The War on Easter

German postage stamp, 1933, depicting Parsifal as an Aryan Christ

Editorial Note: This article is a slightly edited version of an article that appeared last year at Easter.

  •  A teaching that does not come out of Nordic blood and carry Nordic spirit cannot spread itself among Nordic races. Since Christianity had become a successful religion for two thousand years only among Nordic races (not among Jews) and Christian ideas were the greatest culturally creative force in human history, it was simply impossible that Christ, the driving force of Christianity could have been a Jew. (From a 1938 issue of the National Socialist newspaper Der Stürmer)[1] 
  • [Kosher Jesus] seeks to offer to Jews and Christians the real story of Jesus, a wholly observant, Pharisaic Rabbi who fought Roman paganism and oppression and was killed for it. . . . As Christians and Jews now come together to love and support the majestic and humane Jewish state, it’s time that Christians rediscover the deep Jewishness and religious Jewish commitment of Jesus, while Jews reexamine a lost son who was murdered by a brutal Roman state who sought to impose Roman culture and rule upon a tiny yet stubborn nation. (Hasidic Rabbi Shmuley Boteach)[2] 

Every year at Easter as we look forward to the great Passion music, we are accustomed to hearing the usual shrill accusations of anti-Semitism. The purpose of such accusations is to force non-Jews to feel shame for a civilization whose art supposedly resulted in atrocities against the ancestors of the Jewish activists. A new twist on Jewish perceptions of Easter can be found in Rabbi Boteach’s book, Kosher Jesus, in which he defends Jesus as one of the tribe’s own, but stops short of accepting Jesus as God or as the Jewish messiah.

What could be a Hasidic rabbi’s motivation for writing a positive portrayal of Jesus? After all, Jews have found the person of Jesus anathema for pretty much the entire history of Christianity. That Rabbi Boteach and other prominent Orthodox Jews now purport to regard Jesus as a welcome racial insider worthy of intense sympathetic study does not portend well. In the following I discuss the Jewish campaign to transform traditional Christianity in a way that serves Jewish interests.  Read more

Jewish groups endorse immigration amnesty/surge

The fact that Jewish groups are in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants is about as newsworthy as a report that the sun rose in the east today. But the wording of a letter organized by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and sent by over 100 Jewish organizations to President Obama and Congress bears mentioning.

Specifically, it notes that “American Jews know too well the impact of restrictive immigration policies.”

The Immigration Restriction act of 1924 is etched in Jewish memory more than any other single event in American history. Jewish activists routinely blame the law for Jews dying in the Holocaust — never mind that it was enacted long before the war.

One of the things that struck me in reviewing Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy  was that his father “would go speechless with rage if someone suggested that Jews were morally required to support a porous border with Latin America because a ship of German Jews had not been allowed into the U.S. in 1940.” This attitude, which is utterly commonplace in the Jewish community, shows no concern for the interests of other Americans. Only Jewish interests matter. Old historical grudges, no matter how unreasonable, must never be forgotten. Why not focus on the good aspects of the Jewish experience in America—the dramatic decline in anti-Semitism after World War II, and the rise of Jews to elite status all the important areas of American society?

The main theme of my review is the hostility of Jews toward the traditional people and culture of America. Several examples of such hostility are noted in the review. They are easy to come by and are entirely within the mainstream of the American Jewish community.  Needless to say, however, the letter is phrased in terms of the loftiest moral sentiments: “Our views are shaped by our Jewish religious and ethical traditions, as well as our own history in this country and by core American values. The commandment to ‘welcome the stranger’ is mentioned 36 times throughout the Torah, more than any other commandment.” While these same organizations would doubtless endorse the idea that Israel’s immigration laws must ensure that Israel remain a Jewish state (e.g., by not allowing displaced Palestinians the right to return to their land), they have no sympathy for the idea that America’s immigration laws should reflect the interests of its White, Christian majority (see also “Jewish groups oppose Arizona-type immigration laws except Israel“).

Besides hatreds fueled by historical grudges, the other emotion fueling Jews is fear that White Americans would assert their ethnic interests:

American Jews know too well the impact of restrictive immigration policies [again the historical grudge], and we have seen how the immigration issue can become a flashpoint for xenophobia. We are concerned the failure of national leaders to fix the broken immigration system has fueled racist, nativist, and extremist groups who blame immigrants for our country’s problems, and has been a central factor in the spread of state and local policies and laws that legalize discrimination against immigrants.

