“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish plan to permanently silence the West [Part 3]

Andrew Joyce Ph.D
Go to Part 1

Go to Part 2

Editor's Note: This is the third in a brilliant three-part sequence first published by The Occidental Observer on Wednesday 15th July 2020 at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/07/15/secure-tolerance-the-jewish-plan-to-permanently-silence-the-west-part-3-of-3
Reproduced by kind permission from The Occidental Observer

2018–2020: Big Tech/ Big Capital/ Big Jew/ Big Brother

A key step towards making dissident thought unlawful, and ensuring
“Secure Tolerance”, is the effort to represent it, in its totality, as
culturally illicit. As early as 2015, Brian Marcus, head of the ADL’s
Internet Division, had been contacting Internet Service Providers
(ISPs) with threats that allowing “hate” material on their service
“would be bad for their business”. [1]

Backed with reports, policy proposals, and “recommendations” from
their own alphabet soup of think tanks and solo Jewish intellectuals
like Cohen-Almagor, the ADL and the European Jewish Congress
began more widespread intensive lobbying of tech companies in late
2018. The acceleration of lobbying against Big Tech should be seen in
the broader context of heightened activism for the implementation of
“Secure Tolerance” more generally.

Although the ADL and YouTube had co-operated since at least 2008,
intensification of this relationship in early 2019 culminated in
YouTube changing its content policy. Jonathan Greenblatt announced
the ADL had been

“working with technology companies, including YouTube, to aggressively counter hate on their platforms. We were glad to share our expertise on this and look forward to continuing to provide input. While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism”.

The international Jewish strategy to bring the ethos of “secure
tolerance” into tech culture again involved the high-level involvement
of American Jewish groups in Europe’s “democratic” institutions.
For example, in May 2015 the American Jewish Committee’s
Transatlantic Institute (note again this constant reliance on a motley of
Jewish ‘think tanks’), launched a fervent lobbying campaign at the
EU with the aim to “detoxify social media. … Internet Service
Providers are free to — and should — exclude raw hate speech”.

Just to make sure the message was sent loud and clear, the AJC even
hosted its main 2015 “Strategy Conference on Combating Anti-
Semitism” in Brussels, during which the “AJC unveiled an action plan
for European governments to address the intensifying crisis of anti-
Semitism”.

This, then, is our “democracy” — unelected, uninvited American
Jewish groups presenting “action plans” (lists of demands) to a
bloated, corrupt, and unaccountable bureaucracy.

***

Britain’s Jewish “Community Security Trust” (CST) has, since 2016,
been working, again in an unelected and unaccountable capacity, with
the European Commission on a “social media illegal hate speech
monitoring” project. The CST was able to use the semblance of
official authority given to it by this alliance to pressure social media
companies by sending them regular performance reports on how well
they were doing in removing CST-blacklisted speech from Twitter,
Facebook and Google.

In yet another stellar example of democracy in action, the unelected
and unaccountable CST had earlier claimed the credit for developing
the EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online”.
The code was imposed on Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube,
Instagram, Google+, Snapchat, Dailymotion, and Jeuxvideo.com,
following the CST’s accusation that they were “not adhering to anti-
hate speech laws across Europe”.

The EU Code of Conduct, however, was only ever intended as the
first step towards “secure tolerance”, and Moshe Kantor remarked in
one 2017 interview that, in his opinion, Big Tech was failing even to
meet the basic Jewish expectations of the Code (removal of the
majority of designated material within 24 hours).

In a 2017 article for Britain’s Independent, Kantor insistedwe must
now look to European political leaders to take stronger action, using
legislation if necessary, to prove they’re serious about combating this problem once and for all”. [emphasis added]

The broader push was always for heightened legal measures that
would involve law enforcement, as Kantor had himself spelled out in
his 2011 Manifesto. Incessant Jewish lobbying has resulted in
Germany being the first nation to take the next step to “secure
tolerance”. Recently, Germany adopted Raphael Cohen-Almagor’s
proposal that “racism” be treated in the same way as terrorism and
child pornography. In February 2020, the German government
approved a bill to “force social networks such as Facebook and
Twitter to report criminal posts to the police”.

The Financial Times reports:

“Under the planned new law, which is the toughest of its kind in the world, social media platforms will not only have to delete certain kinds of hate speech but also flag the content to the Office of the Federal Criminal Police (BKA). Posts that companies will be required to report include those indicating preparations for a terrorist attack and the formation of criminal and terrorist groups, as well as those featuring instances of racial incitement and the distribution of child pornography. The networks would also have to give the BKA the last IP address and port number most recently assigned to the user profile.” [emphasis added]

Early resistance from Facebook to the legislation, focused specifically
on the issue of “Holocaust denial”, prompted the ADL to go into attack
mode. Reverting to tactics once used against Henry Ford’s Dearborn
Independent, the ADL dropped its “Boycott is not a solution” rhetoric
that had been employed against the BDS movement, and initiated a
“Stop Hate for Profit” advertising boycott in early June by circulating
images showing advertisers anti-Jewish (really, often simply anti-
George Soros) Facebook posts alongside which their ads were
running. The move shaved almost $58 billion from Facebook’s stock
value, with over 1,000 major companies leveraged into action.

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s series of demands to drop the
boycott include the granting of high-level access to “civil rights”
(ADL) officials who will perform “regular, independent audits” of
“hate” on the platform (which would allow them to engage in
intelligence gathering, the collection of IP addresses etc.), immediate
removal of “thousands” of White advocacy groups, and the use of
Facebook software to “target” “neo-Nazis and White supremacists”.

Simultaneously, the ADL and Moshe Kantor have been pushing a
Holocaust-narrative marketing campaign on Facebook, Instagram,
and elsewhere, with Kantor commenting “The best way to spread any
message today is through social media.” Censorship and propaganda
thus go hand-in-hand in the effort to gain a monopoly of the public
mind.

As the world’s largest and most influential Jewish organizations
tighten their hold on Big Tech’s conglomerates, smaller rivals have
emerged to fill the dissident demand for platforms. One of the most
promising of these is BitChute, a UK-registered technology company
with British directors. Slick and easy to navigate, the site is an
obvious alternative to those exiled from YouTube, and its growing
popularity has frustrated Jews whose goal isn’t simply to remove
dissident speech from the larger platforms, but to remove it from the
internet, and the public sphere, forever.

Two weeks ago, the CST produced a maudlin propaganda video denouncing BitChute and presenting all dissident thought as “incitement to murder”. In the course of the video, CST staff announce they’ve been gathering intelligence at the site and will submit a “report” to their “partners in government, anti-terrorism police, and in think tanks”. [emphasis added] The CST has also been concentrating its efforts on Gab, 4chan, and Telegram, and CST Chief Executive Mark Gardner claims that “contact with the police” has already led to the removal of some content.

The CST recently secured another UK government grant of £14 
million ($17.66 million), which it has been receiving annually since 2015. In fact, the group is so financially secure that it is now hiring
“social media research analysts” so that it can better put pressure on the government to introduce legislation preventing free speech on the internet. Given that young British people are dying of cancer because the NHS claims to be unable to afford the necessary drugs, it must be a great comfort to their families that at least some Jews, somewhere, are collecting large salaries to browse memes on Twitter and send regular reports to the police about the hate they’ve found on Gab.

While BitChute has very low advertising revenue, and is thus relatively immune to boycott tactics, Jewish groups have nevertheless attempted to attack other parts of the site’s infrastructure. In particular, the site’s reliance on Disqus for video comments has been highlighted as a potential means of weakening the site, with Garner declaring “Disqus is part of this problem”. One presumes that a warning has been sent.

Online payment processors are another element of internet infrastructure that has been relentlessly attacked by organized Jews. Eric Striker’s National Justice recently revealed images from a private PayPal seminar in which audience members were told that “hate content” was referred to the ADL, among other “external partners.”

Striker writes:

“According to another training slide,1800 accounts belonging
to individuals, non-profits and businesses in the last year have
been eliminated for political reasons using guidelines provided
by their ‘partners’. 65% were for what they categorize as white
nationalist activity, while the next most censored group is
people and organizations who advocate for immigration
restrictions. A person cannot support Donald Trump’s winning
issue from his 2016 campaign and still keep their Paypal, in
other words. There is even a category for ‘prejudiced academic
work’.”

PayPal CEO Dan Schulman is himself Jewish, and it’s hard not to
conclude that this was a very willing partnership. In fact, Jewish
activism in Big Tech collides with another phenomenon — what
Aaron Chatterji and Michael Toffel refer to in the Harvard Business
Review as “The New CEO Activists.”

Chatterji and Toffel cite Schulman’s decision not to locate PayPal
infrastructure in Charlotte, North Carolina, as CEO activist economic
punishment for the state’s legislation banning the gender-confused
from using the bathrooms of the opposite sex. The Associated Press
estimated that an ensuing boycott of North Carolina by heavily-
Jewish Big Capital cost the state more than $3.76 billion. Salesforce’s
Marc Benioff and Goldmans Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein were similarly
listed as “CEO activists” in the cause of advancing homosexuals and
their culture.

Financial support to Jewish groups and associated “think tanks” and
legal institutions is another crucial aspect of CEO activism. Logan Green, Jewish CEO of car-sharing company Lyft, pledged $1 million
to the American Civil Liberties Union when the ACLU was preparing
to fight Donald Trump’s early attempt at an immigration ban. The
ADL has received huge donations from most of the big names in Big
Capital and Big Tech. For all the current theater about Facebook’s
insistence on some modicum of free speech, Facebook CEO Sheryl
Sandberg last year made a personal donation of $2.5 million to the
ADL. This can be added to $1 million from Apple, $1 million from
Fox, and $1 million from Jewish Craigslist founder Craig Newmark
for the specific purpose of fighting “online hate speech.”

That the ADL has been able to mobilize a massive and crushing
boycott of Facebook is as much a “show of strength”, an act of
intimidation against broader industry, government, and people, as it is
a specific act against Facebook’s sluggishness in imposing the full list
of measures demanded by Big Jew. So-called CEO activism is so very
useful to the ADL because so many of the CEO’s are themselves
Jewish and highly supportive of the cause. As Fenek Solere pointed
out in a recent article for Britain’s Patriotic Alternative, it is almost
impossible to separate Big Tech and Big Capital from Big Jew:

Public broadcasting networks both in the UK and USA are — and
have been for many years — effectively owned and dominated by
people like

  • Sumner Redstone
  • Phillipe Dauman
  • Bernard Delfont
  • Lew and Leslie Grade
  • Alan Yentob.

But it is not only in the spheres of global communication, financial
services and party political funding where people like …

  • Julian A. Brodsky, of Comcast,
  • Michael Dell of Dell,
  • Sandy Lerner, co-founder Cisco systems,
  • Robert A. Altman of ZeniMax Media,
  • Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google,
  • Susan Wojcicki at YouTube,
  • Sheryl Sandberg, CEO of Facebook,
  • Aaron Swartz of Reddit,
  • Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook,
  • Jeff Weimar at LinkedIn,
  • Max Levchin of PayPal,
  • Charles Schusterman of Samson Investment,
  • Richard and Henry Bloch of the Tax Preparation Company,
  • The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, J Street,
  • The Zionist Organization of America,
  • The Republican Jewish Coalition,
  • and the Christians United for Israel,
    … hold sway.

Some other areas in which they are disproportionately over-
represented are:

  • retail,
  • governmental bureaucracies,
  • hotel and leisure,
  • theatre and the arts,
  • academia,
  • technology and software,
  • international intelligence services,
  • charities and NGOs,
  • pharmaceuticals,
  • healthcare, professional consultancy and the legal and judicial profession.

