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 […]

Read More...

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 […]

Read More...

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 |

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 )


Read More...

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

Operation Trojan Horse: Reporting on the Muslim School Plot

In an earlier article , I mentioned Operation Trojan Horse, the plot by Muslim groups in Britain to take over Birmingham schools (see also Francis Carr Begbie’s “ Britain baffled by Muslims being Muslims “) and possibly schools elsewhere. The matter has been in the news since March, when a document and an accompanying letter, written anonymously by a concerned citizen, emerged via the Birmingham City Council, which had been in possession of it for some time. The letter alerted the authorities about the existence of the plot and urged the authorities to take action. The document, discovered by the concerned citizen, provided a five point plan on how to take over schools, which the author referred to as Operation Trojan Horse. Now that two separate government investigations have been carried out and the respective reports published, it is worth examining how the BBC has chosen to cover the issue. I focus on the BBC because its being a public service as well as a prestigious organization means it ought to provide excellent coverage. Firstly, we must outline the plot.   Operation Trojan Horse   According to the BBC , the document suggests targeting schools with a predominantly Muslim population, especially in poorer areas, before selecting a group of parents, which it describes as “hard liners”, to agitate at the school gate and in the playground and to raise questions about staff, the syllabus and teaching methods. It goes on to say that after infiltrating the governing body, a policy of disruption should be carried out from within, until the leadership has been changed to one more sympathetic to the group’s religious views. Trojan Horse, it says, is “totally invisible to the naked eye and allows us to operate under the radar. I have detailed the plan we have in Birmingham and how well it has worked and you will see how easy the whole process is to get the head teacher out and your own person in”. It identifies four schools at which it claims Operation Trojan Horse had been successfully put into action. Saltley School, Adderley School, Regents Park Community School and Park View Academy. A Park View governor, Tahir Alam, is named in the document as someone who was involved in the plot . . . Another school, Highfield, is mentioned as a potential target. By the time the above lines were written in April, 200 separate complaints had already been made about 25 schools, all in parts of Birmingham with a 90% Muslim population. Advertisement The plotters, who espoused or sympathized with extreme Islamist views, sought to introduce an aggressive, anti-British, Islamist ethos into Birmingham schools. The Reporting The paragraphs excerpted above are taken from a report titled, “Operation Trojan Horse: Will We Ever Learn the Truth?”, published concurrently with the government and the Birmingham City Council launching their respective investigations. The report is divided into five sections, titled “The ‘plot’”, “Real or fake?”, “Reaction”, “What are the inquiries looking into?” and “When will we find out the truth?”. Right off the bat, we find that the focus is kept on the different responses by the authorities, and on the various claims and counter-claims. In other words, the explosive revelations are neutralized under a blizzard of verbiage pulling in different directions, sowing doubt, and making it all seem like a wrangle between minor bureaucrats over a turbid matter. The reader is prevented from having a focused emotional response. More importantly, the policies and conditions that made this possible—the most vital matter at hand—are not discussed. Following the publishing of the reports, the focus has been on insubstantial differences of opinion between the different authors, and the irrelevant statements of opinion between a sampling of local authorities reacting to the findings, not on the facts that no one has disputed, even though the latter are of far greater import. What’s more, news about the investigations’ findings were not prominent in the BBC News website—to find them, one had to search. A side by side comparison of the reports by Peter Clarke (appointed by the government) and Sir Ian Kershaw (appointed by Birmingham City Council) is presented in an effort to highlight differences. Yet, a critical reading shows that on the things that matter, the reports are in agreement. For example, one of the differences highlighted is whether or not there was a plot. Both reports, however, agree that individuals acted with the common goal of promoting Islamic principles. It therefore seems preposterous to focus attention on whether or not the authors have chosen to call this a plot or individuals acting in concert. Isn’t one the definition of the other? Another example involves a simple matter of interpretation. Clarke determined that [w]hether the motivation reflects a political agenda, a deeply held religious conviction, personal gain or achieving influence within the communities, the effect has been to limit the life chances of the young people in their care and to render them vulnerable to more pernicious influences in the future. On the other hand, Sir Ian determined that [i]t appears that there is a genuine and understandable desire among these groups to improve the education and opportunities for Muslim pupils. The desire is often coupled with a belief that these children can only be served by Muslim leaders and teachers. Again, is the emphasis here on what is really important? The Islamist conspirators would of course see their actions as being in the interest of the children’s education, their community, and their religion. The above paragraphs show concurrence , not divergence. The concurrence is buried in the reports, despite efforts to hide it away. We may have to go to a separate report about a minor issue, tucked at the bottom of a longer and more substantial piece, to find that Sir Ian did find evidence that “five steps” outlined in the original letter as a means of destabilizing school leadership were “present in a large number of the schools considered part of the investigation”. Concurrence with the essential facts does not end with the reports. It is also reflected in the statements of those reacting to them, however immaterial. They express themselves euphemistically — that there are “problems” in some schools. But for their own varied reasons, they have uniformly sought to deflect attention from the plot and shift the focus onto Birmingham City Council. The declarations of Labour MP Khalid Mahmood are emblematic. He said he agreed with Mr Kershaw’s finding that identified the issue as a “minority problem” caused by a handful of disruptive governors, but said there was “still more to look at” and called for Birmingham City Council to be held to account. The efforts to deflect go as far as reporting the admission by Council leader Sir Albert Bore that the council failed to act for fear of being seen as racist or Islamophobic. This fear, of course, is a legitimate matter for concern, and well worth reporting. Yet, in the context in which it is mentioned, which is a context of disagreement, differences of opinion, claim and counter-claim, the central issue is effectively neutralized, because it passes from being one about British schools being colonized by anti-British Islamists to one about a local authority’s ineffectiveness. An interesting aspect of the reporting is that the BBC has been careful to record the opinion of Muslims who are on-message when it comes to promoting ideas of integration and the general moderateness of the majority of Muslims in Britain. This is another tactic for neutralizing the issue, for, as long as the British public sees Muslims exhibiting concern, calling for action, and talking about “integrated education” and community cohesion, the impression left is that, though there is certainly work to be done, now that the reports have come out the matter is at hand and the government and the authorities will eventually sort it out. Nadeem Malik, UK Director of the Hazrat Sultan Bahu Trust, a registered charity that provides essential religious and pastoral services to Muslims in the United Kingdom, is filmed offering a reassuring statement: We are sick of the negativity surrounding the city at the moment, the negative portrayal of Birmingham. There are issues, there are issues in every city. We want to be part of the solution now. In the same video report, Khalid Mahmood appears talking about “taking the bad apples out of the community” and “making us all more cohesive”. He is presented as a critic of Birmingham City Council’s efforts at appeasing Muslims. This scrupulousness by the BBC at having many different opinions represented in their reporting creates the impression of fairness and a lack of bias, when, in reality, they conceal a bias that is quite pronounced. Consider that the policies and conditions that caused Birmingham City Council to think appeasing Muslims was preferable to taking action is not once challenged or discussed, even though in the face proven example of ethnic competition for power and cultural influence. Doing so could lead to a wider and very awkward debate about multiculturalism, diversity, and immigration—all policies supported by the BBC. It could lead to tensions between communities, which nobody wants. And it could fuel support for an awkward brand of anti-establishment politics. Taken as a whole, this is a very skillful exercise in managing the emotions of the public, when faced with an awkward incident. Hardly anyone—not even the “nationalist” political parties—have shown much excitement over the issue. We could even argue that, in this case, being boring , pedantic, overly verbal, and scrupulously fair, has been used as a weapon. The hoped-for reaction, one is tempted to speculate, is for the reader to think “yea yea blah blah blah” part-way down the main news report and navigate away to some more exciting item, such as the Malaysian Airlines jet crash, the Israeli strike on Gaza, Tulisa’s drug trial , the case of the cannibal nurse , or, even better, the 2014 Commonwealth Games. While we can understand that there is a desire to maintain conviviality, we cannot—and should not—understand the desire to pretend that there is nothing of substance to discuss.


Read More...

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

US plays decisive role in Israel’s attack on Gaza

Two investigations by the Israeli media illustrate the profoundly unhelpful role played by the US. They suggest that, whatever its public statements, the US is assisting Israel not only in what Barack Obama called its right to “self-defence” but in actively damaging Palestinian interests. And it seems not to matter whether the Palestinians in question are Hamas or the preferred negotiating partner, Mahmoud Abbas.


Read More...

July 24, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

Islamic leader in Israel watches Hamas’ fate closely

There are no wrecked houses, no crushed or blasted bodies in Umm al-Fahm. But Israel is waging a campaign against this town of 45,000 inhabitants and its leading son, Sheikh Raed Salah, closely related to its current assault on Gaza. Salah, leader of the northern Islamic Movement, expects Israel’s war on Hamas to come knocking at his door next.


Read More...

July 24, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

The strange history of David Cole

Review of   Republican Party Animal: The “Bad Boy of Holocaust History”Blows the Lid Off Hollywood’s Secret Right-Wing Underground   by David Cole Has there ever been a stranger life trajectory than that of Holocaust revisionist David Cole?  At 21 he found television notoriety as a Jew who questioned important parts of the Holocaust narrative. But death threats forced him out of revisionism. He faked his death and then disappeared for over a decade — only to reinvent himself on the Hollywood conservative scene as a high-powered GOP mover and shaker For a while he was riding high, the toast of the local Republican establishment with his alcohol soaked fund-raising events where he rubbed shoulders with the likes of Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight,  Ron Cheney and Andrew Breitbart. Then the combination of a woman scorned and You Tube’s resurrection of old chat show clips did him again.  He was “outed” in spectacular fashion last year then turned into a pariah by the conservative establishment. He was banned by the Republican Party for life and condemned in more than 200 magazines, newspapers and websites for his youthful views.  His GOP friends wanted nothing more to do with the “evil Holocaust denier”. Advertisement Now Cole is back with a witty and entertaining memoir Republican Party Animal   pouring bile on his enemies from left and right and settling scores in epic fashion. It is eye-opening about the intersection between Hollywood and politics and the inside track of blogs associated with the right, such as Breitbart.com. But there is much more in this black comedy of a book which owes much to the style of P J O’Rourke. Cole does not recant his earlier views in any way and in fact reasserts them strongly. He has a keen understanding and a wide knowledge of Holocaust studies, and his book offers a fascinating insight into the world of revisionism, It might be easy to dismiss David Cole, who did not attend university.  He is the son of a Beverley Hills doctor who may or may have not dispensed the drugs that killed Elvis Presley.  Although he has been accused of being contrarian for the sake of it, he says he approached the Holocaust as a youthful mystery that became an obsession. Raised in a secular household that encouraged questioning of established opinion, he says he had no option but to follow the evidence where it took him. That was into the TV studios of such shows as Phil Donahue ,  Montel Williams and 60 minutes , and an international profile as a revisionist between 1990 and 1995.  His low-budget documentaries  were shot from within the gates of Auschwitz and questioned what happened there.  He said the gas chamber at Dachau was a cleverly constructed fake.  He poured scorn on the 6 million number. In turn he was reviled and called the Anti-Christ. Eventually he was put out of business by several beatings and a $25,000 bounty placed on his head by a group of thugs calling themselves the Jewish Defense League. In 1998 he faked his death, then changed his name to David Stein. After dropping out of revisionism he looked around for a way to make a living and found himself able to use his archive to make money through two markets. Firstly he sold to revisionists and deniers — a limited market niche if ever there was one. Then, demonstrating immense chutzpah, he  utilised  his vast knowledge of the subject to become an historical consultant on mainstream Holocaust documentaries and films, most of which, he now claims, were a heap of garbage from the factual point of view. A few years ago he reinvented himself as a networker on the Hollywood conservative scene as an event organiser for the “underground” Hollywood conservative group Friends of Abe. He duly found himself mixing with Hollywood royalty such as actors Gary Sinise, Clint Eastwood and Jon Voight and producer Jerry Bruckheimer, not to mention politicians such as Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and John Boehner. His spin-off fund-raising operation was highly successful. Republican Party Animals allowed conservatives to let their hair down in a frenzy of alcohol and pole dancers. Cole, an outgoing go-getter, was in his element and was seen as someone who could get things done and throw a terrific party. He was also soon in demand as a writer amongst the blogging and journalistic fraternity on the right. His journalism ran in many leading right wing sites. He mixed with people such as Andrew Breitbart (whom he distrusted) and David Horowitz (whom he disliked) and Ben Shapiro (who he thought was shifty and dishonest).  He mingled with Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle, Jonah Goldberg and Roger Simon.  Daniel Pipes offered him a writing job. Then a disgruntled old flame pointed out his Holocaust revisionist chat show appearances and passed the links around. His Facebook connections started to melt away in front of his eyes and soon his stout conservative friends wouldn’t even take his calls, let alone hear his explanation. At the age of 45, he was a pariah again. In the ensuing media deluge, the one thing that surprised Cole was the unanimity with which his former conservative associates abandoned him. From the American Spectator  to PJ Media , the rejection was total and unconditional.  The Guardian   newspaper treated him more fairly, he says. Former friends fell into two categories. Those who were genuinely disgusted and those such as radio host Larry Elder who were fearful of the effects on their own career of being linked to a “Holocaust denier”. People who went to bed one night with absolutely no knowledge of how many extermination camps are said to exist became blinded with rage when they woke up the next morning to learn that their trusted friend once stated there were two fewer than traditionally claimed. In the case of ninety per cent of these people, had I told them, before my outing that , that there were four organised killing camps for Jews during World War Two there would have been no anger, no fury, because they’d never bothered to learn the standard story by which to measure the revisionist version. I could have told them there were three extermination camps, or thirteen. They wouldn’t have balked. They trusted my judgement. But after they were told by the media I had violated a sacred tenet, no one could hold back the fury. The experience gave him a keen insight into the nature of conservatives and their lack of backbone. He says they secretly relish denouncing others as Nazis because it means they can join ranks with the left and gain social approval. In other words, it is cowardice. He enjoys recounting his own triumphs against the Holocaust establishment and gleefully recounts exposing the “Los Angeles Museum of Intolerance” for showing phony gas van footage and pretending it was real. Cole showed that it came from a 1962 Polish feature film. Some of the anecdotes are just surreal.  During Cole’s Montel Williams   appearance he was confronted with a Holocaust survivor who told of how his entire family had been exterminated. This led to the discovery of the man’s other brother who, unbeknownst to him, had been living in New York after emigrating from the former Soviet Union. The two brothers each thought the other had perished and had been reunited only because of the David Cole TV appearance. The fact that this supported Cole’s point — that many who were thought to have died, really ended up behind the Iron Curtain — was lost on the Montel Williams  show which broadcast a reunion between the two brothers without mentioning the context. Cole’s own politics seem to be centre right; he says he deplores the GOP’s descent into conspiracy mongering. “The right wing was still trying to convince itself that everything, from civil rights to counterculture, was neither inevitable popular nor organic but a commie plot orchestrated by ‘subversives.’” And he is dismissive about one Republican woman’s “outrageously racist and inaccurate rant” that “white people built this country and white men are this country.” He says he is a pro-Zionist who supports Israel but has a low opinion of secular Jews who, while nominally foregoing their Jewish religion, have replaced it with the secular religion of the Holocaust “for which no amount of revision or criticism was tolerable.”  By contrast he had far less of a problem with orthodox Jews than secular ones because their religious vision does not depend on the Holocaust. In the earlier part of the book he has much to say about the revisionists he admires, such as Bradley Smith, and what he claims are the fallacies and lazy historiography of other revisionists or even straight-out deniers like Robert Faurisson. He holds David Irving in high regard though he says Irving goes looking for trouble. While he has reservations about Ernst Zundel, he says that his one achievement should be noted: during Zundel’s trial in Canada, many Holocaust experts were forced to testify under oath. What now for David Cole? He says he has rededicated himself to the subject of Holocaust revisionism which was always his true calling. A blog post he wrote after his ‘outing’ shows his attitude: “ Apologize My Ass .”  Whatever one may say about him, this is a courageous given given that he very easily could have renounced his views as the product of a misspent youth. There are some very entertaining podcasts featuring him on You Tube  with Joshua Blakeney and Vincent Eastwood.


Read More...

July 24, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

??? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ??????????? (Russian translation of “What makes Western culture unique?”)

“??? ?????? ???????? ??????????? ??????????? ”  Russian translation of “ What makes Western culture unique? “


Read More...

