Friday, April 27, 2007
Being Jewish also means thinking that you never have to explain or get to the reality of terms you’ve coined. “Holocaust,” “antisemitism,” these are words that Jews have made up in order to obscure reality.
“Holocaust” is supposed to name the “Systematic extermination of mainly Jews by the German Nazi regime during World War II.” It also happens to be the name of the single alleged historical event that is above questioning. Historians as well as the general public can make outrageous allegations and interpretations of history with not much more than a peep. However, mention that there was a swimming pool and an orchestra at Auchwitz, or that there are records of German soldiers being punished for mildly mistreating prisoners (far milder than what is allowed according to the U.C.M.J.), or that Eli Wiesel never mentioned gas chambers in his book on the “Holocaust,” or that the “soap and lampshades” slander has been quietly withdrawn, or that there was a “six million dead Jews” claim after World War I, or any number of the dozens of facts that show the “Holocaust” for what it is–another Jewish lie.
Those who genuine souls who seek truth need nothing more to pique their interest than the knowledge that, in the countries in question with regard to the “Holocaust,” it is literally against the law for researchers, scholars, and the general public to come to a differing conclusion than the one handed down by the management. Heretics of the “Holocaust” religion are in prison at this moment for saying that the Earth revolves around the Sun coming to a different conclusion about what exactly happened to Jews in Europe during World War II. Philosophers have always had a hard time saying anything conclusive about “truth,” but I think most would agree that truth never needs the force of law and violence behind it.
“Antisemitism.” This would come close to explaining my position if I hated Semites on the mere basis of them being Semitic. I have nothing against Semites, but yes, people (including myself) don’t like Jews! Indeed, I join an illustrious group of men such as Martin Luther, Henry Ford, Voltaire, and hundreds of others in my distaste not because Jews are Jews, but because of what Jews do, like here, here, here, here, and here.
We say “no.” We rebel against your intellectual tyranny and hatred by all means, and we will fight you for every inch. Rebellion is back, and like so many times before in history, the population is waking up to what you Jews are doing.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Luke O'Farrell 15th April 2007
A night-time curfew on ordinary whites enforced by thousands of newly-recruited, heavily-armed ethnic police. A 50% tax on the earnings of ordinary whites to pay for the installation of 24/7 CCTV in their homes. And all ordinary whites to lie flat on their faces and grovel whenever approached by a non-white. Those just and reasonable measures would probably be in place right now if the recent series of murders in London had been white-on-black rather than black-on-black. Losing so much human potential is bad enough – one of the dead youths was a “talented rap musician” – but at least we know that black killers, and indeed black criminals of any kind, are never responsible for their actions. White racism, the poverty caused by white racism, and the legacy of white-invented slavery drive blacks to crime by corrupting their innate goodness, gentleness and decency.
But if a white even looks sideways at a black – let alone lifts a finger to do that precious black harm – there is no possible excuse and we must take the severest measures in response. Yes, liberal policies on race are based on a scrupulously fair division of vice and virtue. It’s a 50/50 split: Whites have all the vice and non-whites all the virtue. What could be fairer than that? I mean, c’mon, you’d have to be some kinda knuckle-dragging, snaggle-toothed, trailer-dwelling racist to think even for a moment that the following story says anything at all about the nature of blacks:
Girls chant “Kill him” as gang chases schoolboy then stabs him to death
Seven teenagers were questioned by police yesterday after a 16-year-old boy was chased by a mob and stabbed to death. The murder is the fifth involving black youths in London in the past few weeks. Witnesses say that teenage girls egged on the attack with shouts of “Kill him, kill him” before the victim, named last night as Kodjo Yenga, was surrounded. At one point Kodjo raised his arms to fend off blows from sticks. The suspects being held include four 13-year-olds, two 15-year-olds and a man aged 21.
One witness said: “There were about 15 black youths hanging around by the shops. There were girls and boys aged 15 or 16 wearing school blazers. They were getting very rowdy and the girls especially were shouting aggressively.” [Another witness] said that she saw Kodjo being followed and insulted by the group. She said: “There was a group of boys and about three girls. This black boy was in front of them. It looked like he was trying to get away. The girls were screaming, ‘Kill him, kill him’.” (The Times, 16th March 2007)
There is only one race: the human race. Indeed, there is only one form of life: DNA-based life. All of us – human beings, rats, bacteria – are part of the same big family and discriminating against blacks because they look and act a bit different is as superficial and ignorant as discriminating against rats because they look and act a bit different too. Far more unites humans and rats than divides us. Don’t rats bleed red blood just like us? Don’t they want what’s best for their kids just like us? Don’t they need food, water and shelter just like us?
Okay, you might occasionally hear of a rat biting a human, but that’s wholly unrepresentative of the wider rat community. The vast majority of rats are quiet, peaceful creatures who never bite anyone in their lives and just want the chance to improve their lot and raise a happy, healthy family. Exactly the same is true of the superficially different “races” of Homo sapiens, as Britain’s wise and far-sighted prime minister Tony Blair has pointed out:
Tony Blair justifying his existence Britain’s black communities must speak out against gang culture, Tony Blair has said as he renewed promises of tough action in the wake of a series of murders of young people. The Prime Minister insisted recent “severe disorder” was not a symptom of a wider social problem but caused by individuals who needed to be “taken out of circulation”. It would take “significantly toughened” knife and gun laws, intensive police work and the denunciation of the culprits’ communities, he told an audience in Cardiff. Mr Blair said tackling violence was the “missing dimension” to an otherwise successful regeneration of Britain’s cities.
Delivering the Callaghan Memorial Lecture, the PM said: “In respect of knife and gun gangs, the laws need to be significantly toughened. There needs to be an intensive police focus, on these groups. The ring-leaders need to be identified and taken out of circulation; if very young, as some are, put in secure accommodation. The black community – the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law-abiding people horrified at what is happening – need to be mobilised in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids. But we won’t stop this by pretending it isn’t young black kids doing it.” (The Daily Telegraph, 11th April 2007)
No pretending, d’ya hear? A few of their youngsters may misbehave, but you’ve got to understand that the vast majority of blacks are decent, law-abiding people. That’s why Tony Blair has to tell them to speak out against murder. That’s why “gang culture” has grown and flourished among blacks not just in Britain but across the Western world. That’s why handing prosperous white-run Rhodesia over to blacks has created the starving police-state of Zimbabwe. It’s all because the vast majority of blacks are decent, law-abiding people.
Well, if you believe they are, please get in touch for details of the elixir of eternal life I’ve recently invented. Only $5 a bottle! Buy two, get one free! Yep, listening to Blair denounce “pretense” is a highly surreal experience. His entire career has been based on pretense. The picture that accompanied the article above showed him in characteristic pose: mouth open, venting hot air. The French philosopher René Descartes reasoned: Cogito ergo sum – “I think therefore I am”. Bliar reasons: Loquor ergo sum – “I speak therefore I am”. He then confirms his existence by passing more authoritarian laws.