The cure for xenophobia is legalizing illegals? It’s far more likely that the massive invasion—legal and illegal — feeds xenophobia and that the cure would be an immigration moratorium. But for these Jewish organizations, the way to fix the fears of White Americans that they are being displaced and squeezed out of the labor market is to bring in yet more immigrants.

The letter closes with a plea for expanding legal immigration and shortening the path to full citizenship. It also emphasizes family reunification and admitting more refugees and asylum seekers. These points emphasize two aspects of the traditional Jewish attitude on immigration to the U.S.:

  • Maximize the total number of immigrants; in the immediate after math of the passage of the 1965 law that removed the bias toward Western Europe, Jewish immigration activists switched to focus on maximizing total numbers.  (See here, p. 291)
  • Promote the idea that immigrants not be chosen for their ability to make an economic contribution to the U.S. The assumption is that, apart from those who are “dangerous or a threat to national security,” all immigrants in whatever numbers have a positive impact on the society as a whole  (see previous link, p. 277-278). Family reunification, which has been a bedrock Jewish attitude at least since the 1940s (see previous link, p. 277-278)  is the basis of chain migration which has been one of the main reasons why numbers of immigrants has skyrocketed.

It’s apparent that despite the lofty rhetoric, the entire organized Jewish community sees liberal immigration policy as a Jewish ethnic interest. This is ethnic hardball, pure and simple, motivated by fear and loathing of White America. Such policies are a consensus view among American Jews. Their position has been the same for 100 years, and there is not one Jewish organization that opposes these policies.

And given the effectiveness with which Jews as a wealthy, intelligent, and highly organized group have pursued their interests in the U.S. (see above link), the results have been disastrous for the traditional people and culture of America.

Review of Paul Gottfried’s War and Democracy

Gottfried

War and Democracy
Paul Gottfried
London: Arktos Media, 2012; 167pp.
Available at Arktos Media and Amazon.

Paul Gottfried is an important voice on the right. War and Democracy, a collection of his essays published between 1975 and 2012, bears that out.

Dissident History

Perhaps what struck me the most is his grasp of history and his ability to use his knowledge to illuminate present issues and, especially to argue against currently fashionable interpretations that reinforce the hegemony of the left (including within the left everything from the radical left to the neoconservative right). For example, a review from 1975 of Fritz Stern’s The Failure of Illiberalism, describes the “refugee historical tradition” (presumably a reference to Jewish refugees from National Socialism) on German history as “bad theology”; its purposes are “to be an object lesson to foreigners and to serve as a means of contrition for Germans. … Any interpretation of the past that puts the Germans in a particularly bad light can expect an enthusiastic hearing among large segments of the American academic community”  (“History or Hysteria”).

Gottfried rejects much of the received wisdom on issues related to the German past. In “Germany’s War Wounds” he notes the hypocrisy of framing World War II as a moral crusade while ignoring the crimes against the German people. While England suffered around 21,000 civilian deaths from German bombing, over 600,000 German civilians died as their cities were bombed, with much of the carnage occurring after the war was effectively won and the cities were defenseless. Yet we have intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens stating that Germans who complain show “a combination of arrogance and self-pity tinged with anti-Semitism.” And politicians like former foreign minister Joschka Fischer, “an ostentatiously self-hating German who has published ten booklets to express his revulsion for his own country and his hope that it will soon disappear.” Read more

Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession

I discuss three mechanisms basic to the psychology of White dispossession — runaway displays of White guilt and abasement, social learning, and being a member of a moral ingroup. Self-interest is often front and center, or at least in the background. For example, it’s pretty clear that many if not most Whites who make effusive declarations of allegiance to the multicultural reign of terror are acting out of self-interest. Such people are plugging into the contemporary structure of rewards and punishments created by our hostile elites. Even White heterosexual males have much to gain by making such displays; simply attending a job talk at a university, especially for an administrative position, makes it clear that explicit affirmations of allegiance to multiculturalism, White guilt, and acquiescence to White dispossession are de rigueur.