Representative examples being:

  • Devin Wenig of eBay,
  • Mark Weinberger CEO/Chairman of Ernst & Young,
  • Samuel Ruben, Duracell Inc,
  • Bernard L. Schwartz, CEO of Loral Space & Communication Inc,
  • Rachel Haurwitz, co-founder of Gene Editing and Caribou Biosciences,
  • Leonard Schleifer, founder of biotechnology Regeneron Pharmaceuticals,
  • Beny Alagem, founder of Packard Bell,
  • Amir Ashkenazi, co-founder of Adap. TV and Shopping.com,
  • Jay Cohen of Online Gambling,
  • Talman Marco of Viber,
  • Sean Pad of Tinder,
  • Henry Crown, founder of the Material Service Corporation in Aeronautics,
  • the Mossad run ICTS Europe specialising in international Security,
  • Gumar Agujar and Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum,
  • Arthur Belfer of Belco Petroleum, precursor to the infamous Enron Organisation,
  • Louis Blaustien of American Oil,
  • Leon Hess of the Hess Corporation, owners of the NFL’s New York Jets,
  • Morris Mirkin of Budget Rent-a-Car,
  • Sheldon Yellen of Belfor Construction,
  • Leonard Abramson of Health Maintenance Organization,
  • Bennett Greenspan of Gene testing,
  • Joel Landau of Allure,
  • Martine Rothblatt of United Therapeutics,
  • Steve Ballmer of Microsoft,
  • Ben Rosen of Compaq Computers,
  • Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon Communications,
  • Ed Savitz owner of Amusement Arcades,
  • and Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels.

The above listing is a mere indication of how prolific these power-
brokers are and the degree of control they exert over our lives
every single day. … All of them are committed Zionists and all of
them are members and supporters of fanatically pro-Israel,
Jewish partisan organizations.

And, as I wrote at the conclusion of my 2019 essay “The Necessity of
anti-Semitism”:

“Today, largely worthless ‘branded’ consumer products are
overwhelmingly Jewish, are promoted via Jewish dominance of
the advertising industry, and their purchase by consumers is
funded by Jewish financiers.

“… Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors,
Kenneth Cole, Max Factor, Estée Lauder, and Marc Jacobs …

“… are just some of the Jews whose very names have become
synonymous with debt-fueled consumer culture and the
subscribing to carefully cultivated fashion fads, while Jewish-
owned companies like …

“… Starbucks, Macy’s, the Gap, American Apparel, Costco,
Staples, Home Depot, Ben & Jerry’s, Timberland, Snapple,
Häagen-Dazs, Dunkin’ Donuts, Monster Beverages, Mattel,
and Toys ‘R’ Us …

“… have come to epitomize the endless and superfluous
production of garbage for mass consumption on credit. The
consuming temple of debt-fueled consumerism is also linked to
the cultures of Critique, Tolerance, and Sterility. So-called anti-
racism, support for gender confusion, and the celebration of
mass migration and multiculturalism have become mainstays of
modern advertising as the Racial Endgame nears its conclusion
and the West commences its death rattle.

“You might ask, when you see rainbow-package Doritos, what
tortilla chips have to do with sodomy, but that’s only because
you’re suffering from a tolerance deficiency, and the best way
to correct that is to admit White privilege, buy a Starbucks, and
go try on a new pair of $200 jeans at Macy’s. Critique,
Tolerance, Sterility and Usury have converged. This is the
necessity of anti-Semitism.”

In light of all that has been discussed, we could add that “Secure
Tolerance”, Big Tech, Big Capital, Big Brother, and Big Jew have
converged. The final result will be the achievement of Jewish
censorship across the West, a “permanent and irreversible” cycle of
laws and repression, and the theft of our children’s future. Like
Milton’s Satan, these groups will declaim in favor of equality and
democracy, only to later wield the tyrant’s scepter in Hell.

Conclusion:

How to finish such a pessimistic essay? It’s true that the information
presented here is disturbing, infuriating, confusing, and heartbreaking.
Can any practical lessons be derived from it?

One clear pattern observed in this essay is the overwhelming reliance
on “think tanks” and similar bureaucratic vehicles for the intrusion of
harmful Jewish influence into our “democracy”. Jews, even with their
very significant financial power, rely on the magnification of their
rhetoric, interests, and grievances through such bodies in order to
accomplish their goals. This is where they can and should be
challenged.

Who is granting access and power to these groups? Can existing
legislation be used to prevent the intrusion of these bodies into the
democratic process and, if not, can new legislation be proposed to do
so? The closest the dissident right ever came to a think tank was the
National Policy Institute (NPI), which despite its name, and while
fulfilling an important movement function, didn’t really produce any
policies.

At the present time, our movement clearly needs talented legal minds
and institutions to unpack existing legislation, and develop new
legislative proposals that, even if not explicitly racial, can seriously
hinder the movement of harmful Jewish groups through the political
body of the West. There is a serious lack of infrastructure of even the
most basic kind, and we simply aren’t going to make any progress
until this problem is addressed.

The second lesson from this survey of developments is that social
media is likely to become an increasingly compromised and
dangerous place for activists. In Europe, new laws are probably a few
years away, but the broader plan will almost certainly eventually
envelop Canada, Australia, and, despite apparent belief that the
Constitution is invulnerable, even the United States. Already
American legal scholars have developed arguments for curtailing the
First Amendment in the case of “hate speech” (see, e.g., Jeremy
Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2012), and it is widely believed that a liberal Supreme Court
majority would adopt such reasoning.

The clock is probably already ticking on internet anonymity, and the
example of Germany indicates that direct police involvement in
“speech crime” is on the horizon. Off-line activist methodologies
should be increasingly explored. Failing that, radically alternative
modes of using internet networking should be considered. For
example, even if someone uses a completely outrageous Twitter
handle, complete with comic book avatar, most people still have their
entire lives online (job, home town, friends, likes, hobbies, vacations).
Don’t forget who ultimately has all of this information, and the
organizations that will increasingly be able to access it.

It’s becoming very apparent that social media is itself a form of social
control. We now have the ability to identify someone in a crowd
simply by cross-referencing a photo of their face with available
internet information. In seconds they can be identified, their employer
can be contacted, and their loved ones can be harassed. In a strange
way, despite the atomized condition of postmodernity, we have social
control levels approaching those of the middle ages. We have new
forms of social shaming, and new forms of the public pillory.

Dissident activists who face overwhelming costs if they are doxxed
would be well-advised to reduce their internet presence to the bare
minimum, in effect, deliberately fading themselves into obscurity,
thus making their life harder for the Zionist-Globalist panopticon to search for and penetrate. Remember who you were before you
became an employee number, a Facebook profile, or a Twitter handle,
and protect that person like you’d protect your child or other loved
ones.

For the time being, however, ongoing online activism should be
continued with enthusiasm and without despair. This costs our
opponents dearly in terms of effort, money, and worry. Each new
platform presents difficulties for them to navigate, and delays other
plans they may have. Be proud that you’re still active, and be proud
that while so many others in life are merely counting passes, you
spotted that gorilla.

I’ll leave the final word to Sir Oswald Mosley:

“We have believed in our fellow Europeans. And we have believed in the destiny of Europe. My friends, it’s all there, it’s all waiting. Of course it can be done. It depends upon ourselves. You say, ‘But again, we’re scattered individuals. … Everything’s against us. Governments. Money. Press.
Television. All the new forces are used against us. All the great forces, all the material powers of the world, you say are against you.’ And so they are — you’re quite right to feel that. And I don’t underrate them.

“But I don’t despair, and you shouldn’t despair. Because you, like I, have read something of history. You know something of the record of the achievement of Europeans. And dark as this hour is, it’s no darker, it’s not as dark, as some of the hours you’ve known in European history. When everything was cowardice, treachery, and betrayal, and when the Saracen
hordes from far outside Europe swept right across that continent, small bands of men came together in resolution, in absolute determination, giving themselves completely, and saying: ‘Europe shall live!’

“And they stood firm, and faced the menace to Europe, its values, its civilisations, the glory of its achievements. And more and more rallied to their standards, and those hordes were thrown back, again and again and again.

“My friends it’s an immense responsibility. You’re living in a historic hour — do remember that always. Live in that sense, I beg of you, of history and of destiny.”

Come together, get going, get working. Inspire other people like yourselves.

[1] R. Cohen-Almagor, Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side, (Cambridge
University Press, 2015) 219.

 

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish plan to permanently silence the West [Part 2]

Andrew Joyce Ph.D.
Go to Part 1
Go to Part 3

Editor's Note: This is the second in a brilliant three-part sequence first published by the Occidental Observer on 14th July 2020 at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/07/14/secure-tolerance-the-jewish-plan-to-permanently-silence-the-west-part-2/

Reproduced by kind permission of The Occidental Observer.

2012–2015: The National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance

Between 2012 and January 2015, Dinstein and three other experts on
constitutional law, backed by Kantor’s ECTR developed a draft 12-
page pan-European “tolerance law” for adoption by the European
Union. The law was intended to “criminalize ‘group libel’, such as
negative stereotyping, target group-to-group intolerance, and ban neo-
Nazi and other discriminatory organizations in Europe”.

On January 27, the draft legislation debuted at the European Jewish
Congress, then meeting in Prague, with Kantor presiding and
throwing his “support” behind the proposal, which would
grant harsher punishments for hate crimes against Jews, Muslims,
Roma, women, and LGBQT alike across the continent”.

Minor complaints came from Alan Dershowitz and Bernard Henri-
Levy, who believed that an educational (indoctrination) strategy
would be a more effective (safer for Jews) way of pursuing an end to
anti-Semitism. Dinstein (and, one would presume, Kantor), according
to Times of Israel, was “undeterred by the criticism, insisting that he
would continue to promote the legislation to European governments,
in the hopes that like Holocaust denial criminalization, which he said
was initially perceived as a ‘pipe dream’, the tolerance law will
ultimately take root.”

Dinstein’s document, innocuously titled “A European Framework
National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” [full text here] but
also known by the name “Model National Statute for the Promotion of
Tolerance” was designed to legally implement Kantor’s ideological
proposals as outlined in the 2011 Manifesto for Secure Tolerance, and
made provision for the explicit criminalization of “overt approval of a
totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism”.

It proposes to make “education in tolerance” mandatory from
elementary school to college. All governments will be legally obliged
to ensure their schools “introduce courses encouraging students to
accept diversity. … It is very important to start such courses as early
as possible in the educational programme, i.e. in elementary school”.
The same measures will have to be imposed in the education of the
military and the police, and for the entire professional class within
society.

The statute also makes it a legal obligation for every EU country to
ensure that public broadcasting “devote a prescribed percentage of
their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance”. It asserts a
legally binding commitment that: “The production of books, plays,
newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television
programmes – promoting a climate of tolerance – will be encouraged
and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.”

Mass media will be completely given over to the development and
dissemination of pro-diversity propaganda:

• The Government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television
and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their
programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.
• The Government shall encourage all privately owned mass media
(including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance.
• The Government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well
as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the
spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media
complaints commission.

In short, the proposals aim to make “commitment to tolerance” a total
and legally binding principle, bringing about a revolution in culture.
In other words, nations will be punished if their TV stations do not
produce pro-tolerance propaganda, if they fail to indoctrinate their
children in pro-tolerance propaganda, and if they fail to aggressively
prosecute and imprison dissidents. In fact, it provides for the
establishment of “special administrative units” dedicated to the direct
surveillance of all individuals or groups deemed to possess “intolerant
views”.