It’s true that his speech is evidence that the ice is breaking on race – perhaps his focus-groups are reporting that British whites are finally waking up – but Bliar still believes firmly in the Central Dogma of Liberalism: that words control the world. Like all other liberals, he thinks that saying a thing makes it so. “Race doesn’t exist.” “Whites and non-whites are identical under the skin.” “Drastically changing the racial composition of Europe and America is all for the best.” Say the words and the world will follow. So liberals think, and if you think different, they’ll make you suffer for it. Take a look at another story about feral black behavior:
Our boy was betrayed: Family’s agony over hounded father shot dead at home
The family of a young father gunned down on his doorstep after a seven-month campaign of intimidation last night accused police of betraying him. Bradley Tucker, 18, faces a life term after he was found guilty yesterday of murdering Peter Woodhams. But Mr Woodhams would still be alive if police had done their job properly, his father said. The 22-year-old TV satellite engineer was shot in the heart last August in front of his fiancée – 24-year-old classroom assistant Jane Bowden – and their three-year-old son Sam after a campaign of intimidation by a gang known as the Royal List Thugs. In January last year he had been slashed across the face in a confrontation with the same group of youths in East London. No one was charged with the knifing, which left Mr Woodhams permanently scarred, and the gang continued their harassment of the young father and his family. (The Daily Mail, 28th March 2007)
Peter Woodhams, white victim Bradley Tucker, black killer
Months of harassment, then casual murder
L-R: Peter Woodhams, Bradley Tucker
Many people have pointed out that there would have been one very quick and simple way for the white victim to get lots of police attention: by using “racist language” against his non-white victimizers. If he’d called them “black bastards”, the police would have come running on the double. If he’d called them “niggers”, the army would probably have been sent for. I mean, slashing someone across the face is just body-crime. Racism is thought-crime – much more serious. It completely contradicts the mission statement of the Jew-owned company that presently runs the West:
Working towards a White-Free World
The rule governing relations between whites and non-whites is that whites must give, give and go on giving until they’ve handed everything over. When non-whites do worse than whites, shrieks of horror and outrage ring out. It’s proof positive that evil white racism is at work – that those poor oppressed ethnics are being discriminated against. So what about when non-whites do better than whites? Is that proof of discrimination against whites? Is it condemned as unacceptable? No, of course not. It’s warmly welcomed, with the proviso that we still have a long way to go:
Ethnic workers “earn more in public sector”
Ambitious ethnic minority workers should sign up for a career in the public sector – where they can expect to earn almost 10 per cent more than their white colleagues – instead of suffering pay discrimination in the business world, economists have found. After several years of government spending growth, as Labour pours cash into schools and hospitals, working in the public sector has become, on average, more rewarding than a job in business, and ethnic minority workers have done particularly well.
In a paper to be presented to the Royal Economic Society’s annual conference in Warwick this week, Monojit Chatterji and Karen Mumford find that by choosing the civil service, ethnic minorities win because they not only avoid the 7.5 per cent pay gap in the private sector but also pocket a 9.3 per cent premium over white public sector staff. “Ethnic minorities earn more than others in the public sector and substantially less than others in the private sector,” the authors say.
A spokesperson for the Commission for Racial Equality welcomed the finding that ethnic minority workers are well rewarded in the public sector, but warned that many non-white workers are still stuck at the bottom of the pile. “There’s some good news in the report that shows that the public sector has become slightly more representative of the population, but unfortunately there are still vast inequalities. In the junior roles you still find large numbers of women and ethnic minority workers and at the top you find a small amount of white, middle-class men. These problems won’t be solved overnight and it’s worrying to see how far we need to go,” the CRE spokesperson said. (The Observer, 8th April 2007)
Tony Bliar denouncing “pretense” is surreal. So is a “spokesperson” for the Commission for Racial Equality welcoming news of racial inequality: non-whites earning nearly 10% more than whites. But “Orwellian” is an even better description of the CRE. In the fictional Britain of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Ministry of Peace worked for war, the Ministry of Plenty for famine, and the Ministry of Love for pain and misery. In Tony Bliar’s real Britain, the Commission for Racial Equality works for racial inequality. Why are non-whites paid more than whites in the public sector? Simple: because objective standards of performance and behavior are not applied to them there. They get jobs because of their skin-color and they won’t lose those jobs unless they go too far even for the fawning liberals who hired them. Stories like this are all too familiar on both sides of the Atlantic:
Jail sentence for NHS fraudster
Nigerian Joseph Oduguwa, one of Britain's countless black criminals A “greedy” hospital manager who helped steal £585,000 [$995,000] from an NHS [National Health Service] trust has been jailed for four years. Joy Henry, 47, was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court for her part in the fraud, believed to be one of the biggest against a single NHS trust. She siphoned money from King’s College NHS Trust over four years, and split the proceeds with her then boyfriend. Henry, a member of the trust’s in-house employment service, added a string of “ghost workers” to the payroll. She then pocketed some of the money they earned. Much of the money had been spent on luxury items, including an Audi convertible car, several holidays in her native Nigeria and many first-class trips to the US. Some £155,000 of the money was said to have been handed to her former boyfriend, Joseph Oduguwa, 42, who is believed to have fled to Nigeria. (BBC News, 24th February 2006)
Five years’ jail for compulsive liar who posed as forensic expert
Gene Morrison, black 'forensic expert' A [black] conman who built his career posing as a forensic expert to dupe victims out of thousands of pounds was jailed for five years yesterday, as police began the task of re-investigating 700 cases in which he was involved. Gene Morrison, 48, bluffed and lied his way through hundreds of trials, for almost three decades, fooling judges, barristers, solicitors and their clients into believing he was qualified. He left school with no qualifications but gave evidence in cases involving armed robbery, rape, death by dangerous driving, unexplained death, drugs offences and questioned paternity. His methods, relying heavily on using bone fide experts and then charging clients double, were unorthodox and unprofessional. He had told one grieving couple that the unexplained death of their son was suicide and charged them £16,500 [$31,000] for work they had never commissioned. (The Guardian, 23rd February 2007)
Prescott employee and wife jailed for £800,000 swindle
I couldn't find a real picture of Robert Adewunmi, but he probably looks something like this A former employee of [the government minister] John Prescott’s office who created a fake housing association to steal £867,000 [$1,470,000] has been jailed for four years. Robert Adewunmi, 32, pretended to be a chartered accountant to get his job and then funded a “lavish lifestyle” for himself and his wife with the money he stole. His wife, Tami, 33, who was a director and secretary of the housing association, was jailed for six months. The couple bought a house in Slough, three in Florida, a timeshare in Florida, a conservatory for their home, cars and three plots of land in Epsom with the stolen money. They also bought a £43,000 investment portfolio, a £10,000 bed, £9,000 of computer equipment, £3,000 of family portraits and photographs, and paid £10,000 off their mortgage.
