thinkers (with the possible exception of Toni Morrison), much less to America’s founding ideas or history.

Rather than requiring a focus on Western civilization, the only undergrad requirement at Berkeley is  a course involving “theoretical or analytical issues relevant to understanding race, culture, and ethnicity in American society” administered by “Berkeley’s ever-expanding Division of Equity and Inclusion.” Read more

Opposition to Koch Brothers’ media ownership

/in , /by

Recently I posted an optimistic article on non-Jewish media and would-be media owners. A centerpiece was that the Koch brothers, while far from ideal for those advocating White interests, were serious about buying the Los Angeles Times and several other high-profile newspapers (“Non-Jewish media owners: Hope for the future“). No surprise that the Koch brothers bid is getting quite a bit of opposition from the left, described in prominent articles in both the LA Times and the New York Times. The opposition is coming from public employee unions, from liberals in the California State Legislature, and a well-funded activist organization.

A letter from the unions to Bruce Karsh, the president of the company that is the largest present shareholder, stated that the Koch brothers were “”anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-public education and anti-immigrant.” As noted in the above article, there is no evidence that the Koch brothers are anti-immigrant, and aren’t all these issues open to more than one point of view?

Darrell Steinberg, President Pro Tem of the California State Senate said,   “I believe newspapers are a public trust. The Los Angeles Times has a long and respected tradition of community leadership and impartiality. The Koch brothers have a long and demonstrated history of a rigid political ideology.”

For anyone familiar with the LATimes, calling it impartial is ridiculous. It would be more accurate to label it far left, most notably for being completely on board with open borders, amnesty, and citizenship for anyone who wants to come to America.

The argument of the unions is just as far-fetched. Since they are public employee unions, none of their members would ever work for the LATimes. But public employee pension deals are well-known to be the major cause of California’s dire fiscal situation and these unions are very generous with political donations to all levels of California politics, so it’s nice to have liberals in charge of the media. The unions have threatened to remove pension funds from the financial management company that now owns the Times.

And of course there’s an activist movement called Courage Campaign headed by Rick Jacobs that takes out ads urging subscribers to cancel subscriptions.

But the good news is that there would likely be legal issues if a public company took a lower bid, since it would not be in the shareholders’ interests.

The bottom line is that the liberal bias of the media is far from an accident. Notice that there is no campaign against Rupert Murdoch, who is seen as a conservative and has also been mentioned as a possible buyer. Murdoch’s views on immigration and Israel apparently make him entirely acceptable to liberals. And rest assured that the bid from Eli Broad and Ron Burkle will not run into any problems at all from the activists.

The Pareto Principle In Racial Nationalist Activism

/1 Comment/in , /by

A concept of great utility for racial nationalist activism is the so-called “Pareto Principle” or the “rule of 80/20.”  Put briefly, the Pareto Principle states that 80% of effects come from only 20% of causes.  Although the specific 80:20 ratio, or an approximation of it, is often observed with various phenomena, we should not get too focused on the specific numbers.  Instead, focus on the general principle: the large majority of effects are the result of a small minority of causes, and the majority of causes result in only a small marginal increase in the effects.  The link above gives examples which illustrate the point quite well; for example, in business, one would expect to find 20% of customers being responsible for 80% of the sales.  I believe that this principle holds true for racial nationalist activism as a whole, and also holds true for specific issues within the wider scope of racialist activism.

Does most “movement” “activism” do any good?  All the blog posting and endless commenting, online debating and flamewars, ethnic fetishism, Gnostic traditionalism, esoteric nitpicking, Hitlerian hobbyism, etc. — does it actually achieve anything?  Do the majority of “activists” actually positively and productively contribute to the cause?  Or, is it more accurate to say that activist productivity is derived from the work of a minority, that the focused work of this minority produces what little progress the “movement” has, while the vast bulk of activity is irrelevant, or even counter-productive?

We have limited resources and are up against globalist elites and organized ethnics with enormous resources at their disposal.  In this mismatched battle, only high efficiency, smart tactics, thoughtful strategy, and a focused effort on productive activity can have any hope whatsoever of achieving our objectives.  It is clear, therefore, that the Pareto Principle applies to racial nationalism. A careful consideration of how to better and more efficiently apply our efforts will be all to the good.  Can we more effectively utilize our time, money, effort, and other resources to actualize our goals in the most productive manner possible? Read more

Muslims dominate the natives on the streets of Norway

/8 Comments/in , , , /by

Gates of Vienna has an article showing just how unfathomably bad things are in Norway as a result of immigration and multiculturalism (“Everything You Have Learned in School Is Wrong“). The main story is the familiar one throughout the West: elites encourage immigration and are able to avoid the costs. As noted in Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech,  the costs are paid by those who can’t flee the areas impacted by immigration.  In Norway

well-off natives can afford to move to safe, pleasant white enclaves, where they may send their children to school among white native speakers of Norwegian. Less affluent citizens are not so fortunate, however, and are forced to endure the humiliation and degradation of the Multicultural behavioral sink in which their political masters have consigned them to live.

