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

Ingrid Carlqvist and the morality of ethnic nationalism

/139 Comments/in , /by

We Westerners, uniquely I think, are especially prone to establishing morally-based ingroups. In his book, The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt, whose work on academic societies as “tribal moral communities” of the multicultural left, links the tendency to form moral ingroups to a hunter-gatherer past, when those who transgressed the moral standards of the group were shunned and ostracized. (I agree; see here, Discussion section).

It’s interesting that all the utopias promised by the various intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique involved moral indictments of the West, thus in effect attempting (and succeeding) to create moral communities. In the end, these moral communities created disastrous nightmares, but much of their power derived from their ability to create moral communities.

For example, the Freudian sexual utopia that became mainstream in the 1960s promised to rid the world of neurosis and the evils of anti-Semitism, but ultimately encouraged callousness in sexual relationships, the de-emphasis on love and affection, and resulted in declines in all of the markers of family stability and functioning (e.g., dramatic increases in teenage unwed mothers). The Political radicalism that promised to rid the world of class divisions resulted in the deaths of tens of millions in the USSR and elsewhere. And now we have the multicultural utopia that has promised that all peoples and cultures will live in peace and harmony together (within Western and only Western societies).

It’s not hard to find examples of dystopic nmulticulturalism.  Indeed, readers of TOO are well-acquainted with the costs of multiculturalism. But I thought that Ingrid Carlqvist’s speech “I want my country back” is a particularly great description of a Western country that has become a moral ingroup enforcing multiculturalism, while at the same time illustrating the predictably dystopic, immoral effects of  multiculturalism. Read more

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 5 of 5

/200 Comments/in , /by

Jewish anti-White activism and Australia’s Aborigines

As in the United States, Australian Jews have formed strategic partnerships with various the non-White “victim” groups, who, like them, have been the alleged victims of White oppression and injustice. Prominent among these non-White groups is Australia’s indigenous people. One Jewish source describes Jews and Aborigines as “two peoples with histories of dispossession and humiliation and killing who recognise each other, who find points of intersection and of parallel.”

Seeing a parallel between the “Holocaust” and the White Australia’s treatment of Australia’s Aborigines, the Jewish Australian Professor Robert Manne has written that: “Although there was never a time when I was tempted by the thought that the Holocaust and the dispossession [of Australia’s Aborigines] were morally equivalent horrors – the British settlers did not intend to wipe out the Aborigines and would have been content if the Aborigines had uncomplainingly abandoned their way of life and their land – I have no doubt that in part I was drawn to this chapter of Australian history because of the role the Holocaust played in my thought.”[i] Thus, while careful not to detract from the metaphysical preeminence of the “Holocaust,” Manne has been particularly keen to make the plight of Australia’s Aborigines an important part of the anti-White narrative. Read more

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 4 of 5

/111 Comments/in , , /by

Opposition to multiculturalism in Australia and the Jewish response

Australian Jewry, now just one ethnic group among many in a “multicultural” society, remains, as Rubinstein observes, “one of the best organised Diaspora communities in the world and is frequently at the forefront of ethnic and multicultural affairs in Australia.”[i] The one-time editorial committee member of the Australian Jewish Democrat, Miriam Faine, got right to the heart of the Jewish support for large-scale non-White immigration and multiculturalism when she noted that: “The strengthening of multicultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would be more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian.”[ii] Comments like these make it clear that Jewish promotion of non-White immigration and multiculturalism has been first and foremost a form or ethnic strategizing (or ethnic warfare) concerned with preventing the development of a mass movement of anti-Semitism in Australia and other Western societies.  