The court had heard that Mr Adewunmi obtained a job in the budget and data management department of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as a trouble-shooter in August 2003 by claiming to be a qualified chartered accountant. But although he had registered as a student with the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, he would have had to have passed a further 14 exams to qualify. A month later he invented RTR Housing Association and began making payments to it. Several of the couple’s friends and relations were listed as directors of the housing association. (The Daily Telegraph, 10th March 2006)
Meanwhile, our vibrant Muslim community help keep Britain booming with suicide-bombs. Even liberals couldn’t ignore that sign of how their racial pieties have failed, so the government commissioned a report into how we can “teach Britishness”. Its fatuous proposals have now been condemned by yet another of countless non-whites who have gained their positions not on their merit or intelligence, but on their skin-color:
Britishness lessons “fuel racism”
Baljeet Ghale, leading NUTThe first ethnic minority president of the National Union of Teachers has said ministers fuel racism by ordering schools to teach “British values”. London assistant head teacher Baljeet Ghale told the union’s annual conference that Britain did not have a monopoly on free speech and tolerance. The move only fuelled the “shadow of racism” behind some notions of Britishness, she said. A government spokesman dismissed her claims as “nonsense”.
Ms Ghale, who came to England from Kenya at the age of eight, also criticised Labour’s record on other education issues. She said Education Secretary Alan Johnson had described the “values we hold very dear in Britain” as “free speech, tolerance, respect for the rule of law”. “Well, in what way, I’d like to know, are these values that are not held by the peoples of other countries?” she asked. It was another example of government making policy without talking to those it would most affect. She wanted an education system that valued diversity and accepted her right to support Tottenham Hotspur [a soccer team in London] – but France in the European Cup, Brazil in the World Cup, Kenya in the Olympics and India in cricket but England in the Ashes [a cricket competition against Australia]. She went on: “None of my affiliations make me a less valuable person or less committed to being part of this society, but they do make me a global citizen.”
In her wider attack on Labour’s record, the NUT president gave examples of failures in the school rebuilding programme, such as a new roof on part of a school being removed because the supplier had not been paid. She said the money being spent on academies should be spread more widely around the system and she highlighted the smaller class sizes enjoyed by pupils in Cuba. She called for the end of national testing and league tables and accused the government of having a negative and low expectation of pupils. (BBC News, 7th April 2007)
You might have thought it impossible to make Labour’s proposals look sensible and intelligent, but this ethnic high-flier managed it with ease. She told her audience – packed with fawning white liberals – that she’d like to know “in what way” values like free speech and tolerance are ”not held by the peoples of other countries”. She then “highlighted the smaller class sizes enjoyed by pupils in Cuba”. Did any of those fawning white liberals ask themselves whether free speech and tolerance are firmly-held values in Cuba? Or Zimbabwe? Or Burma? I very much doubt it. They were almost certainly too busy waiting to leap to their feet for the “standing ovation” that Ghale had an inalienable right, as a vibrant ethnic half-wit, to receive at the end of her speech.
And do you think Ghale herself believes in free speech and tolerance? Yeah, about as much as rattlesnakes believe in turning the other cheek. But I agree with her that there are very serious problems in British education. And not just British education. She herself is an excellent symbol of the most serious problem of all: the presence of non-whites in Western schools. If you’ve been fortunate enough to escape the reality, imagine what it must be like for white children to share a school with feral blacks or almost equally feral Muslims or Hispanics. White liberals certainly know what it’s like. That’s why they ensure their own children don’t go to ethnically enriched schools. But “White Flight” is as rational as escaping a fire on the first floor by climbing to the second floor and hoping the fire won’t follow you. Well, unless someone puts it out, it will follow you. And unless someone puts out the fire of mass immigration and ethnic enrichment, it will follow liberals no matter how high they climb. The West is on fire and letting ethnic arsonists like Bradley Tucker, Robert Adewunmi and Baljeet Ghale remain here is a sure way to keep it burning.
The five European MPs sponsoring the declaration would like to see racism and hate speech banished from the Internet completely, starting with Europe. Should European ISPs not go along, the MPs will try to get the European Commission to enact legislation on the issue, reports Heise Online.
Currently, the EU runs the Safer Internet Plus program, which intends to "promote safer use of the Internet" while fighting against "illegal content and content unwanted by" end users. The MPs are calling on the EC to act within the framework of that program to force ISPs to take hate speech and racist web sites online.
The MPs efforts to ban hate speech face the same fundamental obstacles that other legislative efforts to govern content on the Internet run into. For everything from hate speech to digital piracy, the Internet's carefully designed lack of respect for international borders always thwarts efforts to eradicate certain types of content from the 'Net as a whole.
A related problem that afflicts European anti-hate speech legislation in particular is that laws defining illegal speech differ markedly from one country to the next. It may be illegal to sell Nazi memorabilia in Germany, but keeping eBay's online auctions completely free of such stuff has posed a problem precisely because it's not illegal to sell it in other countries.
TAIPEI (Reuters) - A Taipei restaurant-bar is letting visitors order "medicine" from a menu and dripping it into their glasses from a transparent ceiling-suspended vat, becoming the latest oddball themed restaurant in Taiwan's capital.
As many as 10 visitors can sit around each bed at the D.S. Music Restaurant, a hospital-themed eatery, and watch showgirls dance on weekend nights or chat up "nurses" whose rabbit-ears complement their starched white uniforms.
The Jail puts some of its restaurant tables behind bars, while another serves full-course meals in toilet bowls.
Years ago, a Taipei bistro tried a Holocaust theme, but eventually removed items and photos reminiscent of Nazi Germany brutality under pressure from Jewish groups.
The Jew is a peculiar creature to say the least. They are characterized by large noses, love of Satan, hatred of Jesus, and love of gold, gems and everything shiny. The average Jew is terribly weak and as a result cannot engage in melee fighting. Because they lack any significant strength, the only close quarter combat they practice is slicing their dicks with small razor sharp knives. Whenever they need to destroy an opponent they silently take over the means of production within their enemy’s society. The best tactic used by these pesky trolls has been to import large amounts of wild Negro dancers from Africa into their foe’s society and enact laws and regulations under which the original people are overrun and out danced by the Negros until they are extinct. The Jew has a close affinity with bagels and abstract art (art that means nothing to anyone unless you’re really fucking stoned and you like pretty colors). Female Jews can be found in large groups hunting and scavenging in Bloomingdales whilst the males prefer Banks, Courts, and Government offices. They are a greedy species and will cheat one another for a shinny penny if necessary. The Jews’ achievements include the creation of masons, communism, abstract art, propaganda, nigger expansion, anti-Christianity, Hollywood, IRS, and Woody Allen.
The younger male Jews can throw their razor sharp hats like a boomerang whilst the older ones can easily crush all white people in a given city with propaganda, - although this particular attack takes a decade or two to cast. The female Jew can kill a man swiftly and silently by letting him fuck her and then releasing the poison acid in her vagina to burn his dick off. Sometimes the female Jew will create a child with a non Jew just so the child can eat the father upon its birth. Both males and females of this dreadful species are extremely hazardous and a Gentile (non-jew) should exercise extreme caution at all times.
Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920. Page 5.
ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
By the Rt. Hon. WINSTON S. CHURCHILL.
Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: "The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews." Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli's confident assertion.
Good and Bad Jews.The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilisation.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
"National" Jews.There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men -- good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent -- in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.
At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews, two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life, and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, "I am an Englishman practising the Jewish faith." This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the "National Jews" in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia's economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of friendship with France and Great Britain.
International Jews.In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Terrorist Jews.There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.