The statute develops a framework of “concrete and enforceable
obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intolerance”. The
proposals were also designed by Kantor and Dinstein to include
explicit, special protections for Jews. Dinstein, for example, remarked
at a 2012 presentation of an early draft to then-EU President Martin
Schulz, that “Whilst current definitions of tolerance would preclude
racism and religious-based bigotry, anti-Semitism must be
individually stated as a separate definition. Holocaust denial should
be a crime.”

Crucially, the statute provides for the legal protection of all standard
Jewish historical narratives, not just that of the Holocaust. It asserts,
for example, that “It must be understood that the ‘group libel’ may
appear to be aimed at members of the group in a different time
(another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the State)”.
Based on one of his most recent speeches, Kantor’s own interpretation
of history leaves a lot to be desired: “Historically, Jews were always
among the most loyal citizens of their countries, and did their best to
integrate and to become pillars of society in all walks of life.”

Presumably, anything outside such a fantasy would be considered
criminal hate speech. In other words, if a modern-day Italian made the
claim that Jews were dominant moneylenders in England during the
medieval period, and that they contributed to the hostility
demonstrated against them during that time, and which resulted in
their expulsion in 1290, this individual could be subjected to the same harsh legal penalties as someone who made “anti-Semitic” criticisms
of Israel today, or “denied the Holocaust.” And these penalties are
harsh.

The document argues there is “no need to be tolerant to the
intolerant”. Group libel, “Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology”,
xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and public approval or denial of the
Holocaust, are all to be treated as “aggravated crimes”. Juveniles
“guilty of intolerance” will avoid prison, but are to be brainwashed
via “a rehabilitation programme designed to instil in them a culture of
tolerance”.

Since first presenting a draft to Martin Schulz in 2012, Kantor’s
ECTR has presented the Model Statute in a series of meetings and
seminars with international organizations, including the Council of
Europe and the OSCE, as part of an intensive lobbying effort to have
it written into law throughout Europe. There is currently a joint
ECTR-European Council task force which is working on its
implementation.

Kantor has ensured his measures are massively incentivized. He has
launched a $1 million “Kantor Prize for Secure Tolerance”, an ECTR
annual European Medal of Tolerance, and a research fund offering
grants of “20–50 thousand Euro each” for experts who can advance
the legal and cultural enforcement of diversity.

2016–2018: Kantor, the ADL, and the War on “Cyber Hate”

Beginning in late 2015, Kantor began accelerating a more global
approach to “Secure Tolerance” by building a more intensive
relationship with the ADL and focusing more heavily on internet
“intolerance.” In January 2016, Kantor’s European Jewish Congress
and the ADL announced “a partnership to cooperate on advocacy
work within European Union institutions,” that would involve
lobbying for the implementation of the Model Statute and for
heightened levels of internet censorship.

At a meeting of the EJC’s General Assembly in Brussels, it was announced that the move would “enable the ADL to have a greater
impact on E.U. policies and programs”, while providing Kantor’s
policies with a pathway to U.S. legislators. ADL Director Jonathan
Greenblatt boasted that “Working together, we will leverage our
respective strengths to pursue our common goals more effectively.”
An enthused Kantor replied, “I am delighted that we are partnering
with such an august institution as ADL which has a longstanding
record of fighting for greater tolerance and against the scourge of
hatred, racism and anti-Semitism.”

Ultimately, of course, it meant the further dilution of democracy in
Europe, with an unelected and unsolicited gang of American Jews
now free to engage in “advocacy work within European institutions
such as the European Parliament and the European Commission”.

By 2018, Kantor’s effort at international Jewish co-operation to bring
about “secure tolerance” had settled on the internet as a matter of
major concern and as a potential springboard for further movement on
repressive international legislation. There had been earlier
grumblings. In 2015, then ADL Director Abraham Foxman, and also
Yoram Dinstein, had called for measures to end internet anonymity
and therefore expose the “intolerant” to “the censure of society. … If
you want to be bigot you have to take responsibility for it”. But by
2018 this had evolved into the quest for more systematic, legal
solutions to online dissent.

In March 2018, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for
Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli
government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former
French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of
Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum made a
priority of “fighting cyber hate”.

A modern day meeting of the Elders of Zion, the number of
representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over
one thousand, including leaders from the ADL; Simon Wiesenthal
Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of
Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des
Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the
Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.

The Global Forum, in common with so much of what we have seen so far, is essentially a central “think tank” for the campaign to introduce
internet censorship throughout the West. It devises intellectual and
political strategies styled as “recommendations” for Western
governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations.
The ‘recommendations’ of the 2018 Forum included a demand that all
governments adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech
and anti-Semitism” the latter being achieved quite quickly since the
IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was devised in 2016.

The Global Forum called for the introduction of an international legal
ban on “Holocaust denial sites”, and its plan to “eliminate anti-
Semitism” is comprehensive. Among its more recent
recommendations were proposals to establish national legal units
responsible for combating ‘cyber hate’; making stronger use of
existing laws to prosecute ‘cyber hate’ and ‘online anti-Semitism’,
and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are
absent.

In much the same way that Kantor’s “secure tolerance” policy
proposes that “restrictions are necessary for freedom”, many if not all
of the Jewish intellectuals involved in the campaign to end free
speech on the internet do so while shamelessly and hypocritically
posing as the truest defenders of freedom and liberty.

A classic example in this regard is Raphael Cohen-Almagor, author of
Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side (2015) and a key figure in the
Global Forum as well as perhaps the leading anti-free speech
intellectual active today. Cohen-Almagor received his D. Phil. in
political theory from Oxford University in 1991, and his B.A. and
M.A. from Tel Aviv University. In 1992–1995 he lectured at the
Hebrew University Law Faculty. From 1995–2007 he taught at the
University of Haifa Law School, Department of Communication, and
Library and Information Studies University of Haifa. He is a very
strongly-identified Jew, having acted as Chairperson of “The Second
Generation to the Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance”
Organization in Israel. He also shamelessly but aggressively postures
himself as a “defender of democracy”, acting as Founder and Director
of Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. He is
currently Chair in Politics at the University of Hull, United Kingdom.
As with other aspects of the “think tank” strategy, this is
“democracy”, but not as you know it.

Cohen-Almagor’s most recent significant production, titled “Taking
North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and
the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet”, appeared in 2018 in
the International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy. [1]
Along with an earlier piece from 2016 [2], the article is an excellent
sample and summary of Cohen-Almagor’s work to date, and also acts
as a remarkable and important example of Jewish manipulation of
discussions of free speech and the politics of White advocacy.

The article’s basic argument is that American so-called “White
supremacist” websites are a hotbed of dangerous hate speech which
can be conclusively linked to criminality. Since hate speech “can and
does inspire crime”, it is incumbent upon governments to introduce
legislation banning such speech under harsh legal penalties.

We will never know how Charlottesville might have been
remembered without the incident involving James Fields and Heather
Heyer, but there is little doubt that it was perhaps the greatest propaganda coup that Jewish organizations could have hoped for. It
therefore comes as no surprise that Cohen-Almagor should open his
article with this:

“On 12 August 2017, James Alex Fields Jr rammed his car into a
crowd of anti-fascist protesters united against a white
supremacist rally, Unite the Right, in Charlottesville, Virginia,
United States of America (USA).”

Despite the extreme rarity of violence from the Alt-Right, and the
many singular aspects of this particular episode, Cohen-Almagor
employs the most sweeping generalizations to assert the incident
“illustrates the danger that the white supremacist movement poses to
American society, and the close connection between hate online and
hate crimes.”

Cohen-Almagor, along with the 18 Jews from the ADL, SPLC, and
similar organizations he interviewed for the paper, are aware of the
objections of classical liberalism to restrictions on speech:

“[C. Edwin] Baker (1992, 1997), for instance, argues that
almost all of the harm inflicted by free speech is eventually
mediated by the mental processes of the audience. The audience
decides its reaction to speech. The listeners determine their own
response. Any consequences of the listeners’ response to hate
speech must be attributed, in the end, to the listeners. The result
is the right of speakers to present their views even if
assimilation by the listeners leads to or constitutes serious
harm. Baker (1997, 2012), like many American liberal
philosophers and First Amendment scholars, wishes to protect
freedom of expression notwithstanding the harm that the
speech might inflict on the audience. … Consequently, many of
my interviewees argue that American liberals thus tend to
underestimate the harm in hate speech.”

The key Jewish counter-argument is to assert that speech itself can be
harmful and that “the audience” can be harmed merely by exposure to it. In practical terms, Cohen-Almagor contends that James Fields
drove his car into a crowd at Charlottesville solely because he was
exposed to hate speech — not because of his mental health,
situational factors that day and immediately prior to his conduct in the
vehicle, or because of catastrophic policing failures.

Why everyone else “exposed” to “White supremacist hate speech”
didn’t engage in similar conduct is left unexplained. Instead, we are to
agree with Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish colleagues that

“hate speech should not be dismissed as ‘mere speech.’ … The
preferred American liberal approach of fighting ideas with ideas,
speech with speech, is insufficient. Hate speech needs to be taken
more seriously by the legal authorities than it currently is.”

Just as the James Fields episode is extrapolated exponentially to
define an entire movement, so the issue of “hate speech” and
censorship is based on an extremely small number of exceptional
cases. Cohen-Almagor claims that “internet hate can be found on
thousands of websites, file archives, chat rooms, newsgroups and
mailing lists,” so one might assume that his methodology and
argument would involve a wide range of examples where these
thousands of sources are linked to thousands of instances of violence
and criminality — particularly since Cohen-Almagor argues that
“White supremacist” websites are “like terrorist groups”. The
problem, however, is that he does no such thing, because there are no
such examples.

In order to present even the most tenuously relevant research, Cohen-
Almagor relies purely on unsophisticated comments from a handful of
the most extreme and obscure racialist sites on the internet, and even
here the author fails to provide a single instance where a White
racialist website has suggested any acts of violence. So
inconsequential and amateurish were such sites that by the time of
writing his article Cohen-Almagor has to concede “quite a few sites
discussed here are now defunct”. Having initially made a small
directory of such sites, he admits the “vast majority of the web pages in that directory are no longer operative”.

It is surely a damning indictment of the state of modern peer-reviewed
academic journals that someone could publish an argument against
the principle of free speech solely on the basis of the putative content
of obscure and minuscule internet sources which are no longer even in
existence.

In fact, Cohen-Almagor can’t even come to a fixed and satisfactory
definition of “hate speech” or “hate sites.” This is presumably by
design, with the intention that the topic is plagued by so many gray
areas that any future legislation in the area is, like all existing
examples of hate legislation, destined to be rhetorically capacious
enough to ensure easy arbitrary interpretation by those in control.

Early in his essay he asserts that “Hate speech is intended to injure,
dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize the
targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against
them.” But he also later endorses a definition of the Alt-Right, which
is routinely portrayed by Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish allies as a
body of “hate groups”, as merely “critical” of “multiculturalism,
feminists, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities”.
Criticism thus becomes conflated with hate.

It goes without saying that there is a crucial difference between the
two definitions, and it is in the gulf between these two definitions that
these activists seek to destroy freedom of speech. Mere criticism may
not “injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and
victimize” anyone, but the existence of a legislative framework
privileging minority interpretations of such criticism will surely
consign it to hate speech categorization.