The costs for the less fortunate are dramatic. The article is important because it shows how aggressive the Muslim immigrants are, especially against the native boys. This is a Darwinian dominance struggle between males.

At TOO we often emphasize the individualism of Western societies and the collectivism of pretty much the  rest of the  world. This dichotomy is much on display here: Muslims have large social networks based on kinship and they are aggressive in groups, whereas they are cowardly when alone. The result is a very clear dominance hierarchy, with the natives at the bottom and groups of Muslims at the top. One of the informants, Andreas, says

“There is a hierarchy, where ethnic Norwegian boys are on the bottom rung on the ladder. They will be targeted unless they accede to their rules, if they don’t they become Norwegian immigrants. If a Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has is a single parent.”

An astute commenter on the article writes: “That atomisation and isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive conservative political dogma, is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.”

The  article makes clear that not only are the Norwegians forced to encounter  hostile gangs of Muslims without social support from friends and relatives, they get no support from the schools (which accommodate Muslim culture and excuse Muslim aggression as resulting from war in their native countries) or the media (which refuses to publish accounts of the reality of life on the streets). (It should also be noted that the justice system fails native Norwegians by giving out lenient punishment and failing to invest resources against the epidemic of Muslim men raping Norwegian women). Read more

Samuel Goldman on Nathaniel Rich: “mild nepotism” or ethnic networking?

/in , /by

Jewish ethnic networking has been a theme at TOO, ranging from appointments to the Supreme Court (notoriously, Elena Kagan), admissions to elite universities, the world of art (e.g., Mark Rothko), literature (e.g., pro-Israel writers Shani Boianjiu and Risa Miller), and philosophy (e.g., Spinoza). Not to mention the intellectuals discussed in The  Culture o f  Critique.

Now comes an article by Samuel Goldman in The American Conservative “Mild Nepotism and the Illusion of Meritocracy,” the point of which is that the path of Nathaniel Rich to fame and fortune in the literary world has been greatly aided by having a “famous name and the connections that often go along with it.” Rich is the son of former New York Times columnist Frank Rich who has come to the attention of TOO several times, including for a piece of Jewish triumphalism in which, like the New York Times editorial page, he eagerly looks forward to an America with a White minority.

Goldman cites Margaret Sullivan’s comment in the Times:

It’s beginning to feel like Nathaniel Rich Month at The Times. The author’s new novel was reviewed in the Arts section on April 10, then again in the Sunday Book Review on April 14. Mr. Rich also wrote an essay for the Sunday Book Review, with many references to that novel, “Odds Against Tomorrow.” In addition, the Editors’ Choice section of the Sunday Book Review listed Mr. Rich’s novel second on its list.

Read more

The new immigration assault on White America: The hostile elite on steroids

/6 Comments/in , , , /by

In my research on the history of American immigration policy up to the watershed year of 1965, one thing that stood out was that the Jewish approach was that policy should not be tailored to meet the needs of the U.S. but to conform to the loftiest of moral principles—altruism by any other name. The testimony of  Simon H. Rifkind, who represented a very broad range of Jewish organizations in the hearings on the McCarran-Walter bill in 1951, says it all.

1. Immigration should come from all racial-ethnic groups:

We conceive of Americanism as the spirit behind the welcome that America has traditionally extended to people of different races, all religions, all nationalities. [This is an amazing statement given that the 1924 law restricting immigration and basically excluding Asians and favoring Northwest Europe was still in force.] Americanism is a tolerant way of life that was devised by men who differed from one another vastly in religion, race background, education, and lineage, and who agreed to forget all these things and ask of a new neighbor not where he comes from but only what he can do and what is his spirit toward his fellow men.

2. The total number of immigrants should be maximized within very broad economic and political constraints: “The regulation [of immigration] is the regulation of an asset, not of a liability.” Rifkind emphasized several times that unused quotas had the effect of restricting total numbers of immigrants, and he viewed this very negatively.

3. Immigrants should not be viewed as economic assets and imported only to serve the present needs of the United States:

Looking at [selective immigration] from the point of view of the United States, never from the point of view of the immigrant, I say that we should, to some extent, allow for our temporary needs, but not to make our immigration problem an employment instrumentality. I do not think that we are buying economic commodities when we allow immigrants to come in. We are admitting human beings who will found families and raise children, whose children may reach the heights—at least so we hope and pray. For a small segment of the immigrant stream I think we are entitled to say, if we happen to be short of a particular talent, “Let us go out and look for them,” if necessary, but let us not make that the all-pervading thought.

Looking at immigration from the point of view of the immigrant is, of course, an invitation for altruism. Considering the poverty of so much of the world and the lucrative benefits available to immigrants (see below), taking the view of the immigrant means dramatically ramping up immigration at a cost to the White majority. Read more