"Protector of the Jews."Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin's authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
A Home for the Jews.Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and a centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project, backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.
Duty of Loyal Jews.It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Posted by alex in Alex Linder, Knoxville rally at 7:43 am | Permanent Link
By Alex Linder
Congratulations, people! We have already accomplished one of the main goals of our Knoxville rally: getting the most horrific crime ever committed on the North American continent into the MSM. The Kikencrust has been breached - solely due to Internet pressure, and friend, that means VNN. That means all you posting here and at VNNFORUM.com, and all you making those wonderful branded videos. Make no mistake - without your efforts, Geraldo and Juan NEVER would have mentioned this unspeakable crime. Don’t fool yourself for a minute. They aren’t bothered by the crime - they are bothered by others being bothered by it.
Our pressure has forced the media to their backup position: they have retreated from denying that the crime happened to overt lying, with their dirty, filthy, completely untrue insinuations that the innocent White victims were seeking drugs or partying where they shouldn’t have been. We have scared the media, and they haven’t seen anything yet. You hear me Jerry Rivers, you lying jew? You hear me Juan Williams, you lying nigger?
GREAT JOB, EVERYBODY! TOGETHER WE SHALL OVERCOME!
On Sunday, April 15, 2007, both Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams mentioned the crime on major cable news channels. A woman named Banderas read out many of the horrible details to a gasping, obvlious viewership.
What they said wasn’t put in the right context, but that’s not the point, and that goes without saying in any case. The point is that the Channon Christian/Christopher Newsom double rape/torture/murder will only grow, grow, grow in the eyes and ears and brains of the, cough, highly conditioned adult kindergartners who make up the American public.
Keep pushing, boys and girls!
NO WAY OUT BUT THROUGH THE JEW
Following is a blog mention of Christian/Newsom. Feel free to post any blog mentions you see, too, both here and at VNNFORUM.com.
We know the media are controlled by jews, and false-fronted by pretty appeasers. That puts the onus on us to report the truth about what’s going on in AmeriKwa, the term millions are using to denote America-under-the-jews, the nasty, nigger-first, human-last “culture” vibrating out of a wigger’s car near you.
IF NOT US, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
Friday, April 13, 2007
BOO HOO. Watsonville emerges as the butt of a sick joke on White, e.g. Real America. Before all-white Watsonville was ethnically cleansed and replaced by gang bangers and slum lords, it was a gem of rolling hills and quaint country homes. Now its a pile of shit filled by volatile America-hating aliens. THANKS JEWS.
By Carol Lloyd, Special to SF Gate
Friday, April 13, 2007
When Alberto and Rosa Ramirez began looking for a home, they never imagined that 18 months later they would personify a national real estate crisis. It's not that they bought a house with walls crawling with toxic mold or inherited an insane neighbor next door or, even, God forbid, that they didn't buy at all. They bought, and they love, their slice of the American Dream.
"It's all very nice and beautiful," Rosa tells me through a translator. "The neighborhood is very peaceful. The problem is not with the house at all. It's the price of the house."
Indeed, in a different era (when housing prices were lower), their story might have been one of those bootstrap tales about homeownership transforming immigrant lives. The husband and wife work as strawberry pickers in the fields around Watsonville, and each earns about $300 a week. They have three children. Not only did they dream the impossible dream, they managed to finance it.
It all began when they were talking to another family about escaping their subsidized apartments and getting a real house. The other couple -- Jesus Martinez and his wife, who also have three children -- work as mushroom farmers, earning about $500 a week each when there is work. The two couples decided to pool their resources and begin house-hunting. Given their total income, they estimated that they could afford payments of $3,000 a month. They spotted an ad in the local magazine La Ganga for Maria Avila of Rancho Grande Real Estate and called her.
"We wanted to live in Watsonville," says Rosa. "But [the real estate agent] said the houses there were older and more expensive." One of the first homes they were shown was a "new" four-bedroom, two-bath house in Hollister for $720,000. When the Ramirez's heard the price, they worried that they couldn't afford it.
But the couple says that their real estate agent and broker reassured them it was possible. "The monthly payment was supposed to be $4,800, but then after we bought it, it went up to $5,378," says Rosa, speaking of their zero-down mortgage with a one-month "teaser rate." "Our agent told us that once we refinanced, we could get the payments down to $3,000 or less." For a number of months Avila, who arranged for the loan with New Century Mortgage, paid the difference between what the buyers had said they could afford -- $3,000 -- and the actual loan payment. According to the buyers, this arrangement was supposed to carry them over until the group refinanced.
The money-saving refinance failed to materialize, and eventually, Avila stopped subsidizing their current mortgage. (According to my analysis of interest rates during the period, hitting the magic $3,000 number would have been virtually impossible under any circumstances. An interest-only $720,000 loan at a miraculous 5 percent interest rate [15-year fixed] yields a $3,000 mortgage, but such low mortgage rates weren't available to anyone, much less a laborer with low income, no down payment and no other assets. Plus, that doesn't count another $750 a month in taxes and insurance.) The two families stayed on the same loan, sometimes sacrificing basic necessities, other times borrowing more. "It was very difficult," Rosa says. "Sometimes we would eat less, and we took out personal loans from Bank of America."
(Maria Avila and Rancho Grande Real Estate declined to comment for this story. Earlier this month, New Century Mortgage, the nation's second largest subprime mortgage lender, filed for bankruptcy. It's also facing a federal criminal probe.)
Last November, the families stopped paying their mortgage and sought the advice of Pamela Simmons, an attorney who specializes in predatory-lending cases. Upon reviewing the loan documents, they discovered more bad news. Despite the intention that both couples would be buying the home together (they'd submitted income information for three of the four buyers), the loan was made exclusively in Alberto Ramirez's name. This meant that he was solely responsible for the debt. The couple also discovered that the home wasn't nearly as valuable as they thought: When a new real estate agent valued the house, he told them he'd list it between $560,000 and $580,000. They have sent a letter of demand to Rancho Grande, claiming the brokers breached their fiduciary duties by selling Alberto Ramirez a home he couldn't afford.
How did a strawberry picker earning $15,000 a year qualify for a loan of $720,000? The answer, say the experts, lies in a lending industry that got too innovative for its own good.
Last week, a coalition of civil rights groups, including the National Council of La Raza, the Center for Responsible Lending and the NAACP, called for a national six-month moratorium on foreclosures -- after observing that the subprime crisis disproportionately affected minorities. "The point is to just take time out and provide services to families who might be vulnerable as a result of payment shock," says Janice Bowdler, senior policy analyst for housing for the National Council of La Raza, referring to the hybrid loans that begin with low fixed rates, then jump to adjustable-rate mortgages. Bowdler adds that they are hoping many homeowners can avoid foreclosure by taking advantage of such financial tools as changing their current loan terms or refinancing.
Read the rest here
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
"More than four in five California voters support giving legal residence to illegal immigrants, according to a statewide public opinion poll to be released today."
Oh Yeah? According to who? Not me... not my family.. not my friends.. WHO?!?
"It's important that we get a bill done," Bush said Monday. "We deserve a system that secures our borders, and honors our proud history as a nation of immigrants."