Runaway Displays of White Guilt and Abasement

So part of the psychology of displacement among Whites is simply self-interest. Anthony Hilton’s article (“Giving away the farm: Why?”)  adds the suggestion that there can be a runaway process resulting from competition among displayers to the point that their declarations become more and more grotesque and removed from rationality. Just as peahens select for more and more cumbersome, costly tail feathers in peacocks, we can expect that the bar for successful displays of White self-deprecation and guilt to be continuously raised.

One might suppose then, that the White Privilege Conference to be held in Seattle in April would be an ideal arena for such displays. Here are some quotes from some of the presentations that caught my eye. 

“The Color of Empire / The Cost to Our Humanity: Dismantling White Privilege and Class Supremacy Using Cellular Wisdom” … The session begins with mind and body grounding in processes, proceeds to examining the biological wisdom of the human cell  [???], moves to an analysis of race and class oppression / liberation dynamics in the U.S. (with particular attention to class supremacy and white privilege), and concludes with a range of applications of cellular wisdom to participants’ racial and economic justice work personally and professionally. … Read more

Profiting from Eugenics: The case of Shabazz Muhammad

Eugenics has always verged on common sense for evolutionists. Recently evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller commented on China’s policy of taking eugenics seriously by “creating the world’s highest-quality human capital in terms of the Chinese population’s genes, health, and education.” As a result, the Chinese now have invested in cutting edge genetic research and are moving to create smarter babies. By understanding the genetics of IQ and allowing couples to select which of their fertilized eggs to rear, they will be able to raise the IQ of their offspring. As Miller notes in an interview, “Even if [this process] only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run, and how innovative their economy is.”

Count on the West to continue to import millions of low-IQ immigrants and to go into a moral panic at the very thought that genetic differences could influence IQ and that IQ is important for competitiveness.

However, that doesn’t mean that enterprising people in the West cannot use a basic grasp of eugenics to strike it rich. The LA Times reports that Ron Holmes used a basic knowledge of eugenics to enrich himself and his family (“NCAA to NBA millions: UCLA star’s father mapped out a dream; Ron Holmes has spent two decades guiding his son Shabazz Muhammad toward a pro basketball career. The payoff is near, with the UCLA star projected as a top draft pick“). 

Shabazz Muhammad with his parents, Ron Holmes and Faye Muhammad.

Shabazz Muhammad with his parents, Ron Holmes and Faye Muhammad.

  Read more

Featured Video Play Icon

Israel apartheid state, settlements colonialism

Ian Tattersall on Stephen Jay Gould

The great thing about being a liberal/radical academic is that even falsifying data isn’t enough to seriously tarnish one’s reputation. Franz Boas’s finagling of his data on the skull shapes of immigrants in pursuit of his ethnopolitical agenda certainly hasn’t hurt his reputation, and Ian Tattersall’s remembrance of Stephen Jay Gould in the current issue of Natural History certainly won’t do anything to damage Gould (“Remembering Stephen Jay Gould“). Indeed, we read that the tenth anniversary of Gould’s death occasioned a “commemorative meeting in Venice organized by the Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti in collaboration with the Università Ca’ Foscari.” Doubtless replete with adulation.

Tattersall is quite frank that Gould’s politics influenced his views on science, describing him as “an unrepentant political liberal, he was firmly on the side of nurture.” Tattersall is saying that being a liberal implies that one will naturally support environmentalist positions in the social sciences. Given the dominance of the left in the academic world and the media, that means that the official message promulgated from elite institutions in the West inevitably supports the nurture argument and its typical correlate that all problems of non-Whites are due to White racism. (Predictably, Adam Carrolla was recently called a ‘racist’ for wondering why 50% of Blacks and Latinos in California couldn’t manage to obtain a checking account when Asian immigrants have managed to do just fine despite the pervasive racism by White Americans.) And of course this means that social science is impossible. The same names can be counted on to go to bat against any data that threaten the egalitarian academic consensus.

It also goes without saying that the media falls in line with the same mantra. This is true even for what passes as conservative media. Discussions of the failure of public education to erase racial/ethnic differences among mainstream conservatives routinely blame lack of choice in schools or poor teachers and completely stay away from mentioning IQ. If the ballgame is over, Gould won. Read more