2014: The Worst Holocaust Denial Video in the History of Holocaust Denial

More than taboo Holocaust What’s true and What’s false?http://vimeo.com/29866086Please pressure Vimeo to censor this video, before the video gets spread all over the Internet. We have been successful in getting this video deleted off of youtube countless times, but there are other web sites out there that don’t censor peoples first amendment rights. Please help.Second […]


June 8, 2014   Posted in: Hitler, Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Jewish, Jewish American Heritage Month, Jewish Heritage, Jewish History, Jews  Comments Closed |

Anti-Semitic and Racist Websites to Monitor for the Year 2014

Sai Baba – “All action results from thought, so it is thoughts that matter.”Do you think this is a game? Hate is NOT growing exponentially on the Internet, but its web traffic visitation is.Why should 21st century hate be characterized as illegal thought crimes? Because thoughts become actions. The hate begins in the mind with […]


January 30, 2014   Posted in: AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, Anti-Jewish, Anti-Semitism, Anti-Semitism Lobby, Anti-Semitism News, Apartheid, B'nai B'rith, Boycott Israel, Censorship, Council of Conservative Citizens, David Duke, Discrimination News, Holocaust Denial, Holocaust Revisionism, Info Wars, Israel, Israel Apartheid, Israeli Lobby, Jewish, Jews, John de Nugent, Judaism, Ku Klux Klan, Leo Frank, Mark Potok, Multicultural News, Neo Nazi, Occidental Observer, Palestine, Racism News, Racist News, Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, White Nationalism, White Power, White Supremacism, William Luther Pierce, Zionism  Comments Closed |

Alon Confino: Jews as Symbols of Morality

Further evidence, if any were needed, that many Jews are simply incapable of comprehending collective Jewish wrongdoing while at the same time attributing collective guilt to Germans or Christians can be seen in a review of  A World Without Jews: the Nazi Imagination From Persecution to Genocide   by  Alon Confino, an Israeli who is professor of history at the University of Virginia . Confino’s claims that the hostility of Nazis toward Jews was not driven by a sense of ethnic competition or warfare but by hostility because Jews were seen as morally  superior.  The Nazi struggle “wasn’t about territory, or states, or armies,” Confino emphasized. “It was about identity.” For the Nazis the Jews were “the key to world history,” he writes in  A World Without Jews . “It goes back to what the Jews represented: the Bible,” Confino said over the phone. “They weren’t racial enemies. They were the symbols of morality.” Confino knows, of course, that much of the Nazi propaganda about the Jews depicted them as a racial threat, but the far more crucial message, he argues, was that Jews signified the old world of moral law. The Jew had to be destroyed, to be replaced by a pure new vision of the German nation, a people freed from the archaic constraints of doing good. And this ethical revolution required the ultimate realization: mass murder. Now this is surprising on the face of it. The Talmud has been called many things but I don’t recall it being seen by its critics as depicting a higher morality. During the Middle Ages, Christians burned it because of passages blaspheming Jesus and Christianity. Rather than representing a uniquely higher morality, Jewish religious writings. including the Talmud, are replete with moral particularism  (in which an action has very different moral implications depending on how it affects Jews) that is entirely foreign to the Western tradition of moral universalism. Advertisement But Confino’s book was published by Yale University Press, so it must be well-based on the evidence. [Confino] focuses on the widespread burning of the Torah all across Germany and makes the case that the destruction of the holy book meant for the Nazis the freedom from morality that they needed to achieve their new world order. The evidence for Confino’s argument remains only intuitive, but it is still persuasive.  Intuitive? In other words, based on his gut feelings and certainly not based on statements from National Socialist elites. The idea that Jewish political behavior stems from inherently humanistic Jewish values has been refuted many times, often by other Jews, including the following quotation from Benjamin Ginsberg that I just came across: This historic background and the continuing relationship between Jews and the national government help explain one of the most notable characteristics of Jews in American politics: their strong adherence to liberalism, and especially to the Democratic Party, as loyal voters, leading activists, and major financial contributors. Geoffrey Brahm Levey has ascribed Jewish liberalism to the inherently humanistic character of Jewish values and traditions. This explanation seems somewhat fanciful, however, since in some political settings Jews have managed to overcome their humanistic scruples enough to organize and operate rather ruthless agencies of coercion and terror such as the infamous Soviet-era NKVD. (see here , p. 14) In fact, Jewish involvement in mass murder under the Bolsheviks was much on the minds of National Socialists throughout the entire period. Not exactly the image of moral exemplars. The reviewer, David Mikiks, continues: Israel is often accused of indulging the ethnic nationalism that over the centuries has marked Europeans more than any other people on earth, and that Europe has supposedly now left behind. Instead of symbolizing strict morality, or modernist decadence, Jews now stand for the sins of racism and colonialism.  But of course the National Socialists saw Judaism as a particularly intense form of ethnic nationalism, far more so than traditional German culture. The emergence of Israel is nothing new in this regard: Jewish ethnic nationalism now expressed as the policy of a sovereign government. Hence its concern to maintain Israel as a Jewish state and all that implies for immigration laws and the status of non-Jews. Books like Confino’s are in the long tradition of claims to Jewish moral superiority which were  manufactured to present an acceptable public image in the post-Enlightenment European intellectual milieu. Assuming Confino and Mikiks actually believes what they are writing, it represents a clear case of Jewish self-deception (see Andrew Joyce’s series on Jewish self-deception ). Despite being without any empirical basis, the book was published by an elite university press at a time when, as the reviewer notes, the actions of Israel are seen by wide swaths of humanity as nothing more than ethnic self-interest.  Now more than ever, Israel and the Jewish diaspora desperately need books like this to reinforce the rapidly failing myth of Jewish moral superiority. Its publication by an elite academic press is more an indication of Jewish power than anything else. But the myth is crumbling for all the world to see. Now if those same people who morally condemn Israel could just see that Jewish adoption of liberal politics in the West, and in particular support for displacement-level immigration and multiculturalism, are similarly an expression of ethnic self-interest and essentially a racist program against White majorities, we would definitely be making progress.


August 20, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

The Beginnings

The Beginnings by Rudyard Kipling (published 1917) It was not part of their blood, It came to them very late With long arrears to make good, When the English began to hate. They were not easily moved, They were icy-willing to wait Till every count should be proved, Ere the English began to hate. Their voices were even and low, Their eyes were level and straight. There was neither sign nor show, When the English began to hate. It was not preached to the crowd, It was not taught by the State. No man spoke it aloud, When the English began to hate. It was not suddenly bred, It will not swiftly abate, Through the chill years ahead, When Time shall count from the date That the English began to hate.


August 20, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg and Jewish Ethnic Networking

American Whites of European extraction — particularly White males — are being systematically displaced in the very country they built. This surely will not be news to TOO readers. As editor Kevin MacDonald has already pointed out, the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is testimony to this trend: Kagan’s arrival on the Supreme Court is a sort of official coming out party for the new elite. It’s been there for quite some time, but the Kagan nomination is an in-your-face-demonstration of the power of Jewish ethnic networking at the highest levels of government. And the first thing one notices is that the new elite has no compunctions about nominating someone for the Supreme Court even though she has no real qualifications. So much for the principles of merit and inclusion: Inclusion does not apply to WASPs now that they have been deposed. And the principle of merit can now be safely discarded in favor of ethnic networking. As I  noted previously , This is a favorite aspect of contemporary Jewish self-conception — the idea that Jews replaced WASPs because they are smarter and work harder. But this leads to the ultimate irony: Kagan is remarkably unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice in terms of the usual standards: judicial experience, academic publications, or even courtroom experience. Rather, all the evidence is that Kagan owes her impending confirmation to her Jewish ethnic connections (see also  here ). The same goes for Jewish over-representation in elite academic institutions — far higher than can be explained by higher Jewish IQ. Does anyone seriously think that Jewish domination of Hollywood and so much of the other mainstream media  (see, e.g., Edmund Connelly’s   article ) is about merit rather than ethnic networking and solidarity?” In conclusion, MacDonald writes, “Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit.” Allow me to offer a newer case in point — that of Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, who grew up in a Jewish family in Miami. Sandberg’s key break was admission to Harvard, despite the fact that her academic background hardly seemed to warrant it. As she admits in her best-selling book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. (New York, Random House, 2013), she was clearly not prepared for the rarified atmosphere of Harvard: Freshman year of college was a huge shock for me… [M]y professor of political philosophy assigned a five-page paper. I was panicked. Five whole pages! I had only written one paper that length in high school, and it was a year-long project. How could anyone write five pages in just one week? I stayed in every night, plugging away, and based on the time I put in, I should have gotten an A for effort. I got a C. It is virtually impossible to get a C at Harvard if the assignment is turned in. I am not exaggerating — this was the equivalent of a failing grade.” How unprepared was she? Well, in a class called “The Concept of the Hero in Hellenistic Civilization,” she hadn’t even heard of the two main texts, The Iliad and The Odyssey . Meanwhile, most of her classmates had already read them, and about a third of them had read them in the original Homeric Greek. Yet there sat Miss Sandberg right beside them. Advertisement So why was such a student admitted to Harvard in the first place? The reason, it seems, is the fact that she had the right “personality,” i.e., the right ethnic personality, as a dorm proctor who worked in admissions confided to her. Michael Timmons, writing in E. Michael Jones’ Culture Wars (July/Aug. 2014), argues that “her application would have been rejected if she were not a Jewish woman.” I suspect that is right, at least based on the information I had in 2009 when I wrote Harvard Hates Whites—Does America, Too? It turns out I had grossly underestimated the advantages given Jews in Ivy League admissions, as Jewish billionaire Ron Unz made crystal clear in his must-read The Myth of American Meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League Admissions . In twenty-eight tightly packed pages in The American Conservative (of which Unz was publisher from 2007–2013), Unz makes a stunning case that Jews are unfairly admitted to Ivy League schools at a shamefully high rate. And the big losers?  Whites of European stock. As Unz writes, We are therefore faced with the clear conundrum that Jewish students seem to constitute roughly 6 percent of America’s highest-ability high school graduates and non-Jewish whites around 65–70 percent, but these relative ratios differ by perhaps 1000 percent from the enrollments we actually find at Harvard and the other academic institutions which select America’s future elites. This article is perhaps the most important essay I’ve read in the last decade, so access the link above and save it before it vanishes down the memory hole. Included are four pages of explicit graphs, and the 120 tiny footnotes run four further pages. Sandberg’s break getting into Harvard was critical to all that came next — and make no mistake, she ascended the prevailing heights of our society. Her next break came when fellow ethnic Larry Summers offered to supervise her senior thesis on “the economics of spousal abuse.” Lo and behold, when Summers left to work for the World Bank, young Sandberg became his research assistant. Later, when he became Secretary of Treasury under Clinton, Sandberg was appointed Chief of Staff. Reviewer Timmons argues that “The truth is that she had been appointed to a powerful federal government position right out of college by her former professor who also shared her ethnic affiliation. In other words, her Ivy League connections and Jewish background had more to do with her position than her female gender.” (Summers was equally kind to Elena Kagan, appointing her dean of Harvard Law despite her   shockingly mediocre accomplishments .) After leaving government, Sandberg opted for a move to Silicon Valley, where she continued to parlay ethnic networks into fabulous positions. First, she met fellow Jews Larry Page and Sergey Brinn, who had created the search engine Google. Unlike most job applicants, Sandberg, by her own admission, was hired “despite my complete lack of relevant experience.” What a lucky break. Timmons next notes Sandberg’s continued use of a tried and true formula: Six years later, Sandberg left Google after she was offered the Chief Operating Officer position at Facebook by another Jewish entrepreneur, Mark Zuckerberg.  Again, Sandberg enjoyed the benefits of her Ivy League diploma and the ethnic favoritism of her employers. Not a bad run so far.  Wiki  estimates that Sandberg is currently worth over $1 billion, which, however, is small change compared to her former or current employers Page, Brinn and Zuckerberg, all in the high $20 billion range. Timmons goes on to note that Summers has helped yet another Jewish woman, Marne Levine, taking her from Harvard Business School to Washington with him and appointing her as Chief of Staff when he became Director of the National Economic Council. Jewish ethnic networking matters because it results in vast Jewish overrepresentation among American elites. This has huge implications because  the attitudes of Jewish elites are quite different from those of the traditional American majority — a phenomenon captured by the many articles in  TOO  under the category “ Jews as a hostile elite .”


August 20, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Vom Gedenkjahr bis zum Todesjahr (German translation of “The Year of Remembrance vs. the Year of Death: 1814, 1914, 1944, 2014…”)