Will someone please start packing the guns? These kikes, and piece of shit traitor JORGE BUSH must go NOW.
Read the rest of chronicle's kike/marxist garbage HERE.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Associated Press- The percentage of major league baseball players born outside the 50 states increased slightly to a near record level.
Of the 849 players on rosters at the start of the season, 246 were born outside the 50 states, the commissioner's office said Tuesday. That comes to 29 percent, up from 27.4 percent last year and near the record 29.2 percent set in 2005.
The Dominican Republic had the most non-U.S. players with 98, followed by Venezuela (51), Puerto Rico (28), Canada (19), Japan and Mexico (13 each), Panama (seven), Cuba (six), South Korea (three), Colombia and Taiwan (two apiece), and Aruba, Australia, Curacao and Nicaragua (one apiece).
Proudly the Jews and their leftist pawns proclaim the success of their subversion. Unfortunately for them, its not over yet.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Dancers from Synergy Studios strike a pose after performing “Dance Medley” Friday at the Watsonville High School Dance Club Scholarship Fundraiser at the Henry J. Mello Center.
Cesar Chavez weekend began with a whirl of salsa, meringue, folkloric and hip-hop Friday in the Henry J. Mello Center in downtown Watsonville.
High-energy dancing rallied the crowd of more than 200 high school students, parents and people from the entire community for the event put on by the Watsonville High School Dance Club.
“I told the guys, ‘Don’t be nervous, just go out there and dance,’” hip-hop dancer Luis Sanchez said.
Sanchez, who choreographed the hip-hop group’s dances along with his friend Noel Chavez said he first got into dancing because he likes the hip-hop culture.
This kind of crap has become the dominant culture in very large regions of the nation formerly called America. When do real Americans get to start shooting?
Sunday, April 1, 2007
By Dr. Kevin MacDonald
This is a response to a review by John Derbyshire of my book, The Culture of Critique, that appeared in The American Conservative. In an earlier article, Derbyshire described himself as philo-Semite who traces his attitudes on Jews to his pleasant childhood memories of a local Jewish family and “the numberless kindnesses that I have received at the hands of Jews, friendships I treasure and lessons I have learnt. I cherish those recollections.”3
I find myself now, in middle age, with complicated and sometimes self-contradictory feelings about the Jews. Those early impressions — culture, wit, intelligence, kindness, and hospitality — are still dominant, and I have read enough to know what a stupendous debt our civilization owes to the Jews. At the same time, there are aspects of distinctly Jewish ways of thinking that I dislike very much. The world-perfecting idealism, for example, that is rooted in the most fundamental premises of Judaism, has, it seems to me, done great harm in the modern age…. I also find the theories of Kevin Macdonald (The Culture of Critique) about the partly malign influence of Jews on modern American culture very persuasive — though this is not an endorsement of Macdonald’s theory of “group evolutionary strategies” which I do not understand. And like (I suppose) every other Gentile, I have often been irritated by Jewish sensibilities, and occasionally angered by them.4
These earlier comments on The Culture of Critique appeared in April, 2001. Derbyshire’s evaluation of the book (and its author) has changed a bit, perhaps because the edition reviewed in The American Conservative contains a new preface that tilts the balance in my writing even more on the side of the negative.
For Derbyshire, evaluating Jews is like a business ledger: There are positives and negatives, and for him, the positives vastly outweigh the negatives. However, providing a balance ledger of credits and debits is not a purpose of The Culture of Critique. My purpose is to document Jewish intellectual and political movements — movements led by Jews and motivated by perceptions that these movements would advance Jewish interests. I have tried to document all such movements that I am aware of, but this is not the same as documenting Jewish contributions to civilization or culture. As I note in the Preface, Albert Einstein’s work — obviously an important contribution to physics — does not qualify as a Jewish intellectual movement because it was not motivated by advancing Jewish interests (even though Einstein was a strongly identified Jew). Similarly, my book has no interest in recording fond memories of individual Jews that seem to have formed Derbyshire’s intellectual outlook.
As a result of his generally positive attitude about Jews and Judaism, Derbyshire is, apart from some minor irritations, quite uncritical about Jewish motives and influence, even when they conflict with the interests of people like himself. He implies that non-Jews should understand Jewish motivation to break down the ethnic homogeneity of their own societies while advancing the interests of Israel as an ethnostate. We non-Jews should understand such Jewish behavior because these outcomes are good for Jews. But, somehow he fails to follow through with this logic, imputing malice to people like me who are concerned about the future of their own people in societies where they are becoming minorities surrounded by groups that, like Jews, harbor deep historically conditioned hatreds toward them. It is quite an extraordinary omission and lapse in consistency by Derbyshire. In the end, the logic is as follows: Jews have made wonderful contributions to civilization. Therefore, non-Jews should welcome Jewish efforts to advance their interests even when they conflict with their own. As Derbyshire himself says in another context, the only thing to say of those who voice such sentiments is what Shakespeare’s Bianca would have said: “The more fool they.”
Derbyshire lives in a sort of childlike world in which Jewish interests are legitimate and where Jewish attempts to pursue their interests, though they may occasionally be irritating, are not really a cause for concern much less malice. It doesn’t require an evolutionary theory to realize that good, reasonable people can have conflicts of interest, and that the results of conflicts of interest can be devastating to the side that loses. My view is that modern evolutionary theory gives us a powerful way of understanding why this must be so. Anti-Semites have often portrayed Jews as the embodiment of evil. Consistent with evolutionary theory, however, I have documented that Jews tend to be highly intelligent, good parents, and patriots fighting to preserve their people and extend their people’s power and influence — sometimes at the expense of the interests of other peoples. Many organized groups of Jews have pursued such conservative goals by resisting other groups and behaving aggressively against them. By the same logic, it is legitimate for non-Jews to defend their own ethnic interests. Is this a formula for perpetual conflict? Hopefully not, but the only hope for a just resolution is to recognize the nature of the situation and agree on terms, not to deny the importance of one’s own interests.
Derbyshire’s review begins with a chilling account of how critics of Jews simply disappear from sight — their professional horizons diminished if not entirely ended. One thinks of people like Joe Sobran, William Cash,5 and a host of politicians who have had the temerity to criticize Israel or American support for Israel, or who have called attention to Jewish power and influence in particular areas. Jewish groups have made any critical discussion of Jewish issues off limits, and that’s vitally important because, yes, Jews are a very powerful group. What Derbyshire refers to as Jewish “world-perfecting idealism” is very much with us and is still wreaking havoc in the modern world, everywhere from the erection of a multi-cultural police state in the United States — the origins of which are the general topic of The Culture of Critique — to the current war for the “liberation” and “democratization” of Iraq, a war that is being fomented by Jewish neo-conservative activists based in the Bush administration, congressional lobbying organizations, and the media.6 As with other examples of Jewish idealism, the destruction of Iraq is shrouded in a lofty moral idealism aimed ultimately at securing a rather obvious Jewish ethnic goal — Israeli hegemony throughout the Middle East. That these latest examples of Jewish “world perfecting idealism” also happen to conform rather obviously to Jewish ethnic interests should be of concern to all non-Jews.