July 22, 2014  Tags: , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

The False Flag of Libertarianism

In American political life, any prospect for meaningful resistance to the Cultural Marixst machine put together by the Democrats and their supporters in the media and academia has all but dissipated.   The Republican Party, having been taken over by neocon elements who pushed this country into a senseless, protracted war costing thousands of American lives and over a trillion dollars, has lost all credibility. Cementing itself as the irretrievably stupid party in a two-party system that pits the GOP against its demonstrably evil counterpart, the Republican leadership is even pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens, even though the demographic transformation of America engineered by Cultural Marxists is precisely the reason why the Republican party is destined to become a perennial minority party, if it does not disintegrate altogether. Despite outright opposition from its natural base, the Republican answer to the demographic crisis created by millions of Third World immigrants is … more Third World immigration. With the Republicans further unable to field even a mildly attractive candidate, George W. Bush will likely be the last Republican President, not unlike Millard Filmore, the last Whig President. This is further compounded by the dearth of intellectually astute conservative voices. Given that the airwaves are filled with such vapid, shameless, and ultimately shallow voices like Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, so on and so forth, the prognosis of stopping the Cultural Marxist machine seems dire. Indeed, the GOP is quickly fragmenting into different sects: the Tea Party, Christian fundamentalists, big business wanting cheap labor, and libertarians whose radical laissez-faire, anything goes creed borders on anarchism. The latter is perhaps most dangerous of all, because libertarians tug at American sentimentality about freedom and rugged individualism — values that must be placed secondary to the primary need of creating a culture in which the traditional American majority can thrive. Advertisement Libertarianism is disastrous for developing White identity and a sense that pursuing White interests is not only legitimate but a moral imperative.  Nevertheless, libertarianism is a powerful tradition in America, and it is responsible for one of the few successful reactions against the left in recent years: the campaign to oppose regulation of the junkfood industry in the interest of public health.  Although regulating diet in the interests of public health may at first seem unimportant to some TOO readers, it raises issues central to creating a culture suited to the needs of White America. Part of the problem in formulating this issue is that the campaign to regulate the junkfood industry is a creature of the left, which automatically sets off alarms. Michelle Obama has famously campaigned for measures to improve children’s diets and Michael Bloomberg has led a campaign to regulate the sale of soda pop laden with high fructose corn syrup — a poisonous substance banned in Europe. These campaigns have been met with a hue and cry from the Sarah Palin crowd; they are among the few liberal causes widely met with derision in mainstream political discourse. Misguided patriots with little else to cheer about these days and unwilling to discuss deeper anxieties related to immigration and multiculturalism have comically resorted to raucous cheers of “Yay for high fructose corn syrup.” For many years, liberal disdain for the fast food racket has been attacked by libertarian voices. The issue was first popularized by Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation (2001), which was the inspiration for Morgan Spurlock’s excellent Super Size Me (2004)  chronicling the author’s 30-day binge diet of McDonald’s food.  The libertarian mantra has been that it’s no one’s business except for the restaurant and the patron — a misguided glorification of so-called “personal choice.” They take a truly courageous stand for the right of multinational corporations with a quasi-American identity to peddle poison to untold millions. One example is this video of Lee Doren , a corporate shill of The Competitive Enterprise Institute , and lapdog of another less than inspiring “conservative” voice, Glenn Beck : Whereas I and doubtless other traditionalists see the current American landscape littered with fast food joints and look-alike strip malls featuring the same tired roster of chain stores as a most vulgar picture indeed, Doren waxes poetic about his grandmother taking him to a fast food joint as a young lad.  How sentimental. Another such instance is Tom Naughton’s movie Fat Head which is marketed as a direct rebuttal to Super Size Me.  Setting forth half-baked attacks on Spurlock’s admittedly gimmicky methodology composed of a study size of one, Naughton attempts to refute Super Size Me by embarking on a fast food diet that carefully counts calories — not likely to be the case with the folks who regularly patronize fast food.  Indeed, he eschewed soft drinks altogether in his experiment. It’s interesting though that in a rare admission on racial differences, he attributes the obesity epidemic at least in part to the rising number of Blacks and Hispanics in this country. These groups have different food preferences, metabolisms and body types than White Europeans — a rare admission from someone making a living in the mainstream media. The premise of these and other libertarian shills is that eating junk food “is the business only of the patron and restaurant,” and no one else. This is tantamount to unbridled anarchism. At the most basic, intrinsic level, the single greatest defect of this libertarian-anarchist creed is that what others do affects everyone else . No man is an island. Imagine if current dietary trends take even greater hold, imagine if almost everyone was a heavy or super user of this schlock, to use the terms from internal McDonald’s documents as exposed by Spurlock. Imagine the effect it would have on health, the cost of healthcare, even the ability to fight wars or field law enforcement.  That simple consideration demonstrates why public health, particularly the health of our young, is a compelling state interest. It is why governments regulate food and the drug industry, and it is why the high fructose corn syrup monster is rightly banned in the Old World. “Nobody forces anyone to eat fast food” is an explicit contention straight from Fat Head , as if physical coercion were the only means to restrict “personal choice.”  The notion of personal choice, at least in this country, is exceedingly simplistic, giving absolutely no credence to the power of the media to shape people’s wants. The reality is that, contrary to dogmatic notions about freedom and rugged individualism, personal choice is profoundly limited, in ways we scarcely understand or acknowledge, to the time, circumstance and environment one is born into. In short, culture matters, and those who control cultural messages have a profound influence on individual choice. Just as the media molds individual attitudes on race and gender, critics of junkfood regulation give no credence to the effect that multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns targeting children have on their minds and dare I say souls. This is one of the most egregious failures of the libertarian worldview. The attitude is that people can be left to their own common sense as to what is good for them or not. To the contrary, the effect that such campaigns have on children — indeed all messages towards children generally —cannot be overstated. Libertarians simply dismiss the whole issue by stating that it is up to the parents.  Spurlock’s discussion in Super Size Me refutes this notion far more succinctly than this author ever could, contrasting what would at best be one message per meal from a conscientious parent with a multi-billion dollar advertising campaign saturating television, radio and print advertising, achieving absolute ubiquity throughout all mainstream society. It’s like a religious parent cautioning her child about premarital sex, after which the child goes back to watching MTV and listening to rap. Or like a racially aware parent who wants his child to have similar views. And then the child goes to school and watches TV with his friends. Of course, the libertarian creed does not just fight for poor little multinational behemoths to peddle a steady diet of burgers and fries and other junkfood to the seething masses.  It generally stands for the proposition that anyone should be able to do anything that person pleases, provided it does not violate the so-called “non-aggression principle.”  Many libertarians for this reason do not support tight immigration controls.  Indeed, Sheldon Adelson , the billionaire casino magnate, as well as a leading figure in the Libertarian movement, has lobbied—such a euphemism for bribery—the Republican leadership to sign off on the latest amnesty proposal for illegal immigrants.  Libertarians have also backed gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, as well as the general decriminalization of drugs no matter how destructive they are, including heroin and crystal meth. One such libertarian is Penn Jillette, who openly advocates just such a free-for-all. Along with his partner Teller, he produced a quasi-documentary series on Showtime entitled “Bull*hit.”  Aside from advocating free borders and free drugs, they also have pushed sexual libertinism, advocating legalized prostitution not just as something that should be tolerated to remove the criminal element, but as something that is intrinsically positive unto itself.   These and other examples from the libertarian movement show that this supposed alternative to the left actually endorses the sexual free-for-all that is overtaking this country and indeed Mother Europe and Western Culture as a whole. Very quietly and without much attention from mainstream media circles, we are only now reaping the harvest of the sexual revolution begun some 50 years ago as part of the 1960s counter-cultural revolution. Not only is there a deluge of pornography, F. Roger Devlin (a TOO contributor ) has quite convincingly shown how these developments have resulted in the natural female tendencies to hypergamy being unchecked. In combination with the tendency for male promiscuity, this leads to higher numbers of both men and women being unmarried; both are important factors behind the epidemic of  divorce and single motherhood that is wreaking havoc on society. This last phenomenon — the rise of single motherhood, either in the absence of the father or in divorce — is perhaps the most striking phenomenon demonstrating the fantastical delirium of libertarian dogma that people should do whatever they want, within the elusive confines of the so-called “non-aggression” principle.  For all races, single motherhood, is strongly correlated with a variety of social ills. Here are some statistics: 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) — 5 times the average. 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes — 32 times the average. 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control) 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes — 14 times the average.  ( Justice & Behavior , Vol 14, p. 403–26) 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report) 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes — 9 times the average.  (U.S. Dept. of Justice, Sept. 1988) 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes — 20 times the average.  (Fulton Co. Georgia, Texas Dept. of Correction) For many more shocking facts and statistics, see the website The Fatherless Generation . This belies the simplistic, even disingenuous notion that sexual mores do not matter and that what a woman chooses to do with her body is her business alone.  And yet that is the libertarian creed: pushing junkfood and a junkfood culture in the name of quaint, American notions of liberty, personal choice, and rugged individualism. Julianne Moore as Amber Waves in  Boogie Nights The notion of personal choice is a chimera, particularly in an era dominated by big media. The best illustration is perhaps the example of the character Amber Waves from the movie Boogie Nights .  This fictional character, based on a composite of two or three real life porn “actresses,” grew up in the late 60s and 70s when such unbridled freedom and libertinism took hold. As has always been the case throughout human history, many of her choices were dictated  by the time and place she grew up in, just as being born in Russia or China will dictate so many things about one’s path in life.  If she grew up in the Bund der Deutscher Maedel in 1930s Germany or on an Amish plantation, society would have created far different experiences and social norms for her than she encountered in the San Fernando Valley in the late 70s. Although somewhat fictional, the narrative also illustrates how her cultural milieu affectedt her as a woman and as a mother. The viewer is only left to wonder what would become of  little Andy who was born into this mess. This is another example where the “right’ for people to do whatever they want has destructive consequences. By no means an isolated instance, we now see generations of this. Of course culture isn’t the whole story. As implied in the comments on race differences above, individual genetic proclivities have a strong influence on behavior. In general, the eradication of cultural supports for high-investment parenting takes a far greater toll on the less educated , whereas those on the high end of the bell curve have been much better able to have stable marriages and well-functioning children. As Charles Murray has documented , there has been a breakdown of the family among working class White Americans since the 1960s. Similarly, the lack of regulation of the junk food industry is more dangerous for those prone to unhealthy eating habits, and the lack of regulation of drugs is more dangerous to those with addictive personalities. These two examples of  junkfood  and the deregulation of sex shows how intellectually hollow the libertarian movement is. And yet, unlike race realism or other ideas that contravene political correctness, libertarian attitudes on junkfood and sex are taken seriously in the mainstream media. Indeed, they are perhaps the strongest voice in opposition to the cultural left, a reality that is horrifying indeed. The left tolerates libertarianism; it despises traditional religious and other cultural strictures on sexual behavior. Let there be no mistake about it.  Libertarianism is not right wing, nor is it conservative given that it typically enables promiscuity, drug use, and a seemingly endless stream of personal vices.  It is an ideology fueled by corporate interests, interests that have no allegiance to country, blood, or soil.  It certainty has no affinity for European culture or identity. It thus must be vehemently rejected as a voice of resistance to the Cultural Marxists wreaking havoc on modern society. In many ways, it is just another arm of the Cultural Marxist beast preying upon the Sons and Daughters of Europa.


Read More...

July 22, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Ruotsin monikulttuurisuuden juutalaiset juuret (Finnish translation of “Roots of Multiculturalism in Sweden”)

Finnish translation of “ Roots of Multiculturalism in Sweden “: “ Ruotsin monikulttuurisuuden juutalaiset juuret .”


Read More...

July 22, 2014  Tags: , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Richard Spencer Interviews Kevin MacDonald: The Insider as Outsider

Richard Spencer interviewed me on July 18 on a variety of topics, including  Slavoj Žižek,  The Culture of Critique , and the Western culture of guilt, and “the insider as outsider.” The podcast can be found on the Radix website .


Read More...

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

Žižek, Group Selection, and the Western Culture of Guilt

I am not going to try to figure out why academic left superstar Slavoj Žižek would want to review  The Culture of Critique but he did (Steve Sailer: “ Slavoj Žižek on Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique “). Perhaps it’s part of his persona where he writes things that are jarring and paradoxical — which is what I get from this review of one of his books. Anyway, as everyone knows, he plagiarized his review from Stanley Hornbeck’s review in  American Renaissance . (He now  says  that a friend sent him the review and said he could use it under his name.) The horrors! The giveaway, as Sailer notes, was that his review was far more lucid than his usual writing, prompting an alert blogger to actually make a side-by-side comparison, on the basis of which it is only reasonable to say that he stands convicted. All that is amusing but of no real consequence, although one could hope for a bump in book sales. But Sailer’s blog has attracted ~250 comments at this writing, mainly expressing opinions on my work in general. After reading quite a few, it seemed to me that there were quite a few very articulate defenders of the basic ideas expressed in  Culture of Critique , etc. This is a link to all the reviews of  Culture of Critique  I am aware of (excluding  Ž ižek , but who needs Žižek  when you have the original?). This includes John Derbyshire’s review in  The American Conservative  as well as my reply . The only review to appear in an academic publication is Frank Salter’s which is excellent; Paul Gottfried also reviewed it in Chronicles .  Advertisement I think there are two basic problems that prevent a lot of people from accepting my work on Jews and particularly  The Culture of Critique.  One is that since most people are not professionals in the area of evolutionary psychology, they look to people they admire and trust to provide them guidance. One of the first comments asks, “ Was there any serious critique of MacDonald’s thesis by any serious author?”  Usually, when a controversial book comes out there are a lot of reviews, as with Nicholas Wade’s  A Troublesome Inheritance  or  The Bell Curve.  Interested people can easily read a variety of reviews and get a pretty good idea of of the pros and cons. But that’s not possible with  The Culture of Critique.  I think what is missing is a detailed negative review. Negative comments by John Tooby and Steven Pinker on my work in general don’t count, because neither shows any evidence of having read the books. In any case, I respond to them here , and critics should be aware of what Frank Salter noted in his review published in the  Human Ethology Bulletin: Apart from the political sensitivity of the subject, much of the problem facing MacDonald is that his knowledge is often too far ahead of his detractors to allow easy communication; there are not enough shared premises for constructive dialog. Unfortunately the knowledge gap is closing slowly because some of his most hostile critics, including colleagues who make serious ad hominem accusations, have not bothered to read MacDonald’s books…. On a personal note, it is overdue that John Tooby and Steven Pinker applied their professional skills seriously to critique MacDonald’s work in the appropriate scientific forums. This now seems obligatory as a matter of professional duty given the severity of their attack on a colleague who has refrained from ad hominems throughout this sorry event. Still, it is now too late to reverse the harm done to both MacDonald’s and probably HBES’s reputation by what can only be judged reckless, unscholarly, and plain uncivil slurs. For these they should apologize…. (see here ) Derbyshire’s review is by no means  entirely negative; he doesn’t dispute some of the main threads (the chapters on Boas, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, New York Intellectuals) or even the main point that Jewish intellectual movements were “a net negative for America.” In any case, a serious person would also read my reply (linked above) to get a balanced perspective. The other serious impediment is that critiquing, analyzing, or even discussing Jewish influence is the greatest taboo in the modern world. One can see this in Derbyshire’s review, where one gets the impression that that such activities are vaguely distasteful and perhaps a sign of some kind of personality disorder (do you have “the Jew thing”?). It is interesting to look at the comments on the recent New York Times op-ed on the demographic characteristics of visitors to Stormfront (young, educated, news junkies, readers of the New York Times,   etc.). While the author, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, has “no idea” how Stormfront frequenters could possibly have that profile, many of the commentators weighed in with their own pet theories in which actual behavior of Jews had nothing to do with attitudes. Exceptions: A Jewish writer comments: “My father, who survived Hitler, taught us that Germans had legitimate complaints and that losing our family’s wealth in the Communist revolution earlier had been a good thing: our people couldn’t see how we were building resentments. Dismissing expression of these resentments as hate speech didn’t prevent the Holocaust or the death of my father’s relatives. Behind their anger, there are real economic issues we ignore at our collective peril.” Another comment: “SF members don’t wish to exercise white supremacy over others, but instead, they seek to separate themselves from the failure that is multiculturalism in the earnest desire to preserve their identity as Whites. Regardless of whether you believe White people exist or whether it’s a social construct (Tell any other racial or ethnic group that, and they won’t react nicely!), Stormfront members are by the vast majority law-abiding citizens whose views are simply heretical to the mass media in this country that demonizes anyone with an opposing view on the topic of race.” A major theme of  Culture of Critique  is that Jewish intellectual movements developed theories which had a patina of science and according to which anti-Semitism had nothing to do with the behavior of Jews but was entirely an issue of the psychopathology of non-Jews. These theories were then promulgated by the elite media and Jewish activist organizations, and they came to pervade the academic world, with the results we see in these comments. My favorite here is “I … suspect these individuals of projecting the hatred they actually feel towards themselves onto others in an attempt to protect themselves from psychic damage” — a classic psychoanalytic move. Indeed, the ADL doesn’t even like people saying good things about Jewish influence — so they would presumably have a problem with Derbyshire’s review or Joe Biden’s comments . A recent interview of Abe Foxman in the Times of Israel  was notable for bringing up stereotypical aspects of Jewish influence, including Jews controlling Hollywood where, as usual , he claims that Hollywood Jews are not acting as Jews. And: Finance: Interviewer: “ During the Global Financial Crisis, every time the head of a bank turned out to be Jewish I cringed. And I wished that there were fewer Jews at the heart of the American financial system.” Pro-Israel activity and loyalty: Interviewer: “ If you were to ask American Jews ‘Where does your heart lie most?’, a lot of them would say ‘Israel’. Foxman commented, “I remember when the Foreign Minister of Spain said to me, ‘When we say Jews are successful we mean it as a compliment.’ I replied by saying, That’s the compliment that paved the way to Auschwitz.” The ADL’s strategy is therefore to do their best to squelch any discussion of Jewish influence. And I think they have largely succeeded. (A good example is the dearth of reviews of Culture of Critique .)   People confronting work that discusses Jewish influence and how it may conflict with the interests of others immediately go into protective mode. They reflexively place such people in the category of haters and, like the commenters on the NYTimes Stormfront article, dial into whatever psychiatric explanation seems most plausible to them — a very adaptive strategy since anything else may well endanger their job. Getting back to the comments on Sailer’s blog, another issue that always comes up is group selection. I want to make clear once again, as several commentators noted, that my work develops a perspective on cultural group selection which is entirely mainstream these days. Unfortunately, the group selection charge is often used as a way of saying, “he’s obviously wrong about that, so we can safely ignore everything else he says.” But obviously, the vast majority of the ideas in the trilogy, and particularly in The Culture of Critique which is the book that critics are most eager to discredit, do not depend on group selection. Nevertheless, for the record, once again, I take no position on the importance of group selection for animals (although I think it’s unlikely). But humans, because of their greater cognitive abilities are able to structure groups in such a way as to avoid the typical problems associated with group selection for animals (e.g., free riders) (see here for a brief summary of my view). Group selection is a good example where an orthodoxy developed within evolutionary science has trickled down to pretty much everyone so that eyes glaze over when you say that humans are different. Finally, I want to address the issue of a biological basis for moral universalism for Westerners. One commenter said that the views I expressed in my VDARE.com article on racial science were “extreme.” What is truly extreme is that racial science has been more or less expunged from the academic world. The result is that we have to start all over trying to solve what I think is the most challenging intellectual problem in the social sciences: What are the biological proclivities of European peoples stemming from their evolutionary history? And we are doing it in the absence of any institutional or organizational support; indeed, the multicultural left that dominates the university is prone to “explaining” the success of the West as due to unique evil or dumb luck. I am not entirely satisfied with the theories to date. Nevertheless, it’s pretty clear that Western peoples are prone to individualism, have unique family patterns (delineated by the Hajnal line ), de-emphasize extended kinship, are prone to monogamy, are relatively egalitarian, and prone to moral universalism, altruistic punishment, and creating moral ingroups based on reputation, not kinship— all features of hunter-gatherer societies. Fundamentally, we need an explanation of the current situation in which Western peoples have uniquely signed on to a suicidal zeitgeist based on empathy and guilt. To dissent from displacement-level immigration is to remove oneself from the moral universe created by our hostile elites, and the great majority of Whites are horrified at the thought of transgressing these moral boundaries. Recently I noticed that evolutionary anthropologist Peter Frost blogged about empathy and guilt being predominantly found among the cultures of Northwestern Europe. Frost noted that “e mpathy and guilt are brutally effective ways to enforce social rules,” and he suggests that this may have begun as large groups of Europeans — well beyond close kin — congregated in resource-rich areas, necessitating non-kinship forms of social organization. In any case, it’s good to see some convergence in thinking about the biological proclivities of Europeans. And it’s very hard not to see the culture of empathy and guilt as causally related to the current situation where Whites are meekly accepting their own displacement as a moral imperative. Empathy and the creation of moral communities seem central to Western history since the 17th century— prime examples being the movement to end slavery beginning in the late 18th century and the culture of guilt and empathy that pervaded elite circles in England in the 19th century  (the latter also a theme of David Hackett Fischer’s Fairness and Freedom ). Beginning with the Civil Rights Movement, all of the cultural changes in America since the 1960s have been phrased in moral terms. This strategy simply doesn’t work in other cultures, and we have to understand why this is.  While this strand is dominant now, there appear to be other strands as well, greatly complicating the picture. Particularly important is the culture of aristocratic individualism resulting in elitist, hierarchical societies that were hostile to social change (e.g., the South prior to the Civil War) but whose roots can be traced back to the period of Saxon domination in England and likely represent another ethnic strand (see here , p. 14ff and particularly pp. 18-19). As noted above, developing good theories of European biological proclivities is a daunting problem. It’s a sad commentary on the current age that it’s not a question that can even be discussed in polite academic circles.


Read More...