DIE AULA (Graz, Juli & August, 2014)  http://www.dieaula.at/   (German translation of “ The Year of Remembrance vs. the Year of Death: 1814, 1914, 1944, 2014… “) Jedes Gedenkjahr bringt die Erinnerung an vergangene Zeiten, die man entweder aufs neue wiederbeleben möchte oder für Andersdenkende als politisch-pädagogisches Jahr der Mahnung anzuwenden versucht. Das deutsche Wort „Gedenkjahr” läßt sich nicht leicht in andere Sprachen übersetzen, und oft ruft dieses Wort bei anderen Völkern schwere Mißverständnisse hervor. Das Wort „Gedenkjahr” wird auf Englisch oder Französisch zu-gleich als „Erinnerungsjahr” und als „Jubiläumsjahr” übersetzt — zwei völlig gegensätzliche politische Begriffe! Je nach verschiedenen Völkern und ihren historischen Gesinnungen kann ein Gedenkjahr als Hoffnung, Freude, Sehnsucht, aber auch als Ermahnung, Androhung von Strafe und als Angstmittel benutzt werden. Im bezug auf unser eigenes Gedenkjahrfeiern erinnern wir uns heute an unsere Lebensdauer und schwärmen gerne von einem fröhlichem Datum in unserer Volksgeschichte. Auch wenn man seinen Geburtstag glücklich feiert und wenn man noch dazu als uralter Greise ein gutes Gedächtnis behält, wie z.B. Ernst Jünger oder Johann Wolfgang Goethe, dann kann man sagen, daß das Leben einen gewissen Sinn gehabt hat. Auch wenn man seinen 60. Jahrestag hinter sich hat, soll man sich fragen, wozu man mehr Gedenkjahre braucht. Der französisch-rumänische Ultranihilist und Kulturpessimist, der Philosoph Emile Cioran, hat geschrieben, man sollte nicht länger als 40 Jahre leben. Anläßlich seines 70. Geburtstages sagte Cioran, daß ihm von nun an weitere Glückwünsche grotesk vorkommen. Einige Jahre vor seinem Tode, in einem Interview im Jahre 1987 für den französischen Herausgeber Laurence Tacou der Cahiers de L‘Herne , sagte er: „In fünf-zig Jahren wird Notre Dame eine Moschee sein.” Advertisement Im Gegensatz dazu, wenn feindliche Völker oder Gruppen der Jahrestage ihrer eigenen politischen Katastrophen gedenken, sind sie oft geneigt, das Schlagwort „Nie wieder” zu gebrauchen. Gedenkjahre können sich dann in Sinnbilder der Todesjahre und Mahntage schnell umwandeln, besonders wenn sich feindliche Völker und Gruppen ihre endlose Gedenkjahre und ihre Opferlehren auf Kosten anderer Völker zusammenbasteln. Dann wird es ernst. Jahrestage—Gedenktage Wir erinnern uns heute auch an den Jahrestag des Wiener Kongresses von 1814, der in Europa die staatlichen Grenzen neu gezogen hat. Wir erinnern uns auch ans Jahr 1914, das mit dem neuen Dreißigjährigen Krieg in Europa begonnen hat und uns das Zeitalter der Massenmorde und Massenvertreibungen eingebracht hat. Alles ist prima und schön mit den Jahrestagen, wenn kein Ernstfall am Horizont lauert. Solch eine lineare und optimistische Denkweise, die direkt vom Zeitalter der Aufklärung stammt, ist sehr problematisch. Sie verhindert, daß heutige Bürger einen vollständigen Einblick in die zyklische Gedankenwelt ihrer Vorfahren bekommen. In unserem sogenannten aufgeklärten und freiheitsliebenden System sind die Bürger in die bizarren in-fra-politischen Jahrestagsfeiern verstrickt, in einer Vielzahl von hagiographischen Erzählungen aus und nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Demzufolge wird jede Kritik an den offiziellen Gedenktagen des Systems als kriminelles oder pathologisches Verhalten interpretiert. Wie kann man heute den „Jahrestag der Demokratie” oder den „Jahrestag der Menschrechte” kritisieren, ohne dafür bestraft zu werden? Ich hoffe, unser Kollege Dietmar Munier und die Zeitschriften die DMZ und ZUERST! werden uns noch gute pädagogische Zukunft bereiten. Wir bedürfen dringend eines neuen Jahrestages der Aufklärung und einer Entmythologisierung unserer Zeitgeschichte. Es nützt nichts, über die heutige geistige Lage zu lamentieren, wie das oft bei vielen unserer Kollegen der Fall ist. Zweckpessimismus wird oft von vielen unserer Kollegen als Alibi für Nichtstun und Passivität verwendet. Der Geschichtsverlauf jedoch bleibt offen und bietet uns immer wieder neue Chancen. Das Problem stellt sich jedoch, wenn eine historische Trennung in den Zeitverlauf plötzlich einbricht und wenn demzufolge alle Glückwünsche in Todeswünsche umkehren, dann wird der Jahrestag zum Todestag umgewandelt. Viele einst angesehene und bekannte Politiker aber auch viele große Denker und Dichter aus unserer Geschichte sind heute das Sinnbild des Schreckens geworden und ihr Name wird von den Systemleuten für die Begründung ihrer negativen Legitimität benutzt. Das System benötigt solche Schreck-gespenster als Symbole für ihre Legitimität, um damit auf seine eigenen Gutmenschen besser verweisen zu können. Was wäre Europa heute ohne die zahllosen Gedenktage, an denen die Faschismuskeule ausgepackt wird? Wahrscheinlich würde die Europäische Union zusammenbrechen, und ihre Architekten würden arbeitslos sein. Wir denken selten an die bestehende Bindung zwischen Jahresta-gen, Mahntagen und Todestagen. Man vergißt oft, daß zwischen Jubiläum und Gedenktag, zwischen Verherrlichung und Verleumdung, zwischen Leben und Tod eine empfindliche Grenzlinie besteht. Wenn der Ernstfall beginnt oder — anders gesagt — wenn der historische Umbruch eintritt, wird man Zeuge eines Trauerspiels, wobei dieses Trauerspiel eine dauerhafte politische Neurose bei einem Volke verursachen kann. Das hat uns Carl Schmitt in seinem kleinen Buche Hamlet und Hekuba mitgeteilt, namentlich mit seiner Schilderung des plötzli-chen Einbruchs der politischen Zeiten in ein relativ sorgloses und apolitisches Leben. Anders gesagt, wenn morgen oder übermorgen der Ernstfall in unsere Spaßgesellschaft einbricht, werden wir anders unserer Jahrestage gedenken.   Erinnerungskultur Solche Zeitzäsuren sind vielen unserer Bekannten in der modernen Massengesellschaft nicht bewusst.  Viele glauben noch immer an die Fortschrittstheologie, an ein Happy End, wo das Gute immer obsiegt. Das ist falsch. Nur jene von uns, mit scharfem Sinn für die Tragik und mit verlängertem Geschichtsbewusstsein, können das nachvollziehen. Wir leben ohne Illusionen. Im Juni 1941, zum Beispiel, war die seelische Lage bei den meisten Kroaten anläßlich der Gründung ihres Staates anders, als dies im Juni 1945 war. Im Juni 1941 war die allgemeine Freude des kroatischen Volkes auf ihrem Höhepunkt. Vier Jahre später, im Juni 1945, war Kroatien von der Landkarte verschwunden. Im Jahre 1991 waren die meisten Kroaten voller Freude wegen des Wiederentstehens ihres Staates, was im Gegensatz zur heutigen Lage steht, wo nämlich viele kroatische Bürger sich mehr und mehr über die weitere Zweckmäßigkeit ihres Staates Gedanken machen. Schon Schopenhauer lehrte uns, daß zu viel Optimismus immer ins Gegenteil umkehren kann. Ein weiteres Problem mit Jahrestagen liegt ihren Aufzeichnungen. Nach jedem Umbruch haben die neuen Meinungsmacher immer das letzte Wort über die Neuwahl der Jahrestage. Mancher heutiger Jahrestage wird in der BRD, aber auch anderswo in der EU gedacht, als müßten sie für alle Ewigkeit ihre Gültigkeit bewahren. An jedem 27. Januar haben wir den Holocaustgedenktag, den Auschwitz-Befreiungstag, (Man kann sich freilich fragen, was die Rotarmisten auf ihrem Wege zur Auschwitzbefreiung in Ostpreußen alles zuvor befreit hatten). Im Dezember feiern wir den Menschenrechtstag, dann im März den Frauentag. In den USA Fällt der Martin-Luther-Gedenkfeiertag auch in den Januar. Bald werden wir auch in unserem Wandkalender den Schwulen- und Lesbentag und Transvestitentag verzeichnen müssen. Die Katzenliebhaber und die Krokodilverehrer werden sich bald den Jahrestag für ihre Lieblinge erkämpfen. Wir leben in einer Museums-Erinnerungskultur, wobei der verlorenen Stämme oder der Spezies aus allen Herren Ländern gedacht werden sollen. Zum Beispiel gibt es in der BRD und in Mitteleuropa mehrere Fundorte der ausgestorbenen Neandertaler. In Kroatien, ganz in der Nähe, wo ich wohne, gibt es ein Dorf mit dem Neandertalermuseum, wo man eine große Ansammlung von Resten der Neandertaler gesammelt hat. Es ist nicht ausgeschlossen, daß in den folgenden Jahren ein Staat oder einige Regierungen Nordafrikas oder Vorderasiens sich bemühen werden, das Wiedergutmachungsgeld von kroatischen oder deutschen Behörden auf Grund ihrer angeblichen Verwandtschaft mit den verstorbenen Neandertalern und der angeblichen Ausrottung der Neandertalern seitens kroatischer und germanischer Vertreter des homo sapiens zu verlangen. Deutsch zu sein, heißt heute, ein braver Zahlmeister zu sein.   Selektive Erinnerungskultur Im Gegensatz dazu geraten ehemalige Jahrestage kollektiv in Vergessenheit. Wer er-innert sich noch an den Jahrestag der Londoner Beneš-Dekrete von 1944, die im März 1946 von der neuen tschechischen Regierung gebilligt wurden, um damit die Massenvertreibungen der Deutschen zu legitimieren? Wir haben aus unserer Geschichte schon gelernt, daß jeder schöner Jahrestag schnell ins Symbol des absoluten Bösen umgewandelt werden kann. Ein heldenhaftes Zeitalter kann von den nachfolgenden Zeiten als terroristisches Zeitalter umgedeutet werden. Demzufolge werden die Jahrestagsfeste nicht länger zu Jubiläumsfesten bestimmt, sondern übernehmen statt dessen die Rolle der Mahntage. Außerdem dienen sie als die Basis für neue Identität der neuen herrschenden Klasse. Die herrschende Klasse erbaut sich danach — neben ihrer eigenen Opferlehre — auch ihre offizielle Dämonologie, deren Arsenal die Bürger oder das ganze Volk in Angst, Schrecken und Selbstzensur versetzen soll. Das ist nichts Neues. Die Inkarnation des Bösen finden wir bei den alten Griechen und ihren Rachegöttinnen und später bei unseren Hexen. Die heutigen Jahrestage werden von heutigen Systempolitikern zu großartigen Feierlichkeiten hochstilisiert, wobei die alten Weisheiten totgeschwiegen oder als Sinnbilder absoluter Grausamkeit dargestellt werden. Die neue systembedingte Erinnerungskultur der Andersdenkenden spielt in Europa eine außerordentlich große Rolle, besonders in der Identitätsbildung der EU. Der ehemalige Bundespräsident Horst Köhler sagte im Februar 2005 vor der Knesset in Jerusalem, daß „die Verantwortung für die Shoah ein Teil der deutschen Identität ist«. Was Köhler sagte, betrifft nicht nur das deutsche Volk, sondern alle Völker und alle Staaten Europas inklusive die Vereinigten Staaten. Die Opferlehren nichteuropäischer Völker sind zum größten Teil die neue Zivilreligion des Abendlandes geworden.   Anpassung oder Abgrenzung? Alles hat seinen Preis. Auch die Freidenker und unsere nonkonformistisch. Publi-zisten, ganz zu schweigen von den kompromißlosen, aber seltenen Akademikern in der BRD und anderswo in der EU, müssen allesamt einen hohen Preis für ihr tägliches Brot zahlen. Tatsächlich kosten die Zeitschrift DMZ und ZUERST! auch Geld. Doch zumindest sind diese Zeitungen bis jetzt systemkritisch und objektiv geblieben. Letztendlich, alles hängt davon ab, ob ein Journalist, ein Schriftsteller oder ein Akademiker mit dem System kooperieren will, um sich damit ein sicheres Leben für sich und seine Familie erschaffen zu können, oder ob er bereit ist, als Freidenker ein Leben eines Ausgegrenzten zu leben. Klar, die Trennungslinie zwischen Vorsichtigkeit und Selbstzensur ist oft nicht sichtbar. Oft ist es peinlich, sie zu entschlüsseln. Vorsichtigkeit kann auch Feigheit sein. Im Gegensatz dazu können Entscheidungskraft und Mut zur Freiheit oft gegensätzliche Folgen haben, die Jahrzehnte danach katastrophale Auswirkungen für jüngere Generationen haben können. Der junge Hamlet und der junge Faust waren scharfe Denker mit großem Einfühlungsvermögen für die Welt der Andersdenkenden und Andersartigen. Jedoch waren beide Neurotiker und ohne irgendwelche Entscheidungskraft. Immer mußten die bösen Geister für sie die Entscheidung treffen. Der andere Typus sind unsere bewaffneten und kampflustigen Helden wie der junge Recke Siegfried aus dem Nibelungenlied oder der junge Achill aus der Ilias. Beide hatten keine Furcht vor ihrem vorzeitigen und vorgeahnten Tod, da für die beiden der Tod ewiger Ruhm hieß. Aber die beiden haben mit ihrem rücksichtslosen, obgleich wohlgemeinten Verhalten großen Schaden ihrer Sippe zugefügt. Ich weiß nicht, welches Modell zu empfehlen wäre. Vielleicht eine Mischung zwischen Recke mit Kampfesmut und Dichter mit Schöngeist? Ein Anarch in jüngerscher Lebensweise? Das haben wir in unserer Geschichte auch schon erlebt. Ein langes ich-bezogenes Leben als Fachidiot und Bücherwurm zu leben oder als ein uralter Greis ständig über die Systemlügen oder über seine eigene Inkontinenz zu grübeln, ist wohl ein Zeitverlust. Als namenloses Schaf lange zu leben ohne jede Nachwirkung an seine Mitwelt, ist sinnlos. Allerding auch die friedlichen Schafe müssen sterben, nämlich gewöhnlich nach zehn oder zwölf Jahren, auch wenn es keine Wölfe in der Nähe gibt.   Eigener Rückblick Vor 42 Jahren war ich auch jung oder vielleicht war ich schon uralt. Ich weiß nicht, wie ich meine Jugend überlebt habe. Ich suchte damals auch einen Gedenktag, den ich gut imitieren konnte — damals als Hippi in Indien mit meinen eigen. Annäherungen, Gefährlichen Begegnungen und meinen Strahlungen , wenn ich hier Ernst Jünger paraphrasieren darf — ohne einen Pfennig in der Tasche. Zum Glück habe ich früh gelernt, daß man besser das System mit gutem Anzug und Doktortitel bekämpfen kann als mit langen Haaren und Ohrringen. Ich schließe meine Rede mit den Versen der Musikgruppe Böhse Onkelz aus ihrem Lied, „Der Preis des Lebens“: Der Preis des Lebens ist der Tod Deshalb hab’ ich dich geholt Du lebst für mich Und jetzt nehm’ ich dich In meine Arme, in meine Arme   Ich mache keinen Unterschied Zwischen jung und alt Ob du arm oder reich bist Läßt mich kalt Ich heiß’ euch alle willkommen. Dr. Tomislav Sunic ( www.tomsunic.com ) ist Schriftsteller, Publizist, ehemaliger US-Professor (Politikwissenschaftler) und einstiger kroatischer Diplomat.  


August 16, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Diversity Chronicle Purges Reactionary Racists Posing as Progressives, Apologizes to Readers

The following article was originally posted by Diversity Chronicle, a satirical website. It is reposted here by  permission.  August 10, 2014  · by  Diversity Chronicle By Ray Charlston It is a sad fact that today, even within progressive circles, the majority of white people are racist. They were born racist and they will always be racist. Experts, including professors, sociologists, psychologists and human rights activists agree. The majority of whites are incurably evil, and only their complete extermination can save the planet and people of colour from them. It is only a matter of time before the majority of whites again inevitably revert to their natural tendency toward Fascist Hitlerism. We must destroy them before that can happen. Recent events have sadly reminded me as to the utterly depraved and incurably hateful nature of white people. Unfortunately, racist whites are so pervasive that they have infiltrated everything, including even the most progressive circles. Fortunately for us however, racist white reactionary employees of Diversity Chronicle have recently been exposed and purged from our operations! We denounce these former employees and their racist reactionary views! If it were within our power, we would send them to forced labour camps or publicly execute them! We eagerly look forward to a world in which such appropriate remedies and just punishments will be dealt out by the state to these most despicable and evil criminals. The hate criminal John Tenison, formerly our UK correspondent, has admitted in a signed confession to having once laughed out loud at an ugly racist joke nearly 25 years ago. He has been terminated. This individual’s counter-progressive views have long been kept hidden behind a facade of false compassion and pretended self-loathing. This individual attempted to cast himself as among the most anti-white of whites in order to avoid suspicion. He was often overheard loudly calling for the extermination of all white people. His ruse exposed, he will never deceive us again! During his interrogation, which lasted twelve hours, Tenison confessed that he was aware of two other racists within the ranks of Diversity Chronicle and he named them. Advertisement Diversity Chronicle wishes to thank Mr. Tenison’s daughter, Silvia, aged seven, who overheard her father admit that he once laughed at a racial joke. She promptly contacted our staff to report the incident. She deserves praise for showing the courage to expose her own father’s racist views and to publicly denounce them. Mr. Tenison’s wife of over twenty years also chose to denounce her husband and his views and to disassociate herself from them. She has vowed to initiate immediate divorce proceedings. Mrs. Tenison stated, referring to her husband, that she “would like to strangle him to death for his racism!” During his interrogation, it was also revealed that Mr. Tenison sometimes listens to pretentious opera music, revealing sympathy for degenerate forms of aristocratic and upper-class entertainment. Mr. Tenison’s wife also reported hearing her husband on at least two occasions, expressing dislike and confusion over modern art. He stated words to the effect that “anything passes for art today.” Mr. Tenison’s ugly classism, as manifested in his reactionary attitudes toward modern art and music no doubt stems from his privileged affluent white upbringing in London’s wealthy upper west side. So often, individuals express startlingly shocking racist views in their private conversations, phone calls and e-mails with friends and family members. Henceforth, all white employees of Diversity Chronicle have agreed to allow all of their private e-mails and letters to be screened by our offices for possible racism. We have also installed recording devices on their telephones so that we can monitor them for racist and reactionary hate speech. Additionally, we have set up “Hate Defeating Boxes” in every room of our offices. Employees may now inform on suspected racists easily and anonymously by simply depositing a small card into a box with the name of the suspected racist on it. Never again will racists be permitted to be in our employ! We will route out racism wherever we find it! The hate criminal Albert Haeckel, a former assistant editor at Diversity Chronicle has also been terminated. During his own confession, John Tenison stated that he once overheard Mr. Haeckel being asked about his propensity for wearing white suits to work. He replied “I just prefer to wear white, I guess.” Mr. Haeckel’s admitted preference for things white reveals a deep-seated subconscious racism that we will tolerate no longer! These views have no place at Diversity Chronicle and no place in our society! For several hours during his confession Mr. Haeckel, aged sixty seven, attempted to deny his racism as most racists invariably do! It was only after spending over 48 hours tied up in the basement of our offices with the lights out that Haeckel finally began to admit that he was at least a “subconscious racist.” Haeckel then agreed to sign a written confession admitting his racism and denouncing his views and counter-progressive attitudes. During questioning, Haeckel admitted that one of his cousins has a son who once attended a disgusting Tea Party movement meeting, yet Mr. Haeckel failed to sever all ties with his cousin and still spoke to him by phone “once or twice a year!” Revealing a long pattern of deep-seated racism, it was also discovered that at his former place of employment Mr. Haeckel once promoted a young white woman over an African-American male, making a privileged white an assistant editor at that publication. After several hours Mr. Haeckel broke down crying and apologized for his ugly, racist and inexcusable actions. He vowed that he would hang himself upon returning home, recognizing that he rightly deserved death for his crimes and racist attitudes. The hate criminal Barbara Madison, a former secretary at Diversity Chronicle, has been terminated. Ms. Madison was exposed during Mr. Tenison’s confession. Ms. Madison admitted that she once told an immigrant’s rights activist that she “couldn’t understand” her and asked her to “speak slower.” This activist spoke English with a very slight accent and Ms. Madison, who is white, merely pretended not to understand her in a manifestation of her desire to assert her position as a privileged white supremacist. Ms. Madison’s cruel and hateful actions will never again be tolerated. During her interrogation Ms. Madison also initially attempted to deny her racism, citing her membership in progressive organizations and her many years of activism as an unpaid volunteer. She even resorted to using the most common tactic racists adopt to deflect accusations of racism, claiming she had “friends” who were African-American! She even claimed she “only dates black men.” After several hours of appeals to admit her crimes and denounce her racist views, Ms. Madison began crying and finally acknowledging her racism. In a pathetic and pitiful display, she began begging for leniency and vowed to reform herself and dedicate her life to fighting racism. As she threw herself on the floor grovelling and grabbing our shoes, we called security, and our African-American security staff quickly threw her out of the building! Diversity Chronicle apologizes for having once unknowingly employed white racists. We vow to adopt stronger measures than ever before to prevent any reoccurrences of these tragic events. We commit ourselves anew to defending diversity and combating hatred, bigotry, and intolerance wherever it may be found! If any member of the public should overhear, become aware of, or suspect for any reason that any person employed by Diversity Chronicle harbours racist views, we urge you to contact us immediately. With your help, we will work to smash racism forever! Copyright © 2014 Diversity Chronicle All Rights Reserved.