Cohen-Almagor and his co-ethnic activists are equally vague in
explaining exactly how “White supremacist” websites are morally or
legally wrong. Despite its initial claims and promises, much of the
article is in fact taken up with banal observations. White racialist
websites, Cohen-Almagor informs us, often have “forums, discussion groups, photos and videos”. They offer “eye-catching teasers such as
symbols and pictures”. Readers of such websites “talk to each other,
thereby reinforcing their commonly held views, empowering people
who share their beliefs.” A key strategy involves “encouraging
interpersonal socialization in the offline world”. Members “use
cyberspace as a free space to create and sustain movement culture and
coordinate collective action”. Website proprietors can also “make
appeals for funding”. Perhaps this is quite terrifying to Jews, but as a
philosophical argument for the annihilation of free speech it is
catastrophically lacking.

Cohen-Almagor provides no evidence suggesting a link between even
the most incendiary racial commentary on the internet and acts of
violence. The only two examples he attempts to provide are almost
two decades old, and concern individuals with clearly unsound mental
health — spree-shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith having exhibited
all the signs of conduct disorder and psychopathy in adolescence prior
to his 1999 rampage, and Buford O. Furrow having been hospitalized
a number of times due to psychiatric instability and suicidal
tendencies prior to his shooting spree at a Jewish community center,
also in 1999.

Even the most basic critique of such a proposed link would ask why,
given the proliferation of the internet and social media between 1999
and 2018, there has been a decrease in violence from the far right.
Indeed, if one can excuse the continued use of the “racist” and “hate”
buzzwords, it’s difficult to disagree with one University of California,
Berkeley study that pointed out:

“Although White racist groups have proliferated on the Internet
in recent years, there appears to have been no corresponding
increase in membership in these groups or in hate crime rates. In
fact, one might argue that the prevalence of racist groups on the
Internet works to reduce hate crime, perhaps by providing less
physical, more rhetorical outlets for hate.” [3]

The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagor’s argument — that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence — is a total
fabrication.

It is a fabrication that is being used in conjunction with some of the
biggest international Jewish organizations and, via the Global Forum,
the State of Israel, to blackmail and deceive Western populations via a
specious sense of morality (i.e., a “morality” that denies the legitimate
interests of White populations in maintaining political, cultural, and
demographic control) coupled with activism in the media and
financial pressure on politicians.

Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the ADL, argues
shamelessly in an interview with Cohen-Almagor: ‘The evidence is
clear that hate online inspires hate crimes’. Cohen-Almagor writes:

“Overly permissive and tolerant attitudes towards hate speech is
a form of akrasia, whereby people act against their better
judgment. Not just those who post but also those who allow
such postings on their servers are culpable for their akratic
conduct. Whether through ignorance, indifference or insistence
on clinging to freedom of speech without caring about
dangerous consequences, these are unjustifiable. Internet
service providers are expected to abide by a basic code of
conduct, one that objects to rather than celebrates violence and
its promotion. When it comes to hate speech on the Internet,
society and its regulators cannot continue to remain akratic and
avoid responsibility for the harm that is inflicted.”

[1] R. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Taking North American White Supremacist Groups
Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,’
International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2
(2018), pp.38-57.

[2] . Cohen-Almagor, ‘Hate and Racist Speech in the United States: A critique,’ Philosophy and Public Issues, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.77-123.

[3] J. Glaser, J. Dixit & D. Green, ’Studying Hate Crime with the Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?’ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 177–193 (p.189)

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish plan to permanently silence the West [Part 1]

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.
Editor’s note: This is the first in a brilliant three-part sequence first published by The Occidental Observer on Monday 13th July 2020 at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/07/13/secure-tolerance-the-jewish-plan-to-permanently-silence-the-west-part-1/ and reproduced here by kind permission.

Go to Part 2
Go to Part 3
“The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.” Moshe Kantor, Manifesto on Secure Tolerance, 2011.

In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting.

This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.

When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.

There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.

I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis.

Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish?

Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight?

Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist

If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves.

I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.

As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe.

When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).

Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist”, Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.

Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such a phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic”. Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?

The Jewish plan to silence the West

Kantor argues that “tolerance”, which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism”. Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance”, which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:

“Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:

“Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).

“Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.

“And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.”

There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way”, is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law.

The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible”, the “making of which, once started, is never to stop”, in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism”.

Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop.

Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end.

Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all?

It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust”. His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the EU should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the EU’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. “Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes”.

Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial”. He is making speedy progress on all fronts.

ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” strategy for increasing non-white migration in Britain

Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:

“non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.”

In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament [1] by relying solely on Jewish MPs until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.” The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research:

It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews. [2] One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.”[3]

Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.”[4] One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain”.[5]

But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy’, in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.”[6]

From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936-). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain”. In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.”

Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. “The Race Relations Act owed much to him.”[7] So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent’, you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.

One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain.

Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that

“the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. “When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.”[8]

He further writes that

“every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”[9]

But Lester wasn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins.[10] Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.[11]

Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.”[12] Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy”.[13]

In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination”.[14] The principles were that:

“The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.”[15]

The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making”. This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will.

We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop”.

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaniewski. Kwaniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968.

Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions.

Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism.

The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.

End of Part 1 of 3.

[1] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.

[2] Donnelly, 115.

[3] Honeyford, 93.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 94.

[6] I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.

[7] W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.

[8] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.

[9] Ibid, 22.

[10] C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.

[11] P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.

[12] Ibid, 323.

[13] Ibid.

[14] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.

[15] Ibid.

The Orwellian Concept of ‘Hate Crime’

Philip Gegan
This post was originally published here in October 2020

The Orwellian concept of ‘hate crime’ is here, without any mandate, and our Police Force are enthusiastically supporting it. This is an insidious attack on freedom of expression and must be opposed with all our might. Below is an image of the opening part of the email I recently received as a member of my local Neighbourhood Alert Scheme, together with my reply to them. Any further correspondence relating to it will be published here.

Philip Gegan

Dear Mr Cole

“Hate Crime” Awareness Week 2020

I write in connection with an email I received this week from Neighbourhood Alert, which I believe is run in conjunction with Leicestershire Police. It invited me to support something called “Hate Crime Awareness Week 2020″.

Whilst I support law and order and proper punishments for real crimes, I am not going to support your ridiculous appeal for people to “pledge their support for ‘hate crime’ awareness week”.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a “hate crime”. The attempt to create such an absurdity has only come into existence over the last few years as the assault on our ancient freedoms and liberties by the left has gathered momentum.

Persecuting law-abiding people who express their politically incorrect opinions on Facebook or Twitter is, I suppose, an easier task than taking on hardened criminals who are literally getting away with murder every day.

We have in this country a tradition of freedom of speech that has served us well for hundreds of years, and that we all have a duty to treasure. This freedom has been under attack for several decades, and I for one will not let the madness of “political correctness” destroy it.

My father and grandfather, in their times, marched off to war in the belief that they were defending, among other things, freedom of speech. My uncle gave his life at the age of 25, before I was born, in defending this country from tyranny, and I won’t betray his sacrifice.

Yes, persecuting people for “hate crime” is a form of tyranny. It, together with its twin bastard-brother, “diversity”, is an insidious attack on our very existence as a people and nation. At a time when serious crime and drug offences are spiraling out of control, I am appalled that our own police force, rather than focusing on this horrendous situation, should be virtue-signaling in this way and enthusiastically endorsing the enemies of free speech. I can only suppose that no thought was put into it.

Speaking of thought, I suppose next year you’ll be inviting us to support “Thought Crime Awareness Week”.

Shame on you.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Gegan

Mr Simon Cole,
Chief Constable
Leicestershire Constabulary Force HQ
St. Johns
Enderby
Leicester
LE19 2BX

Humbug, Hypocrisy, and the Dismantling of White Western Identity

Reproduced here by permission of The Occidental Observer and Professor Kevin MacDonald – a wide-ranging article covering several subjects, including the Peter Simple column that used to grace the pages of the Daily Telegraph most of the time from the 1950s to the end of the twentieth century. In particular it informs us about hogwash from the UK’s Jewish Board of Deputies, the murder of the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israel de Haan (an anti-Zionist), and Jewish hypocrisy in demanding the right to exclusivity for Israel and Jews living in gentile nations but “diversity” for everyone else.

None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949-2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.

“Read off the result in prejudons”

The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Nathan (1913-2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical ‘Peter Simple’ column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:

THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a ‘racist incident’ as ‘any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’ is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).

Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of ‘racism’, press the easy-to-find ‘action’ button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple Column, The Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001).

It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing ‘the race relations industry’ (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and ‘hate’ can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase ‘internationally recognised,’ which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is ‘recognised.’

Adopt the definition, already!

Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is ‘internationally recognised.’ Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:

Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism

Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.

Marie said: ‘This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.

‘The IHRA Definition makes it easier for authorities to identify and understand the nature of contemporary antisemitism. If universities are serious about addressing antisemitism and making Jews feel welcome at their institution, they should follow KCL’s example and adopt the definition.’ (Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, The Board of Deputies website, 30th May 2018)

The phrase ‘internationally recognised’ is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is ludicrously vague and elastic:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:

One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium
One Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena

Note the slogan ‘One Nation. One Siyum.’ A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity – the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).

Murder of a poet

But what is the ‘One Nation’ that has just completed ‘One Siyum’? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, ‘One Nation’ obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means ‘Union of Israel,’ that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for ‘divine intervention.’

Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesman, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israel de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become ‘non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,’ and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.

A Jewish supremacist party

And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called ‘far right’ and condemned with labels like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic,’ and ‘extremist.’ Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.

The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far ‘more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide’ than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.

Inbreeding and ethnocentrism

And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say ‘countries’ advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as ‘One Nation,’ it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. ‘Nation‘ ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning ‘to be born.’ Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.

This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes ‘the best job in the world.’

The Fine Line

The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of ‘Who decides who is British?’ It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and ‘lazy assumptions’ make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of ‘Welcoming the Stranger’:

Jewniversity: Sarah Fine

Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity

I usually ask the subjects of this column – ‘is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?’. ‘No’, is the occasional curt response.

But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.

Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?

To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?

Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.

On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself – indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.

But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders – doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) – can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?

But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.

Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.

Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is ‘our’ way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?

Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents – the first in the family to attend university – settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.

She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious – but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: ‘And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt’. (Who decides who is British?, The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)

There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British – and who is American, German, French, Swedish, Australian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his ‘vote’ outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, ‘[w]hether he was granted entry’ was hugely important to him.’

And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.

The core of mendacity

Meanwhile, Jews in America, Germany, France, Sweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a ‘nation of immigrants’ and a ‘melting pot‘ for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidele Mutwarasibo, who has ‘a PhD in Sociology,’ and Salome Mbugua, who has ‘a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.’ And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:

The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: ‘Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.’ You might as well say that ‘Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united’ or ‘Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.’ And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.

Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites

Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: ‘Jews can, goys can’t.’ Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning ‘Union of Israel,’ remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.

Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter

And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidele Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as ‘Our Man in the Dail’ (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s ‘definition of anti-Semitism’ is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?

US News – Chick-Fil-A joins in the war on the Whites

This item was originally posted here in December 2019
In the United States the war against White people continues unabated. One of the latest examples is how Chick-Fil-A, a leading fast-food chain, has cancelled financial support for non-Jewish organisations and switched that money to an anti-White, Jewish sponsored pressure group. Read this item from Breitbart for more details.