July 17, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

The Dark Art of Being FAIR

A “national media watch group . . . offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship” is a great idea. And that is how Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) describes itself, which, on the face of that, makes it a welcome initiative. According to their website, they “work to invigorate the First Amendment by greater diversity in the press and scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints”. Who could object to that? Certainly, there needs to be greater diversity of opinion in the press, and minority viewpoints are under-represented—unless one considers the viewpoints expressed by mainstream media outlets to be minority ones, a case for which could well be made. The organization was founded in 1986 by Jeff Cohen, and—certainly in his mind, at least—has been serving the public good ever since. Cohen has had the honour of being mentioned by this website once previously (see here ). Yet, amazingly—and in this they are not alone—their view of media bias is the complete opposite of how readers of this and similar websites experience it. In fact, one would think that the organization inhabits a parallel universe, which is a complete inversion of ours, because, in their opinion, the mainstream media in America is biased in favour of a white, male, Right-wing viewpoint. Yes, you read that correctly. When they say “greater diversity in the press”, they mean not opinion, but skin colour. When they say “minority . . . viewpoints”, they mean viewpoints from people with different skin colours. And when they say ‘dissident viewpoints’, they mean, weirdly, progressive ones. Advertisement I suspect the founding of this organization during the height of the Reagan era is significant, for people who describe themselves as “progressive” view that era as a sort of Dark Age. Their view is that the media should be representative of the society they report to. And this is a very laudable principle—one with which I totally concur. But their belief is that American society is way more progressive and biologically diverse than the media would lead you to believe. I suspect former  TOO contributor, Edmund Connell y , would have a few comments to make on the matter. Inevitably, since this is an American outfit and the times are what they are, their blog evinces a crude fixation with skin colour: a search for the words “racist” and “racism” aggregate to no less than 614 results. This is the biggest category by some margin, ahead of sexist (50), sexism (41), homophobic (26), homophobia (24), ageist (1), disableist (0), and even anti-Semitism (63). Still, the blog hits all the categories of victimhood, keeping the wounds of privileged groups raw. Interestingly, however, the word “Israel” produces 594 results. It would appear that, among the progressive causes espoused by this organization, criticism of pro-Israel bias in the American media is the second biggest one. See here . Altogether this would put FAIR in Noam Chomsky’s camp—not in the sense that Israel is doing the United States’ bidding, which is another strange inversion of the facts, but in the sense, albeit in a roundabout way, that private corporate capitalist interests exerts undue influence in policy, which is another of FAIR’s targets. Exactly how corporate interests advance those of the white, male, Right-winger is something I’d be interested to hear. This congeniality with Chomsky is no coincidence, for it turns out that Cohen and his brand of media FAIRness was inspired by Chomsky in the first place. Indeed, Chomsky was a guest speaker at one of FAIR’s events. And it is not only Chomsky’s media readings that inspired Cohen. The latter also seems to share with his guru a hostility to the West. Note how Cohen concludes his birthday tribute to Noam Chomsky: While he didn’t succeed through that one TV appearance in bringing an end to Western imperialism, or what passes for Western Civilization , he goes on trying at age 85. Happy birthday, Noam! [My emphasis] A TOO contributor pointed out two years ago that Chomsky’s politics rest on one main overriding assertion . . . He claims that all European Christian politics are racist. To Chomsky, the existence of European Christians, whether in their homelands in Europe, in the United States, Canada or Australia, is not a normal human historical project, but a trans-historical racist one, part and parcel of defining one’s self as a White. Therefore, he claims, one cannot self-describe as a White or Christian and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a White or a Christian is to be a racist. This only contributes to the stereotype of Jewish campaigners as being typically at the vanguard of ‘progressive’ social and political causes, pushing the frontiers of liberalism ever further to the left. So we have a mixed bag: some good, but much evil, in the form of inversion, deflection, confusion, and hostility to our civilization, which, for these gentlemen, is little more than planetary bullydom. But the good is certainly worth dwelling on, for it is instructive—perhaps not for you and me, but certainly for many. Even if you don’t agree with the idea that the US corporate media represents a pro-White, pro-male, and pro-Right-wing viewpoint, some of their critiques overlap with those of TOO , which means there is much to be learnt from their dissection of selected news stories. My favourite part is their media activism kit , a page on their website where they show how to detect media bias. This is applicable in all cases, irrespective of whether you think the media is run by Marxist hoodlums or fascist pigs. The first question to ask is, Who are the sources? Be aware of the political perspective of the sources used in a story. Media over-rely on “official” (government, corporate and establishment think tank) sources. Establishment think tank sources . . . —that is an interesting one, because I can’t think of any Right-wing ones regularly employed by the media. Can you? The most cited think tanks in the United States are the Brookings Institution , the Council of Foreign Relations , and the American Enterprise Institute , otherwise known as “neo-con central”. For information about genuine “Right-wing” voices, the media relies on $PLC boilerplates. So I suppose it’s a question of what is “Right-wing” for whom—the Socialist Workers Party in the UK shows that if you are on the outer fringes of the Far Left, even a progressive liberal is “Right-wing”. In the case of research findings, a related issue is not so much who the sources are, but how the data came into being. In recent years we have seen pseudoscientific studies according to which Right-wingers were ‘proven’ to have lower IQs ; immigration was ‘proven’ to boost the economy ; racism was ‘proven’ to be a curable anxiety disorder ; and so on. Upon critical examination, the studies producing such data have obvious design flaws, stemming from their   initial assumptions . Too often, it becomes clear that the study in question was designed from the outset to confirm an a priori conclusion. FAIR suggests the next question: Is there a lack of diversity? Diversity of skin colour, certainly. But diversity of opinion? Not so much. What is referred to as “debate” is usually a simulacrum thereof: the scope is kept very narrow, with cacophonous exchanges of views that, though nearly identical, though sharing all the essential suppositions, are presented as polar opposites. Varieties of skin pigmentation and physiognomy are but added methods of concealing the lack of difference under the appearance of difference, for the “diverse” voices authorized to speak all share the establishment’s essential suppositions, except they may represent future development along the same continuum. Third question: From whose point of view is the news reported? In FAIR’s universe, [p]olitical coverage often focuses on how issues affect politicians or corporate executives rather than those directly affected by the issue. . . . Economics coverage usually looks at how events impact stockholders rather than workers or consumers. There is truth to this. CNN exemplifies this with reports like “Political Chatter: Obama blamed for immigration influx”, the first two paragraphs of which read: In what has become a dire and politically explosive situation at the border that includes droves of unaccompanied young border-crossers, overcrowded holding facilities, angry protesters and finger-pointing politicians, Washington struggles to get the situation under control. Politicians, however, easily point fingers of blame. On Sunday, politicians from both sides of the political aisle said President Barack Obama is not doing enough to stem the influx of immigrants — some young children — from coming to the United States. Indeed, immigration stories are typically told either from the point of view of politicians and how immigration affects them or from the point of view of immigrants, emphasizing their difficulties, their law-abidingness, their willingness to work hard, and their humanity. When reference is made to public anger at excessive immigration, the news reports seldom personalize that viewpoint, speaking in generalities and focusing on how politicians are reacting to it. It is the view of an anonymous, dark crowd, which is everywhere, but which does not have individual stories; the only individual is the politician, who has to solve this “difficult” problem. Ironically, that problem is the ever-present viewpoint of the majority, not some anomaly or freak phenomenon. The fourth and fifth questions need no elaboration: Are there double standards? Do stereotypes skew coverage? Hm. I wonder . . . The next two questions deal with more subtle and insidious problems: What are the unchallenged assumptions? And, Is the language loaded? A report published in March this year, with the headline “Immigrants DON’T Cost UK Taxpayers More Than £22m A Day, Despite What Migration Watch Say”, begins: Immigrants have cost UK taxpayers more than £22 million a day for 17 years, a report by an anti-immigration lobby group has claimed, a figure strenuously denied by the academics who did the original research. Migration Watch UK research claims that the public purse was £140 billion worse off between 1995 and 2011 as a result of people moving to Britain. Migration Watch based their claim on figures from the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, at University College London. Notice how MigrationWatch UK is described as an “anti-immigration lobby group”, while the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM) is presented, neutrally and unprefixed, as simply an academic research centre. Yet, CReAM states on their website that their purpose is to help “steer the current policy debate”. Note the word “steer”, instead of “inform”. The word ‘inform’ would be consistent with their stated desire to do so “without partisan bias”; the word “steer”, on the other hand, implies direction, which is not consistent with lack of partisan bias. The unchallenged assumption in the report’s wording is that CReAM is simply an unbiased academic collector of data, and that they are, therefore in a different category from MigrationWatch UK, which is not academic but a politically motivated organization. Notice the words “lobby”, which immediately bring to mind politics and pressure, and “group”, as opposed to think tank. Accordingly, both in the headline and the copy, the article implies that CReAM “finds”, while MigrationWatch “claims” or “says”. In other words, one publishes findings based on empirical data, while the other merely spins and asserts. Yet, both CReAM and MigrationWatch UK are, in fact, think tanks, relying on empirical data for their published findings or opinions. As to the loaded language, the moment you describe an organization as being ‘anti’ something, you are giving it a negative connotation. It says the organization is there to negate, to block, to say no; they are not for anything, they are against something. When you are against something, it is because you either fear it or have been angered by it. These are negative emotions, so the “anti” elicits a negative emotional response. Finally, notice the angry capitalization of “DON’T” in the headline, and the word “strenuously” in the opening paragraph. This also suggests anger, but a very different type of anger: not one arising from fear and prejudice, but a righteous anger, arising from indignation at an outrage. For a media watchdog that denounces loaded language, however, FAIR seems peculiarly prone to it. In a recent blog discussing John Huppenthal, the Superintendent of Public Instruction in Arizona who spearheaded a ban on ethnic studies, FAIR described him as a “racist internet graffiti artist”, who wrote “screeds”. His crime? Posting on a blog (anonymously) opinions such as We all need to stomp out balkanization. No spanish radio stations, no spanish billboards, no spanish tv stations, no spanish newspapers. This is America, speak English. Now, is there a lack of context? We carry on with the above example. The above quote appears in a piece in the Arizona Republic , linked to directly from FAIR’s blog post on this issue. You would think from the above that Huppenthal wants zero immigration. Well, let’s examine the quoted text with the two paragraphs that preceded it and were omitted by the Arizona Republic : We are now going to see the dark side of controlling immigration – fewer jobs for caucasions. [ sic ] In an improving economy, free flowing immigration creates more jobs for caucasions, not fewer. Economic growth is one part productivity growth and 2 parts population growth. Caucasians aren’t reproducing themselves, so all population growth has to be immigration. We are condemning ourselves to a second rate future if we don’t reestablish the melting pot with a strong flow of immigrants engaging in economic activity, not crime. We all need to stomp out balkanization. No spanish radio stations, no spanish billboards, no spanish tv stations, no spanish newspapers. This is America, speak English. So, it turns out that Huppenthal is actually for lots of immigration. But FAIR is not wholly unfair. It also provides a good example of information out of context in another blog post: Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas made headlines (e.g., “Abbas Takes Defiant Step, and Mideast Talks Falter,” New York Times , 4/1/14; “Talks in Limbo After Move by Abbas,” Washington Post , 4/2/14) when he decided on April 1 to apply for membership in a number of international conventions and treaties. That decision was portrayed as a serious breach — one that forced Israel to pull out of negotiations. What was happening in reality was much different — but still fairly easy to understand. The agreement that established this round of talks, as Yousef Munayyer (Permission to Narrate, 4/4/14) explained, required that Israel release 104 Palestinian prisoners, a move intended to put off any Palestinian appeals to the United Nations. The final prisoners were to be released on March 29, but Israel failed to do so, apparently thinking they could use these prisoners as a lever to extend the talks. The Palestinian move came in response to that decision. It seems then that, like the British MP George Galloway, this public service does serve the public on occasion, even if for all the wrong reasons. Next: Do the headlines and story match? On the anniversary of the 7 July, 2005 bombings in London, the Huffington Post led with the headline “‘Blair Lied, Thousands Died’”. Did you notice the extra set of quotation marks? It turns out that the article does not report on a condemnatory statement by an establishment figure nor on a finding by a think tank against Tony Blair, but on graffiti painted on the 7/7 London memorial. The copy focused on the outrage of politicians and the sorrow of the victims and survivors. This mismatch is particularly interesting because it reinforces its nearly endless stream of negative reports about Tony Blair (I’m not complaining: he deserves it): the outrage of politicians is a distraction, a mere veneer of decency and concern; what is important is the juxtaposition of ire at Blair and the victims of bombings caused by Blair’s war-mongering. Front and centre, however, is the ire. FAIR points out that many people just skim the headlines, and don’t actually read the copy, so this can be used to mislead, to shape attitudes; the copy, once read, if read at all, may give the headline a very different meaning, but simply by being there responsibility for deliberate deception can be averted on a technicality. The mismatch practice can occur within a news report itself. Often, readers are sold a viewpoint in the first part of the copy, but this viewpoint is refuted further down. Typically, inconvenient or contradictory information is hidden somewhere in the middle or the bottom third, before the copy carries on, “pretending” there has been no refutation or contradiction. A reader has to be very careful to spot it, or go into the story looking for evidence of media attempts to deceive. Are stories on important issues featured prominently? Whether it is a question of a story being featured at the top or buried way down in the news, or its being reported nationally as opposed to locally, or its being given plenty of space as opposed to very little, or its being subject of vast amounts of commentary as opposed to none, or is reported with strained voices or shouts as opposed to a soothing murmur, or is deliberately eclipsed by a big story, prominence or lack thereof has many facets. Yet the question goes beyond whether a story is given prominence or not, because prominence itself can be a tool for obfuscation. Important information and insights can be hidden in plain sight by swamping them with vast amounts of detailed and very noisy discussion and commentary that keep the focus on only a subset of the facts, or on a specific interpretation of them. Such would be the case with FAIR’s blogging on examples of “racism”, a word with an infinitely elastic definition. Racism is more or less universal, particularly in multiracial societies, like the United States. Jared Taylor’s White Identity is crammed with examples of racism from Afro-Americans and Hispanics, but you would think that there is no such thing from reading FAIR’s media analysis, which otherwise provides a blizzard of blog posts about racism. Also not given prominence are the efforts by white Americans to eliminate any form of racial bias anywhere, and their strenuous condemnations whenever and wherever it is detected. No. In FAIR’s universe, only racist whites—real or imagined—are given prominence. Ultimately, while FAIR’s stated aims are admirable, it is yet another tool in enforcing media bias—one that is doubly deceptive because the outfit claims to be against media bias. They are, in fact, fully in agreement with current trends; they are just unhappy that the mainstream media doesn’t go far enough in supporting them.


Read More...

July 17, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Schopenhauer on Race Differences in Intelligence and on Judaism

Arthur Schopenhauer is renowned as the philosopher of pessimism. White nationalists certainly have much to be pessimistic about these days, and we might be tempted to seek consolation in the wisdom of a man who undoubtedly possessed one of the most powerful minds in history.  Schopenhauer, who was an atheist, saw human existence as essentially meaningless and a mistake. The life of sentient beings, of which man is the highest form, is one of constantly jangling appetites that can never be sated, and the result is that pain and suffering are the inevitable accompaniments of any life. He concluded that the only way to get beyond the suffering of this world is to renounce life and thereby quell the appetites that constantly assail us — a conclusion he later discovered had also been arrived at by the Hindus and the Buddhists. Advertisement It is a testament to Schopenhauer’s genius that, writing many years prior to the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859, and almost a century before geneticists like Fritz Lenz and then evolutionary psychologists like J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn arrived at the same conclusion, he was already citing differential evolution (though he was unsure of the exact mechanism) to account for the higher civilization of the lighter-skinned races, whom, he correctly intuited, had gained sensitivity and intelligence as a result of surviving in a rigorous Northern climate. Schopenhauer observes that: The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races; and even with many dark peoples, the ruling caste, or race, is fairer than the rest, and has, therefore, evidently immigrated, for example, the Brahmins, the Inca, and the rulers of the South Sea Islands. All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention, because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers, and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want and misery, which in their many forms, were brought about by the climate. This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it came their high civilization.[i] Before the rise of Boasian anthropology in the 1920s and 1930s, virtually all Western anthropologists and intellectuals posited a direct correlation between external racial traits and internal psychological traits. Skin color was regarded as not just a physical attribute, but an external racial marker tied to a correlated set of intellectual, political, and cultural capabilities. Schopenhauer was, of course, writing in an age when the reality of racial differences was taken for granted, and this is reflected at various points in his work. For instance, in positing that higher intellectual powers are often accompanied by a relatively lesser tendency toward sociability, he asserts that “the most sociable of all human beings are said to be the Negroes who intellectually are decidedly inferior.”[ii] This approach was largely abandoned after World War II with the rise of Boasian anthropology which was instrumental in totally suppressing evolutionary theory in the social sciences. The Jewish historian Norman Cantor noted that “since 1945 and more intensively since the 1960s all forms of racialist thinking are excluded from rational and enlightened discourse, especially in the United States, where the liberal civil libertarians have made racial doctrine intrinsically wrong, evil, and undiscussable.” The reason for this exclusion is that “modern anthropology, as defined the German-Jewish expatriate Franz Boas, for three decades head of the anthropology department at Columbia University, declared nineteenth-century race theory without foundation.” Cantor admitted that “this behavioral egalitarianism and universality was itself an ideology,” and that the Boasians never actually disproved social-Darwinian race theory, but rather insisted that it be “excluded from civil discourse as a result of what the Nazis and other such hate-mongering groups did with it.”[iii] Franz Boas: Jewish ethnic activist and pseudoscientist par excellence Schopenhauer’s intuitive understanding of the link between race and intelligence has been more recently affirmed by psychologists like Richard Lynn and the late J. Philippe Rushton, who posited that groups that resided for many millennia in regions with cold winters gradually — through the process of natural selection — evolved higher intelligence than groups living in milder climates. Rushton noted that “colonizing temperate and cold environments leads to increased cognitive demands to solve the problems of gathering food and gaining shelter and general survival in cold winters.” According to Rushton, “cognitive demands of manufacturing sophisticated tools and making fires, clothing, and shelters (as well as regulating the storage of food) would have selected for higher average intelligence levels than in the less cognitively demanding environment in sub-Saharan Africa. Those individuals who could not solve these problems of survival would have died out, leaving those with alleles for higher intelligence as the survivors.”[iv] A consequence is that those tracing their origins to northern Asia and northern Europe now have mean IQs of about 100, while those from sub-Saharan Africa have a mean IQ of around 70, and those from the broad intermediate zone (stretching from north Africa across southern Asia and into Indonesia) have mean IQs in the 80-90 range. These figures are confirmed by numerous IQ tests taken over a period of more than 80 years from around the world, measures of average brain size (which is correlated with general intelligence at 0.45), the poor relative performance of blacks in Europe and America in intellectual endeavors, and the extreme backwardness of the countries in the “secluded zone” of sub-Saharan Africa before they had contact with either Islamic or European civilization, continuing up to the present day. These differences in mean IQ (and associated behavioral tendencies) among the races had, and continue to have, profound consequences in determining the civilization-building capacities of different racial groups. It is also a key reason why Third-World immigration to the West is so dysfunctional. Invoking Aristotle, Schopenhauer asserted that the pleasures to be gained from this life (which, as mentioned, he believed consisted overwhelmingly of pain and suffering) are essentially hierarchical in nature. At the top of this hierarchy are those pleasures obtainable from intellectual activity. The capacity of an individual to access the higher pleasures of the intellect is, however, contingent upon his native endowment of intellect: No one can get outside his own individuality. In all the circumstances in which the animal is placed, it remains confined to that narrow circle, irrevocably drawn for it by nature, so that, for instance, our endeavors to make a pet happy must always keep within narrow bounds precisely on account of those limits of its true nature and consciousness. It is the same with man; the measure of his possible happiness is determined beforehand by his individuality. In particular the limits of his mental powers have fixed once and for all his capacity for pleasures of a higher order.[v] Therefore, to be born with a higher level of intellect is an indispensable prerequisite, Schopenhauer argues, to accessing the higher forms of human happiness. A corollary of his argument is that, as with individuals within a race, the capacity of a particular population to access the higher human pleasures is genetically predetermined by its racial particularity. The limits of a given race’s average intellectual powers have fixed once and for all its collective capacity to access pleasures of a higher order. Schopenhauer points out that: If those [intellectual] powers are small, all the efforts from without, everything done for him by mankind or good fortune, will not enable him to rise above the ordinary half-animal human happiness and comfort. He [the intellectually inferior] is left to depend on the pleasures of the senses, on a cozy and cheerful family life, on low company and vulgar pastimes. Even education, on the whole, cannot do very much, if anything to broaden his horizon. For the highest, most varied, and most permanent pleasures are those of the mind, however much we may deceive ourselves on this point when we are young; but these pleasures depend mainly on innate mental powers. Therefore it is clear from this how much our happiness depends on what we are , our individuality, whereas in most cases we take into account only our fate, only what we have or represent .[vi] Of course our individuality is essentially a product of our genetic inheritance, which, in turn, is a product of the evolutionary history of our ancestors. The fact that certain races have lower levels of general intelligence (as measured by mean IQ) would suggest that for a relatively larger percentage of these populations the higher order pleasures that Schopenhauer is talking about are simply inaccessible. Conversely, pursuit of the lower order pleasures will be the preoccupation of a larger percentage of less intelligent races compared with more intelligent races. Schopenhauer asserts that as individuals we are, depending on our native endowment of intellect, predisposed to suffer either boredom (if that endowment is low) or increased sensitivity to physical pain (if that endowment is high). For Schopenhauer, a great affliction of less intelligent human beings is that idealities afford them no entertainment, but to escape from boredom they are always in need of realities : “The emptiness of their inner life, the dullness of their consciousness, the poorness of their minds drive them to the company of others which consists of men like themselves, for similis simili gaudet [like takes pleasure in like]. They then pursue pastime and entertainment in common which they seek first in sensual pleasures, in amusements of every kind, and finally in excess and dissipation.”[vii] The dysgenic trends that have been set in motion by mass non-White immigration into Western nations have ensured that, for a growing percentage of these nations’ populations, “idealities” will indeed afford them little or no entertainment — instead these populations will increasingly look to realities to escape from boredom. A manifestation of this phenomenon was the rioting and looting in London in 2011. It was reported in the media at the time that the only shops that were left untouched by the rampaging mobs of largely Afro-Caribbean youths were book shops. These “temples of ideality” ostensibly offered nothing of interest to these people — in large part because this low-IQ population is largely devoid of intellectual needs. As these people and their descendants progressively make up an ever larger segment of Western societies, the cultures of these nations are set to change profoundly, as public life increasingly takes on the characteristics of the source countries of these immigrant and immigrant-descended communities. According to Schopenhauer, “the life of the masses [and presumably that of the masses of the dark races to a greater degree than the white masses] is passed in dullness since all their thoughts and desires are directed to the petty interests of personal welfare and thus to wretchedness and misery in all its forms. For this reason, intolerable boredom befalls them as soon as they are no longer occupied with those aims and they are now thrown back on themselves, for only the fierce fire of passion can stir into action the dull and indolent masses.”[viii] In this connection, it is interesting to note that a contemporary Danish researcher, psychologist Helmuth Nyborg , has highlighted how the projected decline in the mean IQ of nations like Denmark — mostly a result of low-IQ Third World immigration — will (if left unchecked) have momentous social and political consequences. Nyborg concludes that: “The genotypic IQ decline will ruin the economic and social infrastructure needed for quality education, welfare, democracy and civilization.” Schopenhauer would have doubtless agreed with this assessment. Schopenhauer on Judaism Schopenhauer conceptualized Judaism in terms akin to Kevin MacDonald’s theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy that emerged historically to promote the economic welfare and reproductive success of Jews as a genetically distinct group. For Schopenhauer, the religious doctrines and trappings of Judaism are merely cultural glue that holds the Jews together as a nation founded on blood ties. Referring to the Jews, Schopenhauer notes that many great and illustrious nations with which this pettifogging little nation cannot possibly be compared, such as the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Etruscans and others have passed to eternal rest and entirely disappeared. And even so today, this gens extorris [refugee race], this John Lackland among the nations, is to be found all over the globe, nowhere at home and nowhere strangers. Moreover it asserts its nationality with unprecedented obstinacy and, mindful of Abraham who dwelt in Canaan as a stranger but who gradually became master of the whole land, as his God had promised him (Genesis 17:8), it would like to set foot somewhere and take root in order to arrive once more at a country, without which, of course, a people is like a ball floating in air. Till then, it lives parasitically on other nations and their soil; but yet it is inspired with the liveliest patriotism for its own nation. This is seen in the very firm way in which Jews stick together on the principle of each for all and all for each, so that this patriotism sine patria inspires greater enthusiasm than does any other. The rest of the Jews are the fatherland of the Jew; and so he fights for them as he would pro ara et focis [for hearth and home], and no community on earth sticks so firmly together as does this. As a formidably cohesive group whose loyalty to their ethnic kindred vastly outstrips their loyalty to the non-Jewish nations within which they dwell, Jews should absolutely never, Schopenhauer affirmed, be allowed to play any role whatsoever in the governance of these nations. If allowed to do so they would unquestionably exploit this power for their own ends — inevitably at the expense of the majority non-Jewish population: It follows from this that it is absurd to want to concede to them a share in the government or administration of any country. Originally amalgamated and one with their state, their religion is by no means the main issue here, but rather merely the bond that holds them together, the point de ralliement [rallying-point], and the banner whereby they recognize one another. This is also seen in the fact that even the converted Jew who has been baptized does not by any means bring upon himself the hatred and loathing of all the rest [of the Jews], as do all other apostates. On the contrary, he continues as a rule to be their friend and companion and to regard them as his true countrymen, naturally with a few orthodox exceptions. … Accordingly, it is an extremely superficial and false view to regard the Jews merely as a religious sect. But if, in order to countenance this error, Judaism is described by an expression borrowed from the Christian Church as “Jewish Confession,” then this is a fundamentally false expression which is deliberately calculated to mislead and should not be allowed at all. On the contrary, “Jewish Nation” is the correct expression. The Jews have absolutely no confession; monotheism is part of their nationality and political constitution and is with them a matter of course. Schopenhauer’s conception of the Jews as a distinct and highly ethnocentric ethnic entity — arrived at well before the advent of modern population genetic studies — is very accurate. While not entirely uniform, all Jews comprise a genetic cluster that share large swaths of DNA. For instance, the study by Atzmon et al . from 2010 confirmed that all the different Jewish groups comprise a distinct genetic community. This study examined genetic markers spread across the entire genome, and showed the Jewish groups (Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi) share large swaths of DNA, indicating close relationships, and while each Jewish group in the study (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek and Ashkenazi) had its own genetic signature, each was more closely related to the other Jewish groups than to their non-Jewish countrymen. Atzmon and his colleagues found that the SNP markers in genetic segments of 3 million DNA letters or longer were 10 times more likely to be identical among Jews than non-Jews, and that any two Ashkenazi Jewish participants in the study shared about as much DNA as fourth or fifth cousins.[ix] The overlapping genetics of Jewish populations Of course, Judaism could still be a group evolutionary strategy even if Jews were not a genetically separate group, providing that Jews believed that they were, and behaved accordingly — which is exactly what they did believe and behaved like for centuries before recent population genetic studies confirmed what they had always assumed. The Zionist writer Robert Weltsch nicely summed up this hyper-ethnocentric mentality when he noted in 1913 that: “When it comes to the unity of the Jews, there is one irrefutable proof: the consciousness of this unity, which is an inner experience that every individual Jew possesses.”[x] Schopenhauer concludes his comments on the Jews by again emphasizing their ethnically alien status with Europe and by using an anecdote to reiterate his position that the Jews (as a group whose intense loyalty to its own people and hostility to outsiders is so profound) should absolutely never be given the right to exercise power over other people. They are and remain a foreign oriental race, and so must be regarded merely as domiciled foreigners. When some twenty-five years ago the emancipation of the Jews was debated in the English Parliament, a speaker put forward the following hypothetical case. An English Jew comes to Lisbon where he meets two men in extreme want and distress; yet it is only in his power to save one of them. Personally to him they are both strangers. Yet if one of them is an Englishman but a Christian, and the other a Portuguese but a Jew, whom will he save? I do not think that any sensible Christian and any sincere Jew would be in doubt as to the answer. But it gives us some indication of the rights to be conceded to the Jews.[xi] Schopenhauer’s observations on the Jews influenced a range of notable figures, most famously including Adolf Hitler who (according to an inventory of the books he borrowed between 1919 and 1921 at the National Socialist Institute in Munich) read a volume entitled Schopenhauer and the Jews alongside such works as Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century and the German translation of Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem .[xii] Schopenhauer is mentioned by name twice in Mein Kampf . One of these references relates to Schopenhauer’s observation in his Parerga and Paralipomena that “the Jews were at all times and by all nations loathed and despised. This may be due partly to the fact that they were the only people on earth who did not credit man with any existence beyond this life and were, therefore, regarded as cattle, as the dregs of humanity, but as past masters in telling lies.”[xiii] Conclusion Schopenhauer is universally recognized as an intellectual giant and for good reason. His thinking was often decades, and sometimes centuries, ahead his contemporaries. Nevertheless, the philosophy of Nietzsche (despite its contradictions) has enjoyed far wider acceptance among those on the racialist right. That is largely because of the marked anti-egalitarianism of Nietzsche, and the fact that Schopenhauer’s pessimism and advocacy of life-renunciation is profoundly dysfunctional from a group evolutionary standpoint. As MacDonald has pointed out, we are all free to decide to not play the evolutionary game. We Westerners are particularly prone to moral idealisms that compromise their legitimate ethnic/racial interests. However, if we (or our racial or ethnic kindred) decide to not play the evolutionary game, we automatically lose. We are destined for ultimate extinction. This is why, while recognizing the genius of Schopenhauer’s thought, we must, in the end, eschew his pessimistic conclusions and side with Nietzsche’s doctrine of life-assertion. The White race did not become the dominant force on the planet through renouncing life and avoiding conflict in the manner of Buddhists monks. Our European ancestors, who built Western civilization and spread it around the globe, lived life to the full, affirmed life, and did not shirk from conflict. They behaved as all healthy living creatures behave spontaneously in nature. Asserting our racial interests will inevitably bring us into conflict with others doing the same (especially Jewish interests) but this is inevitable and natural and is simply the price we must pay to secure our existence. We have to embrace the fight for the survival of our race, and to strive to enlist others in this fight, because, in the end, there is no acceptable alternative.   [i] Arthur Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 2 , Trans. By E.F.J. Payne (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1974), 158-59. [ii] Arthur Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 1 , Trans. By E.F.J. Payne (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1974),  331. [iii] Norman Cantor, The Sacred Chain — The History of the Jews (New York, HarperCollins, 1994), 336. [iv] J. Philippe Rushton J.P. (2000) Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective , Third Edition (Port Huron, Charles Darwin Research Institute, 2000) 228-29. [v] Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 1 , op cit. , 317. [vi] Ibid. , 318. [vii] Ibid. , 321. [viii] Ibid. , 338. [ix] Atzmon, G.; Hao, L.; Pe’er, I.; Velez, C.; Pearlman, A.; Palamara, P. F.; Morrow, B.; Friedman, (2010) “Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” American Journal of Human Genetics 2010,  86 (6), 850—859. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/?tool=pmcentrez [x] Robert Weltsch, (1913) “Concerning Racial Theory,” In: Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference 1880-1940 , Ed. Mitchell B. Hart, (Massachusetts, Brandeis University Press, Waltham, 2011). 311-16, 312. [xi] Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 2 , op cit. , 261-64. [xii] Timothy Ryback, Hitler’s Private Library: The Books That Shaped His Life (New York: Vintage, 2010), 50. [xiii] Schopenhauer, Parega and Paralipomena — Volume 2 , op cit. , 357.