August 16, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

The Genesis of Genocide: Paranoia, Ingroup Thinking, and Ethnic Supremacism

To study how genocide can be rationalized, you don’t always need to study history. You could just read some recent comments inspired by the Gaza war — none of which include messy details like the blockade of Gaza which has reduced it to a very large concentration camp in all but name. Given such a situation, extreme hostility toward Israel on the part of Gazans is entirely expected. This failure to place the Gaza situation in context is typical of ingroup thinking. As Andrew Joyce notes , ignoring the context and how Jewish behavior has contributed to or even shaped the  context are key components of Jewish self-deception. But ignoring the context completely creates a situation where any and all actions against the Palestinians are warranted. I’ll start with this blog by a Jewish New Yorker called Yochanan Gordon: When Genocide Is Permissible Judging by the numbers of casualties on both sides in this almost one-month old war one would be led to the conclusion that Israel has resorted to disproportionate means in fighting a far less-capable enemy. That is as far as what meets the eye. But, it’s now obvious that the US and the UN are completely out of touch with the nature of this foe and are therefore not qualified to dictate or enforce the rules of this war — because when it comes to terror there is much more than meets the eye. … We are at war with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of our people. Nothing, then, can be considered disproportionate when we are fighting for our very right to live. The sad reality is that Israel gets it, but its hands are being tied by world leaders who over the past six years have insisted they are such good friends with the Jewish state, that they know more regarding its interests than even they do. But there’s going to have to come a time where Israel feels threatened enough where it has no other choice but to defy international warnings — because this is life or death. … Hamas has stated forthrightly that it idealizes death as much as Israel celebrates life. What other way then is there to deal with an enemy of this nature other than obliterate them completely? Everyone agrees that Israel has the right to defend itself as well as the right to exercise that right. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has declared it, Obama and Kerry have clearly stated that no one could be expected to sit idle as thousands of rockets rain down on the heads of its citizens, placing them in clear and present danger. It seems then that the only point of contention is regarding the measure of punishment meted out in this situation. I will conclude with a question for all the humanitarians out there. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly stated at the outset of this incursion that his objective is to restore a sustainable quiet for the citizens of Israel. We have already established that it is the responsibility of every government to ensure the safety and security of its people. If political leaders and military experts determine that the only way to achieve its goal of sustaining quiet is through genocide is it then permissible to achieve those responsible goals? ( “Genocide Is Permissible” Muses Times Of Israel, Promptly Retracts , Zero Hedge , 1st August 2014) Theorizing Genocide: Yochanan Gordon of Nre York City Advertisement The psychology behind communist mass murder is still alive and well in twenty-first century New York. In his blog post, Yochanan Gordon obviously places supreme value on Jewish lives and no value at all on Palestinian lives. But Gordon displayed more than self-pity, paranoia and Jewish supremacism in advancing a case for genocide. He was also arrogant and solipsistic. Could he not see that he was giving a huge propaganda gift to the supporters of the Palestinian cause? Apparently not. He defended his arguments vigorously for a time before retracting them with some boilerplate about peace: “I wish to express deep regret and beg forgiveness for an article I authored which was posted on 5TJT.com, Times of Israel and tweeted and shared the world over,” Yochanan Gordon said in an email to JTA [Jewish Telegraphic Agency]. “I never intended to call to harm any people although my words may have conveyed that message,” he said. “With that said I pray and hope for a quick peaceful end to the hostilities and that all people learn to coexist with each other in creating a better world for us all.” ( Times of Israel, 5 Towns paper, remove posting pondering genocide in Gaza , Jewish Telegraph Agency, 1st August 2014) Sincere? I doubt it. But he sounded sincere when he talked about genocide. He’s far from alone in that. Members of the Knesset, or Israeli parliament, have expressed similar sentiments: Theorizing annihilation: Moshe Feiglin Israeli official calls for concentration camps in Gaza and ‘the conquest of the entire Gaza Strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters’ [Isn't it already a concentration camp?] An Israeli official has called for concentration camps in Gaza and ‘the conquest of the entire Gaza Strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters’. Moshe Feiglin, Deputy Speaker of the Israeli Knesset and member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party, posted the inflammatory message on his Facebook page at the weekend. He lays out a detailed plan for the destruction of Gaza – which includes shipping its residents across the world – in a letter he addressed to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The message, which received more than 2,000 likes on his page, lists four action points which he wants to be enforced as soon as possible. Feiglin details the first one as ‘defining the enemy’ and states: ‘The strategic enemy is extremist Arab Islam in all its varieties, from Iran to Gaza, which seeks to annihilate Israel in its entirety. The immediate enemy is Hamas. (Not the tunnels, not the rockets, but Hamas.)’ He says another important part of his plan is the ‘conquest of the entire Gaza Strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters.’ He lays out a detailed plan for the destruction of Gaza – which includes shipping its residents across the world – in a letter he addressed to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Gaza war, now in its fourth week, has left more than 1,800 Palestinians dead. Feiglin details how he wants the Israeli PM ‘to turn Gaza into Jaffa, a flourishing Israeli city with a minimum number of hostile civilians.’ In 1948 Jaffa was a Palestinian town but there was an exodus of most of its Arab population when it fell to the fledgling Israeli army and right-wing Jewish militias. In the letter he expresses his desire for the IDF to find areas on the Sinai border to establish ‘tent encampments…until relevant emigration destinations are determined.’ He says that the supply of electricity and water to the Gaza would be disconnected before being ‘shelled with maximum fire power.’ ( Israeli official calls for concentration camps in Gaza and ‘the conquest of the entire Gaza Strip, and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters’ , The Daily Mail , 5th August 2014) And Ayelet Shaked, a female member of the Knesset,  sees it as a race war where all Palestinians should be annilihated: The Palestinian people has declared war on us, and we must respond with war. Not an operation, not a slow-moving one, not low-intensity, not controlled escalation, no destruction of terror infrastructure, no targeted killings. Enough with the oblique references. This is a war. Words have meanings. This is a war. It is not a war against terror, and not a war against extremists, and not even a war against the Palestinian Authority. These too are forms of avoiding reality. This is a war between two people [ sic ]. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people. Why? Ask them, they started [ sic ]. I don’t know why it’s so hard for us to define reality with the simple words that language puts at our disposal. Why do we have to make up a new name for the war every other week, just to avoid calling it by its name. What’s so horrifying about understanding that the entire Palestinian people is the enemy? Every war is between two peoples, and in every war the people who started the war, that whole people, is the enemy. A declaration of war is not a war crime. Responding with war certainly is not. Nor is the use of the word “war”, nor a clear definition who the enemy is. Au contraire: the morality of war (yes, there is such a thing) is founded on the assumption that there are wars in this world, and that war is not the normal state of things, and that in wars the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure. Behind every terrorist stand [ sic ]   dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.” ( The member of Knesset who called for genocide — against the mothers of the ‘snakes’ , Mondweiss.net, 2nd August 2014) Similar thinking is behind Jewish support for mass immigration by non-Whites into Europe, North America and Australia. It doesn’t matter that mass immigration will destroy White Christian nations. And I suspect that a Marxist version of such ingroup thinking motivated  “Stalin’s willing executioners”  – the disproportionately Jewish communists who committed mass murder against the Christians of Russia and Ukraine in the early twentieth century. But such thinking has a very long pedigree in the foundational documents of Judaism. This ethnic supremacism has inspired Jewish attacks on non-Jews not just for centuries, but for millennia. If you want proof, just open the Bible: 20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: 20:18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. ( The Fifth Book of Moses , called Deuteronomy)


August 16, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

The Rise and Demise of the EU: A Short History of A Big Failure

Otto Dix, “Prague Street,” (oil) 1920   Several costly mistakes were made by the founding fathers of the European Union: economics, and not politics, was thought to be the best tool to bring about the unification of Europe; unclear plans about the limits of the enlargement of the European Union; the unexpected and ongoing floods of non-European immigration as a result of the iron law of capitalism, combined with starry-eyed, guilt-feeling Christian inspired “love thy colored neighbor” ecumenism. The first signs of the decline did not wait to occur.  The Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, the Nice Treaty of 2001, and the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 became face-saving attempts at rectifying the failures already embedded in the founding myth of the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Quite revealing is the fact that the predecessor of the European Union, the European Economic Community (EEC), following the Treaty of Rome in 1957 , had adopted the “economic” name and not the name of “political community.” The underlying belief, inherent to liberalism, was that only thorough economic benefits — only through the removal of trade barriers and state borders, and with the free flux of people, goods and capital — would age-old interethnic hatreds among Europeans disappear. The results of such delusions are becoming visible every day. Advertisement Nor has the EU been very democratically minded toward its member states.  In 1992 Denmark voted in a referendum against the Maastricht Treaty; in 2001 Ireland voted against the Nice Treat, and then Ireland again voted in 2008 against the Lisbon Treaty. The popular outcome of those national referendums was each time shrugged off by the EU leaders with the words: “try again next time.” Concerning the main EU mover and shaker, Germany, all referenda on any subject are forbidden by law, due to Germany’s post-WWII legal status. To put it in a less politically correct language and in plain English, Germany is an occupied country with 50.000 US troops still stationed on its soil.   Transfer Union: Austerity Union The centralized bureaucracy in Brussels regulates every aspect of life among European member states. When a country faces default, the EU is slated to become a “transfer union,” with rich countries, like Germany, setting the rules for defaulting countries. Subsequently, based on the latter’s financial (in)discipline, hand- out money is to be delivered to insolvent banks of a state facing default. This practice is in contradiction with Article 125 of the Maastricht Treaty forbidding any EU member state to bail out another member state. But who cares. The mystique of the market needs to prevail in the EU — in this regard, it is quite similar to the enforcement of the former Marxist mystique in the former Soviet Union. For instance, given the disparity in economic performance between Romania and Germany and their divergent taxation systems, blind faith that the market can smooth out all difficulties appears to be another illusion. The Euro, introduced as the single currency in the economies of the 17 member states in the early 2000’s with the hope of accelerating the convergence of national economies, has instead worsened the living standards of EU citizens. The EU removal of all obstacles to free trade has resulted in the influx of cheap non-European goods produced in emerging economies of the Far East, engaged in dumping in all forms (social, fiscal, environmental, etc.). The labor market in Pacific Rim countries, including India and China, with the population of well over 3.5 billion people, has a huge comparative advantage in supplying cheap labor and inexpensive goods to Europe. This inevitably results in the sharp decline of wages of Europeans, followed by incessant outsourcing of local labor-intensive manufacturing industry. The Euro could make sense if two conditions had been met: the existence of the strong custom union with protective tariffs and the awareness that economic disparities between the rich and the poor member European states would not go away with a stroke of a pen. This, however, was not the case. The single European currency imposed a single interest rate on the 17 member states and the remaining 11 states which do not use the Euro, but whose own local currency is pegged to the Euro. The European Central Bank in Frankfurt, similar to the Federal Reserve in the U.S., is a true political sovereign in Europe; it has more clout in foreign and domestic policy than any member state or any local government in the EU. Another worrisome project is the soon-to-be launched Euro-American “New Transatlantic Economic Partnership” (TTIP), created in 1998. This joint body, consisting of the European Commission and US government officials, is scheduled to create a transatlantic market in all aspects of trade and investment. In June 2013, the European Commission negotiated with the U.S. government a large transatlantic common market designated to eliminate trade barriers between the EU and USA and allegedly bring more prosperity to the citizens of the EU and the U.S. Similar rhetoric about “prosperity for all European citizens” could be heard in Europe on the eve of the Maastricht Treaty when the European Commission pontificated about the implementation of the single European market, scheduled for 1992 and thought to be able to generate between 2 and 5 million new jobs. Where are those jobs? Instead, as of June 2014, there were well over 25 million unemployed in the EU, part-timers not included. The Wall Street Journal of February 2, 2014 quotes the European Commission saying that the “TTIP is the cheapest stimulus package imaginable.” The WSJ author of the article continues in an upbeat vein, adding that “the EU and the U.S. can expect more than $250 billion in additional GDP and hundreds of thousands of jobs from a successful partnership, according to the Center for European Policy Analysis.” Such ecstatic rhetoric is worthy of former Soviet fable tellers. What the TTIP does not mention is securing of rights of the labor; nor does it mention the vanishing role of trade unions in Europe, which have, over the last century, even more than in the USA, been the only safety net for European workers. However, in a global world today, in order to stay competitive, a firm or an enterprise must lower the costs of production. Obviously, this must entail the constant reduction in workers’ wages, benefits, and, generally speaking, the reduction of budgetary allocations for the welfare state in Europe. Another factor affecting meager growth in Europe, as Alain de Benoist writes in his new book dealing with the coming European apocalypse, is the huge pressure of big shareholders. In the modern capitalist system, both in the US and EU, companies finance shareholders and not the other way around. Modern shareholders always assume that a company or an enterprise must be in their service — starting with investment funds. Predictably, shareholders want to maximize the value of their capital gains even if that means for a national company or a firm to cut wages, carry out mass layoffs and relocate domestic citizens to faraway countries.   Capitalism and Christianity Breeding Interbreeding  A third and the most serious problem the EU Commission is aware of, but does not want to tackle in public, is social and racial costs of non- European immigration to Europe. Immigration has always been a phenomenon linked to big business. As of now, according to official statistics, the European Union, with its 500 million people, has over 71 million immigrants, as reported by the very politically correct, French mainstream daily, Le Monde .According to recent statistics Spain, Germany and UK have more than half of all immigrants in the EU, that is, 6.5% of the EU population. There were 47.3 million foreign-born residents in the EU in 2010, corresponding to 9.4% of the total population. Of these, 31.4 million were born outside the EU with 16 million born in another EU member state. In 2007, out of 82.3 million inhabitants in Germany, 15.4 million had — what the German authorities and media euphemistically and in a politically correct German vernacular call — “migrant background” ( Migrationshintergrund ), meaning in plain English, non-White immigrants. One must be careful though with the statistical body counts of immigrants, a procedure often falsely viewed in academia as the most reliable empirical basis for the study of immigration. The figure of 71 million immigrants in the EU does not specify whether this figure includes the number of illegal immigrants, or the number of White European immigrants relocating to other EU member states, or immigrants of color. In France, for instance, millions of Moroccan or Algerian residents and/or their descendants are not counted as immigrants, many being already naturalized and many holding two citizenships. The French law prohibits making statistics on the basis of racial affiliation; therefore, one cannot tell by official statistics the exact number of the non-Whites in France. Acquisition of citizenship is also on the rise in the EU. In 2009, 776.000 persons obtained citizenship in 28 states comprising the European Union. However, millions of Africans and Asians, already naturalized in the UK and France, are not included in this figure. They are already considered “Europeans.”  Also, by U.S. Department of State estimates, as of 2011, there were 1.6 million Americans in Europe, the US military and diplomatic personnel not included. One could cautiously put the overall numbers of naturalized citizens of color, along with non-naturalized legal and illegal immigrants of color residing in the EU at 10 percent, i.e. roughly 50 million non- Whites in Europe. Contrary to a widespread belief among many European and American Whites, not only the leftists or the antifas and other non-White ethnic activist organizations are advocates of non-European immigration. Big companies, big business and the Church bear the lion’s share of the responsibility for bringing in non-European immigrants. The merchant, just like his counterpart, the Communist commissar or the Christian prelate, does not like borders. In particular the Catholic Church in Europe has been over the last several decades the most outspoken champion of multiracial society. Theologically speaking, any state border is in contradiction with the spirit of Christian ecumenism, and its end result resulting in race mixing. In historical perspective, one only needs to briefly look at the open advocacy of race mixing by the Church in Latin America from the 17th to the 20th century.  From the perspective of capitalist free trade, however, immigration is in full accordance with the spirit of capitalism aiming at the erasure of all ethnicities and of all national borders (“laissez faire, laissez passer”). Most non-European immigrants, both legal and illegal, owe their mass arrival to Europe to guilt-ridden, Christian-inspired, Good Samaritan humanitarianism professed by the Church combined with the so-called outsourcing brought about by the very logic of capitalism. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, at the beginning of the 19t h  century, capitalists have dreamed of the increased mobility of labor as well as continuous migration of people and races across the earth. This time around, big business has finally reached its hand to the Marxist inspired far-left and to modern Christian disciples of various stripes, the former aiming at dismantling the welfare state, considered too costly, the latter killing off the nation-state viewed  as an unchristian entity or considered a legacy of fascism. One should examine first the Christian belief in egalitarianism and universalism and its secular economic and ideological derivatives, such as communism and capitalism, before criticizing non-European immigrants storming into Europe and the USA. Dr. Tom Sunic is a former political science professor and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Freedom Party. His new book is Chroniques des temps postmodernes (Avatar, 2014).


