Nordics versus Implicit Jews in “The Switch”

/2 Comments/in , /by

We all know that the Jewish domination of Hollywood leads to consistently positive portrayals of all things Jewish and invidious portrayals of Christianity and anything touching on White identity or interests (see here, p. 53ff). But part of the art of Hollywood is to embed Jewish attitudes and values in other characters. After all, non-Jewish audiences are not going to relate to yarmulke-wearing, overtly Jewish characters preaching to them on the superiority of supposed Jewish values. So a more subtle approach is needed.

One such approach is to present characters that are Jewish in every way except that there are no explicit assertions of Jewish identity. Seinfeld was a great example. Although Jerry’s character was overtly Jewish, the character of George Costanza was obviously Jewish but presented as not Jewish. George is presented as Italian, but he is played by a Jewish actor whose parents on the show are also played by Jewish actors exhibiting stereotypical Jewish family patterns; George’s character was based on the show’s co-creator, Larry David who is quintessentially Jewish. It always seemed to me that the same could be said of the Elaine character, but perhaps less obviously so. She is played by a Jewish actress but is often seen wearing a crucifix; her name suggests she is Czech and in one episode she explicitly states she is not Jewish. But her character, her appearance, her interests, her mannerisms, her voice, and her rapport with Jerry and George seem obviously Jewish. None of this could be said about the Kramer character played by Michael Richards. Clearly a goy.

Such characters might be called implicitly Jewish—ways of expressing a Jewish sensibility without being overtly Jewish. Read more

Boycotting General Mills

/1 Comment/in /by

Readers of TOO have by now no doubt read about the recent controversy of the Cheerios commercial featuring a mixed race family (Black father, White mother, mixed child).  This has provoked a so-called “racist backlash” from people justifiably outraged by this celebration/promotion of miscegenation.  Of course, the “racist backlash” has itself provoked the usual hysterical hand-wringing from the “morally superior” denouncing the “backwards backwoods racist rednecks.”

Let us make no mistake – there is an agenda behind the Cheerios commercial.  General Mills – the company that owns the Cheerios brand – and their supporters state that the commercial merely celebrates the different types of American families that exist.

However, that assertion does not seem on its face to be wholly accurate. How about other types of American families not represented in these commercials?  After all, as the negative comments to the cereal ad show, there are plenty of “racists” out there.  Why not celebrate a skinhead family making denigrating remarks on multiculturalism, gay marriage, and miscegenation?

However, for some mysterious reason there has not yet been a Cheerios commercial featuring an American family like that.  No “celebrating different types of American families” when the family type is not supportive of multiculturalism.

But, why not?  Such people do exist in America, do they not?  One would think that they, like many others, are consumers of breakfast cereal.

But they won’t be celebrated, as that would be “offensive” and “send the wrong message” and “promote hatred.”  Very well.  But by normalizing mixed families, which are still in the small minority, isn’t the Cheerios ad at least indirectly promoting a lifestyle that some (re: all the negative comments) find highly offensive? Read more

Learning from Birdman

/1 Comment/in , /by

I teach a course on sport in society in a university, which has brought me close to the culture of sport, its values, its ways.   Examining the workings of the sports realm has helped me acquire what could be termed an anthropological, or sociological, perspective on how the rest of American life goes about its business.

The topic for today: the sports world isn’t big on moral inventorying, self-condemnation, guilt, groveling, and apologizing.  Invariably when athletes do something that is called into question they refer to whatever it is as a “mistake.”  They don’t say “I did something wrong,” or “I did something bad,” or “I’m bad.”  They say, “I made a mistake,” as if it is akin to adding up the numbers in their checkbook wrong.  They take the morality out it.

To illustrate, there’s a prominent major league pitcher who will remain nameless, who in his younger days stole twenty-three computers and was dismissed from the university he was attending at the time.  He says now that it was a mistake to have done that.  Not wrong, a mistake.

Whatever it is—drunk driving, drug use, robbing a convenience store, you name it—to athletes (and of course I’m generalizing here), it’s a mistake.

And what do the inhabitants of the sport culture do after they have made a mistake?  They move on.  What happened in the past happened.  That’s over.  You aren’t going to change it.  You don’t dwell on it, you don’t let it define you; you don’t allow it to tie you up or affect or control your current actions.