Chick-Fil-A Donates to Extremist Southern Poverty Law Center

by PENNY STARR and EZRA DULIS 27 Nov 2019

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) records show that Chick-fil-A is not only stopping donations to Christian organizations but is funding left-wing extremist groups, including the anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Chick-fil’s 2017 990 IRS filing shows the fast-food franchise made a $2,500 donation to SPLC, among a laundry list of pro-abortion and pro-LGBT orgs, Townhall reports. The Chick-fil-A Foundation has come under conservative scrutiny since its decision to stop supporting Christian charities such as the Salvation Army, caving to disingenuous pressure campaigns from far-left activists.

The SPLC is most infamous for inspiring an attempted domestic terror attack against the Family Research Council (FRC), a group that lobbies for pro-marriage and pro-life policies.

In 2013, Floyd Lee Corkins II was sentenced to 25 years in prison in the first-ever conviction for domestic terrorism under Washington, DC, law. Corkins pleaded guilty to assault with intent to kill and committing an act of terrorism for entering the FRC’s office in August 2012 and shooting a black security guard, who ultimately thwarted his attack. Corkins used the SPLC’s “hate map”, an error-filled digital map giving the addresses of entities that the org deems “hate groups”, to locate the FRC for his planned massacre.

Corkins was carrying a bag of Chick-fil-A sandwiches when he entered the building and started shooting. He later told prosecutors that he planned to smear some of the food on the faces of his would-be victims.

FRC President Tony Perkins swiftly denounced the Chick-fil-A Foundation’s support of “one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America”.

“Not only has Chick-fil-A abandoned donations to Christian groups including the Salvation Army, it has donated to one of the most extreme anti-Christian groups in America,” Perkins said in a statement. “Anyone who opposes the SPLC, including many Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and traditional conservatives, is slandered and slapped with the ‘extremist’ label or, even worse, their ‘hate group’ designation.”

“It’s time for Christians to find a fast food alternative to Chick-fil-A,” he concluded.

In addition to the FRC terrorism episode, the SPLC has suffered a number of other setbacks and humiliations, but it has not backed down from its extremist agenda, refreshing its “Hate Map” in 2018 and putting mainstream conservative activists in the same category as neo-Nazis and the alt-right.

The FRC remains a target on the map, even after the listing nearly got some of its staff killed. Other supposed “hate groups” include the Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, Federation for American Immigration Reform, and the Clarion Project.

After Corkins’ prosecution, federal agencies began distancing themselves from the then-discredited SPLC. The Department of Justice followed suit its hate crimes web page of any association from the organisation in 2014, and the Department of Defense soon followed suit in its training materials. In August 2018, then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called out the organisation while speaking at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) – which SPLC has labeled a “hate group.”

The SPLC’s broad-brush approach to political smearing has caused it more PR headaches in recent years. In December 2017, its “Hate Tracker” – a tool ostensibly set up to monitor the conversation topics of online extremists – flagged the hashtags “#Christmas,” “#MerryChristmas,” “#Jesus,” and “#ChristmasEve.” At the time of this writing, the “Hate Tracker” website is no longer functional.

Just months earlier, the organisation committed an even bigger blunder, including British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz in a “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists.” Nawaz sued for defamation and won a $3.375 million settlement plus an on-camera apology from SPLC President Richard Cohen.

After the Nawaz fiasco, the floodgates opened with bipartisan scrutiny of its practices. Washington Post columnist Marc A. Thiessen wrote a piece titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center has lost all credibility,” calling the org a “caricature” of its former self and urging donors to halt their support.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) wrote to the IRS in April 2019, asking for a review of the SPLC’s nonprofit 501(c)(3) status in light of its obviously partisan activities which have yielded hundreds of millions of assets and “lavish salaries” for its management.

“Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents,” Cotton wrote, citing the Nawaz settlement and the org’s Hate Map. “In fact, the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.”

In March of 2019, the SPLC fired its founder Morris Dees, suggesting some kind of misconduct. A local reporter said several sources told him Dees had been accused of sexual harassment. In addition, SPLC employees reportedly accused management of being “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.”

Even amid all this controversy, the SPLC continues working with tech and finance companies like PayPal and Alphabet’s YouTube to silence and blacklist conservatives from banking services.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter

The original post can be read here.

Triggered by Bach: Classical Music as Implicit White Supremacy

Western classical music, inspired, written, performed and enjoyed almost exclusively by White people even to this day, alone among music of whatever description, has the capacity to inspire the soul, and not just provide entertainment.
But it has for some time been under sustained attack. Its protagonists are, of course, the usual array of non-whites, Jews, and liberal whites who want to debauch our entire culture and destroy our race by means of “multi-culturalism”.
For example, they use their power of finance to degrade our music festivals by forcing the organisers to cater not just for White classical music but also for lesser kinds of music as if they were the equal of classical music.
They would, if they could, bring the music of Mozart and Beethoven, for example, down to the level of rap. This valuable contribution by Brenton Sanderson dissects their shallow arguments and exposes the falsehoods promulgated by the Left. A must-read for anyone who is concerned about the current assault on genuine music.

Re-posted with permission from The Occidental Observer. URL: https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/07/01/triggered-by-bach-classical-music-as-implicit-white-supremacy/

“White supremacist” has long been the preferred Jewish epithet to throw at White people who have the temerity to do what Jews do routinely: openly advocate for their ethnic interests. This hackneyed label has always been utterly beside the point: whether Whites are superior to non-Whites has no logical bearing on the moral legitimacy of White people defending their collective interests. Having said this, everyone is well aware that the achievements of White people in countless cultural and scientific domains surpass those of other groups, and can objectively be regarded as “superior”. A conspicuous example is the Western musical tradition.

The superiority of Western classical music is so decisive one could almost rest the argument for the superiority of Western culture on it alone. There exists a hierarchy in the world of sound, as in other phenomena. Noise occupies the lowest rung in this hierarchy; it is an undifferentiated mass of sound in which no distinction exists. The lowest kind of music, say that of Australia’s Aborigines, most closely corresponds to noise. Western classical music, by contrast, exists on the highest rung because it apprehends sound in the most highly differentiated way possible. It is the farthest from noise and most fully exploits the inherent potential of the world of sound.

How well this potential is apprehended and developed can lead to Bach’s inimitable counterpoint, the extraordinary tonal architecture of Beethoven’s symphonies, Bruckner’s sonic cathedrals – or to banging on a hollow log with a stick. Besides stimulating pleasure in audiences, great classical music has an unrivalled capacity to shed light on our ontological predicament and connect aesthetic experience with the transcendental. Goethe once noted, with reference to Bach’s great fugues, where as many as five separate lines of musical argument are simultaneously sustained, that “it is as though the eternal harmony has a conversation with itself”. Only Western classical music, I would argue, can create this sublime impression.

To point out the foregoing is to trigger rage from anti-White commentators who huff that it has “long been an argument of white supremacists, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and racial separatists that “classical music”, the music of “white people”, is inherently more sophisticated, complicated, and valuable than the musical traditions of Africa, Asia, South America, or the Middle East, thus proving the innate superiority of the “white race”. The problem with this assessment, aside from denying the very existence of the White race, is the inability to demonstrate (or even attempt to demonstrate) that Western classical music is not inherently more sophisticated, complicated (and yes valuable) than other musical traditions.

That classical music stands as a glaring (and galling) testament to the preeminence of European high culture (and implicitly of the race overwhelmingly responsible for it), was evident in the reaction to a speech President Trump gave in Poland in 2017. The speech, praising Western civilization, included the line, “we write symphonies”.Jonathan Capehart, a columnist at The Washington Post, fumed: “What on Earth does that have to do with anything? In that one line, taken in context with everything else Trump said, what I heard was the loudest of dog whistles. A familiar boast that swells the chests of white nationalists everywhere”. For Anthony Tommasini of The New York Times, Trump’s point, extolling the “richness, history and, indeed, the superiority of Western culture”, was “all too clear and dismaying”. Alex Ross, Jewish music critic for the New Yorker, found “ludicrous and sinister” Trump’s “implication that some cultures are incapable of creating symphonies”, a sentiment that, he maintained, should have “stirred bad memories”.

Classical Music as Insufficiently Diverse

As well as decrying as deeply offensive the invocation of classical music to praise Western civilization (and thus White people), commentators routinely bemoan the lack of “diversity” in the genre. According to Jewish music critic Greg Sandow, the “problem of racial diversity in classical music has long been the elephant in the room”, and he labels “ugly” the fact that classical music, “in practice pretty much a lily-white art”, claims “special privileges (lavish funding, school programs devoted to it) in an age of growing diversity”. Rather than simply reflecting the divergent preferences and aptitudes of different racial groups, the underrepresentation of Black and Brown people in Western orchestras (and their audiences) is inevitably ascribed to White racism. Black screenwriter Candace Allen, the ex-wife of conductor Sir Simon Rattle, branded the British classical music world “racist”, claiming a combination of discrimination and lack of exposure to classical music at an early age meant Blacks were unlikely to make it to the concert hall (in the audience or on stage), and when they did, “their sense of alienation made the experience not one to be repeated”.

According to this conception, an insidious White supremacist conspiracy keeps the classical repertoire dominated by the music of dead White men performed by living White men, and prevents Black and Brown people from succeeding in the genre. For the “White supremacist” social order to be maintained, Raymond Arsenault insists, “Blacks had to know their place, and the world of popular music was one of the places where they allegedly belonged”. While the “relativist revolution begun by anthropologist Franz Boas and others had already eroded the presumption of black inferiority”,in the Western world of public opinion and culture, “the time-honored shibboleths of white-supremacy held sway”.[i] One of these “hibboleths” was that:

Mastery of classical technique required superior intelligence, discipline, and years of training. The world of classical music was the province not only of natural talent but of cultivated genius. Here the barriers to black achievement were thought to be both cultural and physiological. Conventional wisdom held that blacks did things naturally and impulsively without much thought or deliberation. Classical music, by contrast, was intellectual, highbrow, and European in origin. As such, it was deemed inappropriate for African Americans three or four generations removed from the jungles of Africa. Black success in the world of classical music would be tantamount to beating whites at their own game, something that could not be tolerated or even contemplated in white supremacist circles. It would represent an affront to white sensibilities, upsetting expectations based on multiple layers of observation and socialization.[ii]

The White supremacist conspiracy to thwart Black and Brown achievement in classical music purportedly extends to musical education where, in the most commonly used theory textbooks in the United States, only 1.63% of musical examples come from non-White composers. This is problematic for Linda Shaver-Gleason because studying a particular piece “reaffirms its canonical status; enshrining it in a textbook is deeming it worthy of study“. Constantly referencing White composers “reinforces the idea that they’re the ones who deserve the most respect, as if to say, “Marvel at the many techniques Mozart used so perfectly!” Ethan Hein, a (presumably Jewish) doctoral fellow in music education at NYU, decries the stubbornness of music teachers in teaching “European-descended” classical music over that of “music descending from the vernacular traditions of the African diaspora”. Orienting music education towards the European classical tradition, an “implicit racial ideology”, is, he declares, “insidious” in its “affirmations of Whiteness”.

While White people are chastised for “appropriating” the cultures of non-White groups, the notion they should be allowed to maintain cultural and artistic institutions reserved exclusively for their own racial group is considered anathema. The Vienna Philharmonic came under attack in the 1990s for its failure to embrace the new ideological and moral imperatives of increased racial and gender diversity. One commentator condemned the orchestra for “its consistently racist and sexist hiring practices”, dismissing as “clearly absurd” claims made by representatives of the orchestra that it performs an essentially European art-form and thus should be composed of White men. Dieter Flury, a flutist for the orchestra, opined at the time that:

From the beginning we have spoken of the special Viennese qualities, of the way music is made here. The way we make music here is not only a technical ability, but also something that has a lot to do with the soul. The soul does not let itself be separated from the cultural roots that we have here in central Europe. And it also doesn’t allow itself to be separated from gender. So if one thinks that the world should function by quota regulations, then it is naturally irritating that we are a group of white skinned male musicians that perform exclusively the music of white skinned male composers.  If one establishes superficial egalitarianism, one will lose something very significant. [S]omething produced by a superficial understanding of human rights would not have the same standards.