August 12, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Australian PM Caves in to Jewish Lobby on Free Speech Laws

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott In the face of a coordinated and sustained campaign initiated and led by Jewish activists, the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has abandoned his 2013 election promise to water down or remove Section 18C of Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act which makes it unlawful to act in a manner likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone on the basis of race. Abbott said he had made a “leadership decision” to walk away from his pledge despite having promised to remove this outrageous restriction on the free speech after the law was used successfully against conservative columnist Andrew Bolt in 2011. It is a measure of the power wielded by organized Jewry in Australia that the Prime Minister would rather damage his political credibility by breaking a clear election promise than suffer the consequences of defying the single most powerful group in Australian society. Abbott, who made the announcement while outlining an extension of anti-terrorism laws, attempted to justify his broken promise by claiming   “I don’t want to do anything that puts our national unity at risk at this time and so those proposals are now off the table.” Abbott’s apparent desire to not further alienate Australia’s problematic Islamic community by repealing Section 18C (at a time when the government is set to strengthen laws against terrorism) is an obvious political smokescreen. The veteran Jewish journalist, Michael Gawenda, writing in the Business Spectator , identified the real reason behind the Prime Minister walking away from his election commitment: While Abbott said that the decision to ditch the plan to rid the Racial Discrimination Act of section 18C was taken because of “complications” in dealing with Islamic communities in the context of the proposed tough new terrorism laws, it seems likely that more was involved in this decision. The conflict in Gaza and the coverage and reaction to this appalling, heartbreaking conflagration, in my opinion, made it virtually certain that any move to change or abolish section 18C would extract too high a political price. The repeal of section 18C was vigorously opposed by the leadership of virtually every ethnic community in the country. But it would be fair to say — without wishing to give succor to those who reckon the Jews are too powerful — that Jewish community leaders have played a crucial role in organizing the opposition to any potential change to the RDA.  It is the opposition of the Jewish communal leaders that had been of major concern to [Attorney General] Brandis and, to a significant extent, Tony Abbott. Advertisement Gawenda notes that the Jewish community’s overwhelming support for Section 18C (which was itself originally the legislative result of submissions by organized Jewry to the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1995) is linked to the broader Jewish commitment to “multiculturalism” in Australia. The main reason that Brandis and Abbott were most concerned about the opposition of the Jewish communal leadership to any changes to section 18C is because the Jewish community is generally seen as a role model for successful multiculturalism. It is for these reasons that the Jewish communal leadership has played such an outsized role in the campaign against the watering down or elimination of section 18C. If the Jewish community is a prime example of successful multiculturalism, then its support for the retention of 18C, its highly effective campaign against any change to the RDA on the basis that any change would seriously undermine multiculturalism and free the racists to say whatever they please, represented serious political pain for Brandis and Abbott. Gawenda is disingenuous in claiming that the source of the Jewish community’s power in this debate resides in its being a “role model for successful multiculturalism” rather than in its status as a group with the kind of financial, political and media clout to instil genuine fear in those who oppose its interests. As in the United States, Jewish money exerts a dominating influence over Australian politics, which guarantees that most politicians are willing to put the Australian Defense Forces (and Australian taxpayers) to the service of an ethno-nationalist state in which Australia has no economic or strategic interest. The Jewish academic and activist Dan Goldberg acknowledges that: “The annual report of the Australian Electoral Commission always includes Jewish names and Jewish-owned companies donating large sums to both sides of politics.”[i] The sway held by organized Jewry over Australia’s political leaders was highlighted earlier this year when the former Foreign Minister Bob Carr hit out at the “pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne,” saying it wielded “extraordinary influence” on Australia’s foreign policy during his time in former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s cabinet.Asked how the lobby achieved this influence he said: “I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that’s not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level.” Carr’s observations were later corroborated by the former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser who said Carr was “absolutely correct” in his view that the Jewish lobby wielded too much power. Gawenda asserts that, unlike the vast majority of Australian Jews, he was originally in favor of the proposal to water down Section 18C of the Act until recent events gave him pause for thought: in particular the widespread criticism of Israel and its supporters for their attempts to justify the appalling massacre of Palestinian civilians in Gaza: But here’s the thing. I believe that in recent days, in the light of what has been published about Jews and the conflict in Gaza, the clearly anti-Semitic cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald , for instance — for which the SMH has issued an apology in an editorial that I found unsatisfactory — not to mention the astounding amount of outright racist filth to be found on social media, it may no longer be the case that we can trust editors and executive producers when it comes to ensuring that what amounts to vilification is not given any room in mainstream commentary and analysis. So, for Gawenda, the recent (and entirely legitimate) criticism of the actions of the ethno-nationalist state of Israel and its Zionist cheerleaders in the West only serves to confirm that Jewish leaders were right to oppose any changes to Section 18C. The criticism of the Israeli government and those who would defend its barbarity in Gaza simply confirms for Gawenda that Australians cannot be trusted with unfettered free speech. Incidentally, the supposedly “anti-Semitic” cartoon in the Sydney Morning Herald to which he refers is less an anti-Semitic caricature and more an accurate representation of actual events — of Israeli citizens sitting outside to watch and cheer the bombing of the helpless Palestinian civilians as entertainment. The “anti-Semitic” Sydney Morning Herald cartoon An “anti-Semitic” photograph? Likewise, for the Australian Jewish academic and activist Danny Ben-Moshe , the slaughter in Gaza “has led to the crossing of new anti-Semitic thresholds with the potential to take us down a dangerous path. It is a path not laid with guns and bullets, but with loose and manipulative language.”  According to Gawenda, it was the sudden outbreak of truth-telling about Israel and the dishonesty of its apologists that reinvigorated the campaign by Australian Jewish leaders to oppose any changes to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act : It is this that made Jewish community leaders more determined than ever to oppose any change to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. And in the main, Jews in Australia support the communal leadership on this issue. No one can doubt that there has been an alarming rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, something that is hardly reported in most of the Australian media. Jews feel under threat — in some cases physical threat — in France and Belgium and Germany and even in England. Not to mention Hungary, where an openly anti-Semitic party has garnered significant support. Thousands of French Jews have left France for Israel and other places. The numbers leaving every month are growing. Though there has not been a similar rise in virulent anti-Semitism in Australia, Jews in Australia nevertheless have good reason to believe that if the virus of anti-Semitism is spreading in Europe, it might one day reach these shores. In this environment, Tony Abbott decided that the plan to change section 18C, a solemn promise he had made to Bolt and to his supporters at the Institute of Public Affairs had to be abandoned. Will there be a better political time to resurrect these proposed changes? Almost certainly not. Note the standard pathologization of anti-Jewish sentiment as a “virus” that has nothing whatever to do with Jewish behavior. On the other hand, the reflexive Jewish hostility toward Europeans (which has led to the demographic transformation of Western nations over the last few decades) is apparently not a virus, but stems, rather, from some highly developed sense of fairness and universal brotherhood that is inherent in all Jews. Of course, what Gawenda won’t acknowledge is that the only reason Jews are increasingly subject to anti-Semitic attacks in countries like France and England is because of mass non-White (particularly Muslim) immigration and multiculturalism — both of which are the malignant outgrowths of Jewish ethnic activism. A disappointed Andrew Bolt observed that Jewish leaders would ultimately regret opposing changes to the Act, noting that: “The Jewish leaders now should look very, very deeply into their souls at what they have helped wrought and ask themselves, are you seriously safer now as a result?” Bolt’s reasoning is that under Section 18C Australian Jews will in future be precluded from criticizing the beliefs and actions of a growing and increasingly militant Australian Islamic community which will be increasingly hostile to Israel and the interests of Australian Jews. As with Gawenda, Bolt fails to mention that the only reason there are any Muslims in Australia at all (with all their myriad problems and social dysfunctions) is because Jewish activism succeeded in ending the White Australia policy and establishing multiculturalism as the basis for social policy in Australia. As The Jewish academic Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” It is clear that the Jewish fear and loathing of White Australia trumps any concern about the anti-Semitic tendencies among non-White immigrants that are being imported into the nation. The Jewish writer Peta Jones-Pellach is not alone in expressing the view that Australian Jews should always back the Muslim minority in any conflict with White Australia, arguing that “We recognize that our ongoing harmonious acceptance into the Australian community depends on forging bonds with the increasing numbers of non-Jewish Australians who might be our theological opponents or even our enemies.”[ii] The supposed benefits to Australian Jewry that multiculturalism has bestowed – most notably the diminished threat of the emergence of a mass movement of anti-Semitism from White Australians — is seen as having far outweighed any negative effects of large scale Islamic immigration such as the fact that: “Some Australian Jews fear that migrants arriving from Muslim countries will contribute to anti-Semitic currents in Australia, inflame extremist groups and pose a threat to the relative peace they currently enjoy.”[iii] The rise of Islamic anti-Semitism in the West reveals a paradoxical element of the overwhelming Jewish support for multiculturalism; an element which resulted in the emergence and growth of neoconservatism. Kevin MacDonald notes that: “Although multiculturalist ideology was invented by Jewish intellectuals to rationalize the continuation of separatism and minority-group ethnocentrism in a modern Western state, several of the recent instantiations of multiculturalism may eventually produce a monster with negative consequences for Judaism.”[iv] Australian Jewish activists like Dan Goldberg recognize the danger, and he notes that: Herein lies an underlying tension that exists in the psyche of Australian Jews in the new millennium: on the one hand understanding the fundamental wrong in tarring all Muslims with the same extremist brush; on the other hand feeling great unease in showing support for Muslims, some of whose brothers are waging jihad against Israel and the Jews. … Many Australian Jews are therefore caught between these tides, ostensibly supportive of minority rights but cognizant of the fact that among the Muslim community are radical elements who seek our destruction. [v] Despite these concerns, most Australian Jews see themselves as the longer-term beneficiaries of policies explicitly designed to dilute the power of the traditional European-derived Australian majority. Australian Jewry has therefore sought to make alliances with various immigrant groups in opposition to the White majority, including Muslims. Attempts to form a political coalition with Australian Muslims date from the earliest days of Australian multiculturalism. Australian Jews sought Muslim support for the enactment of the racial discrimination legislation recommended by the Lippmann-chaired Committee on Community Relations in the mid-1970s. In the years since, Jews have repeatedly sought the support of the Muslim community in lobbying for various multicultural policies, including those relating to “access to government services, recourse for victims of discrimination, and protection from harassment.” Jewish activism organizations such as the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council was quick to enlist Australia’s Muslim leaders in their campaign to oppose any changed to Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act . According to Jeremy Jones , the director of international and community affairs of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, “the relationship between Australian Jews and Muslims has developed positively over the past decade.” Nevertheless, he believes that “maintaining the momentum will require leadership and determination, but there are good grounds for optimism given the network of relations and shared fruitful experiences in contemporary multicultural Australia.” Clearly, Australian Jewry believes that, despite the threat to Jews represented by the strong anti-Jewish sentiment in growing sections of the Australian Islamic community, the relationship is basically manageable in the longer-term. Having won the battle over Section 18C, it is certain that activist Jews will push for even tougher restrictions on freedom of speech in Australia, and indeed throughout the West. The attempt to confine public discourse to within parameters that do not threaten Jewish interests has been a central preoccupation of Jewish activists for many decades. American Jewish activist organizations like the ADL and the SPLC certainly do not view the American constitution as an insuperable barrier to the imposition of laws like to Section 18C in the United States.   ——————- [i] Goldberg, D. (2006) ‘After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture , Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. 151 [ii] Peta Jones Pellach, “Interfaith Dialogue and the State of Israel,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture , Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne, Black Inc., 2006), 139. [iii] Marcus Einfeld, “We Too Have Been Strangers: Jews and the Refugee Struggle,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture , Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2006), 311 & 314. [iv] MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth?Century Intellectual and Political Movements , (Westport, CT: Praeger, Revised Paperback edition, 2001), 313. [v] Goldberg “After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,” 145 & 146


August 10, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Psykologiset syyt valkoisten syrjäyttämiselle, Finnish translation of “Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession”

Psykologiset syyt valkoisten syrjäyttämiselle ,  Finnish translation of “ Psychological Mechanisms of White Dispossession “  


August 10, 2014  Tags: , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Controlling Hollywood’s message on Gaza

The most recent Gaza slaughter presents another situation where the public pronouncements of people who matter have to be squelched. This is a community that most definitely does not believe in free speech (see Brenton Sanderson’s current article on the situation in Australia.) Of course, as in the “Jews control Hollywood” theme (see below), these things keep popping up, so pressure must be brought to bear. An article in JTA sums up some of the current examples (“ From Selena Gomez to Howard Stern, celebs squabble over Gaza in tweets and rants “) . Basically, these celebrities had the mistaken view that Gaza is a humanitarian crisis so one could feel sympathy for the victims. So they impulsively put out messages of sympathy for the Gazans, as good liberals should. Only to be subjected to powerful blow back, causing most of  them to quickly backpedal. The prize for quickest turnaround goes to Rihanna  “who tweeted #Free Palestine, only to  delete the tweet  eight minutes later and subsequently post a picture of a Jewish and Arab boy walking arm in arm with the message, ‘Let’s pray for peace and a swift end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict!’” Just how low the bar is for offending the pro-Israel community can be seen with Selena Gomez who  urged her Instagram followers to “Pray for Gaza,” then followed up a few hours later to add that she was “not picking any sides.” That was more than enough for Joan Rivers, who capped off a pro-Israel tirade by sarcastically mocking Gomez as “that college grad,” then added, “Let’s see if she can spell Palestinian.” Expressing sympathy for the slaughter of Gazans is far too partisan for the censors. Advertisement The opinions of celebrities matter to a lot of people. Hence the terror felt by Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center when Penelope Cruz and others signed a letter accusing the IDF of “genocide” in Gaza. Hier’s tactic was to find a non-Jewish celebrity who could be counted on to have the right attitude. That would be John Voight who is in a class by himself when it comes to philosemitism. From Jew or Not Jew : Voight is not Jewish, although from the looks of things, he might as well be. A long-time host of the Chabad Telethon [see Trudie Pert's series on Menachem Mandel Schneerson], he has extensively studied the Torah and Hasidic literature. He counts a number of rabbis as his friends, has addressed the congregation in a Hollywood synagogue on Yom Kippur, and seeks out Chabad centers on his travels. Voight performed as expected, noting that “Israel has always labored for a peaceful relation with its Arab neighbors” (!) and accusing the miscreants of inciting anti-Semitism. Whether it was Voight’s letter or the numerous other critiques of the couple,  the pushback worked . Cruz released a statement noting that she was “not an expert on the situation” and that she only wished to promote peace. Others did the same: In fact a number of the celebrities who have spoken out on the Gaza conflict have followed a pattern similar to that of Cruz and [Javier] Bardem — a gesture in sympathy with the Palestinians (sometimes paired with harsh criticism of Israel) followed by criticism that leads to backtracking (possibly with the caveat that no bigotry was intended), finally capped off with a vague call for peace. Madonna atoned for her gaffe of referring to the “innocent children of GAZA” by condemning Hamas and posting “a picture of herself with a pair of bare-topped, muscled back-up dancers — one wearing a Jewish star on his muscled abs, the other a Muslim crescent.” Madonna is nothing if not tasteful. Some celebrities I hadn’t heard of didn’t back down, cooperating  in a video  put out by Jewish Voice for Peace (Eve Ensler, Mandy Patinkin, Roger Waters, Chuck D and Brian Eno), so we will have to see what becomes of their careers. Jackie Mason  (an ordained rabbi) is quite clear that these people should suffer professional consequences—that the Jews who run Hollywood should punish celebrities who offend the pro-Israel crowd, specifically mentioning Gomez, Cruz, and Rihanna. “They come from these kinds of anti-Semitic, low-class backgrounds where a Jew is the most disgusting thing in the world to them,” Mason answers, according to audio obtained by  The Hollywood Reporter . “The ironic thing is that it’s Jewish people who own these Hollywood studios … And they all hire these people and they depend on them for a living. Every penny they made is made from Jews and they hate every Jew just by nature.” Say what?? Jews own the studios and have power to punish Hollywood celebrities who oppose Jewish interests to the point that all of those mentioned by Mason backtracked on their statements? Which implies that these celebrities are afraid that indeed Hollywood Jews are acting as Jews in exerting pressure on them. I guess it’s okay when someone like Mason says it (but not Gary Oldman et al.). Also note the incredible leap from criticizing Israel to supposedly hating all Jews. Mason is definitely on the fanatical end of the spectrum of fanaticism, but it’s the kind of fanaticism that can’t hurt in Hollywood.  I rather  doubt that he will suffer any professional difficulties for expressing his opinions.


August 10, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Palestinians face Russian roulette in Israel’s firing zones

Sakher Daragmeh was killed as he tended goats close to the remote village of al-Aqaba in the northern Jordan Valley. For decades shepherds and farmers have been paying the price in the West Bank of an aggressive Israeli policy to create military firing zones on their land, said Dror Etkes, an expert on settlements. He has accused Israel of using the firing zones as a way to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from large areas of the West Bank.