Read More...

July 15, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Abbas in firing line over security cooperation with Israel

In a sign of how unpopular the PA’s security cooperation has become, crowds of Palestinian youths attacked a police station in Ramallah last month, during an incursion by the Israeli army. In unprecedented scenes, the youths shouted “Collaborators!” at the Palestinian police, attacked three police vehicles, and threw stones at the station as officers cowered inside.


Read More...

July 11, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

Peter Beinart’s Jewish Triumphalism: Jettisoning the White Working Class

Peter Beinart has a Jewish triumphalist article in The Atlantic riffing off an article by Ann Coulter deploring soccer (“ Ann Coulter Is Right to Fear the World Cup “). He reads Ann Coulter to be basically saying “ Soccer’s alleged collectivism, effeminacy and elitism are simply markers of its foreignness. The core problem with embracing soccer is that in so doing, America would become more like the rest of the world.” American enthusiasm for soccer becomes a marker of all that is good for Beinart and all that is bad for Coulter: Which is why Coulter should be very afraid. Because America  is  embracing soccer. America’s World Cup game against Portugal attracted almost 25 million television viewers in the U.S.,  eight million more  than watched the highest rated World Cup game in 2010, and  far more  than the average viewership for last year’s World Series or this year’s NBA finals. NBC  now broadcasts  English soccer. And America’s own league, Major League Soccer,  draws as many fans  to its stadiums as do the NHL and NBA. Beinart traces anti-soccer attitudes to anti-immigration sentiment a century ago, “an era when mass immigration was spawning Coulter-like fears that America was losing its special character. … Old-stock Americans … were elevating baseball, football, and basketball into symbols of America’s distinct identity. Immigrants realized that embracing those sports offered a way to claim that identity for themselves. Clinging to soccer, by contrast, was a declaration that you would not melt.” Steve Sailer interprets this implied swipe at “old-stock Americans” and their sense of national identity as resulting from Beinart’s sense of revenge against those old-stock Americans—” Revenge is a dish best served a century cold.” Advertisement The only way this makes sense, of course, is if Beinart, a strongly identified Jew, is interpreted as seeing the decline of old-stock American in Jewish terms. And there can be no doubt that American nationalism and rejection of immigration which were at their high points in the 1920s remains a rallying point for Jewish identity in America: It seems fair to state that there is a communal Jewish memory about the period of immigration restriction as the high point of American anti-Jewish attitudes. Non-Jews have a difficult time fathoming Jewish communal memory. For strongly identified Jews, [what Stephen Steinlight calls] the ‘vilely discriminatory’ actions of immigration restrictionists are part of the lachrymose history of the Jewish people. Immigration restriction from 1924-1965 is in the same category [in Jewish perceptions] as the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the marauding Crusaders of the Middle Ages, the horrors of the Inquisition, the evil of the Russian Czar, and the rationally incomprehensible calamity of Nazism. These events are not just images drawn from the dustbin of history. They are deeply felt images and potent motivators of contemporary behavior. (See here , p.v). So Beinart greets the transformation of America away from its founding people; enthusiasm for soccer represents all that is good in America now. In the bad old days, immigrants assimilated to American cultural norms, but now that the left is committed to a complete transformation of American culture, “the soccer coalition—immigrants, liberals and the young—looks a lot like the Obama coalition.” We’ll see. Those young Whites will grow up and have families, and when they do their opinions are likely to look quite a bit like older Whites now. In fact, liberals often overestimate the attraction of young Whites for the transformational coalition. In the last election, young Whites aged 18-29 voted for Romney . And I expect that enthusiasm for soccer among Whites will decline dramatically when the World Cup is over. Let’s face it, pretty much the only Americans who really love soccer are immigrants who grew up with it. Americans are far more addicted to football which is a quintessentially American sport. In fact, Beinart acknowledges that the White working class has not shown much enthusiasm for soccer just as it hasn’t shown any for the Obama’s transformational coalition. The revolution is happening without White working class support. Just as in the UK where the Labour Party has jettisoned the White working class  in favor of Third World immigrants,  the transformational coalition centered in the Democratic Party is succeeding without the White working class — “the same demographic changes that have helped Obama win the White House without strong white working class support are helping soccer gain acceptance without it too.” In this game, it is the sheer numbers of non-White immigrants that is so essential for fulfilling Beinart’s dream of the transformation away from White America. As he notes, In 1972, McGovern won minorities, well-educated white liberals, and the young, but still lost 49 states. Since then, however, the minority share of the American electorate has risen from 11 percent to 28 percent. Whites without college degrees, by contrast, composed only 36 percent of American voters in 2012, down from 54 percent in 1988.  This is the familiar calculus of the ascendant non-White majority aligned now with educated White liberals. It’s theme that is constantly harped on also by Ron Brownstein (who also writes for The Atlantic ). His current article, “ Why Democrats are so confident: Republicans are trending against a growing cultural majority, while Democrats are in tune with it ,” has the following photo: Michelle Obama welcomes newly sworn-in U.S. citizen Juan Cue Monroy of Guatemala at a naturalization ceremony in June, as Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson looks on. The new citizen from Guatamala probably likes soccer and will be part of what Brownstein calls “the coalition of transformation.” Like Beinart, he also notes that this tsunami is happening without blue-collar Whites, the group that stands to lose the most in the transformation. The future does indeed look good for the Democrats, but we are certainly seeing ever-increasing  racialization of American politics  with unknown consequences as Whites necessarily wake up to the realization that it’s really not their country anymore and they can’t elect a president. Whites of all groups, except young White unmarried women, are already voting Republican and are trending Republican at  1.5% each four-year election cycle . I therefore predict that the “coalition of transformation” so beloved by Beinart and Brownstein will have to govern with vanishingly slim support from all classes of White Americans. When you start a race war, you had better be prepared to finish it. The jettisoning of the  White working  class reminds us making alliances  with elites is far more typical of Jews historically. In traditional societies and  until the Jewish embrace of traditional Marxism and  the  working classes, Jews allied with elites, often against the rest of the population — a major theme of historical anti-Semitism. However, beginning with the Frankfurt School’s recognition that the German working classes had become enthusiastic about Hitler, Jewish intellectuals and the  organized Jewish community have gradually pulled away from the White working classes, allying themselves with liberal business and professional elites as well as non-White immigrants in all Western countries. First they came for the White working class because they were the least powerful White group, their unions destroyed and their jobs shipped overseas. But I didn’t speak out because I was well-educated and had a good job and certainly didn’t want to identity with White working class culture and interests and their low class connotations — a favorite target of Hollywood for at least 50 years. Then they came for the White conservatives. Their power decimated by the immigration invasion, they could do nothing as all traditional values were uprooted. From immigration destroying homogeneous White communities, to abortion, to gay marriage, conservatives have lost every social cause in the last 50 years. But I didn’t speak out because liberal values seemed enlightened and, as a liberal, I certainly didn’t feel threatened by these changes. With their transformative majority in place, they will be free to come after the White liberals who will have no allies remaining. The liberals will be shocked when they realize that human nature is not what they were told over and over again by our intellectual and media elites. They will then realize that it”s really been about ethnic warfare all along and that ethnic warfare has very real winners and losers. But by then it will be too late.


Read More...

July 11, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Minority Rites: Modern Lessons from the Bolshevik Revolution

The Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin’s Russia , David King (Tate Publishing, new edition 2014) Who said the following? We must carry along with us ninety million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s inhabitants. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated. Was it Stalin? No, it was one of his victims, one of the commissars who vanished: Grigorii Zinoviev , described as “Lenin’s Mad Dog” in this fascinating and disturbing book. Zinoviev launched “the Red Terror” after Uritsky’s assassination and Lenin’s “close call” in 1918. Moisei Uritsky was the head in Petrograd of the Cheka, the murderous secret police that later became the OGPU, the NKVD and the KGB. Its first leader was Felix Dzerzhinsky and one of its chief torturers was Yakov Peters . This book describes how Peters “interrogated” the “Socialist Revolutionary” Fanya Kaplan , the woman arrested for the attempt on Lenin’s life. In response , Yakov Sverdlov promised “merciless mass terror against all enemies of the Revolution.” Sverdlov was another of Stalin’s victims, another of the commissars who vanished. Minority ruler Moisei Solomonovich Uritsky There’s an important pattern in the preceding paragraph. A negative one: although it describes a very important episode in Russian history, it does not contain a single ethnic Russian. Zinoviev, Uritsky, Sverdlov and Kaplan were all Jewish, Stalin was Georgian, Dzerzkinksy was Polish and Peters was Latvian. Lenin was half Mongol, a quarter German and a quarter Jewish. The Bolshevik Revolution is an example of what happens when paranoid, vengeful minorities win power over a majority with whom they do not identify and against whom they have historic grudges. This is exactly what is planned for the White inhabitants of Europe and the United States: they will be ruled by minorities who have been encouraged to hate and scapegoat Whites. Advertisement So here is one of the lessons I took from The Commissar Vanishes: it is very unwise to let minorities, especially minorities with historical grudges, gain control of your nation. But I’m sure that the author of the book did not intend anyone to think like that: Published in 1997 by Canongate, King’s book was the result of three-decades obsessional search for the originals of photographs which the stalinist [sic] regime cropped, retouched and travestied. The “commissar” who vanished was Leon Trotsky. In naming his book after the leader of the 1917 insurrection, King made clear his commitment to the Russian Revolution. King’s politics are admirable. He was active in the Anti-Nazi League in the 70s and 80s, and helped design their propaganda. The ANL’s typeface and arrow owe their impact to King’s interpretation of the constructivist legacy of Rodchenko. (See Militant Esthetix ) Trotsky vanishes As King points out, Trotsky was born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein. But King never identifies Trotsky or any other communist as Jewish. Perhaps the most important ethnic pattern in the Bolshevik Revolution goes entirely unmentioned in a book devoted to the falsification and concealment of historical fact. The closest King comes to admitting the truth is here: Initially Dzerzhinksy packed the Cheka (the acronym stands for “Extraordinary Commission to Fight Counter-Revolution and Sabotage”) with non-Russians, especially Latvians, who were considered disciplined and not at all squeamish. Dzerzhinsky was Polish. After he died of a heart-attack in 1926, he was replaced by Genrikh Yagoda , who was Jewish. Yagoda oversaw the execution of Zinoviev and Lev Kamenev , who were both Jewish, and was then eliminated in his turn and replaced by Nikolai Yezhov , who is said to be a Russian, but does not look like one. He was married to a Jewess called Yevgenia Feigenberg. Then Yezhov was eliminated and replaced by Lavrentii Beria , who was a Mingrelian from Georgia. After Stalin’s death, Beria followed his predeccessors into the execution chamber. Yezhov vanishes Before these men — all non-Russian apart from Yezhov — were eaten by their own revolution, they organized the torture, enslavement and murder of millions of Russians. Diversity meant death in the Soviet Union, but the Stalinist regime celebrated itself as a multi-ethnic federation: spread across pages 200 and 201 is the painting “Comrade Stalin Amid the Peoples of the USSR,” which was “published in a gigantic album from 1937 weighing in at five kilos.”  Stalin is portrayed beaming and applauding the diverse faces of men and women who beam back at him. Another double-page is devoted to a photomontage called “All Honour to the Soviet Teacher, the Trainer of our Younger Generation” from 1940. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin are portrayed in engraved profile above the diverse faces of Soviet teachers. “Great Stalin — symbol of friendship between the peoples of the USSR!” I’m reminded irresistibly of the modern European Union, which is so enamoured of diversity that it deliberately imports non-Whites and non-Christians from the Third World. By doing this, it is destroying Europe as a White Christian continent. No doubt the Euro-commissars would prefer to operate more openly and quickly, but they are handicapped by the need not to alert their intended victims. As the Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission stated ,  “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to bring attention to that? … I am for secret, dark debates.” “We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” The would-be commissars of the Weather Underground , a revolutionary movement in 1960s America, were less reluctant to admit their true intentions. Larry Grathwohl, an FBI agent who infiltrated the group, described a meeting in which its leaders discussed the aftermath of revolution: They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter revolution and they felt that this counter revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing reeducation centers in the Southwest where [they] would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t reeducate that are diehard capitalists and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say eliminate I mean kill — 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious. (see Patriot Larry Grathwohl, 65, Infiltrated Weather Underground, Indicted Bill Ayers ) The Weather Underground was a faction of Students for a Democratic Society . Like its progenitor, it was dominated by Jews, as one of its founders, the “political organizer” Mark Rudd, admitted in a paper he “presented at the New Mexico Jewish Historical Society” in 2005: As a child I never fell for the seduction of patriotism. It seemed so arbitrary, who’s an American and who’s not. If my relatives hadn’t emigrated, who would I be? Since I was also at core an idealist and a utopian — another Jewish tradition? — I wanted to skip all that obviously stupid and dangerous stuff that gave rise to wars and racism. In 1965 I began to identify myself as a socialist and an internationalist. I still am an internationalist since old religions die hard. ( Why were there so many Jews in SDS? ,  discussed also in Kevin MacDonald’s “ Memories of Madison .” Jews like Trotsky, Yagoda, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Sverdlov “never fell for the seduction of patriotism” either. That’s why they tried to turn the Russian empire into a socialist paradise called the Soviet Union. It turned into a slaughterhouse instead. The same would have happened in the United States if Mark Rudd and his fellow non-patriots had succeeded in their revolutionary aims. The minority rites portrayed in The Commissar Vanishes — lying, censoring, torturing, slaughtering — are still attractive to many very important and influential people in the West. It is very unwise indeed to let minorities, especially minorities with historical grudges, gain control of your nation. It is very unwise indeed to let minorities, especially minorities with historical grudges, gain control of your nation.


Read More...