Derbyshire dismisses evolutionary psychology as a passing fad, and asks, sarcastically, if in criticizing evolutionary psychology, he is pursuing his own evolutionary goals. Well, maybe. Most of what we humans do is connected only distantly to evolutionary goals. For example, quite a few evolutionary psychologists propose an evolved goal of social status based on commonly accepted standards of scientific evidence,7 but we are very flexible in how we achieve such goals. And it does occur to me that writing critiques of evolutionary psychology and dismissing those who criticize Jews might be one way to attain social status among the predominantly Jewish neo-conservative elite that dominates so much of the conservative media.
Derbyshire complains about my statement that, “The human mind was not designed to seek truth but rather to attain evolutionary goals.” I was merely expressing a principle of evolutionary biology that has been of fundamental importance since the revolution inaugurated by G. C. Williams and culminating in E. O. Wilson’s synthesis: Organisms are not designed to communicate truthfully with others but to persuade them — to manipulate them to serve their interests. We should expect deception and self-deception to be at the very heart of interactions among organisms. This is the subtext of The Culture of Critique: The beguilingly irresistible theories masking an ethnic agenda. I too was once enthralled by psychoanalysis and Marxism.
Derbyshire supposes that the idea of a group evolutionary strategy may be “complete nonsense.” Freed of technical jargon, a group evolutionary strategy refers to the ways people structure groups in order to get on in the world — to attain group goals such regulating their own members (e.g., preventing them from defecting, promoting cooperation with ingroup members, promoting eugenic marriages) and dealing with outsiders (e.g., having different ethical standards for ingroup versus outgroup). I discuss how Jews accomplished these tasks in traditional societies in my book, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, and I recently applied this sort of analysis to several other groups, including the Overseas Chinese, in the paperback version of that book.8 There are several other good sources, including David Sloan Wilson’s Darwin’s Cathedral,9 where, among other examples, the early Christian Church is described as a non-ethnic form of Judaism that was adaptive at the level of the group in navigating the uncertainties of the ancient world.
My analysis describes the powerful social and psychological forces that have maintained Jewish group loyalty. Derbyshire asks, “From an evolutionary point of view, would not the optimum strategy for almost any European Jew at almost any point from AD 79 to AD 1800 or so have been conversion to Christianity?” But the question is not whether an omniscient Jew in the Middle Ages would choose to remain a Jew, but what forces have kept Jewish groups together over the centuries while other groups have been assimilated or otherwise disappeared. Even if individual Jews would have been better off defecting (some did!), the vast majority did not because of sanctions against relatives who remained Jews, because of powerful, psychologically salient ethnic and kinship ties to other Jews, because of the high level of social and material support available in Jewish communities, because of hostility toward Jews emanating from the wider society, and probably because, despite periodic troubles, Jews were remarkably successful in many times and places, including the medieval period.
Despite Derbyshire’s claim, it is simply not the case that Jews have only been successful since “emancipation.” Jews have very frequently achieved powerful positions: ancient Alexandria and the late Roman Empire; parts of Western Europe during the Middle Ages prior to the expulsions of Jews from most of Western Europe; the Turkish Empire after the fall of the Byzantine Christians and many other places where Jews served alien ruling elites, especially in the Muslim world (e.g., Spain after the Muslim conquest); Christian Spain beginning at least by the late 14th century and extending well into the period of the Inquisition; Poland and other areas of Eastern Europe beginning in the early modern period and extending into the 20th century.10 Perhaps most notably, the elite status of Jews in the Soviet Union had little or nothing to do with the opportunities made available by the Enlightenment, since the Enlightenment had little impact on the Russian Empire.
Group strategies don’t need outgroups. The main thing is that there is group-level organization that regulates individual behavior to conform to group goals. Derbyshire mentions Chinese eugenics, but as important as eugenics may be for understanding the Chinese, it does not necessarily imply a group evolutionary strategy. The most obvious explanation is that the emperor wanted the more intelligent people to run the civil service, and, given the Chinese practice of polygyny and the benefits of high social status, this had a eugenic effect. But this can be easily explained by self-interest on the part of everyone involved; no need to invoke the effects of group structure on individual behavior. On the other hand, in the recent paperback edition of A People that Shall Dwell Alone, I argue that the Overseas Chinese qualify as a group strategy because they live as an organized group among outgroups; they have a consciousness of themselves as being of a different ethnic group than their hosts, they are internally organized (but not nearly so tightly as traditional Jewish communities), and they cooperate in economic enterprises.
Derbyshire rejects my argument that without Jewish involvement, the Bolshevik Revolution and its horrific aftermath would not have happened. The percentage of Jews in early Bolshevik Party congresses is irrelevant to this issue. The questions I ask are: Would the Revolution have occurred without the key involvement of a relatively small number of very talented Jews like Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, and Uritsky who played such prominent roles in the Bolshevik Revolution and the early Soviet government? (In the same way, one can reasonably ask whether the neo-conservative revolution in U.S. foreign policy would have happened without the critical contributions of Richard Perle, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, and David Wurmser, to name only some of the most prominent Jews involved. Small numbers of highly talented, closely cooperating people can have enormous influence.) Would the Revolution have been sustainable in its early stages without the involvement of large sections of the Jewish community who came to staff the Soviet bureaucracy, most notably the Secret Police? Were the most powerful non-Jews accurately described as philo-Semites — “Jewified non-Jews,” to use Albert S. Lindemann’s term?11 Were Jews an elite group in the Soviet Union at least until anti-Jewish attitudes began to be government policy after World War II? Did Jewish Communists and other leftists in the Soviet Union and elsewhere identify as Jews? I see no reason to change my views on these issues as a result of Derbyshire’s comments.
Similarly, Derbyshire states that Jews “were not the sole, nor even the prime, movers in [the] downfall” of European dominance in the U.S. without providing a concrete alternative. I have never stated that Jewish intellectual movements and interest groups were the sole force, but I do indeed maintain that they were by far the most important. On the critical topic of immigration, there simply was no other force that energetically pursued the goal of multi-ethnic immigration in the period prior to 1965 apart from Jewish organizations or organizations composed partly of non-Jews that were funded, organized and staffed by Jews.12 I am scarcely alone in this opinion. Consider these comments of Vanderbilt University historian Hugh Davis Graham:
Most important for the content of immigration reform [i.e., loosening], the driving force at the core of the movement, reaching back to the 1920s, were Jewish organizations long active in opposing racial and ethnic quotas. These included the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and the American Federation of Jews from Eastern Europe. Jewish members of the Congress, particularly representatives from New York and Chicago, had maintained steady but largely ineffective pressure against the national origins quotas since the 1920s…. Following the shock of the Holocaust, Jewish leaders had been especially active in Washington in furthering immigration reform. To the public, the most visible evidence of the immigration reform drive was played by Jewish legislative leaders, such as Representative Celler and Senator Jacob Javits of New York. Less visible, but equally important, were the efforts of key advisers on presidential and agency staffs. These included senior policy advisers such as Julius Edelson and Harry Rosenfield in the Truman administration, Maxwell Rabb in the Eisenhower White House, and presidential aide Myer Feldman, assistant secretary of state Abba Schwartz, and deputy attorney general Norbert Schlei in the Kennedy-Johnson administration.