August 8, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

How to talk about Jewish money influencing politics without getting into trouble

Here is Matt Yglesias talking about how Jewish money is what is making Congress so pro-Israel , my brackets and bolding: What drives the overwhelming congressional support for Israel that’s such a striking element of American politics? For some members, it’s genuine passion. For others, it has to do with public opinion [shaped by whom?]. But another real consideration that’s rarely discussed in daylight is fundraising. Memos written by consultants working for Michelle Nunn, the Democrats’ candidate in Georgia, and leaked to National Review in an effort to make Nunn look bad lay it out. This excerpt , in particular, is a great window into how it works [note the casual-yet-patronizing SWPL-speak]: This is getting spun in certain circles as a damning indictment of Nunn or her staff, as if she is planning to tailor her entire foreign policy around fundraising concerns. But really it’s just people doing their jobs. Sheri and Steve Labovitz are wealthy individuals who are active in the Atlanta Jewish community, as is Elaine Alexander. The author of the memo is informing the campaign that these individuals are likely sympathetic to Nunn’s broad policy outlook, and are promising candidates to help Nunn raise money. But they are also cautioning that taking the appropriate line on Israel is likely to be a litmus test for these donors. It’s not the place of a finance memo writer to come up with Nunn’s Israel policy, but the memo cautions that there are fundraising implications to what Nunn chooses to say about this. To anyone who’s familiar with Democratic Party fundraising — particularly for non-incumbent underdogs, who typically have trouble raising money — this won’t be too surprising. So plutocrats’ using their financial clout to exploit U.S. foreign policy to further ethnic interests and politicians’ pandering to said interests are normal, basically. Yglesias also mentions the (self-)censorship: Jewish donors are very important to Democratic Party finances, some of these donors have strongly held hawkish views on Israel, and the financial clout of AIPAC is the stuff of legend. At the same time, talk of rich Jews throwing their financial muscle around to influence policy in favor of Israel touches far too many anti-semitic tropes to be regularly mentioned in political discourse. But the concrete world of political fundraising doesn’t leave a ton of time for beating around the bush, so we get a little window here into how it looks to the finance people: if Nunn wants to maximize her donations, she needs to take the right stance. Of course none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention for the past 30 (40, 50, 100, 200, 500…?) years. But it is interesting to see this discussed in the mainstream. Vox is run by Ezra Klein. The article was tweeted by Glenn Greenwald. Advertisement Philip Weiss chimes in: “Right. Everyone knows it, no one can talk about it. It’s been estimated that on the Democratic side at the congressional level on up, Jews account for half to two-thirds of the funding.” Vox also recently aggregated some interesting stats on campaign finance : So Sheldon Adelson contributed more money to the Republicans than the other top 10 contributors put together. And the Dems aren’t “too surprising,” as Yglesias pointed out. It does seem however, at least since the mid-2000s, that the Israel lobby’s grip has somewhat weakened with the Walt/Mearsheimer book and the Anglo-dominated National Security State/military not being terribly excited at the thought of going to war with Iran on behalf of Israeli supremacism. Also there seems to be a growing split between assimilating (i.e. intermarrying) Western liberal Jews and the more chauvinist Israelis. Nevertheless, it’s clear that neither party can do without Jewish money and that Jewish financial clout continues to have a powerful influence on American policy in the Middle East. And, since Jewish liberals and conservatives favor the transformation of America via immigration and multiculturalism, they are also a powerful force in the displacement of White America. The best advice is that if one wants to talk about Jewish money influencing politics without getting into trouble, it’s best to be a left-wing Jew and not critical of disproportional Jewish influence as such.


August 8, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Gaza fallout: Playing the Holocaust Card

Taki won a bet that “ the  New York Times  and its international excuse for a newspaper would report on anti-Semitism in Europe the minute the civilian dead in Gaza reached 1000.” Now that it’s getting close to 2000 and civilians, including many children, have been killed in schools, hospitals and UN shelters (to the point that even the US government was “appalled” at the “disgraceful shelling” near a UN school), the rhetoric continues to ratchet up. So now the real lesson of the  war is …  that there could be another holocaust in Europe.  “ We are looking at the beginnings of another Holocaust”   Calling the rise in anti-Semitic incidents accompanying Israel’s invasion of Gaza an “SOS situation,” [Israeli Jewish Congress president Vladimir] Sloutsker warned that if left unchecked, such behavior could lead to another European genocide. “Never before since the Holocaust, have we seen such a situation as today,” he said, referring to the continent-wide demonstrations by pro-Palestinian activists, a number of which have degenerated into violence and many of which have featured racist rhetoric. “We are potentially looking at the beginning of another Holocaust now. … Desperate times call for ramping up policies long advocated by the organized Jewish community in Europe and  throughout the  West: Abolishing free speech and adding to the bureaucracy aimed at “anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia.” Israel, after all, is an exemplar of a society free from all these evils. Sloutsker also called on all European governments to impose what he called “strict regulations” on the format and content of demonstrations in order to prevent further violence against Jews. Citing a recent proposal by Belgian Jewry to establish a position of Special European Commissioner to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and Racism, Sloutsker said such measures would “help send a strong message that European leadership is united and committed to combating anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia.” … In a wonderful bit of extreme hasbara or self-deception, Israel is portrayed as a passive victim, and the recent upsurge in hostility toward Jews has  nothing whatever to do with the  conflict in the Middle East: “Fight together with us,” Yisrael Beytenu MK Shimon Ohayon urged the diplomats present, adding that he was opposed to “dangerous propaganda” that painted Israel as an aggressor. Jews in Europe have been targeted not because of any territorial claim or conflict in the Middle East, the lawmaker asserted, but “because they are Jews,” citing attacks against Jews in France, including a recent riot in the Parisian suburb of Sarcelles in which the synagogue and Jewish stores were targeted. “We ask you to stop this wheel” of “anti-Semitic hatred in Europe,” he added, calling anti-Zionism the “new anti-Semitism.” … It’s simple: the Palestinians are terrorists: Committee chairman Yoel Razbozov said the world “must understand” that Israel is fighting against terrorism, echoing the prevailing sentiment among the lawmakers present. Jews in the Diaspora should not be linked with the actions of the Israeli government (despite the strong support for the Israel perspective by the organized Jewish community throughout the Diaspora): Jews in Belgium are being asked “why are you killing children in Gaza,” Rafael Werner, a representative of that country’s Jewish community recounted, asserting that there is little distinction being made between Jews and Israelis. Europe’s problem is that there is not  enough pro-Israel propaganda (!): “There is no hasbara in Europe,” he complained, using the Hebrew term for public diplomacy. Natan Sharansky chimed in with a more interesting perspective (“ Anti-Semitism Means The Future Of Europe’s Jews Is Under Threat “). While agreeing that Jews are under threat in Europe, he realizes that the problem is that the very trends that Jews promoted have come back to bite them. Jews had historically and naturally felt very much at home in the liberal, progressive parts of European society, they were part of developing that,” he added. “Now, the ideology of liberalism has become bound-up with multiculturalism, against religion, against nationalism. … “Europe’s new ideology comes from John Lennon; let’s see the world without anyone having religion, or cultural identity, without state, without nationality. Europe has embraced this.” Europe has opened its doors to millions of Muslim immigrants with values that are antithetical to the values that brought them there in the first place — values championed by the organized Jewish community, as well as Jewish elites in the media and universities. The upsurge in violence against Jews in Europe is entirely because of the actions of the Muslim community, but the anti-Israel attitudes of the left enable the violence: “These two forces [anti-Zionist campaigners on the Left, and Muslim radicals] are not allies, but they inevitably are co-operating and work in one direction. One side hates Jews as a race, the other blames Israel for being racist. Unless this changes, Jews will not continue to live in Europe. Despite the recent spate of violence directed against Jews because of the behavior of Israel, there will be no change in the attitudes of the organized Jewish community in the  Diaspora. In fact, more Jews are leaving Europe for Israel, but there is no indication that Jewish elites are leaving. As throughout the West, elites have been able to avoid the costs of immigration which fall disproportionately on the lower classes, including Jews. There is therefore no indication that this will affect Jewish power and influence. because Jewish power derives not from their numbers but from Jewish elites in the media, universities, and in funding political parties. So the bottom line is that the policies that Jews advocate in the diaspora are incompatible with Israel as a Jewish state: “Israel is proud of its national character, it wants its own borders, and that is a relic, as far as European liberals are concerned and they don’t like it.” We can only hope that Europe will come to its senses and realize the value of national character and borders. But they won’t get any help from the  Diaspora Jewish communities in the  West.    


August 8, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Anthony Cumia joins James Edwards on The Political Cesspool Radio Program

It was very much our pleasure to welcome Anthony Cumia as our featured guest last night. Mr. Cumia, star of the massively popular  Opie & Anthony Show , was famously dismissed by Sirius / XM Satellite Radio last month for not having enjoyed the multicultural experience of allegedly being attacked by a black woman in New York City. The incident spawned national news coverage. Here’s an hour by hour breakdown of  the August 2 broadcast: Radio Show Hour 1 Host James Edwards opens one of the most memorable shows in program history. Topics addressed this hour: Still enjoying the work, celebrate family, and popular children’s television series  Thomas and Friends  is accused of “racism”. Also: Scoop Stanton calls in with a report from his visit to Capitol Hill with a TPC fan! Radio Show Hour 2 Topics addressed include: Free beer for Latino heritage, Cleveland Indians offend Indians, woman’s father and husband become women, and another example of special privileges for minorities. Radio Show Hour 3 Guest: Anthony Cumia – The radio legend discusses with us the next phase of his career and his plan to talk openly and honestly about racial issues.  This  is what a REAL conversation about race sounds like, Mr. Holder. Here is a video of the interview. The entire interview can be accessed by clicking  here  to access our most recent program podcasts; or click  here  to access the complete broadcast archive dating back to 2004. Advertisement Notable quotes:   “A lot of liberals talk about, ‘let’s have an open, honest dialogue on race,’” he said. “That’s what’s gonna be able to solve these problems we have in the communities and what not. But they do not want that. They do not want open and honest dialogue. They want you to agree with them. They want the continued victimization and excuses that go out. The second you literally bring up the real problems that are happening in this country as far as certain communities go, you’re chastised, you’re given the scarlet letter which is now R – “racist”. And there’s no way to discuss this as a white, especially male American without being called a racist.” And… “White males are just the abomination of the United States right now,” he said. “They’re looked at as jokes, as horrible people that are so against diversity and everything, and when you look back at the history of this country, the achievements that white males have made in this country is astounding. And regardless of what diversity might bring to this country, you can’t discount what white men have done for this country. “ When you watch any of the footage of any of the Apollo programs over the years and you look at the control room of mission control, what do you see?” he asked. “Do you see diversity there? Honestly! Let’s be honest. You’re seeing white males smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee at the console and putting people on the moon. How is this a horrible thing? How is this something to look at and say, ‘We need to change this by injecting people that do not pay attention to the laws of this country, do not assimilate to the culture, do not work and contribute to this nation’? Why is this a good thing to then add these people into the formula to make this a great country? Diversity for the sense of just diversity is not a good thing.” More info about  The Political Cesspool Radio Program: When not interviewing news makers,  Cesspool  host James Edwards is no stranger to making news himself, having  appeared as a commentator  numerous times on national television. Over the course of the past decade, his work on the radio has also been the subject of articles in over 250  newspaper and magazine publications around the world, gaining him a global audience.  Click here  to read a classic interview he granted to CNN. Mr. Edwards has been named an “Honorary City Councilman” in Memphis, Tennessee, where his show has received a certificate of recognition for outstanding contribution to the community.  His first book  was released in 2010. Our program’s growing list of all-star guests includes:  Pat Buchanan,  Anthony Cumia, Hutton Gibson,   Lt. General Hal Moore,   U.S. Rep. Walter Jones,  Sonny Landham, Ted Nugent, former Secretary of the Treasury Dr. Paul Craig Roberts,  Gary Sinise,  Ray Stevens, and countless other American luminaries, entertainers, and elected officials. For media inquiries, please contact: media@thepoliticalcesspool.org Photo: Political Cesspool host James Edwards filming a scene last year for a reality television program  


August 6, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

How a ‘kidnapped’ soldier illustrates Israel’s deception

A single incident at the weekend – the reported capture by Hamas of an Israeli soldier through a tunnel – illustrated in stark fashion the layers of deception Israel has successfully cast over its attack on Gaza. Israeli officials and media did not view the Hamas operation dispassionately. Hadar Goldin was not “captured” but “kidnapped” – as though he was an innocent seized by opportunistic criminals.


August 4, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

Stefan Molyneaux on Israel and the Nature of Judaism

A while ago Mondoweiss banned comments implying that Israel’s bad behavior had anything to do with the nature of Judaism. So it’s a safe bet that Stefan Molyneaux would be banned from the site. As a libertarian with a knowledge of history, Molyneaux finds the root cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the natural outgrowth of trends within Judaism going back hundreds of years—a view that is quite compatible with a biological perspective. The essential plot line is as follows. Drawing on Israel Shahak (e.g.,  Jewish History, Jewish Religion   and  Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel ), he paints a picture of historical Judaism in Eastern Europe as communities ruled by autocratic rabbis who had absolute control over life and death of their subjects. These were communities in which free speech and tolerance of dissent were ruthlessly suppressed, with ne’er-do-wells sometimes murdered. Then came the Enlightenment which is the origin of all the trends libertarians hold dear. Rabbis began to lose control of their congregations, and there was the rise of secular Judaism in Western societies. Fearful of loss of power and the specter of assimilation, rabbis needed a new idea to retain control (13:33). They therefore welcomed Zionism because it prevented assimilation and would provide a new opportunity to create closed communities under strong rabbinical control. This is something of an oversimplification of the forces within the Jewish community favoring Zionism and their motives. For example, fear of assimilation and intermarriage also motivated the racial Zionists, many of whom were not religious, who were very prominent in early Zionism (see here ,  p. 157ff). In the words of Jewish racial Zionist Elias Auerbach, Zionism would return Jews “back into the position they enjoyed before the nineteenth century—politically autonomous, culturally whole, and racially pure” (John Efron, Defenders of the Race: Jewish Doctors and Race Science in Fin-de-Siècle Europe , 1994, 136). Advertisement Molyneaux often quotes prominent Zionists to show the strong racial/nationalist tendencies within Zionism from the beginning. For example, Abraham Kook (Chief Rabbi of Palestine, 1920-1935) stated “the difference between Jewish souls and non-Jewish souls — all of them, in all different levels — is greater than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle”), and notes that such a statement is more extreme than any statement by defenders of South African apartheid. But Kook’s ideas are foundational; the idea for the religious right in Israel is to recreate pre-Enlightenment Jewish society in Israel. At 24:00 he notes a  Haaretz  article pointing out that Israel is far closer to Tehran than to Stockholm (see “ The Jewish Ayatollahs “). It has become a xenophobic theocracy. At 26:00 he also cites King’s Torah which provides guidelines for justified killing of non-Jews. This is an excellent example of the particularistic morality that has always characterized Judaism — vastly different ethical norms for Jews than for non-Jews. Thou shalt not kill really means thou shalt not kill other Jews. Killing babies is justified if the babies could grow up to harm Jews. The roots for such thinking run deep in Judaism At 27:20 he quotes from the Talmud: a heathen who smites a Jew must die. A heathen who studies Torah must die. A girl as young as 3 must be killed if she has sex with a Jew, the reason being because she got the Jew in trouble. Violence against the Arabs was part of the plan from the beginning. At 32: 40 he quotes racial Zionist Ze’ev Jabotinsky on the need to forcibly remove Arabs. ( Jabotinsky has been the inspiration for the pro-expansion, pro-settler Likud Party—racial Zionism in all but name.  As Geoffrey Wheatcroft has  pointed out , at the present time Israel “is governed by [Jabotinsky’s] conscious heirs.”)  Later he describes the massacres and rapes at Deir Yassin and Bassa and the ethnic cleansing of Arabs during the 1948 war. At 34:00 he discusses the Balfour Declaration as a quid pro quo in which American Jews successfully promoted American entry in WWI on the side of Britain. He also notes in passing that this contributed to Hitler’s attitudes on Jews, and that  the victory of the French and British then enabled the Treaty of Versailles which led to WWII. At 51:00 he discusses the consequences of America’s support for Israel as fueling anti-American hostility among Arabs and in particular Osama Bin Laden. So the bottom line is that he is not optimistic about the future of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. At 54:00 he has a nice discussion of rationalism in the West versus irrationalism combined with xenophobic authoritarianism and an End Times mentality in the Middle East; this leads to a fight to the finish. There is little to disagree with here, and it is certainly true that Israel has come under the control of the fanatics. I suggest that in a real sense Israel can’t change its direction. … The extremists are in charge and have been so at least since the 1967 War. Any attempt to make a meaningful withdrawal from the West Bank and Jerusalem and to allow a viable Palestinian state would produce a civil war among Israelis and likely provoke a strong response by the lobby on the side of the nonaccommodationists. The fate of the Oslo peace process, the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the support by the lobby of the most radical elements within Israel certainly argue that there is little chance of a successful move in this direction. As throughout Jewish history, it is the most committed members who determine the direction of the entire group.21 This is doubtless true of most groups, but it is especially the case with Jews where there is a long history of fanaticism. I am reminded of Christiane Amanpour’s depiction of Jewish fanatics in her excellent TV documentary,  God’s Jewish Warriors . These West Bank settlers and Jewish activists are massively ethnocentric, and, unlike the propaganda put out by the lobby, they are not at all democratic. They live in a completely Jewish world where their every thought and perception is colored by their Jewish identity. Theirs is an apartheid world separated by high concrete walls from their Palestinian neighbors, where even tiny settlements are necessarily protected by the Israeli army. And at a time when Americans are constantly being encouraged by Jewish organizations like the ADL to be ever more tolerant of all kinds of diversity, these people are anything but tolerant. Calls for expropriation and expulsion of the Palestinians are commonplace among them. Israel has created a classic Middle Eastern segmented society in which different groups live in an ingroup/outgroup world, completely isolated from each other. ( Review of Mearsheimer and Walt ,  The Israel Lobby , 50-51) The horror, of course, is that Jewish activist groups in the West have spearheaded the move for immigration and multiculturalism as models for Western societies while at the same time supporting Israel’s xenophobic nationalism. And since the libertarian values that Molyneaux holds dear are an exclusive Western creation (which all of our experience in the Middle East confirms overwhelmingly, not to mention the very high-profile support by Jewish organizations  in the diaspora for controls on free speech), we must be very pessimistic that Western libertarian values can survive ethnic Westerners becoming minorities in the societies they created. Libertarians should be on the front lines opposing the displacement-level immigration that threatens all Western societies.