And importantly, you don’t let it take your mind off what most matters: today’s game.  You need to play today’s game well and win it.  So move on. Read more

Jews and the Civil Rights Movement

/1 Comment/in /by

Occidental Dissent has an article on Solomon Blatt, a powerful Jewish politician in South Carolina who was a staunch proponent of segregation during the 1950s and 1960s (“The Strange Career of Solomon Blatt“). Interesting article, but it ends thus:

South Carolina’s desegregation shows that the existence of the Union, not Jewish influence, was the primary cause of the South’s racial and cultural decline.

This does not follow. One surely can’t argue that because one Jewish politician in one state opposed desegregation that Jews did not have a decisive influence on the Civil Rights movement in general. South Carolina by itself could not withstand the onslaught against desegregation given that the laws against segregation were national in application.

First, one Jew who fought for segregation etc. really doesn’t change the big picture. There is likely no issue on which 100% of Jews agree; indeed, it’s well-known that the great majority of Southern Jews accepted the Southern status quo. For example:

Jews in the South were typically reluctant participants in the Civil Rights movement. The Southern Jewish community was relatively small compared to the much larger Jewish population that immigrated from Eastern Europe between 1880 and 1924, and had relatively little national influence. Southern Jews immigrated in the 19th century mainly from Germany, and they tended toward political conservatism, at least compared to their Eastern European brethren. The general perception of northern Jews and southern blacks and whites was that southern Jews had adopted white attitudes on racial issues. Moreover, southern Jews adopted a low profile because southern whites often (correctly) blamed northern Jews as major instigators of the civil rights movement and because of the linkages among Jews, communism, and civil rights agitation during a period when both the NAACP and mainstream Jewish organizations were doing their best to minimize associations with communism. (Jews were the backbone of the Communist Party USA, and the CPUSA agitated on behalf of black causes. It was common for southerners to rail against Jews while exempting southern Jews from their accusations: “We have only the high-type Jew here, not like the kikes in New York.” Read more

The West against Europe

/3 Comments/in , , /by

GUD

The following is the English translation of my speech in French, given in Lyon, France, on May 25, for the French identitarians (students, members of the “GUD” and “Europe Identité.”)  The speech was delivered in honor of the late Dominique Venner, a historian and philosopher who committed suicide on May 21. On May 26, the day after my speech in Lyon, many GUD and “Europe Identité attendants participated in mass demonstrations in Paris against the recently adopted law by the French government on “same sex marriage.” 

The term ‘Occidentalism’ exists only in the French language and has a very specific meaning. Often the words ‘Occident’ and ‘occidentalisme’ obtain specific meanings according to its user and the user’s profile. The term ‘occidentalisme’ is never used in the German or in the English language. Even the French word ‘l’Occident’, having a wider geographic significance, is translated into the German language as the ‘West’ — der Westen. The same goes for the English language in which the French noun ‘l’Occident‘ is translated into English as “the West,” a subject of many books and translations. In this regard Patrick Buchanan, a former adviser to Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and a conservative large-circulation author, published a decade ago his bestseller The Death of the West (La Mort de l’Occident), where he laments about the West being invaded by millions of non-Christian immigrants. According to Buchanan, America and Europe are both part of the West.

Yet we know well that America and Europe are not synonymous despite the fact that they are for the time being still populated by majorities of pure-bred Europeans. Very often in our recent history, these two large continental land masses, despite their quasi-identical population, have waged terrible wars against each other.

In the Slavic languages the noun ‘Occident’ and the adjective ‘occidental’ do not exist either. Instead, Croats, Czechs or Russians use the noun ‘Zapad’, which means “the West.” Read more

Moral Capital and White Interests

/3 Comments/in , , /by

I just finished a book titled Moral Capital by Christopher Leslie Brown  on the movement to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself in the British Empire. The take home message is that  the abolitionist movement  thrived on moral capital. Even by 1790, popular opinion was persuaded that slavery was immoral, although it took quite a bit longer to actually abolish the slave trade  (1807)and even longer to abolish slavery itself (1833) because British political institutions were far from democratic during this period.