And beyond the transformations being wrought by the sea change in immigration policy, I think it inconceivable that the current regime of what Derbyshire terms “racial guilt, shame, apology, and recompense, accompanied by heroic efforts at social engineering (’affirmative action’)” could have been built without the influence of the intellectual and political movements described in The Culture of Critique. As Derbyshire notes, this regime is inherently far less stable than what went before, and one can only shudder at what the future holds throughout the Western world.
It is always difficult to imagine that 3% of the population could have such enormous influence on culture and public policy, but successful lobbying efforts by small, committed special interests are commonplace in American politics, not only among ethnic lobbies but among business interests, farming groups, unions, professional organizations, and even gun enthusiasts. An obvious example is U.S. policy in the Middle East. Here we have a record of an incredibly effective, well-funded, intensive lobbying effort carried out over several decades. The historical evidence reviewed in Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique shows that Jewish organizations carried out a similar campaign in an effort to alter U.S. immigration laws and that they were by far the most important force in changing these laws, often taking pride in the part they played.
Derbyshire does not think it hypocritical for Jews to promote multiculturalism in the U.S. while wishing to maintain Jewish ethnic dominance in Israel. The hypocrisy comes from the fact that, as I note in Chapter 8 of The Culture of Critique, the Jewish advocacy of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate coincided with a major effort by Jewish organizations and Jewish-dominated intellectual and political movements to supplant the prevailing view of the United States as a European Christian civilization with a European ethnic base. Especially hypocritical is that the disestablishment of the European basis of American identity was performed with appeal to universalist Enlightenment ideals of justice and individual rights, while it pathologized the ethnocultural basis of American civilization that had become an important foundation of American identity by the early decades of the 20th century. Although it is common for defenders of Israel to describe Israel as a democracy based on Western political ideals, I have yet to see any important Jewish organization or intellectual movement pathologize the ethnic basis of Israeli society or challenge the many ways in which Jewish ethnic interests are officially recognized in Israeli law and custom (e.g., the Law of Return). Indeed, the American Jewish community has been complicit in the ongoing ethnic warfare in the Middle East that has resulted in the dispossession, degradation, and large-scale murder of the Palestinians.
Derbyshire accuses me of being one of those who would prefer “a return to the older dispensation” — the older cultural and ethnic mix characteristic of the United States until the changes inaugurated in the last 35 years. I plead guilty to this charge. That regime was stable and it was good for people like me (and Derbyshire), and even for the American Jewish community who saw the modest, low-profile, non-violent character of anti-Jewish attitudes that were fairly common prior to World War II dwindle to irrelevance in the postwar period. Nothing wrong with that.
The dispossession of Europeans is the ultimate defeat — an evolutionary event of catastrophic proportions for people of European descent. Whatever the contributions of Jewish “entrepreneurs, jurists, philanthropists, entertainers, publishers, and legions upon legions of scholars,” they could never make up for this cataclysmic loss and for the political instability and chronic ethnic tensions that have been unleashed by the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique. Further, as The Culture of Critique attempts to document, a very high percentage of the Jewish contribution to culture has been used to advance Jewish ethnic interests. The only exceptions are advances in technology and basic science, but does anyone seriously suppose that technological advances like the atomic bomb mentioned by Derbyshire would never have been discovered without Jews? (Germany, certainly, was very close.) It may be that these advances would have taken longer, but there is no question that they would have happened without Jews. After all, with a mean IQ of 100 and far larger numbers, European populations undoubtedly have far more individuals of the requisite IQ to make the stupendous contributions to culture that have occurred in recent centuries.
Western cultures have produced a long list of ethnically European geniuses in every field of science and art, from Plato and Aristotle down to the present. Pity the poor English who expelled the Jews in the Middle Ages and were thus restricted to the meager cultural contributions of Chaucer, Milton, Shakespeare, Newton, and Darwin even as they vastly expanded their numbers and the territory controlled by their people. Can anyone seriously suppose that the West would be unable to produce a brilliant high culture without Jews or that the Jewish contribution is of irreplaceable value? And recall that my argument in The Culture of Critique is that many of the most important Jewish contributions to culture were facilitated not only by high IQ but by closely cooperating, mutually reinforcing groups of Jews who were centered around charismatic leaders and excluded dissenters. In other words, their accomplishments are due in large part to the fundamental cultural forms of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy, not to any inherent worth in what was produced. The sorry records of psychoanalysis, Boasian anthropology, Marxism, and the Frankfurt School are far more a testimony to Jewish identity and group cohesion than they are to anything resembling science.
Derbyshire acknowledges that the Jewish contributions to culture discussed in The Culture of Critique have been made with an eye to advancing Jewish ethnic interests. This is certainly a very sizeable portion of the entire Jewish contribution to culture during the period I discuss, but advancing Jewish interests by contributing to culture goes far beyond these movements. As I attempt to show in the preface to the recent paperback edition of The Culture of Critique, Jewish contributions to entertainment and the media have often had the function of promoting positive images of Judaism and multi-culturalism and negative images of Christianity and European ethnic interests and identification. Derbyshire describes his love of songs like White Christmas that have come to define how Christmas is experienced. However, such songs are also part of the Kulturkampf in which Christmas has been converted into a secular and commercialized event; as such it represents a kind of cultural subversion. As Philip Roth noted, “God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then he gave Irving Berlin Easter Parade and White Christmas, the two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ … and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow.”13 In recent decades, a major thrust of Jewish influence on culture has been the promotion of the Holocaust as the fundamental moral touchstone and intellectual paradigm of the contemporary Western world. (I recently came across a reference stating that there have been over 170 Holocaust films since 1989.14)
Jewish entrepreneurs and philanthropists may have indeed contributed to economic growth, but they have also lavishly funded Jewish causes — causes that typically oppose the ethnic interests of European Americans. Jews constitute more than a quarter of the people on the Forbes Magazine list of the richest four hundred Americans, 45% of the top 40 richest Americans, and one-third of all American multimillionaires.15The beneficiaries of this wealth include 4000 foundations controlled by Jews and 300 national Jewish organizations, the latter with a combined budget estimated in the range of $6 billion — a sum greater than the gross national product of half the members of the United Nations. Jewish entrepreneurs and philanthropists like hedge-fund manager Michael Steinhardt, Charles and Edgar Bronfman (co-chairs of the Seagram Company), bingo parlor magnate Irving Moskowitz (who funds the settler movement in Israel), the notorious Marc Rich (who funds Birthright Israel, a program aimed at raising Jewish consciousness), George Soros (who funds pro-immigration organizations in the United States and in a variety of European countries), film maker Steven Spielberg (head of the Shoah and Righteous Persons foundations), Leslie Wexner (owner of the Limited and Victoria’s Secret), Laurence Tisch (chairman of the Loews Corporation), Charles Schusterman (owner of an oil-and-gas business in Tulsa), and Mort Mandel of Cleveland (former distributor of electronics parts) have used their money to advance Jewish causes such as Israel and increasing Jewish consciousness and commitment among Jews.16 Wealthy Jews are by far the largest contributors to the Democratic Party and are very significant contributors to the Republican party,17 ensuring that Jewish interests will be heeded throughout the U.S. political spectrum. Whether Jewish success in business has had a measurable effect on economic growth is difficult to know. What we do know is that it has come with an enormous cost to the ethnic interests of European Americans.