August 4, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Jews and Gun Control: A Reprise

The thorny issue of Jewish support for gun control has reared its head once more, this time in Washington State. The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle has called for the resignation of Brian Judy, a National Rifle Association lobbyist who reportedly linked gun control to that untouchable icon of Jewish victimhood, the Holocaust. At a news conference at the Federation’s Seattle headquarters, President Keith Dvorchik said Judy should resign for connecting an anti-gun ballot initiative to policies pursued by Nazi Germany. Dvorchik further demanded the national office of the NRA “make clear that it rejects his ignorant and unproductive dialogue.” Judy’s remarks first surfaced on the liberal blog Horsesass.org. An audio clip plays over a still image of a gathering and features Judy talking about Jews who support gun control. The remarks were made at a gathering in Silverdale opposing I-594, a measure on the ballot this fall that would further expand background checks for gun purchases. In the recording, Judy references Nick Hanauer, a Seattle Jew who has contributed more than $300,000 to an independent-expenditure group supporting I-594, in addition to an earlier $1 million pledge . Other significant funds have come from Jewish billionaire and former Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer who, along with his wife Connie, is a major contributor to the Hanauer-founded organization, Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Hanauer wrote recently in Politico about how his family fled Nazi Germany. The speaker on the recording references Hanauer’s piece: “Now [Hanauer is] funding, he’s put half a million dollars, toward this policy, the same policy that led to his family getting run out of Germany by the Nazis. You know, it’s staggering to me, it’s just, you can’t make this stuff up. That these people, it’s like any Jewish people I meet who are anti-gun, I think, ‘Are you serious? Do you not remember what happened?’ And why did that happen? Because they registered guns and then they took them. Why did you have to flee to this country in the first place? Hello! Is anybody home here?” Dvorchik, in calling for Judy’s resignation, failed to mention broader Jewish interests in achieving the disarming of the civilian populace (which I will discuss below), claiming instead that the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle has an interest in the issue because of a shooting that occurred eight years ago. Naveed Haq, an apparently deranged Muslim, forced his way into the federation’s offices with a handgun, killing one employee and wounding five others . Dvorchik has demanded that the national office of the NRA disavow Judy’s remarks and the “idiotic, simplistic and simply wrong” idea that the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany has anything to do with a ballot measure that calls for background checks for gun purchases. He added that to question whether the Jews don’t “understand history is the most vile rhetorical question that has ever been asked.” Dvorchik has been joined by anti-gun Jewish state politicians Reuven Carlyle and David Frockt, who have said Judy’s statements “carry dark, ugly and subtle undertones of anti-Semitism.” Additionally, Hanauer’s Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility reports on its website that the following Jewish organizations now support I-594 as a matter of policy: The Anti-Defamation League, Bet Alef, Congregation Beth Shalom, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Family Service, Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, Kavana Cooperative, Kol HaNeshamah, National Council of Jewish Women, Stroum Jewish Community Center, Temple Beth Am, Temple Beth Hatfiloh, Temple Beth Or, Temple B’Nai Torah, Temple De Hirsch Sinai, Tikvah Chadashah, Herzl Ner Tamid, Temple Beth El and the Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center. Advertisement High-profile Jews have a nasty habit of finding themselves at odds with the NRA. The Judy case is almost a carbon copy of 2013’s fiasco involving Jewish mayor of Jersey City, Steve Fulop. In November Fulop announced that he would he would use the buying power of his police force’s weapon purchases to essentially blackmail gun vendors into making it much more difficult for regular customers to purchase arms. Shortly after Fulop made his intentions public, Scott L. Bach, an NRA board member and executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, reportedly told an audience: “His (Fulop’s) grandparents were Holocaust survivors according to Wikipedia. So you’ve got to wonder why he is not getting it.” ADL Chief witch hunter Abe Foxman responded in turn, condemning Bach’s remarks not only for invoking of the Holocaust to score political points (presumably only Jews are afforded that privilege), but also adding that Bach’s summoning of Fulop’s family’s personal history “makes it all the more offensive.” Scratch the surface even lightly in almost any state and you will find influential Jews leading the movement to restrict the right to bear arms. The strongest supporter of gun control measures in Connecticut is Jewish Senator Richard Blumenthal. The biggest gun control group in Pennsylvania is CeaseFirePA. The board of CeaseFirePA is dominated by Jews and includes such figures as Nancy Gordon, a member of the Jewish Social Policy Action Group, and Shira Goodman, Che Saitta-Zelterman and Fred Kaplan-Mayer. In New York Michael Bloomberg has formed and financed Everytown, a new gun control organization, and has already pledged $50 million to the cause of making it harder for citizens to purchase arms and ammunition. The Huffington Post reports that in California Dianne Feinstein has “long been one of the Senate’s strongest advocates for gun control.” In Michigan, Jewish Senator Carl Levin has been at the forefront of gun control efforts, earning him an “F” score from Gun Owners of America. I could go on. Of course, the reason why influential Jews keeping clashing with the NRA is the simple fact that Jews lead the gun control campaign . Kevin MacDonald noted in January 2013 that: The gun culture of traditional America, especially rural America has been particularly loathed by Jewish intellectuals. There is also a deep fear of Christian culture that is most vibrant in rural America.  For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams  acknowledges  that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in  shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations  is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas . And by successfully changing immigration policy, Jews have reduced the political power of the rural White subculture of America to the point that even though roughly 7 in 10 White males voted Republican (and ~60% of White females), Obama and the Democrats won the recent election. Even if the current push for gun control fails, we can expect that Jewish organizations will continue the push to disarm White males. Jewish organizations are not at all against guns when they are in the hands of the police and other authorities. The ADL (see the ADL’s Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network) and the SPLC (Law Enforcement Training and Law Enforcement Resources) have made strong alliances with law enforcement in America. Right, but while officials in the NRA are obviously aware of the prominence of Jews in the “control” campaign, their understanding of Jewish motivations is severely lacking. I happen to think that linking the issue of gun ownership to the deaths of Jews during World War II is inappropriate, though for somewhat different reasons to Abe Foxman and the ADL. The fundamental problem I have with current NRA reasoning is that it betrays a lack of knowledge of Jewish history. NRA evocations of Jewish civilian casualties during World War II irritate me primarily because I think the group has so many more sophisticated and legitimate arguments to make on behalf of its cause; and bringing up the Holocaust in any argument has always struck me as intellectual cheap-shot. On a deeper level however, the assumption underlying the current NRA approach is that governments historically have been the biggest threat to Jews. With the single exception of Nazi Germany, while some elites have had ambiguous relations with their Jewish populations (which on occasion led to expulsions) the overwhelming trend throughout Jewish history has been that Jews have been willing agents and partners of the ruling elite. Whether as Medieval tax farmers, early modern ‘Court Jew’ financiers, or the intellectual shock-troops of Bolshevism, Jews have only very rarely found themselves threatened by government or monarch. Nowhere is this made more evident than in the simple fact that in Orthodox Judaism the prayer Hanotayn  Teshu-ah is not said for the nation or the people of the country in which the Jews have settled, but rather for the monarch or government . Gordon Freeman explains that “In fact, a prayer for the government is a feature of every type of prayer book of every land of the Jewish diaspora irrespective of the specific religious movement of the community.”[1] This stance is ancient. The rabbinic commentary, Pirke Avot , tells Jews to “pray for the welfare of the government, because were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive.” I don’t think it’s unreasonable to extrapolate that what is really intended and understood by this injunction is that were it not for the fear inspired by the government, the goyim would swallow their Jewish neighbors alive. The favored Jewish position is thus to support a strong, feared , government which is capable of harnessing the resentments, real or imagined, of the gentile masses. History is replete with examples of Jews benefiting from powerful, feared , governments, though they have been at pains to [literally] re-write this particular aspect of their history. In my analysis of medieval English Jewry I noted that, due to the strength of the Jew-government alliance, retaliatory actions were only capable of being carried out during the very brief period between the end of one reign and the beginning of another. I wrote that: If we were to have before us today a thirteenth-century English peasant, he would find much to dispute in [Anthony] Julius’ claim that it was the Jew who stood at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. In fact it has been well established that Jews occupied the position of a privileged elite, under royal protection. B. Lionel Abrahams, upon examining centuries of royal charters concluded that “from their first arrival in the country, they had enjoyed a kind of informal Royal protection.”[18] Later, Henry II “gave and secured to the Jews special privileges so great as to arouse the envy of their neighbors,” granted them the use of their own courts, and “placed them under the special protection of the royal officers in each district.” In charging high rates of interest and preying upon the indebtedness of the lesser barons and the freeholders, Jews were successful in acquiring vast numbers of estates, which the king then gradually acquired by accepting them in lieu of tallages. The Jews had a free rein to carry on their regular, and highly profitable, money-lending activities as long as they continued in a mutually beneficial partnership designed to facilitate “the transfer of land from the small landowners to the upper stratum.” Unsurprisingly, Jews thus came to be seen as a hostile elite. They were viewed as such not just by the peasantry but by the barons, who chafed under their interest rates and at their inability to strike at those under royal protection. Irven Resnick writes in a 2007 article for the respected journal Church History that Jews were the “agents of hated royal fiscal policies,” as well as the usurers of the masses. The Crown was aware of this and took measures to increase security for Jews. A lot has been made about Jews first having to wear a badge identifying them at this time. What is far less often publicized is that these badges were first introduced by the English Crown, according to an article in the Jewish Quarterly Review , to better “facilitate their recognition by their protectors.” Medieval Jews thus benefited from the powerful and feared status of the English Crown. Had it been possible, one can imagine that the prospect of the Crown seizing the arms of the barons would have been especially welcome in Jewish homes, since it would have represented the permanent neutralization of that particular threat to Jewish interests. Unfortunately for the Jews of Medieval England, the barons maintained and increased their arms, and were thus able to use the threat of force to influence the weakened Edward I to expel every Jew from the nation’s soil. Possessing such knowledge makes it very frustrating to watch NRA spokesmen fumble with clumsy arguments when confronted with the increasingly apparent Jewish role in the gun control movement. Indeed, it would be much better for the NRA, and America, if the NRA confined itself to simply pointing out the preponderance of Jews acting against it. Reaching for ill-understood, and barely applicable, metaphors hasn’t helped its cause at all. The NRA is a lynchpin of Middle America, not cosmopolitan America. The organization should cease assuming that Jews are in any way “just like them,” in the sense that they are for the rights of the individual and against strong government. Looked at through the prism of historical precedent, the NRA and organized Jewry are fated to be natural enemies, with strikingly different priorities and objectives. NRA members may well fear “Big Government.” But one of the biggest Jewish anxieties is “weak government,” because in this scenario, so the reasoning goes, there is nothing to restrain the “lecherous rabble,” “the beasts of the field,” from violent retribution. Returning to Washington, some of my relatives living just outside Vancouver have told me they’re having a hard time getting ammunition because of bulk-buying by nervous gun owners. As the amount of Jewish money pouring into the gun “control” movement increases daily, their anxieties can’t be dismissed as entirely unfounded. Kevin MacDonald ended his last TOO piece on the subject in a fashion I can’t improve upon, and his remarks bear repetition here: It has often been observed that Jewish organizations have historically favored a strong central government rather than states’ rights. For example, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in  The Chronicle of Higher Education , notes that “Jewish voters …  prefer cities and federal governments to backwaters and volatile statehouses. … All things equal, Jews like strong central governments, not a pastiche of local decision makers catering to majorities.” Although Jewish organizations would not phrase it this way, the net result is that the thrust of Jewish activism has been to favor a strong central government with a monopoly on lethal force. Given Jewish hostility to the traditional people and culture of White America, this is a very foreboding combination as we head into the era of a non-White majority America.   [1] C. Buck, Religious Myths and Visions of America: How Minority Faiths Redefined America’s World Role , (Praeger, 2009), p.67.


August 4, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Joe Biden päästi sammakon (Finnish translation of “Joe Biden’s Faux Pas”)

Joe Biden päästi sammakon   (Finnish translation of “ Joe Biden’s Faux Pas “)


August 4, 2014  Tags: , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Israel’s Gaza backlash targets Arab minority

Israel’s large Palestinian minority is facing an unprecedented backlash of incitement and violent reprisals as Israeli Jews rally behind the military operation in Gaza, human rights groups have warned. Palestinian citizens have been accused of being “traitors” and a “fifth column” for criticising the attack on Gaza, in a surge of ethnic hatred by the Jewish majority not seen since the outbreak of the second intifada 14 years ago.


July 31, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

Stakes rising for Israel as rockets reach airport

Israel’s effective loss of its only international airport for a couple of days last week—and the cloud of uncertainty that continues to hang over its operation in the future—has deeply unsettled Israelis. It was a warning to Israelis that, now Palestinian factions in Gaza have longer-range rockets, there is a potentially more serious, collective price to be paid for Israel’s repeated military assaults on the tiny enclave.