Music writer Stefan Aune insists the European domination of classical music cannot be attributed to advantageous genetic endowments possessed on average by White people, and has “no patience for individuals or institutions harboring antiquated beliefs about the superiority of White-European performers or composers”. Ignoring all the data proving the existence of significant racial differences, he ascribes such beliefs to “racism and a fundamentally incorrect view of musical history”. The European domination of classical music has, he insists, everything to do with “cultural inequalities” and nothing to do with inborn characteristics:

In the last analysis, racial and gender inequalities throughout the history of classical music are a question of access rather than innate ability. Individuals like [mulatto composers] Chevalier de Saint George, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and George Bridgetower erode the argument that classical music is an exclusively white-European cultural enterprise. They show that individuals from any background can succeed in the western musical tradition, and they also show that the western musical tradition is not nearly as culturally homogeneous as many would argue.

The composers identified here are remembered solely because they were non-White – not because of the excellence of their compositions. Rather than being excluded from the classical repertory because of their music’s relative lack of quality and popularity, Linda Shaver-Gleason believes they are victims of the aforementioned White supremacist conspiracy which has “intentionally suppressed” their music  “in the service of a narrative of white – specifically German – cultural supremacy (because, alas, that too is part of Western culture)”.

Constructing Beethoven as Black

Even the romantic idea of the composer-genius is regarded as an element of this conspiracy to keep Western classical music a Whites-only field. For Shaver-Gleason, “The conflation of “genius” and “white man” means that no minority will be viewed as a real genius, and hence not a real composer”. Given Beethoven’s status as the archetypal musical genius, it is unsurprising that aggrieved Blacks have, since the early twentieth century, attempted to propagate the myth that Beethoven had some African ancestry. The basis for this spurious claim was the composer’s somewhat swarthy complexion, and the fact a part of his family traced its roots to Flanders, which was for a period under Spanish monarchical rule. Because Spain had a longstanding historical connection to North Africa through the Moors, a degree of blackness supposedly trickled down to the great composer.

The myth was eagerly disseminated by Jamaican “historian” Joel Augustus Rogers (1880 – 1966) in works like Sex and Race (1941-44), the two-volume World’s Great Men of Color (1946-47), 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro (1934), Five Negro Presidents (1965), and Nature Knows No Color Line (1952). Rogers, whose intellectual rigor was basically nonexistent, claimed that Beethoven – in addition to Thomas Jefferson, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Robert Browning, and several popes, among others – was genealogically African and thus Black. Despite being thoroughly debunked, the myth still lingers in contemporary culture: in 2007 Nadine Gordimer published a short story collection called Beethoven Was One-Sixteenth Black: And Other Stories. The determination, contrary to all evidence, to make Beethoven Black is, of course, a desperate attempt to make the composer and his oeuvre a glorious symbol of Black accomplishment.

Shaver-Gleason warns such efforts are self-defeating, merely serving to treat the Western canon as fundamental and all other styles as deviations from this norm, thus reinforcing “the notion that of classical music as a universal standard and something that everyone should aspire to appreciate”. Trying to make Beethoven Black and desperately scouring the historical records for examples of non-Whites who wrote symphonies is to accept”a white-centric perspective that presents symphonies as the ultimate human achievement in the arts”. Black musicologist Philip Ewell agrees, and advocates “overthrowing the existing structure and building a new one that would accommodate non-white music a priori”, no reaching for “inclusion” necessary because non-white composers would already be there”. One Black music writer endorses this stance, and resents that the waltzes of Johann Strauss Jr. are regarded as part of the body of superior classical music, while the music of James Brown – “the Godfather of Soul” – is regarded as mere entertainment.

The East Asian Affinity for Western classical music

Curiously, the alleged White supremacist conspiracy that allegedly prevents Blacks and Browns from succeeding in classical music doesn’t have the same effect on East Asians – the one non-White group that likes performing and listening to classical music. A survey of Asian-Americans aged 18-24 found 14 percent attended a classical concert in the preceding year, more than any other demographic in that age group. Asian attendance rates match or surpass the national average up through the 45-54 age range. The younger the classical music audience gets, the more Asian it becomes.

Unlike non-White groups affronted by claims to the superiority for Western classical music, East Asians are under no illusion about the inferiority of their own musical tradition when compared to European art music. This acknowledgement lies at the heart of why East Asian parents are so enthusiastic for their children to play and appreciate the genre. As Amy Chua acknowledges in her widely publicized (and criticized) Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother:

That’s one of the reasons I insisted [my two daughters] do classical music. I knew that I couldn’t artificially make them feel like poor immigrant kids. But I could make sure that [they] were deeper and more cultivated than my parents and I were. Classical music was the opposite of decline, the opposite of laziness, vulgarity, and spoiledness. It was a way for my children to achieve something I hadn’t. But it was also a tie-in to the high cultural tradition of my ancestors [Chua is proud to be descended in the direct male line from Chua Wu Neng, Imperial Astronomer to a 17th-century emperor]. To me, the violin symbolized respect for hierarchy, standards, and expertise. For those who know better and can teach. For those who play better and can inspire. And for parents. It also symbolized history. The Chinese never achieved the heights of Western classical music – there is no Chinese equivalent of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony – but high traditional music is deeply entwined with Chinese civilization.[iii]

Chua is married to a Jew and recalls her stereotypically Jewish mother-in-law (a “progressive” art critic) being opposed to her grandchildren learning the violin – suggesting they learn Indonesian gamelan percussion instruments as more in keeping with the multicultural zeitgeist of the contemporary West. To back her case, she noted how French composer Claude Debussy had been captivated by gamelan music which helped inspire shimmering impressionistic masterpieces like L’apres midi dâun faun. Chua is distinctly unimpressed with this line of argument:

Personally, I think Debussy was just going through a phase, fetishizing the exotic. The same thing happened to Debussy’s fellow Frenchmen Henri Rousseau and Paul Gauguin who started painting Polynesian natives all the time. A particularly disgusting variation of this phenomenon can be found in modern-day California: men with Yellow Fever, who date only Asian women – sometimes dozens in a row – no matter how ugly or which kind of Asian. For the record, Jed [her husband] did not date any Asian women before me. Maybe the reason I can’t appreciate gamelan music, which I heard when we visited Indonesia in 1992, is that I fetishize difficulty and accomplishment. Gamelan music is mesmerizing because it is so simple, unstructured, and repetitious. By contrast, Debussy’s brilliant compositions reflect complexity, ambition, ingenuity, design, conscious harmonic exploration – and yes, gamelan influences, at least in some of his works. It’s like the difference between a bamboo hut, which has its charm, and the Palace of Versailles.[iv]

Debussy first heard Indonesian gamelan music at the Paris Exhibition in 1889 and possibly again at the same event in 1900. In his biography of Debussy, musicologist Stephen Walsh notes that while it’s common to talk about the influence of the gamelan on Debussy’s compositions, it merely accentuated existing aspects of his style:”He did not need the gamelan to teach him pentatony, the whole-tone scale or modalism. They were already part of his language. Insofar as this contact with the oriental musical mind helped release him from the toils of Wagnerism and, worse, the [conservatively-inclined] Conservatoire, the truth is that it did so only in part and quite gradually.”[v]

East Asia has produced countless young technical virtuosos, but their nimble fingers and admirable work ethics are often not matched by the emotional depth required for the successful interpretation of nineteenth-century Romantic repertoire. Chinese film director, and classical music fan, Chen Kaige, hopes Western classical music can educate an intensely materialistic and collectivist Chinese people in spirituality and individualism. “One of the biggest differences between Chinese and Western culture,” he points out, “is that we don’t have religion. We don’t worship anything. Western classical music has elements of love and forgiveness that come from religion. Chinese music is very intellectual, very exotic, but there is no love. You don’t feel warm after you listen to it.”

Appreciation of Classical Music Correlated with Intelligence

The East Asian affinity with Western classical music is perhaps not surprising given that appreciation of the genre has been correlated with higher intelligence. Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa posits that more intelligent people populate concert halls because they’re more likely to respond to purely instrumental works. By contrast, people across the intelligence spectrum seem to enjoy vocal music. Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis predicts highly intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. According to this theory, they are better able to comprehend, and thus enjoy, novel stimuli. Vocal music predated sonatas by many millennia, so, in evolutionary terms, purely instrumental music is a novelty – which, according to Kanazawa’s theory, means highly intelligent people are more likely to appreciate and enjoy it.

Studies support Kanazawa’s theory, finding clear preferences for instrumental musical genres among those who score higher on intelligence tests. Controlling for age, race, sex, education, family income, religion, current and past marital status and number of children, more intelligent people are more likely to prefer instrumental music than less-intelligent people. A 2019 Croatian study confirmed these findings, showing that people with lower intelligence preferred music with lyrics, rather than complex orchestrations. 467 teenagers performed a non-verbal intelligence test and were then asked to rank musical genres in order of preference. Those who recorded the highest IQ scores displayed a clear preference for instrumental music. On the other extreme, preference for rap music is significantly negatively correlated with intelligence.

The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis helps to explain why Black people (as a low-IQ group) are generally repulsed by classical music, and why it has been used successfully as a crime prevention mechanism in racially-diverse cities around the world. Neurologists note that certain types of music work as a crime deterrent because of people’s neurobiological responses to things they don’t enjoy or find unfamiliar. When people hear music they like, it stimulates dopamine production and puts them in a better mood. But when people dislike the music, their brains respond by suppressing dopamine production – souring their mood and making them avoid it.

Conclusion

Mass non-White immigration into Western nations has ensured that, for a growing percentage of their populations, classical music holds little or no appeal. Classical music audiences in the United States and other Western nations are contracting: according to a National Endowment for the Arts survey, in the early twenty-first century, the percentage of American adults who attended at least one classical music event dropped from 11.6 to 8.8 in just ten years.

Non-White immigration to the West was always unpopular with existing White populations who were assured it posed no long-term threat to their demographic and cultural dominance. This was always a lie: changing the demographics and culture of the West (in Jewish interests) was the core motivation for these policies. With the Great Replacement now well underway, even White people who enjoy a White art form – like classical music – are regarded by some as engaging in an activity that should make them feel “uncomfortable”. One White commentator, for example, laments that “we don’t seem uncomfortable enough” when “sitting in the concert halls of Europe and America’s cosmopolitan cities in a usually very white audience listening to a usually very white orchestra”.

African-American writer Teju Cole is similarly perplexed that White people who enjoy hearing White musicians playing White music don’t feel more uncomfortable: “It never ceases to surprise me,” he notes, “how easy it is to leave the hybridity of the city, and enter into all-white spaces, the homogeneity of which, as far as I can tell, causes no discomfort to the whites in them.”[vi] Jewish music critic Greg Sandow likewise finds offensive that, “in a diverse culture, classical music stands out (on the whole) as strikingly white, and that even many white people, especially younger ones, look at classical music, and feel (whether they put it in words or not, or even if they don’t consciously know they think this) that something isn’t quite right, that this isn’t the country they live in”. The solution to this problem, according to Fred Bronstein, the Jewish former director of the St. Louis Symphony, is for future classical music audiences to be “much more diverse than we can even dream of today. And audiences will only become truly diverse when the performers on our stages are diverse”.