If it’s one thing that White advocacy lacks in the minds of most people, it’s moral capital (although this is completely unjustified). On the other hand, the Holocaust is nothing if not a storehouse of moral capital for Jews—useful as a sword and a shield to attain Jewish interests on behalf of Israel and throughout the Diaspora in the West.  So when Stephen Hawking said he would respect the academic boycott of Israel and would not attend the Presidential Conference in Israel hosted by Shimon Peres, it was a big story indeed. The Israeli right was apoplectic.

Questioning the moral capital of Jews is deadly serious because a huge part of the image of Jews projected by the media is that indeed Jews have made tremendous contributions to civilization.  Therefore, non-Jews should welcome Jewish efforts to advance their interests even when they conflict with their own interests or with basic human rights that Jews insist on for themselves, whether in Israel or in the Diaspora.

I rather doubt that the fact that the Germans have made tremendous contributions to civilization counts much with Jewish activists whose first interests naturally are the defense of their fundamental interests as a people. It should be the same with non-Jews.

But despite their best efforts, Israel’s moral capital is fast approaching zero. Charles Freeman again:

Despite an ever more extensive effort at hasbara – the very sophisticated Israeli art of narrative control and propaganda – it is hardly surprising that Israel’s formerly positive image is … badly “fraying.”  The gap between Israeli realities and the image projected by hasbara has grown beyond the capacity of hypocrisy to bridge it.  Israel’s self-destructive approach to the existential issues it faces challenges the consciences of growing numbers of Americans – both Jewish and non-Jewish – and raises serious questions about the extent to which Israel supports,  ignores, or undermines American interests in its region.  Many have come to see the United States less as the protector of the Jewish state than as the enabler of its most self-injurious behavior and the endower of the many forms of moral hazard from which it has come to suffer.

The problem for Whites is that even though Israel’s decreasing of moral capital is a problem for Jews, it does nothing for the interests of Whites. People like Stephen Hawking would be horrified at seeing any moral connotations to the idea that White people have legitimate interests in preserving their culture and themselves as a people.

Somewhat related parenthesis:

Here’s a panel discussion from St. Paul’s Cathedral in London where all agree that Whites have no interests as Whites—no one should care that Whites are now 45% of the population of London. While eschewing White interests, Peter Hitchens is the only one to propose that immigrants should even become British culturally. Giles Fraser (see also Francis Carr Begbie’s TOO article)  touts his Jewish roots in an unabashed, utterly self-confident celebration of the utter unimportance of White interests.

We need moral capital for our side—that just as the Palestinians have legitimate ethnic interests that are compromised by Israel, there is a moral imperative for the preservation of our people, our land and our culture.

White people—uniquely, I think—care about moral rectitude. (Not all Whites, but this is the dominant trend, at least since the 18th century and the decline of aristocratic culture, as emphasized in Andrew Fraser’s The WASP Question [see also here, p. 14 ff].)  Most Whites want to be members of morally defined ingroups—a reflection of our past as Northern hunter-gatherers. (Christopher Boehm describes hunter gatherer groups as “moral communities.”) In the societies of  pre-historic Europe, ingroups were defined not on the basis of kinship which is the rule in the rest of the world’s great civilizations, but on the basis of adherence to the moral standards of the group. A recent archeological excavation of a 4600-year old site in modern Germany found evidence for exogamy and nuclear families, a strong indication that ingroups were not constructed on the basis of kinship/extended families.

Creating morally defined ingroups runs deep in Western culture, which is why the Jewish opponents of the West have fastened on moral critiques as an effective weapon. All of the intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique (Kindle expanded edition now available) are essentially moral indictments of the West.

These movements tapped into moral sensibilities that have a long history in the West. It’s amazing to read the anti-slavery activists and theorists of the 18th century. At a time when slavery was unquestioned in the rest of the world and when slavery had clear benefits to the Empire as a whole, they argued that all humans were equal morally and intellectually; they were horrified that their countrymen were inflicting suffering on people from another continent. In an influential book published in 1784, the Rev. James Ramsay wrote, “I shall assert the claim of Negroes to attention from us, by explaining their natural capacity, and proving them to be on a footing of equality in respect of the reception of mental improvement, with the natives of any other country.” All peoples were equal, morally and intellectually. Ramsay also included descriptions of the brutal treatment of the slaves effectively designed to evoke empathy in his audience.