July 31, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

Lords Feldman and Finkelstein: Guiding the Tories to Oblivion

In 2009, a British broadcaster made a simple prediction: Pro-Israeli organisations in Britain look set to see their influence increase if the Conservatives win the next election, a film scrutinising the activities of a powerful but little-known lobby warns today. At least half of the shadow cabinet are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), according to a Dispatches programme being screened on Channel 4. The programme-makers describe the CFI as “beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups”. Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby claims that donations to the Conservative party “from all CFI members and their businesses add up to well over £10m over the last eight years”. CFI has disputed the figure and called the film “deeply flawed”. ( Pro-Israel lobby group bankrolling Tories, film claims , The Guardian , 16th November 2009) Why is an important organization like CFI “little-known”? Because it’s dangerous to scrutinize Jewish power: people who do so lose their reputations, their careers and sometimes their liberty too. But the prediction made by Dispatches has come true. In 2014, supporters of Israel are very powerful in the Conservative party. It has not one but two Jewish chairmen: Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps . But I would question their conservative credentials. When ordinary Tories opposed gay marriage and membership of the European Union, Lord Feldman was widely reported to have called them “ swivel-eyed loons .” His work in the party seems to involve funding its elite, not safeguarding its traditions: Lord Feldman: Cameron’s “money man” Advertisement Lord Feldman: the Tory party’s little-known chairman There has never been a Conservative Party chairman quite like Lord Feldman of Elstree. The suave, former barrister has never stood for office, rarely speaks to the media and is virtually unknown outside the Westminster bubble. … “It should be perfectly possible to work in Downing Street if you haven’t been to either Eton or Oxford,” one Conservative back bencher barked yesterday, reacting to internet rumours – subsequently denied by Lord Feldman – that he had referred to Conservative activists as “swivel-eyed loons”. … Andrew Feldman’s relationship with the Tory leader stretches back 30 years to the manicured lawns of Oxford. While studying at Brasenose College, the pair struck up a friendship and tennis partnership. … After graduating in law with a first, the then Mr Feldman worked as a management consultant and then as a barrister. By 1995 he had joined his family’s fashion business, Jayroma. During his time as chief executive the firm’s turnover soared and his success ensured he could buy a £3milllion townhouse in Holland Park, just round the corner from Mr Cameron’s home in Notting Hill. The tennis partners remained close and when Mr Cameron stood for the Conservative leadership in 2005, his old Oxford friend acted as his money man. He gave £10,000 to Mr Cameron’s campaign and secured tens of thousands more from business backers. After the leadership election, Mr Feldman became one of the Conservatives’ deputy treasurers and was promoted to be the party’s chief executive in 2008, a key role preparing the Tories for the 2010 election. His charm and business experience attracted many wealthy donors, but insiders at Conservative Party headquarters say that his management style frequently veered towards the “brutal”. Once in power, Mr Cameron made his old ally a member of the House of Lords and even gave him an office at his side in Downing Street – a privilege never before bestowed on a party chairman. One senior Tory MP said of the peerage: “What was it for, other than being Dave’s mate?” ( Lord Feldman: the Tory party’s little-known chairman , The Daily Telegraph , 18th May 2013) Note how Lord Feldman is “little-known” too. Is it because, like CFI, he’s doing things that he doesn’t want Tory voters to notice and discuss? Just as the Labour elite hates the working-class , so the Conservative elite hates conservatism. And here is another member of the Conservative elite expressing that hatred: Lord Finkelstein: “Fink Pink, True Blues…” A Conservative peer and leading moderniser has warned that the party could kill its chances of winning future general elections if it chases Ukip in an attempt to win next May’s contest. Lord (Daniel) Finkelstein, a close ally of the Chancellor George Osborne, told a conference of fellow modernisers that wooing Tories who have defected to Nigel Farage’s party could alienate young and ethnic minority voters and people living in the North. He warned: “The issue that Ukip raises is almost exactly the opposite of the one the Conservative Party needs to answer. Our problems are: we don’t have enough young people, we don’t have enough ethnic minorities, we do not have enough people in prosperous rising cities.” … His comments lift the lid on a heated debate in Tory circles about the party’s election strategy. Lynton Crosby, its Australian strategist, wants a campaign based on attacking Labour and focusing on the economy, immigration, welfare and Europe. But modernisers including Michael Gove, the former Education Secretary who will play a key election role in his new job as Chief Whip, want a more positive campaign to build support among young, ethnic minority and northern voters without whom it will be unable to win future elections. ( Chasing the Ukip vote could kill the Conservative Party, claims Tory moderniser , The Independent , 24th July 2014) “Moderniser” is a smarmy euphemism meaning “destroyer.” Finkelstein wants to turn the Conservatives pink in a futile attempt to chase the three groups he identifies as important: young people, ethnic minorities, and people in cities. They’re really the same group, because ethnic minorities form an ever-increasing percentage of young people and of city-dwellers. And ethnic minorities are not going to vote for the Conservative party. Why should they, when Labour pander to them much more successfully? It’s the same in the United States : the Republican establishment chases the votes of ethnic minorities by being soft on immigration but are rewarded by non-Whites voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats in election after election. Minorities like Muslims and Hispanics are not “natural conservatives.” Quite the contrary: they are natural enemies of any party that symbolizes the historic White nation to which they can never belong. If Lord Finkelstein wants to understand the futility of “out-reach” to minorities, he should consult his co-ethnics in the Community Security Trust (CST) and the Service de Protection de la Communauté Juive , which are organizations that monitor the safety of Jews in the UK and France respectively. For decade after decade, British and French Jews have supported mass immigration by Muslims and sought to build alliances with the incomers. After all, are Muslims not natural allies of Jews? Both groups are persecuted and oppressed by the White Christian majority, so Muslims should feel a close affinity with Jews and work with them to reduce the majority’s malign power. That’s the theory, anyway. The reality is this: A vibrant youth discusses Israel and the Jews UK antisemitism: current situation In Manchester on 12 July, after a pro-Palestinian rally that included a “Drive for Justice” to the BBC, a group of four [or] five cars with occupants of south Asian ethnic appearance passed through the Jewish neighbourhood of Broughton Park. Some of the cars flew Palestinian flags, and occupants shouted and swore at Jewish pedestrians (including “Heil Hitler”). Cans and eggs were thrown at Jewish pedestrians from at least two of the cars. Similarly, that same day in Glasgow on the fringes of a demonstration, a man of south Asian appearance was heard shouting “f**king kill the Jews”. CST has made police aware of all these incidents. The above pales in comparison with the situation in France, where on Sunday 13 July over 100 Jews needed rescuing from inside a synagogue that was besieged by a violent pro-Palestinian mob. Also that day in Paris, a Jewish owned shop was reportedly ransacked by a 50 strong mob armed with iron bars; and a synagogue was fire bombed. On 8 July, a 17 year old Jewish girl was attacked with pepper spray in her face, whilst her assailant (an adult male of North African ethnic appearance) yelled antisemitic abuse at her. These antisemitic impacts, very largely involving Muslim perpetrators, are why so many thousands of Jews have left France in recent years. The kidnap, torture and ultimately murder (by burning) of Ilan Halimi in Paris in 2006 was one particularly horrific act. In 2012, there was the appalling terrorist attack on the Jewish primary school in Toulouse. Two months ago, a French Jihadi killed people in the Jewish Museum in Brussels. None of this has satiated the antisemites in France: they want more. ( UK antisemitism: current situation , CST Blog, 14th July 2014) More vibrant youths discuss Israel Protesting Palestine, targeting Jews CST wrote last week about the danger of anti-Israel protests in the UK involving or encouraging antisemitism, either by targeting British Jews or by featuring antisemitic language and imagery. … • A Rabbi walking in north London was verbally abused by a group of youths who shouted “Free Palestine”, “F*** the Zionists”, “F*** the Jews” and “Allah Akhbar.” … • A visibly Jewish boy was cycling in north London when a woman wearing a black niqab threw a stone at him, hitting him on the head. … Another disturbing factor is that the proportion of antisemitic incident perpetrators described to CST as being of south Asian appearance has been much higher during this period than is normally the case. Antisemitism in Muslim communities is something that others have written about before; the incidents reported to CST suggest that it is playing a significant role in the high level of antisemitic incidents currently being reported. ( Protesting Palestine, targeting Jews , CST Blog, 21st July 2014) That is the Jewish reward for decades of “outreach.” The equation is simple. More Muslims in Britain and France mean more and worse anti-Semitism, but of course it also means less and less power for White British who are seen as the greater enemy. The enemy of my enemy …. If the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the US try to woo ethnic minorities, their reward will be the same: hatred, contempt, and and little to show for it come election time. Lord Finkelstein isn’t helping to modernise the Tories: he’s helping to destroy them. Something tells me that, just like Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps, he knows exactly what he’s doing.


July 31, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

How to Criticize Israel without being Anti-Semitic: The Unofficial Guide

The news media have once again been ablaze with reports of Israel’s military attack on Gaza. The historic Israeli-Palestinian conflict has, consequently, returned as a subject of discussion at cafés, salons, and dinner tables. The discussion, however, is not an easy one to have—unless, of course, you are foursquare behind Israel. Criticism of Israel very quickly lands the critic into trouble; accusations of anti-Semitism are fired back as if from an Uzi. What is more, these accusations can sometimes come accompanied by raised voices, red faces, bared teeth, waved fists, and even rude expletives. Sometimes, not even Jews can avoid them. So it is understandable that non-Jews desiring to avoid drama think it best to keep mum. Noticing the problem, and apparently in the interest of free and open debate, a concerned Jewish blogger has recently made waves posting a 19-point guide on how to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic . The Tumblr blog post has, at the time of writing, attracted 8485 notes. And the BBC deemed it so useful that they even reported it on their news website. As TOO was created for purposes of free and open debate, including Jews and Israel, it seems pertinent that we examine the 19 points. Perhaps we will find in them the Philosopher’s Stone in our efforts to discuss important matters involving Jews without being accused of ignorance and moral turpitude. The points are meant to be considered in no particular order. 1. Don’t use the terms “bloodthirsty,” “lust for Palestinian blood,” or similar . Historically, Jews have been massacred in the belief that we use the blood of non-Jews (particularly of children) in our religious rituals. This belief still persists in large portions of the Arab world (largely because White Europeans deliberately spread the belief among Arabs) and even in parts of the Western world. Murderous, inhumane, cruel, vicious—fine. But blood…just don’t go there. Depicting Israel/Israelis/Israeli leaders eating children is also a no-no, for the same reason. While one can understand the desire to avoid rehashings of the ancient blood libel, this seems a little paranoid in the case of “bloodthirsty”. Advertisement I do wonder what would happen if we were to start prohibiting certain terms from being used in the presence of people of European ancestry, on the basis that they summon libelous associations. 2. Don’t use crucifixion imagery. Another huge, driving motivation behind anti-Semitism historically has been the belief that the Jews, rather than the Romans, crucified Jesus. As in #1, this belief still persists. There are plenty of other ways to depict suffering that don’t call back to ancient libels. It does seem a bit irrelevant to use crucifixion imagery when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have not seen much of it, although this may be because my interests lie elsewhere. All the same, the blogger seems a little dishonest when he says that it was the Romans, not the Jews, who crucified Jesus. Technically, this is correct. But the Jews did contrive to have Jesus crucified. Who was it who brought Jesus to Pilates? Not the Romans, but the Jewish elders, who then asked him to judge and condemn him . Finding him not guilty, Pilates left it to the crowd to choose. And who persuaded the crowd in to choose Jesus to be crucified and Barabbas to be freed? Not the Romans, but the Jewish elders again. This is not a libel, then; just an incorrect use of imagery. 3. Don’t demand that Jews publicly repudiate the actions of settlers and extremists. People who make this demand are assuming that Jews are terrible people or undeserving of being heard out unless they “prove” themselves acceptable by non-Jews’ standards. (It’s not okay to demand Palestinians publicly repudiate the actions of Hamas in order to be accepted/trusted, either.) Now, I have seen such a demand being made by anti-Semites in an effort to put a Jewish opponent on the defensive, only to make a show of highlighting Jewish hypocrisy. The anti-Semite wins either way: if the Jew doesn’t yield, he’s a monster; if he does, he’s a hypocrite, because presumably his actions are not in accord with that public repudiation. Therefore, it can be described as an anti-Semitic trope. Jews know this and would likely not yield to the demand anyway, suspecting the non-Jew of anti-Jewish animus. Yet, trope or not, the demand is not illegitimate if the non-Jewish party in the conversation, acting in good faith, wishes to challenge a Jew defending the actions of Jews in Israel. What is more, similar demands are made daily outside this context, sometimes legitimately sometimes illegitimately, without much controversy. For example, it is routinely demanded of Whites in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand publicly to repudiate racism, even though the majority of them are not racists and are, often, vehemently anti-racist. Perhaps the blogger has a point and we should ask for this to stop, because it does seem to tarnish a whole race with the misdeeds of a miscreant few. 4. Don’t say “the Jews” when you mean Israel. I think this should be pretty clear. The people in power in Israel are Jews, but not all Jews are Israelis (let alone Israeli leaders). There is a very good point here: we must always differentiate between the political leaders and the populace they allegedly represent. Our experience in the West shows all too well that the political class is often—almost always?—at odds with what Rousseau called the “general will”, and in key areas even actively work against the interests of their voters. It makes no difference that they were elected by a majority of those who voted (which is not all voters), because, in reality, (a) there is no real choice, since the mainstream political parties offer only variant interpretations of the same ideology, and (b) most voters are politically ignorant. Now, I don’t know to what extent that is the case in Israel. Surely, we cannot assume that the will of the political class there necessarily reflects the will of Jews in Israel—I am sure Jews in Israel are often frustrated with their politicians. At the same time, it bears pointing out that while the people in power in Israel are indeed Jews, Israel is a state founded by Jews for Jews, and we cannot, therefore, say “Israel” without meaning “Jews”. It is, however, true that not all Jews are Israelis, in the sense that not all Diasporan Jews hold Israeli citizenship (some do). Yet, into this equation must be included the extent to which Diaspora Jews support Israel and the extent to which they identify with it.  A recent example was Chuck Hagel’s  mention   of the “Jewish Lobby” instead of the Israel Lobby whose opinions need not reflect the opinions of most American Jews (e.g., on the Iraq war where the Israel Lobby and the organized Jewish community strongly supported the war but most American Jews did not). Nevertheless, Israel was founded specifically as a state for Jews; it is considered the homeland of Jews. And while we should be careful to keep in mind that not all Jews support the policies of the Israeli government (some consider them too soft), there may be some justification behind the impression many have that Jews generally support Israel, even if they don’t necessarily agree with the current administration. See the next item. 5. Don’t say “Zionists” when you mean Israel. Zionism is no more a dirty word than feminism. It is simply the belief that the Jews should have a country in part of their ancestral homeland where they can take refuge from the anti-Semitism and persecution they face everywhere else. It does not mean a belief that Jews have a right to grab land from others, a belief that Jews are superior to non-Jews, or any other such tripe, any more than feminism means hating men. Unless you believe that Israel should entirely cease to exist, you are yourself Zionist. Furthermore, using “Zionists” in place of “Israelis” is inaccurate and harmful. The word “Zionists” includes Diasporan Jews as well (most of whom support a two-state solution and pretty much none of whom have any influence on Israel’s policies) and is used to justify anti-Semitic attacks outside Israel ( i.e ., they brought it on themselves by being Zionists). And many of the Jews IN Israel who are most violent against Palestinians are actually anti-Zionist—they believe that the modern state of Israel is an offense against God because it isn’t governed by halakha (traditional Jewish religious law). Be careful with the labels you use. Another good point. If you hate Jews, say so. Say, “I hate Jews, because . . .” Don’t hide behind euphemisms. Don’t pretend you hate Zionism, but love Jews. Do you really think you’re fooling anyone? Everybody knows what you’re doing. We know it. The Jews know it. And you know it. Using “Zionism” is your way of pretending that you are free from hate; that you are, in fact, just a concerned citizen demanding truth and justice; and that you are successfully wriggling past the anti-Semite label. You may argue this kind of subterfuge is necessary because the consequences of openly disliking Jews are so dire. The thing is, because no one buys it, this makes you worse than a plain-vanilla anti-Semite, since it suggests you are one who doesn’t even have the courage of his convictions—too cowardly to put up. Having said that, the explanation of Zionism provided by the blogger in this item seems to conflict with guideline #4 above, as the latter confirms there is merit to the view that Israel and Jews are to be closely identified, contrary to the guideline’s prescription. There is also a conflict with guideline #11, dealt with further down. Also, it does strike me as sophistry to say that “many of the Jews in  Israel who are most violent against Palestinians are anti-Zionist” simply on the basis of their belief in religious law. Do they not also subscribe to “the belief that the Jews should have a country in part of their ancestral homeland where they can take refuge from the anti-Semitism and persecution they face everywhere else”? 6. Don’t call Jews you agree with “the good Jews.” Imposing your values on another group is not okay. Tokenizing is not okay. Appointing yourself the judge of what other groups can or should believe is not okay. 7. Don’t use your Jewish friends or Jews who agree with you as shields. (AKA, “I can’t be anti-Semitic, I have Jewish friends!” or “Well, Jew X agrees with me, so you’re wrong.”) Again, this behavior is tokenizing and essentially amounts to you as a non-Jew appointing yourself arbiter over what Jews can/should feel or believe. You don’t get to do that. Woah there cowboy! Isn’t this precisely what many Diasporan Jewish activists have done in their campaigns against racism (of which anti-Semitism is a form) throughout the West? Not the tokenizing, although the usage of gentile frontmen in certain Jewish intellectual movements could be described as a form of tokenizing, but the self-appointment as an arbiter of what Whites can / should feel or believe. The Frankfurt School, a Jewish-run organization, even had a whole institute dedicated to the task. Quite right, another group—whatever its ethnicity—shouldn’t get to do that! 8. Don’t claim that Jews are ethnically European. Jews come in many colors—white is only one. Besides, the fact that many of us have some genetic mixing with the peoples who tried to force us to assimilate (be they German, Indian, Ethiopian, Italian…) doesn’t change the fact that all our common ancestral roots go back to Israel. Interestingly, this is unlikely to be met with disagreement by anti-Semites—at least American ones. A key contention of theirs is that Jews are emphatically not  White. And certainly not all the genetic influx from Europe was the result of forced assimilation. Indeed, probably very little was. Recent population genetic  evidence suggests the original Ashkenazi population began with Jewish males mating with European females. If so, Ashkenazi Jews have a strong genetic overlap with Europeans while nevertheless not identifying with the culture and ethnic interests of Europeans. 9. Don’t claim that Jews “aren’t the TRUE/REAL Jews.” Enough said. This is a rather arcane point, but there are anti-Semites who think present-day Jews are a corruption—robots or slaves of the Lord of Darkness, doing his bidding. A common form of this can be found among those who claim Ashkenazi Jews are not the real Jews because they in fact derive from the Khazars, a Turkic people. This notion finds little contemporary support  but is useful for those who attempt to combat Jewish interests by denying any biological link between contemporary Jews and Israel. 10. Don’t claim that Jews have no real historical connection to Israel/the Temple Mount. Archaeology and the historical record both establish that this is false. As far as anti-Semitic tactics goes, this one seems very poorly thought out and disingenuous—yet another example of self-deception, like the one highlighted in my response to guideline #5. No point getting into a historical / archaeological debate (but see previous answer), because we must also consider right by conquest, and if we go down that route, and say that conquest confers no rights, then we must begin to consider Mexico’s territorial claims in the American South West, and question the right of Europeans to reside in North America. Can’t have it both ways. 11. Don’t accuse Diasporan Jews of dual loyalties or treason. This is another charge that historically has been used to justify persecution and murder of Jews. Having a connection to our ancestral homeland is natural. Having a connection to our co-religionists who live there is natural. It is no more treasonous for a Jew to consider the well-being of Israel when casting a vote than for a Muslim to consider the well-being of Islamic countries when voting. (Tangent: fuck drone strikes. End tangent.) This is truly baffling. I can’t see how anybody could be so disingenuous as to pretend no conflict of interest could ever arise between the interests of America as a whole and the interests of American Jews when the American government’s support for Israel has cost Americans vast sums of money, led to terrorism in American soil, and cost thousands of American lives. It seems obvious that American interests and Israeli interests diverge, yet the blogger seems to believe that that the actions of the Israel Lobby and the organized Jewish community are motivated first and foremost by loyalty to American interests. Well, that may be so, but only in the form of pretense. 12. Don’t claim that the Jews control the media/banks/country that isn’t Israel. Yet another historical anti-Semitic claim is that Jews as a group intend to control the world and try to achieve this aim through shadowy, sinister channels. There are many prominent Jews in the media and in the banking industry, yes, but they aren’t engaged in any kind of organized conspiracy to take over those industries, they simply work in those industries. The phrase “the Jews control” should never be heard in a debate/discussion of Israel. There are several problems here. Firstly, a fallacy: control does not mean conspiracy. The conflation does occur in anti-Semitic literature, particularly that which, following the Protocols of Zion , blames all of the world’s ills on a secret conspiracy by a cabal of sinister Jews. Frankly, I think only delusional anti-Semites indulge in such fantasies—the idea of being in the know is the means by which they deal with their impotence. Nevertheless, as Michael Kinsley and Benjamin Ginsburg   noted, Jews predominate on Wall St., so it should be fair game to think about what the implications of this are. Secondly, there is yet another example of extreme disingenuousness. Jews, for a variety of reasons, including their history, anti-Semitism, and their culture, are highly cohesive and ethnocentric compared to Anglo-American Whites. By this I mean that they recognize each other, they network with each other, they promote each other, and they often think in terms of what is good for the Jews. This makes perfect sense and is not at all sinister, but to say that Jews simply work in media, and that, perceiving themselves as a distinct group with common interests, particularly in a society where (in their minds) the risk of anti-Semitism is ever-present, they never or even seldom use their position, knowledge, and skills to advance Jewish interests in some way flies in the face of evidence . Hollywood has film archives going back decades that abound with a consistent pattern of positive portrayals of Jews and a very strong promotion of messages that promote a vision of society that is beneficial to Jews. Similarly, the news media shows a consistent pattern of support for Israel. This is not merely coincidental, nor a reflection of WASP dominance—although gentiles have cheerfully replicated this pattern. Moreover, a number of prominent individuals from the industry— Marlon Brando , William Cash , Oliver Stone , Rick Sanchez , Mel Gibson, and more recently Gary Oldman —have come out every few years to state the obvious. There is some merit to rejecting phrases like “the Jews control”, as they tend to oversimplify and yes, it is an anti-Semitic trope, which renders an otherwise intelligent discussion of Jews immediately suspect. But the fact that there are many prominent Jews in the media is an important and legitimate topic for discussion, particularly in relation to Israel and in attempting to understand the Hollywood culture of the left. 13. Don’t depict the Magen David (Star of David) as an equivalent to the Nazi swastika. The Magen David represents all Jews—not just Israelis, not just people who are violent against Palestinians, ALL JEWS. When you do this, you are painting all Jews as violent, genocidal racists. DON’T. I’ve seen this in placards and graffiti, and yes, it is an unfair oversimplification. But then, all protest iconography is an unfair oversimplification. The purpose is to draw attention to an issue and produce a concentrated emotional response aimed at instigating policy changes. The people who criticize the policies of the Israeli government by means of this iconic short-hand mean to draw attention to similarities that exist between those policies and some of those carried out in National Socialist Germany. It is a little difficult to avoid the Star of David, given that it features prominently in the Israeli flag (as once did the Swastika in Germany, though it did not represent all Germans even if it was meant to); that Israel is a Jewish state, founded by Jews for the Jews; and that, as guidelines 5 and 11 point out, is to be identified closely with all Jews. This is why some desire Jews to publicly repudiate the aggressive policies of Israel against the Palestinians, so that they, as Jews, may be separated from the Israeli leadership and those who support it. 14. Don’t use the Holocaust/Nazism/Hitler as a rhetorical prop. The Jews who were murdered didn’t set foot in what was then Palestine, let alone take part in Israeli politics or policies. It is wrong and appropriative to try to use their deaths to score political points. Genocide, racism, occupation, murder, extermination—go ahead and use those terms, but leave the Holocaust out of it. I think my reply to guideline #13 deals with most of this, but I can’t move on without highlighting the apparent contradiction in the following sentences: “When you [depict the Magen David as equivalent to the Nazi Swastika], you are painting all Jews as violent, genocidal racists”, from guideline 13; and “Genocide, racism, occupation, murder, extermination—go ahead and use those terms”, from guideline 14. Didn’t the blogger object to all Jews being painted as violent genocidal racists, and in the next breath authorize us to paint the Jewish state as racist and exterminatory? The Holocaust, I am afraid, does come into it too, because it is the most iconic justification for a Jewish state, as suggested in guideline #5. 15. In visual depictions (i.e., political cartoons and such), don’t depict Israel/Israelis as Jewish stereotypes. Don’t show them in Chassidic, black-hat garb. Don’t show them with exaggerated noses or frizzled red hair or payus (earlocks). Don’t show them with horns or depict them as the Devil. Don’t show them cackling over/hoarding money. Don’t show them drinking blood or eating children (see #1). Don’t show them raping non-Jewish women. The Nazis didn’t invent the tropes they used in their propaganda—all of these have been anti-Semitic tropes going back centuries. (The red hair trope, for instance, goes back to early depictions of Judas Iscariot as a redhead, and the horns trope stems from the belief that Jews are the Devil’s children, sent to destroy the world as best we can for our “father.”) Political cartoons rely on stereotypes, and they are quite merciless: in a free democracy, anyone—particularly anyone with power—is fair game. Since when are political cartoons flattering? Here’s a cartoon from Benjamin Netanyahu’s Twitter feed that has a stereotype of a Muslim woman with a baby protecting Hamas military targets, described by Mondoweiss as “ racist and Islamophobic .” There is certainly a measure of malice, but also a measure of truth, the source of which is the target’s own behaviour. This is not to say, however, that Jews should necessarily be portrayed as they were in Der Stürmer ; this is merely to say that at least some stereotypes are unavoidable, because political cartoons are a means to distil complex issues into a single, instantly digestible image. This image of a  Der Sturmer  caricature blowing up Gaza by remote control was particularly offensive to Australian Jews. While one can recognize why certain tropes make Jews nervous, I do wonder what stereotypes the blogger would be willing to authorize for use in political cartoons about Israel. 16. Don’t use the phrase “the chosen people” to deride or as proof of Jewish racism. When Jews say we are the chosen people, we don’t mean that we are biologically superior to others or that God loves us more than other groups. Judaism in fact teaches that everyone is capable of being a righteous, Godly person, that Jews have obligations to be ethical and decent to “the stranger in our midst,” and that non-Jews don’t get sent to some kind of damnation for believing in another faith. When we say we’re the chosen people, we mean that, according to our faith, God gave us extra responsibilities and codes of behavior that other groups aren’t burdened with, in the form of the Torah. That’s all it means. I would welcome further clarification on this point.In fact, extreme statements of Jewish superiority are entirely mainstream within the Jewish community, with the late Sephardic leader Rabbi Ovadia Jos ef   famously saying that “the goyim are born only to serve us.” Further, If “when Jews say [they] are the chosen people, [they] don’t mean that we are biologically superior to others or that God loves [them] more than other groups”, then why did God give Jews “extra responsibilities and codes of behavior that other groups aren’t burdened with”? Surely, it was not because Jews were deemed inferior and in need of stricter controls. Additional responsibilities are typically conferred upon individuals who have proven capable of assuming them: for example, when a person is promoted or ennobled, the new position or title comes not only with privileges, but also added responsibilities; that person, in other words, has been chosen because they have been deemed superior to the rest. This is becoming very confusing. 17. Don’t claim that anti-Semitism is eradicated or negligible. It isn’t. In fact, according to international watchdog groups, it’s sharply on the rise. (Which sadly isn’t surprising—anti-Semitism historically surges during economic downturns, thanks to the belief that Jews control the banks.) This sort of statement is extremely dismissive and accuses us of lying about our own experiences. Well, firstly, anti-Semitism certainly exists and it’s certainly ugly, but it has also become very unacceptable in our society. For example, anti-Semitism in America declined dramatically after World War II, but this has never been reflected in Jewish self-perceptions of America.  As Elliott Abrams has stated , the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts” (p. 86).  At this time,  a single anti-Semitic remark by a public figure, for example, can lead to fulminating loss of employment, instant desertion by friends and even family, and a ruthless campaign of demonization in the media. In fact, such is the sensitivity towards anti-Semitism, that anti-Semitism is not even required to produce these results. There is a friendly evolutionary psychologist in America who could tell you a thing or two about this. One of these “watchdog groups” spent years seeking to get his tenure revoked, on the basis that he wrote a book describing 20th century Jewish intellectual movements. Secondly, the so-called “watchdog groups” are not reliable sources. The SPLC, for example, practice yellow journalism, and make it their business to the present anyone who criticizes Jews in the worst light possible, even if it means resorting to distortions and fabrications. These groups also have an interest in keeping the threat of anti-Semitism alive in the public mind: they are funded in large part by Jewish donors and they can’t risk the money drying up. (Which is why some spell their name $PLC.) So, of course, they will always say anti-Semitism is on the rise. I’d like to know if they have ever said it is on a decline. In fact, apparently even Israel needs anti-Semitism , in order to encourage Jews to immigrate. Such cynicism leads to scepticism. 18. Don’t say that since Palestinians are Semites, Jews/Israelis are anti-Semitic, too. You do not get to redefine the oppressions of others, nor do you get to police how they refer to that oppression. This also often ties into #8. Don’t do it. Anti-Semitism has exclusively meant anti-Jewish bigotry for a good century plus now. Coin your own word for anti-Palestinian oppression, or just call it what it is: racism mixed with Islamophobia. I’ve also encountered this “Jews are anti-Semites” in the anti-Semitic literature and yes, it does seem yet another silly tactic by people who hate Jews to make themselves appear mere concerned citizens who want justice. It’s an empty rhetorical point, for sure. As I said, if you hate Jews, say so—it’s not as if you can’t think of at least a thousand reasons. Do us all a favour and don’t pretend you’re a human rights activist. 19. Don’t blow off Jews telling you that what you’re saying is anti-Semitic with some variant of the statement at the top of this post. [“OMG, Jews think any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic!”] Not all anti-Israel speech is anti-Semitic (a lot of it is valid, much-deserved criticism), but some certainly is. Actually give the accusation your consideration and hear the accuser out. If they fail to convince you, that’s fine. But at least hear them out (without talking over them) before you decide that. In spite of all my comments above, it’s certainly a relief to know that anti-Israeli speech is possible without it making one an anti-Semite. Provided we abide by the above guidelines, and work out the kinks, we are in the clear, then, and all the more since we have been even given permission by a person with the correct ethnicity and therefore authorized to speak on the matter. The only problem here is that the way this blogger sees the conversation going is not very realistic. To be accused of anti-Semitism today is very serious; it has dire consequences, socially, professionally, and financially. It cannot be taken lightly. Most gentiles panic when this happens. Some, clearly thinking that attack is the best defense, get angry, or feign righteous anger. It would take a very financially independent person with an preternaturally stoic and calm disposition to do as the blogger recommends. The fact that he had to write such a copious guide proves how difficult this can be. The irony is that, in his effort to be helpful to well-meaning gentiles with views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the blogger’s guidelines have left them with an almost impossible task. It seems a very tricky rhetorical labyrinth to navigate, and, with so many trip wires to consider, one has to wonder whether, intentionally or unintentionally, the end result is a further stifling of the debate. Because another way of seeing it, which admittedly doesn’t qualify as well-meaning, is that the idea is less to be helpful to gentiles than it is to be helpful to Jews. A very reasonable supposition, though one that could be classed as anti-Semitic too.