July 11, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Kishinev: In Jewish History and Jewish Memory

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently attracted some attention for a tweet he penned following the discovery of the bodies of three missing Israeli yeshiva students. The students, Gil-Ad Shaer,16, Eyal Yifrah, 19, and Naftali Fraenkel , 16, were kidnapped late at night on Thursday June 12 from a hitchhiking point in Gush Etzion, before being found dead on June 30. At this writing, the facts concerning those behind the slayings remain obscure, though there is a growing consensus that Hamas was behind it. Soon after the discovery of the bodies, Netanyahu tweeted: “Vengeance for the blood of a small child, Satan has not yet created. Neither has vengeance for the blood of 3 pure youths who were on their way to parents who will not see them anymore. Hamas is responsible and Hamas will pay. May the memories of the three boys be blessed.” Although most of the commentary thus far on this tweet has revolved around its inflammatory nature (the cry for ‘vengeance’ rather than ‘justice’) I have been more intrigued by the lesser appreciated literary allusion made by Netanyahu. The first line of the tweet appeals directly to Chaim Nahman Bialik’s poem, “On the Slaughter,” which was composed in the aftermath of the Kishinev ‘pogrom’ in 1903. I believe that Bialik’s role as Israel’s unofficial ‘national poet,’ and Netanyahu’s drawing upon the literary motifs in Bialik’s work, reveal something about the thought processes, self-perceptions, and siege mentality of Jews more generally. In this essay I want to examine two of Bialik’s poems, with particular attention paid to the manner in which Bialik interpreted non-Jews, and the nature of Jewish-Gentile hostilities. I’ll conclude with some remarks on Bialik’s legacy in Israel and Jewish thought. Chaim Na?man Bialik (1873–1934), was born in Radi, Volhynia, Ukraine, then a part of the expansive Jewish Pale of Settlement. Born into poverty, Bialik was left fatherless when he was five or six years old and was brought up by his rigid and pious grandfather. After an intensive education in the Jewish classics, he attended for a short time the Jewish academy in Volozhin (now Valozhyn, Belarus). These three influences — his poverty, his being an orphan, and his study of Jewish religious classics — were the inspiration for much of Bialik’s early poetry . In 1891 he went to Odessa, then the center of Jewish modernism, where he struck up a lifelong friendship with the Jewish author A?ad Ha?am , who encouraged Bialik in his creative writing. Advertisement The following year Bialik moved to Zhitomir (now Zhytomyr, Ukraine) and to a small town in Poland. He worked unsuccessfully as a lumber merchant, then taught for a few years in a Hebrew school. The publication of his first long poem, “Ha-matmid” (“The Diligent Talmud Student”), in the periodical Ha-shiloah  (edited by A?ad Ha?am) established his reputation as a popular Hebrew poet. The poem is a sympathetic portrait of a student whose single-minded dedication to Talmudic study is presented as awe-inspiring, and its positive portrayal of dogged commitment to Jewish identity was eagerly taken up by an Eastern European Jewish population increasingly coming into conflict with the non-Jewish population they lived among. His writing career assured, Bialik returned to Odessa as a teacher in a Hebrew school, at the same time continuing to publish poetry. After inter-ethnic hostilities in Kishinev boiled over into public disturbances and violence in 1903, Bialik was asked by Odessa’s Jewish Historical Commission to visit the scene and interview (Jewish) witnesses. The poems he subsequently produced contain some of the fiercest and most ethno-centric prose in Hebrew poetry. The historical background to events in Kishinev is very similar to that of the earlier riots which took place in other parts of the Russian Empire during the 1880s, and which I discussed at length two years ago in my series on that topic. Exploitative economic practices, a Jewish population explosion, and a delicate political situation all contributed to the raising of tensions and antagonisms between Jews and Christians. Between 1860 and 1897 the Jewish proportion of the population of Kishinev had risen from 20% to 45%. According to Edward Judge’s classic Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom , across Bessarabia, “over 80% of the merchants were Jews, and the crucial grain trade was almost entirely in Jewish hands. This circumstance not only increased Jewish influence and visibility; it also added to the concerns of those who feared that the province’s economy, especially in the cities, was coming increasingly under Jewish control.”[1] Not only had the Jewish population of Kishinev more than doubled, the non-Jewish population had actually declined. Furthermore, as Edward Judge points out, even the large figures for the Jewish population, fail to explain the full picture on the ground in the city: “In economic terms, the Jews were even more influential than their numbers would indicate. The majority of Kishinev’s commercial, financial, and industrial enterprises, including three-fourths of the city’s factories, were in Jewish hands. Jewish-owned businesses included four mills, wineries, tobacco processing plants, credit and loan agencies, trading companies, and the like. The skilled trades, especially sewing, tailoring, shoemaking, and cabinetmaking were likewise dominated by Jews.”[2] The Jews of Kishinev were “a traditional lot who tended to dress in distinctive garb, discourage inter-marriage with non-Jews, and keep their social and cultural life within their community.”[3] The situation was further complicated by the publication of a local tabloid newspaper, Bessarabets , which was stridently and unashamedly nationalist in its outlook, and openly called for a reduction in the scale of Jewish influence in various aspects of life in the region. The publisher of the newspaper, P.A. Krushevan, believed that liberals, radicals, and Jews were a threat to the autocracy, and ran articles suggesting that Jews be removed from municipal jobs, and calling on Jews to renounce Judaism and convert to Christianity. However, violence was never advocated. Between February and April 1903 the situation was complicated further by the suspicious death of a Christian boy who had been found stabbed in a bizarre fashion, and the apparent suicide of a young Christian woman who worked as a live-in servant for a Jewish family. Finally, on Easter Sunday, Christian youths began throwing stones at a small number of Jewish homes and stores. Economic frustrations found an outlet soon afterward when a group of working class adults joined the youths and looted some of the more lucrative Jewish-owned stores. The tone of the situation changed when the small group of Christians was confronted by a larger group of Jewish workers and merchants armed with crude weapons. The Jewish contingent attacked the looters, and a Christian woman and her baby were injured in the process. The Jews successfully defended their property, but simultaneously increased tensions and raised the level and character of the violence. Word quickly spread among both communities, and the number of individuals involved on both sides increased dramatically. Meanwhile confusion about jurisdiction prevented both the police and the military from intervening efficiently at an early stage, allowing the situation to escalate still further. At the end of three days there were casualties on both sides, though international press attention focussed to an enormous extent on alleged Jewish victimhood, as it had during the earlier disturbances of the 1880s. Reports were produced by Jewish journalists and disseminated in influential Western newspapers in much the same way as had been done before. Many of the same motifs, which had been debunked several times over in the intervening two decades, were again repeated. A common theme in the reports, and subsequently in the poems of Chaim Nahman Bialik, is a pornographic level of violence. Yael Remen’s Sea of Lights , summarizes the picture emerging from such reports: In Kishinev, burnt homes smoldering like festering wounds, and charred attics were crowded with eyes and souls of men, women and children, who had been hacked to death and hung on the rafters, their slashed stomachs stuffed with bedfeathers, their nostrils crammed with nails, and their skulls smashed with hammers. In Kishinev, the soil was quivering with trembling bodies, and the air was saturated with the smell of blood. In Kishinev, cowardly husbands, fathers and brothers had hidden in cellars, watching wives, and sisters and daughters being raped and murdered.”[4] But such accounts were almost entirely fictitious. Even the most generous historians put the number of casualties suffered by Jews during the disturbances at between 30 and 40, and the vast majority were males killed during hand to hand fighting over property and loot. The numbers are not insignificant, but given the fact the city had a population of 125,000 divided equally between the two communities, and that what occurred was essentially a small, localized, ethnic civil war, representations of Kishinev’s streets as swimming with blood were considerably out of touch with reality. Russian perceptions of the cause of the disturbances in Kishinev were clear. The Russian ambassador in the United States Count Cassini stated in an interview on May 18, 1903: There is in Russia, as in Germany and Austria, a feeling against certain of the Jews. The reason for this unfriendly attitude is found in the fact that the Jews will not work in the field or engage in agriculture. They prefer to be money lenders. … The situation in Russia, so far as the Jews are concerned is just this: It is the peasant against the money lender, and not the Russians against the Jews. There is no feeling against the Jew in Russia because of religion. It is as I have said—the Jew ruins the peasants, with the result that conflicts occur when the latter have lost all their worldly possessions and have nothing to live upon. … But notwithstanding these conflicts the Jews continue to do the very things which have been responsible for the troubles which involve them.[5] Jewish perceptions of events were markedly different, and are strongly in evidence in the poems of Chaim Nahman Bialik. In the first of these, “ On the Slaughter ,” which Netanyahu has recently drawn upon, Bialik employed motifs of pornographic violence and helpless, outnumbered and victimized Jews. The poem accuses the Jewish God of being an executioner, with the whole earth a scaffold upon which innocent Jews have been unfairly brought upon for execution. Bialik writes: You, executioner!  Here’s my neck – Go to it, slaughter me!  Behead me like a dog, yours is the almighty arm and the axe, and the whole earth is my scaffold – and we, we are the few! My blood is fair game — strike the skull, and murder’s blood, the blood of nurslings and old men, will spurt onto your clothes and will never, never be wiped off. Bialik finishes the poem by expressing frustrations at the inability of Jews to exact revenge, and by expressing the wish that Jewish deaths bring the very earth to destruction. He writes: And cursed be the man who says: Avenge!  No such revenge — revenge for the blood of a little child — has yet been devised by Satan.  Let the blood pierce through the abyss!  Let the blood seep down into the depths of darkness, and eat away there, in the dark, and breach all the rotting foundations of the earth. When riots, though of an even smaller scale, took place in Kishinev again in 1905, Bialik produced an even more bitter and self-deluding piece of work titled “ The City of Slaughter .” In this work, there is no attempt at understanding of the causes of conflict, or the hugely consequential Jewish role in fomenting tensions. Instead Bialik appealed to the same grotesquery as his journalistic ethnic comrades, writing of innocent Jews given up to senseless “slaughter,” and “the spattered blood and dried brains of the dead.” He continues by drawing on the same old vile and fictitious motifs which had been circulating the Western press for two decades: His eyes beheld these things; and with his web he can A tale unfold horrific to the ear of man: A tale of cloven belly, feather-filled; Of nostrils nailed, of skull-bones bashed and spilled; Of murdered men who from the beams were hung, And of a babe beside its mother flung, Its mother speared, the poor chick finding rest Upon its mother’s cold and milkless breast; Of how a dagger halved an infant’s word, Its ma was heard, its mama never heard. But not a single Jewish child fatality was ever recorded. Just as in the ‘pogrom’ narratives of the 1880s, another common fictional motif was the rape of women and the hacking off of breasts. Again, there was never any evidence found that this actually occurred. As I noted in my earlier series on “pogrom” narratives in Jewish history, eminent scholar John Klier commented on the fictions produced by one prominent Jewish journalist, arguing that his most influential accounts, given their effect on world opinion, were his accounts of the rape and torture of girls as young as ten or twelve.” In 1881 this Jewish story-teller reported 25 rapes in Kiev, of which five were said to have resulted in fatalities, in Odessa he claimed 11, and in Elizavetgrad he claimed 30. This was purely a propaganda device. Rape featured prominently in the reports, not because rapes were common, but because rape “even more than murder and looting” was known to “generate particular outrage abroad.” Klier states that “Jewish intermediaries who were channelling pogrom reports abroad were well aware of the impact of reports of rape, and it featured prominently in their accounts.” In Kishinev 20 years later, the same old lines were regurgitated and Bialik incorporated these fictions into his poetry writing: Descend then, to the cellars of the town, There where the virginal daughters of thy folk were fouled, Where seven heathen flung a woman down, The daughter in the presence of her mother, The mother in the presence of her daughter, Before slaughter, during slaughter, and after slaughter! Touch with thy hand the cushion stained; touch The pillow incarnadined: This is the place the wild ones of the wood, the beasts of the field With bloody axes in their paws compelled thy daughters yield: Beasted and swiped! Note the descriptive treatment of non-Jews in this fictional scenario. They are “the wild ones of the wood, the beasts of the field.” Rather than being a novel literary invention, these words directly echo Isaiah 56:9, “All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest,” a verse which has been traditionally interpreted in Judaism as describing the threat posed by “the nations” to “God’s chosen.” Bialik, however, takes it further later in the poem, describing Gentiles as a “lecherous rabble,” jostling for loot and “stifled in filth.” The works of Bialik are an example of the quintessential perpetuation of the Jewish “victim paradigm.” Jewish culture and historiography are saturated with allusions to the “unique” status of Jews, who have suffered a “unique” hatred at the hands of successive generations of Europeans. In essence, it is the notion that Jews stand alone in the world as the quintessential “blameless victim;” or as Bialik would have it, as innocent lambs to the slaughter. To allow for any sense of Jewish agency — any argument that Jews may have in some way contributed to anti-Jewish sentiment — is to harm the perpetuation of this paradigm. It thus offers no place to non-Jewish suffering. Non-Jews in Jewish victim narratives are often described with allusions to beasts, animals, filth, stupidity, and depravity. By contrast, Jews are often portrayed with an almost comical level of passivity, even when we know that in any given incident there were armed Jews committing violence against non-Jews, and that disturbances often came following decades of intense inter-ethnic competition and exploitation. Based solely on the Jewish narratives, one would think the Jews of Kishinev were a tiny minority, outnumbered and helpless. They were in fact evenly matched, and the disturbances were focused on attacking the symbols of outsized Jewish wealth and influence in the city. I have also commented in earlier works on the fact that omission of the Jewish contribution to the development of anti-Semitism (be it in a village setting or a national setting), leaves the spotlight burning all the more ferociously on the “aggressor.” Within this context, the blameless victim is free to make the most ghastly accusations, basking in the assurance that his own role, and by extension his own character, is unimpeachable. The word of this untainted, unique, blameless victim is taken as fact — to doubt his account is to be in league with the aggressor. Generally speaking, exaggerated tales of brutality by non-Jews are commonplace in Jewish literature and historiography, and go hand in hand with images of dove-like Jews. For example, Finkelstein has pointed to Jerzy Kosinski’s The Painted Bird , a work now widely acknowledged as “the first major Holocaust hoax,” as an example of this “pornography of violence.” The twin concepts of Jewish blamelessness and extreme Gentile brutality are inextricably bound up together, and supporters of one strand of the ‘victim paradigm’ are invariably supporters of the other. Take for example that high priest of Jewish chosenness, Elie Wiesel, who praised Kosinki’s pastiche of sadomasochistic fantasies as “written with deep sincerity and sensitivity.” Thus, while Bialik’s work is a product of a certain time and place, the motifs and attitudes he drew upon are part of the shared mental furniture of Jews more generally. It is therefore not surprising that he is regarded as Israel’s national poet, or that his works have been drawn upon time and time again by Jewish politicians and public figures. Noam Chomsky has noted that the phrase “no revenge for the blood of a little child has yet been devised by Satan” has been repeated many times in Israel in the past years, by Menachim Begin and many others, with reference to the terrorist acts of the “two-legged beasts.”[6] Benjamin Netanyahu is just the latest to draw upon the same work. So the deaths of the three Israeli teenagers, probably at the hands of Hamas, will not provide the vast majority of Israelis with the impetus to question their own attitudes or actions,  much less consider how Israeli oppression of the Palestinians could motivate such an incident. As is typical in   Jewish self-deception , the background, context and motives are ignored in favor presenting a simple tale of good versus evil. The young men will simply be chalked up as another few members of the blameless race, butchered meaninglessly by the beasts of the field. References [1] E.H. Judge (ed) Easter in Kishinev: Anatomy of a Pogrom , (New York University Press, 1992), p.26. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid, p.27. [4] Y. Remen, Sea of Lights , (XLibris, 2009), p.59. [5] J.D. Klier and Shlomo Lambroza (eds), Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History , (Cambridge University Press, 1992), p.207. [6] N. Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians , (Black Rose, 1999), p.332.


Read More...

July 11, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

99 Years Ago: Did Leo Frank Confess? « National Vanguard

On the 99th anniversary of the verdict, we look at the dramatic confessions of Leo Frank to the murder of Mary Phagan (autopsy photo at right). by Mark Cohen. THE CENTURY-OLD “cold case” Mary Phagan murder mystery …


Read More...

July 11, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Leo Frank  Comments Closed |

Clashes put Jewish-Arab relations in Israel to the test

Black, pungent smoke from burning tyres mixed with white, even more acrid plumes of tear gas to create an ugly grey smog eclipsing Nazareth’s most famous landmark, the imposing spire of the Basilica of the Annunciation. Clashes over the weekend between youths and police in Israel’s largest Palestinian city have not been seen on this scale since the outbreak of the second intifada in late 2000.


Read More...

July 9, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

Israelis have the upper hand when it comes to vengeance

As recent events show, neither Israelis nor Palestinians are above a culture of hate. As long as Israel’s belligerent occupation continues, their lives together will be predicated on bouts of violent confrontation. But that does not mean Israeli and Palestinian culpability is equal. The reality is that Israelis do not need to seek revenge on their own account. The Israeli state, military and courts do it for them.


Read More...

July 9, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Israel  Comments Closed |

More Executions, Fewer Murders

On April 29th, the State of Oklahoma accidentally botched the execution of a convicted murderer named Clayton Lockett, who had been sentenced to die by lethal injection.The 43 minutes it took Lockett to die of a chemically-induced heart-attack has generated predictable calls for the abolition of capital punishment from the usual suspects on the left half of the political spectrum. While his execution by lethal injection was far more compassionate than the fate accorded his victim – who was brutally beaten, shot and buried alive – its individual   deterrent effect is beyond dispute, since this predator will never again harm another innocent White woman. Equally predictable is that in the debate to follow, the victim will be studiously ignored while abolitionists of every stripe will ensure that the public remains focused on what is alleged to have been an agonizingly slow death by Lockett.For this reason, it is worthwhile to reconsider the primary motivation for enacting capital punishment statutes in the first place: That is, their General Deterrent Effect upon potential murderers, and the innocent lives thus spared. The quaint notion that capital punishment is not an effective general deterrent to murder came as a result of some very flawed research done in the late 1950s by a leftist sociologist named Thorsten Sellin (Thorstein Sellin, The Death Penalty. American Law Institute, Philadelphia, 1959). As often occurs in these endeavors, objective truth was sacrificed to the “loftier” goals of ideology: That is, Sellin candidly acknowledged that he set out to “prove” that capital punishment did not deter the crime of murder in the U.S., and his bias was immediately evident in his results. Advertisement Sellin’s “methodology” compared murder rates in American states with capital punishment statutes “on their books,” against murder rates in states without capital punishment statutes of any kind.  Using a simple-minded correlation technique, Sellin found no significant difference between these two categories of states. The flaw in his methodology consisted of the fact that many states with capital punishment statutes “on their books” never actually used them, and some – particularly in New England — had not carried out an execution for 50 years or more at the time of his study. This created a fraudulent dichotomy between these two categories of states, and obscured any deterrent effect there might have been. Furthermore, leftists in academia and the news media seized on and perpetuated Sellin’s erroneous conclusions for decades, thus ensuring that the public remained egregiously misinformed about the deterrent effect of capital punishment. EHRLICH TO THE RESCUE Those who value objective truth as well as good government are forever indebted to economist Isaac Ehrlich, who re-examined the deterrent effect of capital punishment following the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972,) which instituted a “moratorium” on executions in the United States. In a more elegant and sophisticated design, Ehrlich’s model created three categories of states: First, states that had capital punishment statutes and which actually used them; Second, states which had capital punishment statutes but never used them; and, third, states which did not have capital punishment statutes of any kind. Using a far more sophisticated Simultaneous Equation-Multivariate Regression Analysis, Ehrlich found that the application of capital punishment has a demonstrable and powerful general deterrent effect upon the crime of murder. In fact, Ehrlich found that for every person executed for the crime of murder in the United States, it saved the lives of between seven and eight innocent victims.  (I. Ehrlich. “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment.” American Economic Review , June of 1975.) Ehrlich based his study of criminal deterrence on a model first popularized by Nobel Laureate Gary Becker, which predicts that criminals respond to incentives within the context of crime and the criminal justice system, just as they and most others do in practically all other aspects of our lives. Ehrlich’s hypothesis was fairly straightforward: Increasing the severity of a given punishment to potential murderers — in combination with the likelihood of its application — should result in a lower incidence of the behavior studied, in this case, the crime of murder. Interestingly, Ehrlich’s later use of identical methodologies to study the incidence of other, non-capital crimes generated little controversy within legal and “scientific” circles: This proves that the real opposition to his capital punishment research was political and ideological in nature, rather than scientific. IDEOLOGY TRUMPS SCIENCE Predictably, the left immediately set out to try to prove Ehrlich wrong.  Having recently succeeded in convincing the Supreme Court to place a moratorium on executions in Furman , the Cultural Marxists put on a full-court press: They weren’t about to allow Ehrlich’s research to go unanswered, especially when it demonstrated a powerful rationale for executions. In a hastily written rebuttal in the Yale Law Journal , a leftist University of Iowa Law professor and a co-author attacked Ehrlich for not holding constant certain unrelated (or “exogenous”) variables in his study.  (D. Baldus and J. Cole, “A Comparison of the Work of Thorstein Sellin and Isaac Ehrlich on the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment,” Yale Law Journal , Dec. of 1975.) Confronted with such ignorance and phony “scholarship,” Ehrlich was gracious, but did respond with the following: “This error by Baldus and Cole betrays quite a fundamental misunderstanding of the methodology which they have undertaken to evaluate .” I. Ehrlich. “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Reply.” American Economic Review. June of 1977.) The “scholars” at the Yale Law Journal applied the same intellectual honesty and rigor to their critique of Ehrlich’s study as their comrades and intellectual heirs currently apply to the debate surrounding the deterrent effect from Concealed Handgun Licenses, which have produced a 35-year “across-the-board” decline in violent crime rates in the United States. In both instances, ideology was allowed to trump objective truth. Such critics work in consort with their allies in the legal profession, who doggedly undermine the deterrent effect of capital punishment by dragging out the appeals process — sometimes for as long as 20 years — so that many executions are too far removed in time and memory to retain their full deterrent effect. These abolitionists then turn around and employ the length and expense of the appeals process as an argument against capital punishment, contending that such lengthy appeals have made capital punishment too expensive to retain (Jeffrey Fagan, “Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects and Capital Costs,” Columbia Law School Magazine . Summer, 2006). BETTER TECHNIQUES A new and more sophisticated analytical technique called “Panel Data-Sets” has been developed, which appears very promising, and has allowed researchers to eliminate many earlier methodological errors that plagued all such studies, including that of Ehrlich. For example, if State A adopts capital punishment and its murder rate then declines, while State B abolishes capital punishment and its murder rate then increases, the decrease in A and increase in B tend to offset each other, suggesting no consequences from either state law. This phenomenon is referred to as an “Aggregation Bias,” and is avoided by the application of these panel data-sets. Essentially, panel-data sets permit a more accurate longitudinal study of data: They allow researchers to follow various combinations of individual states or counties over time, thus providing multiple observations for study by each individual data-set in the sample. If panel data-sets sound familiar, it is because they were employed by researchers John Lott and David Mustard, who demonstrated that concealed-carry laws were “the most effective means of reducing violent crime ever studied by economists” in their seminal 1997 article. (J. Lott and D. Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.” Journal of Legal Studies , Jan., 1997.) Several recent studies employing these panel data-sets have demonstrated a stunning vindication of Isaac Ehrlich’s original research, and many show an even greater deterrent effect from capital punishment than that first demonstrated by Ehrlich in his pioneering study in 1975. Thus, Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd found that each U.S. execution for the crime of murder saved the lives of 18 innocent victims, by virtue of its general deterrent effect (H. Dezhbakhsh and J. Shepherd. “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment,” Economic Inquiry , July of 2006). D. Cloninger and R. Marchesini found that the 13-month Texas Death Penalty “moratorium” (Jan. 1996 to Feb. 1997) precipitated the murder of 90 additional victims, whereas re-instituting executions “significantly” reduced the Texas murder rate (D. Cloninger and R. Marchesini. “Execution Moratorium is No Holiday for Homicides” Applied Economics , 33 no. 5, 2001). Paul Zimmerman, a former Reagan Administration Economist, found that each execution spared the lives of 14 innocent victims as a result of capital punishment’s deterrent effect. (P. Zimmerman. “State Executions, Deterrence, and the Incidence of Murder” Journal of Applied Economics , May of 2004.) In his review of the most recent studies on the deterrent effect of capital punishment for the Senate Judiciary Committee on February 1, 2006, former Reagan Economic Adviser Paul Rubin summarized his interpretation of the literature in this manner: “The literature is easy to summarize: Almost all modern studies and all the refereed studies find a significant deterrent effect of capital punishment. Only one study questions these results. To an economist, this is not surprising: We expect criminals and potential criminals to respond to sanctions, and execution is the most severe sanction available.” There is an old adage bemoaning the fact that “A lie is half-way around the world before the truth can get its boots on…” This is particularly true in the Social Sciences, which have been largely subverted by Cultural Marxists in the course of their “long march through the institutions.” However, if there is one lesson to be gleaned from the debate surrounding capital punishment — beyond its deterrent effect, it is that good research truly can make a difference if researchers muster greater courage, vision and integrity than the army of cultural Marxist ideologues that currently dominate academia. Mr. Holt is the National President and Chairman of the Council of Conservative Citizens, and a former anti-busing St. Louis School Board Mem ber.