Another well-known 18th-century abolitionist, Quaker John Woolman, felt guilty because he preferred his own children to children on the other side of the world—a comment that reflects the sentiments of central players among the current British elite, as noted by a liberal critic of immigration policy:

When dining at an Oxford college … the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’ I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful ” television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham.

For such Whites, feelings for one’s own people are illegitimate and certainly not a basis for policy. White people are uniquely prone to concerns about their moral rectitude and uniquely universalist in their outlook. That’s why it’s so hard to get a large group of American Whites out on the street to protest the immigration bill currently being considered by Congress, even though their legitimate interests are being massively violated if the bill is passed: The movement to restrict immigration or end it altogether has no moral capital in the eyes of media and intellectual elites, and this message is continually pounded home. In a sane world, Washington, DC would be inundated with huge public demonstrations against this bill. There is definitely some push back against it, mainly on the basis that illegal immigrants should not be rewarded for violating the law—which would do absolutely nothing to stem the huge surge in the numbers of legal immigrants contained in the bill or stop the > 1 million yearly legal immigrants that would continue coming even if the bill is defeated.

But one never hears mainstream conservatives talk in terms of legitimate White interests. Indeed, even protesting illegal immigration is now portrayed by American elites as placing oneself outside the moral community.

So we have to keep pounding away at our message that Whites have interests that are morally legitimate. While the moral sentiments of the 18th- and 19th-century abolitionists were certainly sound, adopting an ideology of moral universalism amounts to suicide under the present conditions where migration over long distances is so easy. As noted in the comments on Paul Weston above, calling Whites “racist” for asserting their legitimate interests is an attempt to place their opponents in a morally illegitimate category. Such campaigns are uniquely effective in the West. Jews, for example, are remarkably immune to the charge, despite their erection of an apartheid society based on ethnic cleansing.

As Weston notes, the rhetoric of the culpability of Whites for past behavior is a central pillar of the multicultural onslaught against White Britain. But it’s never noted that Whites uniquely abolished slavery on moral grounds or that the importance of moral capital is a unique aspect of Western culture. However, despite its role in correcting the abuses of the past, the centrality of moral capital is now an integral part of the psychology of Western suicide.

A good sign is that the people I know who are on-page about White interests and identity do see a strong moral imperative in preserving our people and culture. Paul Weston’s video is a ringing declaration of the morality of White interests in defense of their people and culture. Often without a lot of conscious thought about it, there is a sense that we are a moral ingroup and we reject and shun those who hate us and our ideas. There is a lot of confidence that we are right; there is a sense of moral rectitude and an awareness of the hypocrisy (see above) and corruption of our enemies. And that is a very good start indeed.

Ted Kennedy was not responsible for the Immigration Act of 1965

/2 Comments/in , /by

In his talk on Jewish power, Joe Biden included immigration and refugee policy  as  illustrations of how Jews have changed America. In an otherwise great column on the decline of the West, Pat Buchanan begs to differ:

It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.  (“Will the West Wake Up?“)

Sorry, but I have to go with Joe on this one—probably the only area I would prefer Biden’s views to Buchanan’s. Kennedy was a freshman senator with little clout. His role in leading the bill came about because it was a slam dunk following the liberal landslide in the 1964 election (the one where the US avoided having Barry Goldwater blow up the world). The Senate hearings on the bill were so perfunctory that the statements of opponents were given in Kennedy’s office; these were mainly old line patriotic organizations like the Daughters of the American Revolution which by that time got absolutely no respect from elites. The bill was written by Norbert Schlei who was Jewish, and its official name is the Hart-Celler bill; Emmanuel Celler spent his entire career in Congress as a leader in opposition to immigration restriction, beginning with his hostility to the 1924 law which enshrined quotas favoring Northwestern Europeans. One should also mention the role of Jacob Javits in the Senate. As soon as the bill was passed, Jewish organizations focused their efforts on increasing the numbers of immigrants. Ted Kennedy may not have lied when said the bill would not change America. But in conjunction with the later efforts of Jewish activists, demographic change was inevitable. Read more