July 31, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Libertarianismens bedrägeri (Swedish translation of “The False Flag of Libertarianism”)

“ Libertarianismens bedrägeri ” (“ The False Flag of Libertarianism ”  by Ian David Carlyle)   is translated into Swedish at the website of  Motgift , a Swedish nationalist site.


July 29, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Immigration gets on the public radar

An important aspect of immigration has been that for the most part it has occurred under the radar. Despite importing over a million mainly poor people every year and all that implies in terms of need for housing, infrastructure, welfare benefits, and medical care,  immigration and refugee policy in the US is on auto-pilot, with the pro-immigration forces steadily removing every obstacle. Most White Americans do not experience it first  hand and have no idea about the elaborate infrastructure that the pro-immigration forces have erected. It’s probably not true that a frog will allow itself to be boiled alive if only the heat is raised slowly enough, but it’s an irresistible image nonetheless. However, the anti-borders forces — on the left and the right — have counted on such passivity among the public to incrementally erode the American people’s ability to decide who gets to move here from abroad. They have devised endless opportunities to appeal deportation decisions, prevented the implementation of needed control measures, pushed relentlessly to pierce numerical caps, and created strong incentives against government functionaries saying “no” to those who want to come. The motto over the doorway of the immigration office might as well be “It ain’t over til the alien wins.” (Mark Krikorian, “ Hitting the boiling point over the border “) American are passive because immigration, especially legal immigration, is rarely in the news. The same goes for refugee policy. According to Refugee/Resettlement Watch, the process of importing refugees is a “ very quiet effort ” rife with corruption (e.g., leading to chain migration of relatives; see their fact sheet ). It is also thoroughly incentivized so that it’s a very lucrative business for organizations like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (which describes the children pouring in from Central America  as “gifts,” perhaps because the job of overseeing their recruitment pays $214,000 in salary and benefits supplied by US taxpayers [" Lutherans: “The children are a gift” and we need a second lobbyist in Washington to make sure the gift keeps giving   ]). But the crisis in Texas has brought it all to the public’s attention and it’s quite clear that quite a large section of the public are not at all happy with it, to the point that, as Krikorian notes, illegals are not being resettled in states where Democratic senators are facing tough reelection campaigns. And they are being transported in the least conspicuous means possible, hoping the public won’t notice. But the public is noticing. There have been vocal protests in a number of communities, such as Murrieta, CA , Boston  (!), Tennessee , and elsewhere .  Advertisement The message here is that immigration, like lobbying, thrives in the darkness and dies in the sunshine. In fact, the numbers of Central American teenagers involved are trivial compared to the usual annual numbers for legal immigration, illegal immigration, and refugees. Unless one is personally affected by the onslaught or is a regular reader of sites like VDARE or the Center for Immigration Studies, immigration will be far down on your list of what’s important. But the border crisis is big news so its definitely gotten the attention of pretty much everyone. So I am thinking that this is going to have major political implications. It’s well known that White Americans are worried about becoming a minority and that being reminded that they are going to become a minority makes them adopt more conservative positions. But, as with immigration generally, the media downplays the effects of immigration on speeding the day when Whites become a minority. As I noted elsewhere : “In all the Main Stream Media propaganda about the desperate need for an  Amnesty/Immigration Surge bill , you never hear that the bill will  speed up the day  when whites are a minority.” The far left LA Times (print edition, 7/28) reaches the height of cynicism with this cartoon by Jimmy Margulies while elsewhere scoffing at every traditional Christian religious belief, from homosexuality to abortion. The media typically downplay the transformative effects of immigration and the negative consequences for White America. But, with the Camp of the  Saints invasion upon us and making all the daily newspapers and political talk shows, it seems to be dawning on Whites that their country really is being taken away. So there are protests. And even more than the protests, I suspect there is a lot of quiet anger and uneasiness about it that will find expression in the ballot box. As Refugee/Resettlement Watch points out in an article on a Somali family that quickly grew to 12 children, it starts with stealth and ends with anger. It’s interesting to watch the   “pockets of resistance”  grow in cities that were originally “welcoming” and now are becoming overloaded with needy migrants (legal and illegal).  It is a matter of numbers—a few migrants needing services kind of go under the radar until a tipping point is reached for the taxpayers. Cases like this one break into the news causing citizens to finally say, ‘whoa!’ what is going on here?  But, at that point it is usually too late for the community because the contractors are bringing in the relatives of the first seed population and anyone who complains is immediately labeled a xenophobic, racist, bigoted boob! and the complainers scurry for cover.   Somali family in Springfield, MA When Whites start worrying about becoming a minority, research shows that there is a shift toward political conservatism whose likely beneficiary (alas!) will the be Republican Party.   As the article discussed in the above link shows, Whites who are told about the impending eclipse of  America as a majority-White country are more likely to want restrictions on immigration. Indeed, Dick Morris thinks that the border crisis may completely “ wipe out ” the Democrats. Which I suppose would be good except that the Republicans will probably be nearly as bad. The usual suspects,   Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. John McCain, were motivated by the crisis to again voice their support for amnesty and dramatic increases in immigration. George Will says the U.S. should “ welcome ” illegal children.  Despite Republican evil, it’s definitely a positive that the upsurge at the border is making Whites more aware of immigration as an issue. And it’s hard to imagine a White who is worried about the surge voting Democrat. There is talk, mainly by Democrats, of Republicans impeaching Obama if he   unilaterally gives amnesty to illegals . But even if the Republicans took over the Senate, as seems quite possible , they would still lack the 2/3 majority needed. But they could vote to overturn his action. Of course, the pitch will be that Republicans taking a stand against immigration would play into Democrat hands for 2016 or later given the ever-expanding coalition of ethnic transformation — which is why impeachment talk is coming mainly from Democrats.  But hey, non-Whites are going to vote Democrat anyway. It’s all about race now. Or at least increasingly so, and the border situation will make it more so. Besides, party politics is all about the short term. And for Republicans, the chance to take advantage of White anger over immigration may be too much of a temptation to resist. Even if they don’t talk much about the border crisis during the campaign, it may well shape voter attitudes given the research cited above. And if the Republicans did get into power, there would certainly be strong voices advising them to start changing immigration policy if they hope to ever win another presidential election (even though all the big money will be pulling in the opposite direction). Certainly the Republicans can’t win without the enthusiasm of the White working class, and it’s no secret how they stand on immigration, since they are the ones most hurt by it. This could be their last chance.


July 29, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

La Culture de Critique: Préface à la première édition brochée

La Culture de Critique : Préface à la première édition brochée (French translation of the Preface to the First Paperback Edition of  The  Culture of Critque )


July 27, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."