Read More...

July 9, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Alain Soral FAQ, Part 3

E&R poster: “We want a French Chávez! Labour Left & Values Right, let us unite against imperialism! Equality and Reconciliation proudly supports President Hugo Chávez.” Part 1 Part 2 What are Alain Soral’s relations with foreign nationalists? Soral can be said to support all nationalists worldwide who are opponents of “the Empire.” He has previously called himself an “alter-nationalist,” modeled on the borderless-Left’s “ alter-globalist. ”  Put another way: “Nationalists of the world, unite!” In particular, Soral has said that Hugo Chávez’s brand of socialist, Christian, anti-racist and anti-imperialist nationalism is the closest to his own. In the Muslim world, Soral has supported Iran (especially Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fight against Israeli colonialism and against censorship of historical research), Syria, and Lebanon (particularly the national reconciliation between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon achieved by General Michel Aoun and Hezbollah). He also supports Vladimir Putin’s Russia as the leading rival to “the Empire.” Soral opposes the various far-right Zionist nationalists, including the Dutch Party for Freedom and the English Defense League. Advertisement In terms of intellectuals,  Comprendre l’Empire  has been translated into Russian and published by Alexander Dugin, who evidently sees Soral as a significant figure. Soral has also promoted Dugin’s work in France. He has had good relations with Italy’s  CasaPound , which in some ways ideologically seems to be the most similar foreign movement to E&R. Soral’s influence is unsurprisingly greatest however in the French-speaking world, including Belgium, Quebec, the Maghreb and francophone Black Africa. Interestingly, it seems that Soral has largely independently reached conclusions similar to those of Anglo nationalists and populists. Kontre Kulture publishes translations of works by Ezra Pound ( Labor and Usury ), Anthony Sutton ( Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler ,  Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution ), Eustace Mullins ( The Secrets of the Federal Reserve ) and Douglas Reed ( The Controversy of Zion ). Amazingly,  Soral was recently  banned  from publishing this last historical work  by a lower court. Although the decision has been appealed, this act of brazen censorship may well stand. France has no First Amendment. Soral is also the French-language publisher of foreign anti-Zionists including the ethnically Jewish Gilad Atzmon’s  The Wandering Who?  and the Muslim cleric Imran Hosein’s  Jerusalem in the Quran . What are Alain Soral’s view of race? Alain Soral, Belgian politician Laurent Louis, Dieudonné M’balah M’balah and Franco-Maghrebi author Salim Laïbi There is no indication that Soral has studied the copious North American literature on race. However, he is clearly not naïve: he has remarked on the morphotype of Black sportsmen, on the high number of Jewish Nobels and on “the myth of assimilation,” in contradiction with the FN’s official assimilationist line. This suggests he does not believe the mass of non-Europeans (particularly Muslims) can be made into generic Frenchmen like the ethnic French anytime soon. (This seems like such a self-evident point that one wouldn’t need to make it, yet it is the ruthlessly enforced official dogma of the politico-media regime.) Soral’s goal of toppling Zionism and of reconciling France’s ethnic groups means that E&R does not post many videos or news on the Islamization and de-Europeanization of France and their consequences. (The blog  Fdesouche   (meaning “ethnic French”) does so however, and is one of the top five most-visited blogs in France.) Practically, Soral fears two things for France: An ethnic civil war and importing the “clash of civilizations” into France. As such he is anti-immigration but sees those who attack Muslims and non-Europeans  already in France  as contributing to Zionist power and a civil conflict which could permanently wreck the Nation. Examples of this in action include Lebanon’s destruction by Israel and Serbia’s destruction by “the Empire.” He   has had harsh words for those fantasizing of race war   and ethnic cleansing from the safety of their keyboards: It’s stuff for bar-room alcoholics. The guys who say this [that we should throw the Arabs and Blacks in to the sea] would be incapable of doing it. They’d be crying after two hours if they started doing it. […] Between ‘we need to stop all this,’ and what would need to be done in terms of violence and moral ugliness to do it, it’s not the same thing. Admittedly, population transfers have not been a particularly uncommon thing in European history (the Greco-Turkish transfer after WWI, the ethnic cleansing of the Sudeten and East Prussian Germans after WWII, the flight of ethnic Europeans in Algeria in 1962), but such fury has only followed terrible, nation-ruining wars which no one can desire. Soral  has also argued   that if all the Muslims of France and all the Jews of France voted for the National Front, I’d be delighted. Because that would mean that these two communities will be reconciled on the idea of the Nation, and we will avoid the clash of civilizations and the civil war and even the world war which have been programmed. The political alternative is not to know whether we’re going to kill or chase out all the Jews or kill or chase out all the Arabs. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about all the communities of France, which have been tribalized by a succession of political cowardice and mistakes, reconciling themselves on the French project. From this point of view I can be fraternal with Zemmour on certain topics. ‘We’re all French,’ that’s the idea. The association I preside over is called ‘Equality and Reconciliation’. Soral might well agree with  Greg Johnson’s interpretation of Oswald Spengler : that if one is part of a dynamic, expansive, growing people, one would not worry about assimilation of others. Soral has said France needs a “ community rebalancing ” in which Jews would be less influential and Africans/Muslims more so. Having minorities after all is not necessarily problematic so long as they respect the majority and do not overwhelm the country. Perhaps Soral believes, if the tide is stemmed, that the French core will eventually be able to absorb the new arrivals. In any case, Soral himself has never called himself a White nationalist, has rarely shown interest in Europe as such, and always refers to himself as a  French nationalist . Soral does say that he actively supports the nationalism of non-Europeans, but only if they leave France (notably the case of pan-Africanist Kemi Seba, with whom he has good ties). He has said that the children of foreigners in France could be deprived of their citizenship if they engage in Islamism or criminality. Whatever one’s position on race, one must, at least for tactical reasons, attempt to answer the question: What’s in it for the non-Europeans who are your soil? In some cases the conflicts of interest may be irreconcilable. But if one is  fighting against a common enem y , then alliances with non-Europeans may be possible. At the very least, Dieudonné and Soral have deprived the Establishment Left of the adherence of a growing number of non-Europeans. What is Alain Soral’s position on the Jewish Question? Alain Soral performs a quenelle in front of the Berlin memorial to the Jewish holocaust. He defended himself from the claim that he had “de-sacralized” the place saying: “It’s where the gays go to sodomize each other!” If one watches a Soral video, one would be forgiven for thinking that his worldview can be summed by “Jews, Jews, Jews!” In fact, if one reads his works and articles, he is above all an enemy of the bourgeois world, rather than of Jewry as such. If he talks so much about Jews, it is because he is one of the few souls in the world willing to discuss the impact of elite Jewish over-representation and ethnocentrism, and the “double standards” that systematically arise from this in politics and media. Jews get rather little attention in  Comprendre l’Empire , although there are dark references to the harsh, tribal Old Testament values that permeate Judaism and Protestantism. Soral once said that the bourgeois was an “ersatz Jew,” someone for whom political, economic and cultural action with the wider society is  instrumental , purely selfish, as opposed to softened by ethnic solidarity or concern for the national good. Soral’s criticism of the organized Jewish community is entirely one of an ideological critique of Judaism-Zionism as a project for global supremacism through racism and deceit as expressed in the Tanakh and the Talmud. Whether or not he suspects any genetic predisposition among Jews for ethnocentrism (he has spoken of the “hatred” of Polish-origin Ashkenazim), his line is a Christian one that anyone can be redeemed: an individual may be predisposed towards this or that by his background and upbringing, but ultimately they can always choose salvation by sincerely joining the national community. Soral clearly sees the absurdly disproportionate power that Jewish elites hold over Gentile politicians and intellectuals — moral, economic, cultural — as a fundamentally upside down.  In a recent interview  he reacted to a senior French journalist’s being incredibly impressed by Russian President Vladimir Putin during a face-to-face interview without pre-planned questions: We saw the little [Jean-Pierre] Elkabbach — it’s my more racial-ethnic analysis — the little Sephardic Semite, submitting himself like a woman to someone who still represents Aryan virility, even if it’s Slavic. That is the just traditional hierarchy. When Putin, opens his mouth, Elkabbach shuts up. That’s how one should think of a properly-functioning world. Because one incarnates legitimate authority and virility and the other incarnates the role he should have kept since always, the role of an intermediary, of a courtier, or at best of a diplomat, like in the days when France was still France. […] [It] corresponds to the just hierarchy of cultures, I wouldn’t say of races, but of cultures. This is I believe the most explicit he has been on his preferred outcome. For Soral, the Judeo-bourgeois world is becoming deeply anti-human, effeminizing, based on the miscegenation and destruction of all nations and cultures, turning all human beings into interchangeable economic agents, simultaneously destroying both national cohesion (because of internal balkanization) and authentic international diversity (all submitting to the same faux globo-culture), with any substantive dissent severely punished. In opposition to this vision, Soral wants multipolarity, ideological-political pluralism, human freedom and genuine diversity, preserved in a perpetual struggle by an alliance of free Nations against the Empire of the day (America today, perhaps China tomorrow). Is Alain Soral of the Right? From Alain Soral’s publishing house Soral’s own sinuous political path, his combining of left- and right-wing themes, and his necessary  crypsis  (or obfuscation) in the face of regime persecution can make an ideological appraisal frustrating. Is there such a thing as “Soralism” and is it coherent? Suffice to say that E&R is a movement of the French Third Position. Its orientation is suggested by Kontre Kulture’s recent republication of the rare  Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon , an early twentieth-century periodical featuring both right-wing monarchist and left-wing syndicalist authors. E&R considers this proof of there having been “a French conservative revolution” in addition to the more famous German one. The short-lived movement’s name was inspired by the French anarchist, Judeophobe and anti-feminist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, while its most prominent authors were disciples of the revolutionary theorist Georges Sorel and the monarchist nationalist Charles Maurras. One could therefore fairly place Soral and E&R as part of the French New Right, although they reject the term “far-right” for its pejorative connotations and/or injurious intent. In France, the Left is still synonymous with moral superiority, and E&R can claim that it better defends the nobler left-wing goals (sovereignty, racial peace, anti-banksterism, social equity) than does the mainstream left. Soral himself has said many times that, curiously for a Marxist, he is opposed to Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, whom he considers rationalizers for bourgeois power. Additionally, he has said several times that “he is not a democrat” and is opposed to what he calls “market and opinion democracy,” which inevitably falls under plutocratic control because of Capital’s influence over media and political parties. He is clearly opposed to individualism as ultimately self-destructive and levelling; he is an inegalitarian who sees elites as needing to raise up the masses. Soral seems to want some kind of monarchy (perhaps under the Le Pens?!) as the only political form which can resist plutocracy. He has said “the most Catholic King of France had two advantages: he was Catholic and he was French.” And in  Comprendre l’Empire , citing René Guénon and Julius Evola’s “Tradition,” he writes of [the need of] the subordination of this commercial materialism by the transcendental power of a hereditary caste, both religious and military. […] Thus, in light of this, we find among all serious opponents of modern democracy: from the integral nationalism of Charles Maurras to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and through the Black Order of the SS dear to Heinrich Himmler, this same attempt to check the power of money by the return to the absolute power of a both military and religious order. At the same time, Soral has said that he highly respects Rousseau, whom he does not consider an Enlightenment thinker, and has expressed support for Étienne Chouard. The latter is an ultra-democratic activist who wants to establish a Constitution for France through a constitutional convention drawn by lot, a symptom of the seemingly endless and often self-destructive French quest for absolute democratic legitimacy and equality. Soral has called such constitutional debates “thrilling.” Suffice to say that, beyond a ruthless critique of the System and an uncompromising defense of the Nation-State, Soral does not present a ready-made ideology for the new order, but is rather sparking the conversation.


Read More...

July 7, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Vladimir Avdeyev And The Russian Revival Of Racial Science