It is, therefore, not surprising that Australian Jewry has reacted aggressively to any manifestation of White ethnocentrism or opposition to multiculturalism from among the White Australian population. Markus notes that: “The post-Holocaust generation [of Australian Jews] has been acutely aware that any public manifestation of bigotry and racism, whoever the immediate target, has the potential to impact across society, on all minorities, however defined.”[iii] He further observes that “Changes occurred in Australian society in the last decade of the twentieth century, which heightened the significance of multiculturalism for the Jewish community and for the wider society.”[iv]

Conservative commentator John Stone recalls that by the mid-1980s support for Australia’s immigration program was increasingly “qualified by growing doubts about the increasingly contrived use of that program to remake Australia in a politically-correct ‘multiculturalist’ image.” The then Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, when asked by a journalist in 1988 whether the sharply increased rate of Asian immigration was too high, had replied: “I am not in favour of going back to the White Australia policy. I believe that, if it is in the eyes some in the community… too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb [it] was greater.” For having expressed even such mild a criticism of Australia’s immigration program, Howard was assailed by all sections of the liberal elite with his arguments about “social cohesion” being seen as a smokescreen for “racism.” Under sustained attack, Howard backed down in humiliating fashion. Read more

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 3 of 5

/88 Comments/in , , /by

 

Walter Lippmann – The Jewish architect of Australian Multiculturalism

While the Minister for Immigration in the Whitlam government (1972-1975), Al Grassby, is widely renowned in politically correct Australian circles as the “father of Australian multiculturalism,” the real architect of this poisonously anti-White ideology and policy in Australia was Walter Lippmann, a German-Jewish refugee who settled in Melbourne in 1938. Lippmann was a businessman and a prominent member of Melbourne’s Jewish community who by 1960 had become president of the Australian Jewish Welfare and Relief Society.

In his advocacy of multiculturalism in Australia, Lippmann tore a page out of the writings of the pioneering Jewish-American multiculturalist Horace Kallen. Lippmann deeply resented the assimilated culture of the Australia he entered in 1938, and believed Jewish immigrants had left one type of oppression behind only to be subjected to another: the Australian expectation to assimilate. Kallen had described the corresponding expectation in the early twentieth century United States as “the Americanization hysteria” or the “Americanization psychosis.”[i] The multiculturalism espoused by Walter Lippmann in Australia, a toxic blend of postmodernism and Marxism, implied “a rejection not only of the attempts to promote an amalgam of cultures but also of any assumptions of Anglo-Saxon superiority and the necessary conformity to English-oriented cultural patterns.”

In an article entitled “Australian Jewry – Can It Survive?” published in the Jewish community newspaper The Bridge in January 1973, Lippmann argued that “The positive value of a multicultural society needs promotion in the Australian environment.” His argument was developed against the background of news that Lippmann found deeply disturbing, namely that “for the first time in the history of Australian Jewry, the 1971 Commonwealth Census has disclosed a decline in the number of Jews identifying as such.”[ii] Lippmann identified three major reasons for the decline: the post-WWII migration of Jews had mostly consisted of the middle-aged, the relatively low birth-rate of Australian Jews, and the relatively high rate of marrying out. Read more

Profits of Hate: The SPLC goes for the gold in the Sikh Temple Shooting

/155 Comments/in , /by

As soon as authorities identified the alleged culprit in the Sikh Temple shooting spree near Milwaukee, which left six worshipers dead, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) wasted no time capitalizing on the tragedy.

Bingo!

Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich, the dynamic duo of “hate,” fanned out across the airwaves after a search of the SPLC “database” struck gold.

Wade Michael Page, identified by police as the alleged shooter, was no ordinary tattooed musician or gang member. Page wasn’t merely a disgruntled bigot, but a “frustrated” neo-Nazi skinhead who led his own “racist white-power band.” According to Potok and Beirich, “we have been following him since 2000” when he attended “Hammer Fest” — described as the Lollapalooza of skinheads.

The profile of the shooter wasn’t the garden-variety sociopath, such as the alleged Aurora, Colorado, shooter James Eagan Holmes, or Jared Loughner, who recently pleaded guilty to murder charges in the Tuscon, Arizona, shooting that injured Rep. Gabby Giffords, or Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech mass-murderer who single handedly killed 32 and injured 25 others on April 16, 2007.

Under surveillance supposedly for a dozen years, the alleged Sikh killer was a known entity. He was, according to Potok, a major player on the skinhead “scene.”

Not to be outdone by the SPLC, the ADL posted a photo of Page in front of a Nazi flag. The ever-vigilant monitors of “hate” were busy feeding news organizations what they wanted to hear: this alleged killer was special, a lone-wolf terrorist on a hateful killing spree. He may indeed have been just that, but thus far the authorities have been unable to substantiate the shooter’s motive. Read more