Classical music, like other aspects of Western culture, has been a casualty of the anti-White diversity mania that now infests Western intellectual life. The Cultural Marxist critique of classical music wallows in bad faith arguments and cognitive dissonance: Western classical music is nothing exceptional, yet cannot be invoked to praise White people because this necessarily implies the inferiority of other races; a White supremacist conspiracy thwarts Black and Brown achievement in the genre, but it utterly fails to prevent East Asian interest and success; Black composers have written symphonies (and, indeed, Beethoven himself was Black), yet the Western classical music tradition is inherently White supremacist and needs radical deconstruction.

Ultimately, the reason invoking classical music to laud White people is so keenly resented by anti-White intellectuals is because the gap in civilizational attainment it underscores is an embarrassing affront to regnant egalitarian assumptions. Classical music is one of the crowning glories of Western civilization, and White people have every right to take proud in their race’s achievements in the genre, and to cite these achievements as motivation for pro-White activism.


 

[i] Raymond Arsenault, The Sound of Freedom: Marian Anderson, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Concert That Awakened America (New York: Bloomsbury, 2009), 81

[ii] Ibid., 75.

[iii] Amy Chua, Battle Hymn of the Triger Mother (London: Bloomsbury, 2011), 22.

[iv] Ibid., 40-41.

[v] Stephen Walsh, Debussy: A Painter in Sound (London: Knoph Doubleday, 2018) 211.

[vi] Teju Cole, Open City (New York: Random House, 2011) 252.

A Jewess’s rant in The Spectator against the British body politic

Martin Webster
Note: This post was first published in November 2019.

Hysterical, self-pitying, self-indulgent, arrogant, spiteful, illogical, hateful.

These are the adjectives which came into my mind when reading Tanya Gold’s tirade “‘Utterly betrayed: Britain’s Jews are now politically homeless” by Tanya Gold – in The Spectator of Saturday 9th November 2019 – initially against the Corbynite left of the Labour Party, but which developed against much of our country’s body politic.

In the end, I was left with a sense that she was raging against the British people and nation as a whole – even the gentile world at large. This is nothing new in the voluminous canon of Jewish contemplation about the “goyim”, the inhabitants of the non-Jewish world.

Tanya Gold
If somebody had published such a screed against Jewry they might find themselves charged with some sort of “hate crime”, under a law devised by Jewish lawyers and pushed on to the Statute Book at the behest of Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish parliamentarians (of all parties) and their gentile philo-semitic colleagues (of all parties), all of whom are at once:
(a) perpetually hungry for Jewish financial and media patronage bestowed by the likes of the Conservative/Labour “Friends of Israel”organisations,

and

(b) terrified of being marked down as “anti-semitic” if they refused any Jewish demand.

I found that the case which Tanya Gold’s article seeks to assert self-destructed as I read it, so I will not seek to deconstruct it in detail here. I will simply point to one short passage which exposes the school playground level bigotry – and hence the hypocrisy – of this woman who seeks to denounce bigotry:

I have not considered voting Conservative before. But I won’t. There is
a respectable strain of Conservatism, but this is not it, not for me – one
glance at Jacob Rees-Mogg’s face is enough

Jewry seeks to control all political parties

Judah has become rampant in Britain not only on account of what the founder of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, described as “the terrible power of our purse”, and not only because of the ever-increasing Jewish control of the media, but because Jewry has been able to dominate all the parliamentary political parties – and a lot of the minor parties as well.

In that latter regard, let us not forget Jewry’s sustained effort, circa 1998 to 2007, to get British National Party leader Nick Griffin “on board”, only to find that he and his party were so “flaky” that they had to turn their effort to dominate the “far Right” to cultivating the man who calls himself “Tommy Robinson” and promoting his “English” [sic] Defence League. I chronicled all this in my Electronic Loose Cannon e-mail bulletins issued during the first decade of this century while the BNP was still significantly extant.

Jewry’s strategy has been simple for the past 100 years or more: It seeks to exert a controlling influence over all political parties, factions and tendencies so as to protect Jewry both here in Britain and abroad – especially (post WW2) Israel, which is the totem pole focus of its essential tribal and hence political loyalty.

It is because Jewry sees its once stranglehold grip on the Labour Party slipping, at least for the moment, and because it fears that if Labour’s bid for independence is allowed to succeed then the revolt might spread to other major parliamentary parties, that it is making war on the Corbyn-led Labour Party with increasing ferocity.

The Conservative Party purports to be fighting the 12th December General Election to “Get Brexit Done”. In my view that slogan is a confidence trick because the “Brexit” which Boris Johnson is offering is not an implementation of the 2016 Referendum result which mandated a clean break from the EU and all its institutions.

Parties which seek to escape
Jewish control to be destroyed

Jewry is engaged in this election, increasingly by giving support to the
Conservatives, not to achieve any sort of Brexit (to which it is opposed as a revolt against the internationalist and cosmopolitan milieu in which it thrives but all others involved degenerate) but to shatter the Corbynite hold on the Labour Party and, thereby, to demonstrate to the entire body politic that parties and politicians who seek to escape Jewish control will be destroyed.

It was this motivation that prompted the Board of Deputies of British Jews, via the Labour Friends of Israel, to set up in 1977 the Anti Nazi League (“Anal” to nationalists) in alliance with the “anti-Zionist” Socialist Workers Party, then led by a group of Israeli passport-holders fronted by a man who called himself “Tony Cliff” but whose real name was Ygael Gluckstein. In the run-up to the 1979 General Election Anal subjected the National Front’s lawful activities to mob violence. Their objective was made clear with their chant: “Smash! Smash! Smash the National Front!” It is deliciously ironic that among those active in Anal’s “Red Rent-a-Mob” are people who are now being witch-hunted as Corbynite “anti-semites”within the Labour Party.

Jewry’s strategy in treating the current Labour Party with the same venom – if not, yet, with the same degree of physical violence – as it deployed against the NF in the 1970s strikes me as very high risk. In making such an effort Jewry puts itself on view to the general public in a way that it traditionally prefers not to do. The nasty, neurotic, self-worshipping aspect of Jewry’s personality becomes exposed, as it is here for all to see in Tanya Gold’s article.

“Anti-semitic” or not, the Labour Party is multi-racialist

This is not a plea for anybody to vote Labour on 12th December! Whether or not there are “anti-semites” within the Labour Party, that party – be it “Blairite” or “Corbynite” –  adheres to unrestricted immigration not only from Europe but from the whole of Africa, Asia and South America and actively approves of inter-racial mating. It seeks to allow the families of illegal immigrants to “unite” here, not in their own ancestral homelands. Corbyn himself in his younger days flaunted his relationship with the negress Diane Abbott, now the Labour Shadow Home Secretary.

When Coloured Immigration into the UK commenced in the late 1940s the
Communist Party was comprised for the most part of Scots and Jews. To begin with the Jock element was in the ascendancy and proclaimed (correctly in my view) that Coloured Immigration was a “bosses” plot to undermine the wages of British workers. But the Jews, fearful of where such sentiments might lead if British society became less, not more, cosmopolitan, fought back and eventually turned the CP in favour of immigration and multi-racialism. (“Workers of all Lands Unite!”) This policy development soon influenced the Labour Party. Those seeking to know how the CP influenced Labour Party policy in the 1940s have only to read Douglas Hyde’s 1951 memoir: I Believed: The Autobiography of a Former British Communist.

This “Communist” multi-racialist policy is in fact an essentially Jewish policy; a strategy devised to leave non-Jewish nations/societies weaker and, relatively, Jewry stronger. If Jewry sustains its internal discipline, via Judaism and societal pressure, which interdicts marriage with non-Jews (“Vot? You vant to continue ze vork of Hitler?”) whilst promoting all manner of non-Jewish races to inter-breed with each other, then the culturally/ethnically distinct Jewish population will develop its patriotism and objectives whilst all manner of other folks are dissolved into racial/cultural chaos.

Not that the Jews are a particularly ethnically homogeneous nation, but as I have remarked before: In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King.

A Race War Prophecy

Race War Prophecy

Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War
Guillaume Faye
Arktos, 2019.

"A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves."

Guillaume Faye, Ethnic Apocalypse
This is a review by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. of the last book written by the French “far-right” intellectual, Guillaume Faye, with the title of “Guerre civile raciale” (A Racial Civil War). It has a foreword written by Jared Taylor.

M. Faye sadly passed away in March 2019. He wrote this book knowing he had nothing to lose as he was dying anyway. It deals brutally with the nightmare that a growing number of European countries are gradually waking up to – the fact that when you have millions of Africans and Arabs, largely Muslim, of low IQ and with no record of stable civilisation, settle in White countries in numbers that are now outnumbering those of the native White population, then the result is not exactly going to be that everyone lives happily ever after.

Mr Joyce is in danger, in places in his review, of falling into the trap of summarising the book chapter by chapter, but that aside this review is essential reading for all genuine racial nationalists. We are obliged to The Occidental Observer for their permission in republishing this article, which was originally published at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/09/08/a-race-war-prophecy/

The original post contained numerous footnotes that we have not been able to reproduce here for technical reasons. Readers are referred to the original post (link above) for those.

The celebrated French far-Right intellectual Guillaume Faye passed away in March, after a long battle with cancer, but not before leaving us a literary parting shot that deserves to be a bestseller. In his final book, Faye explores the demographic, cultural, political, and military degradation of France, drawing sobering lessons for the West as a whole. The book makes a number of stark and terrifying predictions that, when all current trends are taken into consideration, have an overwhelming probability of coming to fruition. Foremost among these predictions is that the West is now almost certainly destined to convulse with a savage and intense civil war (both civil and internal, both religious and racial) without parallel in the history of mankind. With all the dark candour one might expect from a dying man with nothing else to lose, Ethnic Apocalypse, or as it was published in French Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War), is perhaps the most brutally frank, bitterly scathing, and searingly honest accounts of the current trajectory of the multicultural West that I’ve ever come across. The reader searches the text for euphemism, finding none. There are no evasions here; no duplicity in nomenclature. Faye doesn’t speak of cultural differences, or religious incompatibilities. He has little time for talk of assimilation and integration. The problem, he declares, “is neither ideological nor even religious in nature, but, in fact, anthropological. And so is the solution. The coming war will involve people who have nothing to say to one another and who should never have been made to live together”. A little over 50 years after Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech, Faye’s book is both a nod to Powell’s prescience, and a chronicle of the nascent ebbs and waves of a crimson tide that now seems fated to engulf us all.

The volume opens with a heartfelt preface by Jared Taylor, who appears to have been appropriately affected by its contents and describes the text as “certainly the darkest, bravest, and frankest book my friend has ever written. It is a brilliant analysis of the mortal threat to us of massive non-white immigration.” Arktos, the publisher of the English translation, then offer a brief note explaining the change in title from the “intentionally incendiary” French, pointing to the fact “the original title would render this book a magnet to our contemporary censors, who would work under the curious pretext, no doubt, that any book which speaks of a racial civil war in its title must surely be advocating the same”. It is a credit to Arktos that they haven’t changed anything other than the title of this book which, while not necessarily advocating for race war, certainly doesn’t shy away from considering or even desiring the positive results that might arise from such an eventuality. As Arktos make clear, “many of the ideas the reader will encounter herein are harsh and hard to look upon, but they are genuine and astute; they are a serious man’s assessment of what he regarded as a coming emergency of continental, if not global proportions”. And with the conclusion of these preambles, explanations, and caveats, Faye’s final book gets underway.