In concluding, I call attention to the challenge for evolutionary psychology in trying to understand the complete lack of ethnic identification of so many elite Europeans such as John Derbyshire. He is only the tip of a massive iceberg. I have sketched a theory of why this might be in the Preface to the paperback edition of The Culture of Critique: a relatively weak sense of ethnocentrism resulting from our European evolutionary past combined with the influence of the Jewish intellectual and political movements I describe and its amplification in the media; the powerful opprobrium and, increasingly, police state controls that have become attached to criticism of Jews and Israel; and the heady inducements to conform to the interests and views of a powerful minority. Having read Derbyshire’s account of his childhood, one might add to the model two more variables: socialization in a very benign Jewish milieu and deep reverence for the cultural accomplishments of Jews. In the end, Derbyshire is the epitome of that sad and paradoxical figure, the Judaized intellectual discussed in The Culture of Critique for whom Jewish attitudes and interests, Jewish likes and dislikes, now constitute the culture of the West, internalized by Jews and non-Jews alike. It is a mindset that is leading Europeans directly to the fate of the Israelites who stray from God’s way as described in Deuteronomy (28:62): “And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude.”
1. J. Derbyshire, The Marx of the Anti-Semites, The American Conservative, March 10, 2003.
2. Please send correspondence to Kevin MacDonald; Information on my books can be obtained here.
3. J. Derbyshire: The Jews and I, National Review Online, April 10, 2001.
4. Ibid. See also Derbyshire’s article, “Is Anti-Semitism Dead,” National Review Online, August 21, 2000.
5. Derbyshire (ibid.) is critical of the response to the “thoughtful and entirely unthreatening way” in which William Cash described
the dominance of Jews like Steven Spielberg, David Geffen, and Jeffrey Katzenberg in Hollywood. To the amazement of the Spectator’s editor (who was Dominic Lawson — Jew!) this innocuous article caused a storm of outrage in the U.S.A. The young author, William Cash, was denounced from the pulpits of political correctness — that is, from the Op-Ed pages of the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times. Prominent American Jews like Leon Wieseltier went into high-hysterical mode, denouncing Cash as the new Julius Streicher and so on. The storm went on for weeks, led by a howling mob of buffoons — Barbra Streisand, for example — who had certainly never read, nor probably even heard of the Spectator up to that point. (I have been reading it for 30 years, and have also written for it.) It was a display of arrogance, cruelty, ignorance, stupidity, and sheer bad manners by rich and powerful people towards a harmless, helpless young writer, and the Jews who whipped up this preposterous storm should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
6. The war against Iraq is far too important to avoid a complete public discussion of the motives of all of those who are pushing for this war, including neoconservative Jews intent on furthering Israeli interests in the Middle East. Jews must never be represented as monolithic, but we must have ways of discussing Jewish influence’talking about specific groups of Jews, their Jewish identity, and their actual influence on public affairs, as we do with other ethnic groups. There is no question that neoconservative Jews in the Bush administration are having an enormous influence on public policy and that their motives are to aid Israel. For example, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith’all present employees of the U.S. Defense Department’signed the 1996 document ‘Securing the Realm’ which advocated removing Saddam as a goal of Israeli foreign policy. This document was prepared for an Israeli foreign policy think tank (Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies) and presented to the Israeli government. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a protégé of Perle and has long advocated removing the Iraqi leadership. He has close personal and family ties to Israel (B. Keller, The Sunshine Warrior. New York Times Magazine, September 23, 2002). The neoconservative influence is increased because virtually the entire organized Jewish community (but certainly not all American Jews) has become pro-Likud. The Likud Party, led by Ariel Sharon, is strongly in favor of a U.S.-led war against Iraq. Neoconservatives have ready access to key sectors of the U.S. media (The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News). For example, Bill Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. He is also a Fox News political analyst, and he is Chairman of the Project for a New American Century. Kristol has a long record of opposing the current Iraqi regime and is an ardent supporter of Israel (see, e.g., the PNC’s letter to President Clinton, dated January 26, 1998). See also:
1.) Whose War? by Patrick J. Buchanan2.) Practice to Deceive by Joshua Marshall3.) The Men From JINSA and CSP by Jason Vest4.) Israel’s Role: The ‘Elephant’ They’re Talking About By Ami Eden5.) A Rose By Another Other Name: The Bush Administration’s Dual Loyalties, by Kathleen and Bill Christison6.) The Israel lobby, by Michael Lind
Addendum, April, 2006: In addition to these references, see
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt.
Understanding Jewish Influence: A Study in Ethnic Activism by Kevin MacDonald
7. E.g., J. Barkow (1989). Darwin, Sex, and Status: Biological Perspectives on Mind and Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; Buss, D. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; MacDonald, K. B. (1998). Evolution, Culture, and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29, 119-149.
8. K. MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse Books, 2002. See also my review of D. S. Wilson’s Darwin’s Cathedral.
9. D. S. Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. See also: Hilton, A. & Obermeyer, G. (1999). Evolutionary strategies of religious groups: Kinship and altruism, cultural segregation and migration in early and modern Anabaptist communities in Europe and America. Paper presented at a conference, sponsored by the Royal Institute for Interfaith Studies (Jordan), on: Migration and Culture Contact: patterns of confrontation and coexistence in a changing world. October 11-15, 1999, The Meridien Hotel, Amman; Miele, F. (2000). To Populate is to Rule: Review of The Cousins’ Wars by Kevin Phillips. Population and Environment. 21 (3) 347-358.
10. See K. MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998. (Available from the author.)
11. A. S. Lindemann, Esau’s Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 433. Lindemann notes that the top non-Jews in the Bolshevik movement, including Lenin and Dzerzhinsky (Head of the Cheka [Secret Police]), might be termed ‘jewified non-Jews’ — ‘a term, freed of its ugly connotations, [that] might be used to underline an often overlooked point: Even in Russia there were some non-Jews, whether Bolsheviks or not, who respected Jews, praised them abundantly, imitated them, cared about their welfare, and established intimate friendships or romantic liaisons with them.’
12. Hugh Davis Graham, Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in America (New York, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 56-57).
13. In: J. Rosen. White Christmas: The Story of a Song. London: 4th Estate (A Division of HarperCollinsPublishers), 2002, p. 157. Rosen mentions “the sheer chutzpah that compelled a refugee from a pogrom-scourged corner of Siberia … to write a Christmas anthem that buried all traces of the holiday’s Christian origins beneath three feet of driven snow” (pp. 164-165.)
14. Sterritt, D. The one serious subject Hollywood doesn’t avoid. The Christian Science Monitor, November 22, 2002.
15. Silbiger, S. (2000). The Jewish Phenomenon : Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press.
16. Goldberg, J. J. (1996). Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; M. Massing, Should Jews be parochial? The American Prospect.
17. Lipset, S. M., & Raab, E. (1995). Jews and the New American Scene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.