Posted also on VDARE.com [Adapted from Kevin MacDonald’s Foreword to  Raciology , by Vladimir Avdeyev] J. Philippe Rushton  once commented that science moves forward, continuing to gather data and refine its theories—with  one important exception . A century ago, there was a robust Darwinian science of race differences, from differences in  head shape  and  cranial capacity , to differences in intelligence and behavioral restraint. However, this young science was nipped in the bud. But not because it was displaced by a new, powerful, empirically based theory. Rather, the demise of racial science came about because of  intellectual movements  dominated by  ethnic Jews  and tightly linked to the political Left—the topic of my book,  The Culture ofCritique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in 20 th -Century Intellectual and Political Movements  ( Kindle edition  now available). This was a case of science being replaced by ideology—an ideology designed to oppose the idea that Europeans were in any way unique or superior. Ultimately, it was an ideology that rationalized the decline of Europeans and their culture that we see all around us today. The new ideology decreed that humans were infinitely  malleable creatures of their culture . It eventually became defined by the  view  that “race does not exist.”  Franz Boas , the high priest of the new cult, was a strongly-identified Jew and committed Leftist. His famous study  purporting to show  that skull shape changed as a result of immigration from Europe to America was very effective propaganda weapon in the  cause of eradicating racial science. Advertisement Indeed, it was  intended  as propaganda. Based on their reanalysis of Boas’s data published in the  Proceedings of the National Academy of Science  ( pdf ), physical anthropologists  Corey Sparks  and  Richard Jantz,  while not quite accusing Boas of scientific fraud, find that his data do not show  any  significant environmental effects on cranial form as a result of immigration. (See summaries  here  and  here ). They also claim that Boas may well have been motivated by a desire to end race-realist views in anthropology: While Boas never stated explicitly that he had based any conclusions on anything but the data themselves, it is obvious that he had a  personal agenda  in the displacement of the  eugenics movement  in the United States. In order to do this, any differences observed between European- and U.S.-born individuals will be used to its fullest extent to prove his point. As a result of the massive success of this Leftist onslaught, the  science of race differences  languished. Whatever  truths it had uncovered  were forgotten. In  Raciology , the Russian journalist  Vladimir Avdeyev  resurrects the vast tradition of research on the physical anthropology and psychology of race differences.  His book is an exhaustive summary of research in the field from the  18 th  century to the present . It includes a great many summaries of the research of individual scientists, many of whom have been virtually forgotten. But  Raciology  is far more than a compendium of research. It also vigorously defends the idea that, as Avdeyev puts it, “the problem of race is  the nerve center of world history.”  It is intended to influence how people  think about race  in the context of history and current events. Several themes recur throughout  Raciology. Race is overwhelmingly the result of biological inheritance, not cultural programming. Beginning with  Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau , this body of theory and research proposed that the biologically-based racial characteristics of Whites have led them to be originators of superior cultures. The White race evolved in the north of Europe and spread south and east to be the main force behind the ancient cultures of Greece, Rome, Egypt, India, Persia, and the Hittites. The ancestral type of the White race—called the “Nordic” race originally  by Joseph Egorovich Deniker —is characterized by blond hair, blue eyes, light skin, tall stature, and dolichocephalic (long-headed) skull with a well-developed prefrontal area (the area of the brain associated with intelligence, impulse control, and decision making). Houston Stewart Chamberlain  may be considered paradigmatic of a theorist who proposed that northern Europeans are a superior people. All outstanding peoples that appeared starting in the 6 th century in the role of true deciders of the fate of humanity as founders of nations and creators of new thinking and original art, were mainly of German origin. The creations of the Arabs stand out for their short duration; the Mongols only destroyed but they created nothing; the ingenious Italians of the Middle Ages were all émigrés, or of the north which was saturated with Lombard, Gothic, or Frankish blood, or they were Germano-Hellenes of the south; in Spain, the creative element was the Visigoths. The awakening of the Germans forms the foundation of European history, for their worldwide historical significance as founders of a completely new civilization and a completely new culture. [Introduction to  The Foundations of the 19th Century  ] Nevertheless, Avdeyev notes that, despite Chamberlain’s views on the centrality of the Germanic peoples, he advocated a union of Celtic, Germanic, and Slavic peoples in defense of the White race. Indeed, a theme of  Raciology  is that “the scientists of Germany well understood that the differences between the Germans and the Russians were extremely insignificant.” In fact, Avdeyev notes that Russians have a higher percentage of  light hair and eyes than  the European population generally. Naturally, the idea that Whites had superior traits went along with eugenic ideas of racial betterment. In the words of German racial theorist  Hans F. K. Gunther,  quoted by Avdeyev, the question is “whether we have enough courage to prepare a world for future generations, [by creating a race] that has purged itself in racial and eugenic terms.” Geneticist  Fritz Lenz,  writing in 1934, viewed creating and maintaining a superior race as the ultimate struggle: Undoubtedly, one may lead our race to such an ascent and flowering like it has never achieved before. But if we lose heart, our Nordic race will utterly die. … Before us stands the greatest task of history. That is, active efforts must be made to preserve the best elements and to rid the race of detrimental elements by discouraging reproduction of those who are prone to criminality, low intelligence, or psychiatric disorders. Avdeyev expresses the fundamental goal of eugenics as follows: “Our main goal is crystal-clear: the creation of a new, super-perfected White Race, the moral and physical degradation of which has reached its limit.” Compare American writer  Lothrop Stoddard,  writing in 1920: “The eugenic ideal is … an  ever-perfecting super race.  Not the “superman” of Nietzsche—that brilliant yet baleful vision of a master  caste , blooming like a gorgeous but parasitic orchid on a rotting trunk of servile degradation, but a super race , cleansing itself  throughout  by the elimination of its defects, and raising itself  throughout  by the cultivation of its qualities.” [Lothrop Stoddard,  Revolt against Civilization: The Menace of the Under-man ; emphasis in original] However, despite the great flowering of culture emanating from Europe, and despite the knowledge that Europeans and their culture dominated the planet, there is also a pessimism that pervades this literature—the idea that White racial elites tend to become eroded over historical time because of admixture with lesser types. It was common among these thinkers to assert that the depletion of the Nordic racial stratum accounts for the decline of Greece, Rome, the Hindus, the Persians, and other Nordic civilizations. For example,  Ludwig Woltmann: “The blonde element of the people defines its cultural worthiness, and the fall of great cultures is explained by the dying out of this element.” Eugen Fischer: “[In Greece] “the death of the families of fully-vested citizens and the admission of the descendants of slaves and the aboriginal population as citizens, led … to collapse. Rome died of race mixing and the products of degeneracy.” And finally,  Otto Reche,  writing in 1936: That which we call ‘world history’ is in essence nothing more than the history of the Indo-Germans and their achievements; the powerfully rousing and simultaneously tragic song about the Nordic race and its idealism; a song which tells about how the strength of the race did what seemed impossible and reached for the stars, and how the strength quickly dried up when the ‘law of race’ was forgotten, when the Nordic man ceased to preserve the purity of his blood and strongly mixes with races [that are] less gifted in cultural terms. The psychological traits attributed to Nordics are principled moral behavior and idealism, high intellect, inventiveness, and, in the words of  Gustav Friedrich Klemm , a proclivity to “constant progress” and science: Members of that race most often strive for the unknown, for the sake of a pure idea, driven by the thirst of knowledge, and not self-seeking interest. My view is that there is a strong empirical basis for this suite of traits, and that ultimately these traits, particularly moral idealism and science, are the psychological manifestation of individualism as a response to selection pressures in the far north. As Avdeyev notes: …the home of the Nordic race may be located in the zone of a cool and moist climate, abundant with clouds of fog, in which water vapor is retained in the air [absorbing ultra-violet rays]. In this climate there should be strong and frequent fluctuations of temperature. I first became aware of the idea that natural selection in the north was responsible for the unique traits of Europeans by reading Fritz Lenz, whose work is reviewed in  Raciology.  Lenz, like several modern theorists (e.g.,  Richard Lynn  and  J. Philippe Rushton),  gives major weight to the  selective pressures of the Ice Age on northern peoples . He proposed that the intellectual abilities of these peoples are due to a great need to master the natural environment, resulting in  selection for traits  related to mechanical ability, structural design, and inventiveness in problem solving (what psychologists term  “performance IQ” ). He argued that Jewish intelligence, in contrast, was the  result of intensive social living (what psychologists term “ verbal IQ ”). There is in fact good evidence that in general intelligence is linked to mastering the natural environment (see  here ), and this is particularly the case among Northern peoples. Lenz argued that over the course of their recent evolution, Europeans were less subjected to between-group natural selection than Jews and other Middle Eastern populations. Because of the harsh environment of the Ice Age, the Nordic peoples evolved in small groups and have a tendency toward social isolation rather than cohesive groups. This perspective does not imply that Northern Europeans lack collectivist mechanisms for group competition, but only that these mechanisms are relatively less elaborated and/or require a higher level of group conflict to trigger their expression. Under  ecologically adverse circumstances like the Ice Ages , adaptations are directed more at coping with the adverse physical environment than at competing with other groups. In such an environment, there would be less pressure for selection for extended kinship networks and highly collectivist groups. Ethnocentrism would be of no importance at all in combating the physical environment. Europeans are  therefore less ethnocentric than other groups —which makes them susceptible to being subverted by groups with a strong sense of in-group solidarity . Individualist cultures show relatively little emotional attachment to in-groups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and “finding yourself.” Individualists have more positive attitudes toward strangers and out-group members. They are also more likely to behave in a pro-social, altruistic manner to strangers. People in individualist cultures are less aware of in-group/out-group boundaries and thus do not have highly negative attitudes toward out-group members. They often disagree with in-group policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to in-groups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other in-group members. Opposition to out-groups occurs in individualist societies, but the opposition is more “rational” in the sense that there is less of a tendency to suppose that all of the out-group members are culpable. Individualists form mild attachments to many groups, while collectivists have an intense attachment and identification to a few in-groups ( see  Harry Triandis,  Individualism and Collectivism ). Individualists are therefore relatively ill-prepared for between-group competition so characteristic of the history of Judaism. Cultural anthropologists have  located European groups  as part of what is termed the North Eurasian and Circumpolar culture area. This culture area derives from  hunter-gatherers  adapted to cold, ecologically adverse climates. In such climates there is pressure for male provisioning of the family and a tendency toward monogamy because the ecology did not support either polygyny or large groups for an evolutionarily significant period. The historical evidence shows that Europeans, and especially Northwest Europeans, were relatively quick to abandon extended kinship networks and collectivist social structures when their interests were protected with the  rise  of strong centralized governments (see  here , p. 21ff). There is indeed a general tendency throughout the world for a decline in  extended kinship networks with the rise of central authority. But in the case of Northwest Europe this tendency quickly gave rise well before  The Industrial Revolution  to the unique European “simple household” type. The simple household type is based on a single married couple and their children. It contrasts with the joint family structure typical of the rest of Eurasia in which the household consists of two or more related couples, typically brothers and their wives and other members of the  extended family. These cultures are characterized by bilateral kinship relationships which recognize both the male and female lines, suggesting a more equal contribution for each sex as would be expected under conditions of monogamy. There is also less emphasis on extended kinship relationships and marriage tends to be exogamous (i.e., outside the kinship group). This tendency toward exogamy, combined with relative lack of ethnocentrism, could account for the tendency for genetic barriers between Nordics and others to break down over time and a general decline in the population, a point noted by several of the writers mentioned by Avdeyev. In some of my own recent writing I have attempted to account for the Nordic tendencies toward idealism and principled morality as also a result of selection pressures for individualism. In collectivist cultures, the standard of morality is what is good for the group as seen, for example, in the  celebrated phrase  “Is it good for the Jews?”  Judaism is a highly collectivist culture  in which the needs of individuals are subordinated to the needs of the group. In individualist cultures, on the other hand, there is a tendency to moral universalism where morality is defined not as what is good for the individual or the group, but as an abstract moral ideal—e.g., Kant’s  moral imperative : “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” Individualism implies an equality of interest—that everyone has interests but no one has a privileged moral position. Arguments on morality therefore must necessarily seek an abstract sense of morality, independent of the interests of an individual or the group. Moral idealism is a powerful tendency in European culture, particularly since the 17 th  century apparent, for example, in the German idealist philosophers  and the  American transcendentalists . Universalist moral ideals are erected and then steps are taken to achieve the moral vision by changing the world, often accompanied by a great deal of moral fervor (see  here ). The anti- slavery movement  in England in the 18 th  and 19 th  centuries is paradigmatic.[1] This pursuit of moral ideals accounts for some of the dynamism of Western history. As noted, European culture descended from northern hunter-gatherers. Another way to conceptualize this is that Western groups retained their tendencies as hunter-gatherers longer than the other main culture areas, particularly the Middle Old World culture area that characterizes the rest of Eurasia . Christopher Boehm  argues  persuasively that hunter-gatherer bands are not based tightly on kinship but rather consist mainly of non-family members, thus predisposing toward individualism. These groups are egalitarian “moral communities” where decision making is by consensus and maintaining one’s reputation is key to successful group living. The analogy with the contemporary world is obvious. The entire edifice of Political Correctness is framed as a moral in-group. Every attempt is made to  shame and ostracize  those who, for example, oppose massive non-White immigration or believe that Europeans, like other peoples,  have legitimate interests in defending their territories . Labels such as “ racist ” function to  define moral in-groups . All of the intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique  subjected to West to moral critique where dissenters are not just factually or theoretically wrong but  evil. Thus the moral universalism characteristic of individualism is a liability in the struggle with other groups. Individualists are prone to acting against their own people on behalf of a moral principle—as in the  American Civil War  where a great many Yankees were  motivated to go to war against the South in order to eradicate  slavery as a moral evil.  Such people place their moral ideals above ties of racial kinship. Here is U.S.  Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens  expressing a typical sense of moral idealism common among Europeans: The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the  Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan , and the soldiers who  scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach ,” he wrote in an unusually lyrical dissent [in a 1989 flag burning case]. “If those ideas are worth fighting for—and our history demonstrates that they are—it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection.” After Stevens: What Will the Supreme Court Be Like without Its Liberal Leader?  By Jeffrey Toobin,  The New Yorker,  March 23, 2010. Ideas are worth fighting for—but Stevens has no interest in advancing the cause of White people as a racial kinship group. He idealizes  non-White Filipinos  fighting alongside Whites to secure a set of principles. He is not concerned about his race—presumably because he thinks that what’s important is that certain ideas will continue to guide the country even if (as seems likely) people like him are fated to become a small minority of the country. These ideas are more important than the racial composition of the country. There is an obvious sense in which such moral idealism can be fatally maladaptive. In the contemporary world of Political Correctness defined by the  Cultural Marxist  Left, moral ideals incompatible with the interests of European-derived peoples are constantly trumpeted by elites in the media and academic world. Such messages fall on fertile ground among European peoples, even as other races and ethnic groups continue to seek to shape public policy according to their perceptions of self-interest. The European proneness to moral idealism thus becomes part of the  ideology of Western suicide. Similarly, science is an outgrowth of individualism because it implies that scientists are independent researchers not influenced by allegiance to an in-group or commitment to religious dogma. Scientists, like individualist moral actors, adopt a disinterested intellectual stance in which they independently evaluate evidence and are not influenced by an in-group affiliation such as their race or ethnic group. Real science assumes that groups of scientists that form around particular ideas (e.g., the  theory of evolution  in biology) are maximally permeable and highly subject to defection when the empirical data do not support previously held views. On the other hand, in the Jewish intellectual the movements reviewed in  The Culture of Critique,  intellectual endeavor had strong overtones of ethnic group solidarity, as individual participants could always count on others to hold similar views and to present a united front against any unwelcome data. As in the case of  Boasian anthropology , “truth” could be manufactured to meet the goals of the group and without any connection to the real world. This “truth” could then be disseminated from the most prestigious academic and media organizations, giving it an air of scientific respectability and a huge influence on the public. Avdeyev makes brief reference to how Jewish identity influences the views of Jewish scientists when they discuss race. Regarding the views of A. I. Yarkho that racial instinct has been lost among humans, he notes It is particularly amusing to hear through the mouth of “God’s chosen” people that incontrovertible racial and species solidarity is considered anti-Semitism …. The very principle of Zionism is built on the racial solidarity of the Jews. He also mentions a need in recent times to defend Russian racial anthropology against the view, common in the West, that there are no races. In doing so, he makes it clear that his main opponents are Jews: With authentic Russian patience and quick good sense, a convincing answer was given to the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those same tailors and tavern-keepers [i.e., typical Jewish occupations in the Russian Pale of Settlement of the  19 th  century ]. Although the current state of anthropology in the West is far from monolithically Jewish, the strong influence of Franz Boas and his tightly-compacted group of Jewish race-deniers continues to have a strong influence. Anthropology as well as other fields in the social sciences and humanities are best described as “tribal moral communities”—communities based not on science but on a shared moral vision and  unified by the view  that research on race and race differences  must be suppressed at all costs. Raciology  is a most welcome development. The anti-racial theorizing of Boas and his followers continues to overshadow the current era. Such views are in their essence political movements against European peoples masquerading as science, designed to disarm Europeans—to make them defenseless against the onslaught of other peoples and cultures. The reality is that the racial science that thrived in America until the 1920s and in Germany until the end of WWII coincided with an era of racial and cultural confidence among Europeans. It occurred at a time when Europe dominated the planet and was spreading its people and culture to all corners of the world. On the other hand, the assault on this body of research has coincided with an unprecedented retreat of Europeans, not only from outposts like South Africa and  Rhodesia  (now  Zimbabwe ), but even in  Europe  itself, which is now being  overrun  by non-Whites. Countries like the United States and  Australia  that that were at least  90% European in 1950  are undergoing demographic transitions which predict that  Europeans will be a minority  with a generation or two. During this ongoing disaster of European retreat, racial science has  remained undeveloped  and largely  forgotten . It is to be hoped that a resurgence of racial science as outlined in  Raciology  will be part of a general resurgence of the European peoples. It is certainly a step in the right direction. Kevin MacDonald [ email him ] is professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. His r esearch has focused on developing evolutionary perspectives in developmental psychology, personality theory, Western culture, and ethnic relations (group evolutionary strategies).  He edits and is a frequent contributor to  The Occidental Observer  and  The Occidental Quarterly . For his website, click  here .


Read More...

July 7, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Alain Soral FAQ, Part 1

Gallic greetings Alain Soral has become an influential presence on the French political and cultural scene. The following attempts to shed some light on this complex and fascinating figure. Part 1: What are Alain Soral’s political positions? What is Alain Soral’s influence? How has Alain Soral become so successful in building an audience? Part 2: What is Alain Soral’s background? Or, from “Game” to Social Conservatism What is Alain Soral’s political experience? Or, from Communism to Nationalism What are Alain Soral’s relations with other French nationalists? Part 3: What are Alain Soral’s relations with foreign nationalists? What are Alain Soral’s views of race? What is Alain Soral’s position on the Jewish Question? Is Alain Soral of the Right? Part 1 What are Alain Soral’s political positions? Typical iconography on the E&R website. Soral’s political positions are complex but can be summarized as a “French Third Position.” Practical policies include: National sovereignty, halt of immigration, bankster-free economics, social conservatism, non-aligned foreign policy, end to nanny-statism and feminism, return to virility, alliance with Russia, ideally the creation of “European protectionism” to organize the economy on a Continental scale. A major slogan is “reconciliation.” “Reconciliation” between the “Labor Left” and the “Values Right,” practically meaning a certain economic socialism and social conservatism. “Reconciliation” between ethnic French and Afro-Muslim French citizens around a civic nationalism. “Reconciliation” between the middle and working classes against speculative finance. Advertisement Soral is opposed to what he calls “the Empire” as ideology: the ever-creeping bourgeois order which is creating an universal, effeminate, miscegenated, cultureless, global, death-fearing and honorless “Last Man.” The ideology can be described as bourgeois-bohemian (bobo), liberal-libertarian or, to use Jonathan Bowden’s phrase, “left-wing capitalism.” Soral is also opposed to he calls “the Empire” in geopolitics, which is a strange American-financialist-Zionist constellation of interconnected power nodes which is attempting to impose its cultural, ideological, economic and military hegemony world-wide, and destroy all Nation-States. He calls for the alliance of free Nations against “the Empire.” Soral is considered a Satanic figure by the French politico-media system largely because of his withering critique of the pernicious effects of Jewish ethnocentrism and Zionism (both Israeli and international) on non-Jews. Different American nationalists will no doubt find much to criticize in this or that part of this agenda (indeed, many French nationalists also differ with Soral), but one should in any case critically engage with him. This is a sophisticated ideological and political project, whatever its internal tensions and imprecisions. What is Alain Soral’s influence? I think it is beyond dispute today that Soral and Equality and Reconciliation (E&R) are the single most influential dissident, nationalist and anti-Zionist metapolitical movement in France today and indeed (in terms of audience) quite possibly the Western world. In France certainly, E&R’s audience is greater than nationalists like the Identitaires (although the latter may be stronger on direct action) or the New Right intellectuals who are better known by Anglo nationalists. He is a major gateway for young people to discover nationalism and seems to have a certain influence, necessarily covert, over the younger cadres of the National Front (FN). Soral and E&R promote their message through numerous means. Egaliteetreconciliation.fr is an ever-more popular website that is generally among the top 250 most-visited in France ( Alexa ). It is by far the leading “alt-news” site. As of this writing (14/06/2014) the website is ranked 199th,  not far behind slate.fr (French subsidiary of the U.S. Slate ) and just ahead of regional newspaper La Dépêche du Midi ‘s website, of public TV channel France3?s website, and of gmail.com. In short, E&R’s direct online audience is on a par with major online-only mainstream news sources or a second-tier mainstream newspaper. Soral’s numerous videos typically get tens or even hundreds of thousands of views. These videos are often remixed independently and these too get similar viewership. They are mostly lectures and “videos of the month,” the latter being interviews covering news (often hilariously, with sections like “ Le con du mois ” [“Twat of the Month”]) and culture. The cultural videos promote books published by Soral and are often very lengthy, but get similar viewership, suggesting an intellectually committed following. To those who speak French, I can only recommend going through Soral’s video archive , an experience which for me was simply mind-blowing and permanently shattered the mental prison of political correctness I had been trapped in until then. After his departure from party politics, Soral was able to take stock of his experiences and write Comprendre l’Empire , published in 2011, a 200-page synthesis of his political views. This half-essay, half-manifesto has become an underground bestseller with 80,000 sales and is perennially on Amazon.fr’s politics bestseller list (sometimes #1) despite a total media boycott. Its revealing subtitle gives the gist of the argument: “Tomorrow global governance or the revolt of Nations?” Soral and his associates have set up a plethora of small businesses , typically with a nationalist angle. These include Prenons le Maquis (camping, survivalism), Sanguis Terrae (wine), Au Bon Sens (organic food) and, perhaps most significantly, the publishing house Kontre Kulture , whose name and mission curiously recall Counter-Currents and which publishes significant out-of-print works and his own authors. Soral, like Counter-Currents and Occidental Observer / Quarterly , believes culture is at the root of many contemporary problems and of challenging the current regime’s supremacy. Since the summer of 2013, just a year ago, Soral has increasingly broken into mass media coverage. This began with then-Interior Minister Manuel Valls publicly denouncing him as an “enemy of the Republic” in August 2013. Soral also recently published a book co-authored with mainstream TV journalist Éric Naulleau, supposedly of “debates” between the two, which found its way into mainstream bookstores ( Dialogues désaccordés ). Finally the late 2013–early 2014 anti-Dieudonné crusade, which ended with a governmental ban of the comedian’s show Le Mur , also brought attention to Soral (including a rare interview given to the BBC ). Each of these events led the media to switch from systematically ignoring Soral to significant coverage. This coverage, naturally, was exclusively negative, but has nonetheless correlated with an increase in Soral’s audience, posing an intractable problem for the regime, as its propaganda efforts may be self-defeating. More generally Soral and E&R benefit from the popularity of Dieudonné M’bala M’bala . Although the Franco-Cameroonian comedian is banned from television, demonized by the media, and harassed by the State and ethnically-motivated NGOs, he is able to get massive audiences for his shows. As a measure of his popularity, Dieudonné’s videos generally receive an order of magnitude more views than Soral’s, with hundreds of thousands or millions of hits. Dieudonné’s politics are even more “meta” than Soral’s. He is more a social commentator than a political one. He is an anti-Zionist but not really a nationalist. The two men’s operations have not fused, although there is clearly great porosity and overlap among their supporters. How has Alain Soral become so successful in building an audience? Fan art of the Soralian world Soral’s work since his leaving the National Front has been overwhelmingly metapolitical, eschewing direct electoral politics of any kind, but being supportive of any movement in line with E&R’s goals, above all the FN. He has followed a highly dangerous, high-risk strategy — supposing it was conscious rather than just the reflection of his pigheaded determination to say whatever he thinks — which has ultimately paid off. However, it is worth stressing the price he has paid for his notoriety. Soral is a leper. All mainstream media and political parties consider him the Devil and even the FN is wary of any appearance of ties. Although now he has a significant audience in his own right, his “anti-Semitism” makes him untouchable even for the far-right (his left-wing friends, if he had any, have long since abandoned him). Such a strategy is not for everyone, and while this kind of provocative metapolitics can complement the work of other groups, it is not appropriate for direct electoral politics. This strategy, involving total self-marginalization and considerable sacrifice, has likely only proved workable thanks to the internet. That being said, it is amazing just how much Soral has been able to reach out and expand his audience since 2009, when he became completely free to speak his mind — just five years ago. A number of important factors can be identified. Soral projects an image of virility . He bows before nothing and is the only one willing to discuss the most taboo issues. He also happens to be a boxer. This appeals to a growing share of both European and non-European male youth who crave masculine role models in our increasingly effeminate and transexual societies. Soral has an extremely aggressive debating style . Any intellectual, journalist, politician or activist that he considers to be stupid or showing bad faith will be subject to vicious, often hilarious criticism. (Those who speak French can discover this in this c ompilation of his “ Con du mois ” [“Twat of the Month”] videos .) For example, the pseudo-subversive comedian Stéphane Guillon once attacked Soral as “dangerous,” he replied saying the following : A small quenelle since Guillon talked about me: I wonder if there isn’t some genuine jealousy because, I have to recognize it today, I fucked his wife. Maybe he’s angry with me because I fucked his wife. But I think it’s quite unfair to be angry with me and not others because at the time we basically all had a go at it. So I don’t know why he’d be angry with me in particular […] So I reply: not only am I dangerous, but I fucked your wife, and you won’t be fucking mine any time soon. *flips the bird* Soral’s aggressiveness attracts people for several reasons: The style is approachable for laymen, and the videos spread; all the people who have felt slighted by whomever Soral is criticizing will feel vindicated (often Soral is the only one willing to criticize these people so directly); and finally whoever knows or perhaps supports whomever Soral is criticizing will thus discover Soral. All publicity is good publicity, and there are few better ways of getting it than provoking emotions , both positive and perhaps especially negative. Soral has had to somewhat downplay these sorts of videos because they have gotten him embroiled in a huge amount of legal cases for defamation and public insult (the land of Voltaire has remarkable trouble with the concept of free speech). He has also engaged in what the regime considers the most extreme provocation, such as performing a quenelle in front of the Berlin holocaust memorial . (Soral is not a holocaust-denier, but he has called for free speech for revisionists; he is being sued by Jewish groups for this gesture to the tune of hundreds of thousands of euros.) Critically, both Soral and Dieudonné are economically independent from the politico-media Establishment . Dieudonné apparently earns hundreds of thousands of euros annually with his live stand-up comedy shows. Soral seems to get by despite his legal costs through public speaking and the apparently modest income of his various companies (reportedly a few tens of thousands of euros annually). As ever, frugality is freedom! Soral and Dieudonné have been the only ones willing to talk about the elephant in the room: Jewish ethnocentrism, Jewish elite over-representation, and Zionism . Naturally if others ignore a huge swathe of reality, one must turn to the only ones who discuss it head-on. Also significantly, Soral’s ostensible stance is one of respect for the French Republic’s stated values : non-recognition of ethnic groups, equality before the law, popular sovereignty. He highlights the contradictions between the regime’s stated values and its actual practice. The regime is thus discredited among people discovering Soral, and they are then psychologically prepared to be eased into his more radical ideas. Significantly, Soral’s analyses have tended to be vindicated with time . The financial crisis, the euro crisis, the ongoing crisis of democracy, the pathetic sight of the impotent President François Hollande, and especially the continuing, ever-more-flagrant ethnic bias in France and other Western countries’ media coverage and foreign policy — all have confirmed his relevance. (In France this ethnic activism has simply gotten grotesque: including Bernard-Henri Lévy unofficially launching the destruction of Libya, Alain Finkielkraut being promoted to the Académie française, the absurd and legally dubious persecution of Dieudonné including preëmptive censorship, and Zionist agent Manuel Valls’ recent appointment as Prime Minister.) Above all, Soral has been steady and unapologetic since 2004. He explained : The System is starting to manufacture Manuel Valls — just as it manufactured Bayrou at one time, Mélenchon at another — that’s why he shouldn’t dream. He has the impression that he’s getting ahead very quickly but it’s because he has a booster. The day they remove the booster he will go much less fast. Me, I move forward with the winds against me, so I pedal with big calves. One can be dependent on the regime, perhaps influence it internally but still be vulnerable to its whims. Or one can be independent. (No doubt these roles can be complementary, with external critics and circumspect regime-employed crypto-nationalists.) Go to Part 2 .


Read More...

July 5, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Alain Soral FAQ, Part 2

Go to Part 1. Where is Alain Soral coming from? Or, from “Game” to Social Conservatism A young Alain Soral discusses “game” on television Born on October 2, 1958, Alain Soral had by all accounts a miserable family life, beaten by his father, a downwardly-mobile  déclassé  who was convicted of fraud and lost his properties. He went to Paris in 1976 doing odd jobs. Despite having no high school diploma, he found work in the cultural-media-advertising world through his sister Agnès Soral, who as an aspiring actress had a growing network in the  mondain  world of Paris show business and commercial culture (e.g. marketing). Alain apparently hated this work as unfulfilling and morally bankrupt, finding it terribly boring. He seems to have been motivated by a sharp sense of humiliation as a bourgeois-turned-proletarian (saying he had a “double consciousness” as both proletarian and bourgeois as a result), a sharp intellect, an acute sensitivity to the nuances of social life around him, and a hunger to prove himself and be loved. Those who have followed the careers of  Roissy/Heartiste  and   RooshV  may find it interesting that the young Soral was a  dragueur de rue  (a street pick-up artist), apparently coming to bed over 800 women, especially enjoying young, narcissistic bourgeois women as a form of “class struggle.” Jonathan Bowden, who stressed the link between art and radical, dissident politics, might not be surprised to learn that Soral’s first interest was in the arts, going on to study at the Paris  Beaux-Arts . He read a large amount of political literature, mainly Marxist, including Michel Clouscard, Lucien Goldmann, György Lukács and others. He would later write in the third person: “Alain Soral, former  dragueur de rue  who loved books as much as girls, so much so that he has not chosen between them.” Here is clearly a “cultured thug”… Depressed and reportedly contemplating suicide, he co-authored a book on fashion ( Les Mouvements de mode expliqués aux parents , 1984), apparently as a challenge to himself, which became a surprise best-seller. It soon became Soral’s ambition to liberate himself from wage slavery by living modestly from books. Over the next decades he would publish the following works: La création de mode: Comment comprendre, maîtriser et créer la mode (1987) Le Jour et la Nuit, ou la vie d’un vaurien (1991): An autobiographical novel he wrote while being a castle caretaker; did not sell well. Sociologie du dragueur (1996): His guide to “game,” really a kind of autobiographical essay with powerful meditations on epistemology (theory vs. practice, intellectual vs. practitioner), male-female roles, and human existence. Vers la feminization ? : Démontage d’un complot antidémocratique (1999): An attack on official and narcissistic bourgeois feminism. Jusqu’où va-t-on descendre ? Abécédaire de la bêtise ambiante (2002): Politically incorrect analyses of various aspects of contemporary politics and society. Socrate à Saint-Tropez: texticules (2003): The same as above, with legally risqué critiques of  communautarisme (e.g., the rise of lobbying by gay/feminist/Jewish elites), the subtitle being a pun on “small-texts” and “testicles”. Misères du désir (2004): A novel. CHUTe ! Éloge de la disgrâce (2006): A novel on the decline and fall of an “honest journalist” (or on the inevitability of official journalism as propaganda). Soral has also directed a film,  Confession d’un dragueur , based on his books on seduction. I will not attempt to psychoanalyze Soral to try to determine what has made him choose the remarkable and difficult path he has taken. But it is important to know the man’s biography given the nature of Soralian epistemology. Advertisement One might say that Soral’s writings are  genuinely non-positivist , which makes them a remarkably rare thing these days. He is distinctly uninterested in statistics or dry academic writing. Soral reaches his conclusions by the interaction and contrast of three sources: his visceral lived experience, his reading of philosophical and sociological “great works,” and his own high-level dialectics. (The latter in particular is remarkable — and quite intimidating — reasoning by logical backs-and-forths that are so extreme that one is tempted to call it “hysterical dialectics.” But I gather this was once the norm in philosophical reasoning.) As such, Soral’s lived experience is critical to his world view — in particular, his experiences conquering women, his disgust at working with bobo elites, his time in the French Communist Party and later the National Front, and finally his persecution by the politico-media Establishment for raising the issue of Jewish ethnocentrism. As an aside, I do not believe it is a coincidence that Soral, Heartiste and RooshV have all gone from  drague  to social conservatism and a certain “dissidence.” For two reasons: First, this direct, lived experience of women  as they are  obviously contradicts the crude regime propaganda of male-female equivalence and interchangeability, thus discrediting regime propaganda in general. A rocket scientist cannot well ignore Heliocentrism (whatever the regime says) if he plans on sending something into outer space, and the Catholic Church’s prestige has never recovered from Galileo and Darwin. Second, men who are willing to conquer women have a very unbourgeois  hardness  as they have the will to get what they desire despite either fears of rejection or the feelings of the other, all qualities which arm a man with the courage needed to state the truth as he sees it, even if it will hurt others’ feelings or make him suffer as a dissident. Perhaps Schopenhauer would not be surprised to learn that, in this strange way, European Man’s rebelliousness against the regime, his fight for truth and freedom, derive from his relentless will to life. What is Alain Soral’s political experience? Or, from Communism to Nationalism Alain Soral with Jean-Marie Le Pen and Bruno Gollnisch Some time in the late 1980s or early 1990s, Soral joined the French Communist Party (PCF). Little is known about this period. It seems he joined due to his hatred of bourgeois work and people, and his common feeling with proletarians. Soral campaigned against the 1992 Maastricht Treaty creating the European Union and, indeed, the Communists were among the few parties to oppose it with the National Front (FN). In addition, the PCF had in the 1970s had opposed immigration as hurting workers. Soral has noted that blue-collar workers tend to be nationalist and these increasingly joined the National Front at roughly the same time Soral did. Strange as it may seem, Communists are often nationalists even if Communist parties have generally been run by more globalist-minded individuals. Soral was mainly known however for his acerbic social critique, particularly of feminism and minority activism (ethnic, homosexual, feminist). He became a minor television personality, appearing in talk shows as the token social conservative in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Soral would later say that a place was ready for him to be “the System’s” social conservative critic, but in fact he was evidently too thin-skinned for that, being totally intolerant of what he saw as lies or unjust criticism, and overflowing in every TV appearance with things to say, seemingly trying to correct every wrong he had heard. Soral not only criticizes, he often says what he sees as the truth in the harshest, cruelest way possible. Soral’s overt turn to nationalism apparently dates from his disgust with the unfair media coverage of FN leader Jean-Marie Le Pen (particularly in 2002 when he went to the second round of the presidential elections) and of Franco-Cameroonian comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, and his own persecution by the Zionist Establishment. In December 2003, Dieudonné performed a sketch spoofing a fundamentalist Jewish Israeli settler, urging his audience to “join the Americano-Zionist axis” and concluding “Isra-heil!” He suffered a massive campaign of defamation and ostracism as a result, with the usual escalatory spiral: the weary defendant lashes back at is his assailants in frustration, the defendant has difficulty explaining why offense of the Jewish community carries such a heavy price, as opposed to the Black, Muslim or White communities without falling into what the regime has defined as “anti-Semitism.” (The answer, obviously, is the combination of Jewish over-representation in politically, culturally and economically influential positions, and Jewish ethnocentrism, i.e. racism.) Soral was one of the few to defend Dieudonné. This earned him few friends, but he was not himself unpersoned until a fateful September 20, 2004 documentary broadcast. Speaking to journalists, Soral said: When with a Frenchman, a Jewish Zionist, you start to say: ‘there are maybe some problems which came from you. You have maybe made a few mistakes. It is not systematically the other’s fault, not completely, if everyone hates you wherever you have set foot.’ Because that’s basically their history, you see. It’s been 2,500 years that every time they set foot somewhere, after 50 years they get their asses kicked. One has to say, how strange! It’s that everybody is wrong, except them. The guy, he starts to bark, to scream, to become crazy, you see. You can’t have a dialogue. That is to say, I think, there is a psychopathology, you see, of Judaism-Zionism which is akin to a mental illness. Soral was opposed to broadcasting the interview. All the same, he was eventually found guilty by the courts of “incitement of racial hatred” and fined 6,000 euros (around $8,000). More significantly, he was made  persona non grata . Dieudonné and Le Pen — persecuted by the same ethnically-biased media-political Establishment — became closer. Soral joined the FN in autumn 2005 and was put in charge of social and ethnic minority issues. Le Pen was evidently fond of Soral and soon catapulted him into the Central Committee, the party’s executive body. The FN was then in a weak position as a large proportion of the FN’s local elected officials and professional cadres, such as  Bruno Mégret , had defected in the 1990s. Further, Le Pen’s breakthrough into the second-round of the 2002 presidential elections had led to a massive and total mainstream media backlash (suggesting a hopeless situation), and Le Pen himself was aging, with the party’s future succession and even existence uncertain. Soral would later boast of having been the speechwriter for both Dieudonné and Le Pen at the same time. As a former Communist, he was proud that the National Front had become the leading party among workers, but was also sympathetic to second-generation immigrants, saying that “if the National Front could also become the leading party among immigrants [i.e. non-Whites], I would completely love it [ je jouirais intégralement ].” The FN had already come a long way since the 1980s — when it was a fairly banal right-wing party, appealing to the electoral niche of everyone to the right of the ruling center-right, adopting basically populist Reaganite rhetoric and policies (anti-immigration, tough on crime, social conservatism, anti-government, anti-welfare, pro-NATO, anti-communist). With the fall of Communism and the rise of American wars and European integration, the FN became euroskeptic and antiwar (opposing notably the wars in the Balkans and Iraq). The FN had therefore already begun its  anti-globalist  turn in the 1990s. Soral brought a new dimension by attempting create a sort of left-wing nationalism: progressive economic policies (appealing to workers) and appeals to French of immigrant origin (while still staying anti-immigration). He co-authored Le Pen’s famous  September 2006 Valmy speech , at the site of the French revolutionary regime’s first military victory, in which the nationalist leader declared: “From Gergovia to the Resistance and from the Capetian monarchy to the Napoleonic adventure, I take everything! Yes, everything!” The 2007 presidential elections were a small disaster for the FN. Their vote was cut in half. This was likely more to do with Nicolas Sarkozy’s successful campaign ripping off nationalist themes on immigration and crime than Soral’s influence over the FN program. The party has largely kept Soral’s progressive economic and “all-French” themes, even if his line on Islam has been ignored. Following the elections, Soral founded Equality and Reconciliation (E&R), apparently in a conciliatory spirit, seeing it as a sort of left-wing nationalist think-tank. An obscure dispute prior to the 2009 European parliamentary elections led him to leave the FN, giving a speech accusing Marine Le Pen of wanting to rejoin “the System” by abandoning authentic nationalism. He later regretted this, showing Soral’s tendency to over-generalize from possibly anecdotal events, and seeing everything in terms of his own intellectual “system.” Soral and Dieudonné went on to lead an “anti-Zionist” list in these EU elections, getting 1.3% of the vote in the Parisian Île-de-France region, thus showing the limits of even popular metapolitics in direct elections. (There was recently a similar failure in Belgium with Laurent Louis’  Debout les Belges , a strange quasi-nationalist party, which had tried to riff on Dieudonné and Soral’s fame. The two gave some support to Louis but his party still failed to get a representative in the 2014 EU elections.) What are Alain Soral’s relations with other French nationalists? Alain Soral with Alain de Benoist on “Ce soir (ou jamais!)” Soral and E&R happily promote all intellectuals and movements (notably by giving visibility on their website or selling their books on Kontre Kulture) that make valid points as they see it, even if they don’t agree on everything. Thus, anti-Zionist though Soral is, he has promoted Jewish journalist Éric Zemmour (no doubt the most popular mainstream nationalist-conservative pundit), part-Jewish intellectual Emmanuel Todd (for his apology of the French Nation-State, even though he is pro-immigration, somewhat Germanophobic and oddly tolerant of Anglo-financialism), and the White racialist writer Hervé Ryssen. This “big tent” (re)conciliatory attitude is sometimes in conflict with Soral’s viciously brilliant criticisms of anyone he sees as being hypocritical, lying or covertly ethnically-motivated. This, along with Soral’s own controversial ideas, has meant he has often had strained relations with other nationalists. Since his departure from the FN and notwithstanding the initial dispute, Soral consistently supported the National Front. Marine Le Pen and, and especially her spokesman Florian Philippot, are clearly closer to his progressive economic and civic nationalist line than was the old FN (although he agreed with the old FN’s antiwar, sovereignist, and anti-immigration policies). By all accounts, however, Soral has better personal relations with the old guard leaders including Jean-Marie Le Pen and the conservative-Catholic Bruno Gollnisch. Soral has had conflicts with Marine’s FN on certain questions, especially Muslim-baiting and her aggressive secularism ( laïcité ). He dislikes some of the new FN notables such as Gilbert Collard, a Freemason. In addition, Soral is in a legal dispute with  Marine’s boyfriend and FN veep Louis Aliot . Soral had made Aliot his “ con du mois ” (“twat of the month”) and said he was “a Zionist-[cock-]sucker” for having gone to the West Bank and praised Israeli settlements. Aliot is suing Soral for “defamation and public insult.” Beyond the personal dispute is a substantive issue:  Should the FN bow to the politico-media regime’s “political correctness” in general and to Zionism in particular in its struggle to get elected?  The question is all the more significant given  the recent spat between Marine and Jean-Marie over the media’s latest manufactured controversy . Given Soral’s multiracialist brand of nationalism, it is not surprising he has generally had poor relations with the  Identitaires . He also has irreconcilable differences with the equivalent among Africans and Muslims, the  Indigènes de la République  (roughly corresponding to Black Power movements in the U.S., a sort of  Fanonian  multiracial anti-colonialism… in the French metropole). It seems a significant number of former  Identitaire  and  Indigène  sympathizers end up joining E&R. In terms of the traditional French New Right intellectuals, Soral has fairly good relations with Alain de Benoist. On the other hand he has had very poor relations with  Guillaume Faye, who has said of him : Alain Soral is an ex-Marxist ne’er-do-well who contributed to the collapse of the National Front with his delirious ideas. He is not serious at all. He admires the Arabs for their virility and all that. I don’t go looking for my solutions in others. I look for my solutions in my own people. On whose side is Alain Soral? We don’t really know who he is. It’s nonsense. He hasn’t produced a concrete, constructed work. There is nothing serious. He’s a buffoon-sociologist who is furious because he wasn’t accepted by the higher circles [presumably of the French cultural establishment – GD]. This no doubt reflects the completely opposed priorities of the two. For Faye: Ignore the Jewish Question, focus on anti-Islamization. For Soral: First topple international Zionism, then Islamization will be much easier to tackle. End of Part 2.


Read More...

July 5, 2014  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   Posted in: Occidental Observer  Comments Closed |

Ricardo Duchesne reviews Grant Havers’ “Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy”

In discussing the development of the ideology of America as a proposition nation, I have emphasized the work of philosopher Horace Kallen — a theme of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique (p. 248ff). Ricardo Duchesne’s review of    Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique   by Grant Havers (University of Northern Illinois Press, 2013) emphasizes that Leo Strauss was also a very important figure in this revolution, especially for the penetration of this pathology into conservative circles ( “ The Straussian Assault on America’s European Heritage “). Havers’ work is thus part of a growing awareness of Strauss as a leader of the proposition nation concept stemming from his strong Jewish identity and awareness that the proposition nation concept is ideally suited to Jews in the diaspora  in the West (see also  Paul Gottfried and Claes Ryn  on Strauss.) As Duchesne notes, A main pillar sustaining the practice of mass immigration is that Western nations are inherently characterized by a “civic” form of national membership. Western nations express the “natural” wishes of “man as man” for equal rights, rule of law, freedom of expression, and private property. Mainstream leftists and conservatives alike insist on the historical genuineness of this civic definition.  Like Gottfried and Ryn, Duchesne emphasizes Strauss’s strategic hypocrisy in creating an ideology of the West completely shorn of any ethnic or religious connotations.  The subterfuge of the Straussians was to locate this proposition culture in the deep wellsprings of Western culture in order to make it more palatable to conservatives, a position that required them to completely disregard normal standards of scholarship. Advertisement The reality that the liberal constitutions of Western nations were conceived and understood in ethnic and Christian terms (if only implicitly since the builders and founders of European nations never envisioned an age of mass migrations) has been conveniently overlooked by our mainstream elites. These elites are willfully downplaying the fact that the  liberal  nation states of Europe emerged within ethnolinguistic boundaries and majority identities. …[T]he historical record shows that a high degree of ethnic homogeneity tends to produce liberal values, whereas countries or areas with a high number of diverse ethnic groups have tended to generate ethnic tensions, conflict, and illiberal institutions. Havers, a philosophy professor at Trinity Western University in British Columbia, credits Christianity as central to the West — an idea that would be anathema to Kallen or Strauss (“ Strauss was neither a conservative nor a Christian but a staunch proponent of a philosophically based liberalism bereft of any Christian identity”)  and their followers. Eschewing an ethnic understanding of the wellsprings of Western culture, Havers proposes that  Christian charity results in seeking a sympathetic understanding of ideas and beliefs that are different to one’s own. Havers is quite aware that Strauss’s Jewish identity was central to the theory he developed. As summarized by Duchesne,  [Strauss] wanted a liberal order that would ensure the survival of the Jews, and the best assurance for this was a liberal order that spoke  in a neutral and purely philosophical idiom without giving  any preference to any religious faith and any historical and ethnic ancestries .  He wanted a liberalism that would work to undermine any ancestral or traditionally conservative norms that gave preference to a particular people in the heritage of America’s founding, and thereby may discriminate against Jews. Only in a strictly universal civilization would the Jews feel safe while retaining their identity. Further, Havers is quite aware that Strauss rejected the dismissal of historical peoplehood by Jews: Strauss was very mindful of the particular identities of Jewish people, criticizing those who called for a liberalized form of Jewish identity based on values alone. Jews, Strauss insisted, must maintain fidelity to their own nationality rather than to a “liberal theology,” otherwise they would end up destroying their particular historical identity. … Strauss, though a Zionist who believed in a Jewish nation state,sought to portray Anglo-American civilization in a philosophical language cleansed of any Christian particularities and European ethnicity. Only Westerners should have no sense of ethnic or cultural identity — an ideology ideally suited to achieve Jewish ethnic aims in the Western diaspora, but not Israel. Hence the double standards and hypocrisy that pervade Jewish thought vis-á-vis Israel and the Diaspora. Here Duchesne points in passing to another influential Jewish theorist, the communist apologist  Eric Hobsbawm who claimed that “European nations were ‘ideological constructs’ created without a substantial grounding in immemorial lands, folkways, and ethnos.”   So from the far left (Hobsbawm) to the liberal center and the organized Jewish community (Kallen) to the neoconservative right (Strauss), Jewish theorists have promoted the ideology of Western suicide — the ideology that holds that Western nations, and only Western nations, are defined by a particular set of beliefs and therefore obligated to import all the world’s peoples and to jettison any sense that the West is the creation of a particular people and its culture. Phrased in different terms to appeal to different audiences throughout the political spectrum and buttressed by well-entrenched elites in the universities and the media, this ideology has been a devastatingly effective weapon against the traditional peoples and cultures of the West.  It should be stressed that these are nothing but ideologies, with no grounding in empirical science. Prof. Duchesne references a large body of scientific literature supports the view that humans are ethnocentric and that such altruistic dispositions as sharing, loyalty, caring, and even motherly love, are exhibited primarily and intensively within in-groups rather than toward a universal “we” in disregard for one’s community. Strauss’s concern for the identity of Jews is consistent with this science. But these well-entrenched ideologies care nothing about the scientific data. If we have learned anything from the history of the twentieth century, it’s that science means nothing to committed ideologues. It’s about power, not truth. And there is no more entrenched, powerful ideology at present than the ideology that the West is a proposition culture which, in order to be consistent to its own ideals and essence, must be open to all peoples of the world. Evolution is now being played out in the arena of cultural conflict , but there are still winners and losers in the strict Darwinian sense as Western lands are opened up to all the peoples of the world. Duchesne concludes that the way out of the crisis of Western nihilism is to re-nationalize liberalism, throw away the cultural Marxist notion that freedom means liberation from all identities not chosen by the individual, and accentuate the historical and natural-ethnic basis of European identity.  I couldn’t agree more.


Read More...

July 3, 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."