In the first chapter, “Diagnosis Before the Storm”, Faye outlines the fundamentals of the problem facing Europe and those of European origin. He begins with a list of murders and atrocities committed in France, including the slaughter of a priest by Muslims during Mass and massacres in Paris, Nice, and other provincial French towns. He points to an”ever-increasing criminality involving clearly identified perpetrators whose ethnic origins is often concealed by the official media”, and a “growing difficulty for the native population to coexist with African and Oriental immigrants who are increasingly aggressive, demanding and violent”. What surprises Faye is that “we have not yet registered any defensive reaction on the part of this formerly valiant people or that of other European countries, let alone the beginning of any sort of retaliation against Arab and black Muslims, who bear the sole responsibility for all of these crimes”. The response thus far has been that one “snivels and proceeds to place candles and flowers where massacres have occurred”, something that the author attributes to both a loss of collective energy (the lower socio-professional classes have been wearied by incoming populations whose “cruelty remains unequalled” and to a state that targets any identitarian awakening with repressive measures. Faye argues that Whites (he specifically uses the term throughout the text after stating “let us state the facts as they are”, are “leading miserable and exasperated lives, are weary of being deprived of their tranquility” but that “an unpredictable spark” may yet cause them in “a spirit of self-defence, to organise themselves and  ultimately launch a counter-offensive”.

Faye is unapologetic about speaking bluntly and specifically of race. He employs the term “as part of a sincere longing for accuracy”. Some people find the term disagreeable? The author responds:

Do you know what is really unpleasant, by contrast? Living your life surrounded by ten million, twenty million, or even a greater number of Africans and Arabs, with whom one never wanted to associate. What is very disagreeable indeed is acknowledging the thought that, soon enough, the people of our race, namely the Whites of Europe, will be a minority in their own lands. What is more unpleasant is our inability to describe the very horror of our situation without burdening our statement of the facts with foolish periphrases and politically correct words, all of which remain less expressive of what is crucial for us to say than of what one is required to say.

Again and again, Faye hammers home the racial reality of our situation, and is biting and scathing in his descriptions of those who have flooded Europe. He describes a reality where “our peaceful French men and women” are “mocked, attacked, raped and killed every day by individuals belonging to non-European races”. These “foreign and belligerent races” have “come to have their cake and eat ours”. They “want to reap the benefits of Western prosperity without having to make the same effort we have made in order to enjoy it, while simultaneously retaining their own identity and hating us most openly. They perceive us as being foreign and will continue to do so; it thus seems fair to me that we should regard them in the same manner”. For Faye, “these third-world immigrants are not worth a penny”, and African immigration to France, and more generally to Europe,”is an abomination and must be brought to an end as soon as possible”.

Faye reflects for several pages on the novelty of race war, remarking that while Europeans may in the past have driven back invaders and occupiers as part of a Reconquista movement that ended with the liberation of Greece in the early nineteenth century, these invaders “did not enjoy such demographic superiority” as they do in the present, and they were historically “perceived as foreign occupiers with their own army” rather than being embedded in our societies in the fashion they are today. Because of the overlapping elements (religion, race, and treason among Whites), Faye predicts that “this war will therefore be characterised by a very high intensity resulting from the multiplication of its explosive causes, since the conflict will simultaneously be a civil and internal one, an ethnic one, a religious one and a racial one. An unheard-of event in Europe”.

The author also remarks that the conflict is “probably inevitable”, due to the “huge and constantly accelerating wave of colonising immigration” and the fact most of these immigrants possess a “hatred combining resentment with a desire for revenge”.Tensions are building further because the secret services have designated the retaliatory actions of native groups, rather than Muslim or immigrant aggressors, as the main danger to French society, an aspect of what Faye calls the French state’s “Collaborationist Tropism.”.This is part of a much wider problem – the fact that in modernity “democracy imposes invasion upon peoples”. Citing Angela Merkel’s flooding of Germany with millions of non-Whites, Faye remarks: “The underlying purpose is for the system to impose upon ethnic peoples  – upon Whites, to be perfectly clear – an invasion at the hands of foreign masses of illegal immigrants and to force them to accept the destruction of their own living environment and culture.”Parliamentary democracy, in reality a “putrid oligarchy”, is “guilty of paving the way for an ethno-racial civil war not only in Western Europe (beginning with France itself), but perhaps also in the United States and Canada”.

Faye asserts that the worst possible progression would be that this mass invasion occurred “smoothly”, but that we have instead encountered “terrorist violence, delinquency and nuisance”. This has made it more difficult to disguise the fact “that a conflict with these foreigners is underway”. Conflict is therefore always preferable to “surrender without fighting – a progressive agony characterised by demographic and cultural disappearance, population replacement and Islamisation”. Faye is adamant in his insistence that

A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves. In this regard, these Islamist provocations, whose purpose is to spark off a civil war, are dialectically positive for us Whites and perhaps even suicidal for them if the events result in our awakening. If one keeps pulling the sleeping tiger by the tail, it will awaken.

The book presents a racial civil war as potentially cathartic, solving “the generally delinquent, criminal, hostile, provocative and parasitic behaviour of a large part of these populations who, in all areas of our daily life, render all cohabitation unbearable” Faye argues:

It may turn out to be necessary to go through such events in order to salvage what is essential, because an ethnic and cultural war, in the event that we do emerge victorious, will rid us once and for all of the main problem, of the evil which, although never clearly formulated, is common knowledge to us all and has been gnawing at France and Western Europe: the immigration stemming from low-IQ Africa, the gradual colonisation of our territories, and the destruction of our identity. In short, our future disappearance from history books.

In the book’s next chapter, “The Conquest of Europe is Underway”, Faye surveys the recent influx of millions of Muslims into Europe, and points to some of those”degenerate whites and impudent Jews” who have orchestrated it and cheered it on. He describes the current phase of mass migration as “more important and much more serious than the two world wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 and Soviet Communism (1917-1991)”. These migrants “have no reason to be here at all yet are confident of their rights, turn out to be demanding and aggressive, never doubting the fact they shall remain unpunished, evade deportation and enjoy the assistance of both “humanitarian” associations and the state itself”. The author condemns the role of the Catholic Church in both offering and soliciting “humanitarian” aid for the migrants, and is clearly disgusted by the “complete traitor” Pope Francis, who is condemned in the text for his “complete lack of historical knowledge”, “Trotskyist views”,and “a rather delirious and insane conception of Christian charity”. Faye also presents the example of Jacques Attali, the economist and political advisor, as a demonstration of “impudent Jews” in action. He quotes Attali as writing the following for La Express in June 2018:

The only solution is for us to understand, as soon as possible, that it is in our interest to massively develop this neighbouring continent [Africa] and help accelerate its demographic transition; to organise the coming of migrants to Europe; and to create the necessary conditions [on European soil] to welcome and integrate millions of people into our cultures upon their arrival from this cradle of humanity.

In a chapter titled “The Omens of a Civil War”, Faye moves into an examination of instances in which low level ethnic conflict is already underway. This can be most clearly seen in the establishment of ethnic “no-go” zones in many European towns and cities, and their role as a hotbed for violence against police. Faye’s statistics for injuries suffered by French police in the course of deliberate ethnic ambushes and more general ethnic delinquency are sobering, running into the thousands every year. For Faye, these areas are not just “zones of lawlessness”, but in fact “invaded areas” that have been successfully conquered by foreigners, and are essentially no longer part of France. Although the security services have been successful thus far in preventing significant acts of French retaliation, Faye points to the June 2018 arrest of ten men and women (“for the most part family men, with no criminal history”) for planning attacks on mosques as an example of the fact that “tensions are indeed on the rise, as the country gradually turns into a powder keg”. In the author’s estimation, if such attacks were indeed to be carried out, “it would unleash a civil war upon us once and for all”.

The book’s third chapter, “The Ethnocidal Project Targeting European Peoples”, examines in more detail how life in White countries is being fundamentally changed for the worse. Faye defines ethnocide as “the destruction of a people through non-sanguinary, long-term and more pervasive processes, namely progressive immigration flooding; the destruction of one’s cultural identity and historical memory; repressive measures; spoliation; and, last but not least, the relegation of the indigenous population to a lower status”. Western governments are complicit in the ethnocide of their native peoples by refusing to act even in the face of “incessant neighbourhood riots”, “ritualistic and mass-scale car arsons”, “occasionally deadly attacks and ambushes targeting policemen, gendarmes, and firefighters”, “verbal or physical assaults committed against native French people”, “the violent harassment of White women in the streets”, “acts of aggression perpetrated against doctors”, schools falling “into the grip of daily violence”, and “the open and raucous appropriation of public spaces, followed by that of entire towns”. Faye asserts that the state and associated elites are complicit in the ethnocide of the European peoples because they desire to create a “new man”, “a necessarily anti-racist and mixed-race type of man”, and describes the figures behind this effort as “cosmopolitan elites” and “collaborationist court Jews”. Macron is specifically denounced as a Kalergi-praising product of “globalist support and Jewish funding”.

In predicting the battle lines of the future civil war, Faye asserts that the primary aggressors in Europe will be Muslims, with the main Muslim organisations coming to direct the activities of ethnic rioters throughout France. In the early stages, this camp will be assisted by collaborators in the form of leftist “journalists, officials or politicians at all national and local levels”, before support and financial aid is further provided by Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries “engaged in the Islamisation and colonisation of France”. Against this coalition, Faye posits that a substantial element of the police and gendarmerie will move into a retaliatory mode, joining “a growing number of exasperated Frenchmen with no ideological or political connections with the far Right, who could organise themselves into neighbourhood-based self-defence groups or structured militias”. After initial skirmishes, Faye asserts that a specific response to collaborationist efforts would be required and, in his discussion of “the origin of pro-migrant and anti-French elites”, Faye doesn’t shy away from explaining that Jews are a prominent collaborationist element in French society:

It must also be said that in both rightists and leftist parties, though admittedly far more often in the leftist spectrum, one encounters Jewish MPs, ministers, general councillors and mayors who, for the most part, define themselves as “citizens of the world”, or quite simply Jewish, rather than French. This is a rather unpleasant fact, since the nation they are supposed to love and serve with a patriotic heart is actually our own! As soon as the fate of Israel becomes more important than that of France in the words of the journalists, thinkers and politicians that are supposed to represent and be a part of our country, the result is a serious conflict of interest, one that I cannot fail to highlight.

The book’s fourth chapter, “Foreign Occupation”, is an extended indictment of multiculturalism from the point of daily, widespread ethnic delinquency. Faye rails eloquently against the “vindictive” state of mind of “the young Afro-Muslim population”, who comprise “entire groups of seasoned and trained juvenile delinquents that fear neither the police – whose members are highly demotivated, discouraged and spiritless – nor a lax justice system that finds itself unable to keep pace with them”. We learn that in France “90% of all minors and young adults involved in all conceivable forms of criminality stem from Afro-Arab immigration”. The young delinquents organise in a “primitive tribal pattern”, and “shall form the shock battalions of an already brewing racial civil war”. The majority of the White victims of these urban occupying tribes are young women, provoking Faye to remark, “In all cultures, the normal, vital reflex is to protect one’s women against any and all sexual assaults committed by foreigners. This, however, is not what we are witnessing in today’s Western Europe, whose members have now surrendered to complete mental weakness; it would indeed be racist and entirely reprehensible for us to ensure our women’s protection”. Faye rejects this weakness. For him, the matter is simple: any idea of a peaceful, multicultural living together with these groups is an irrational sham. “The only programme that one could envisage in their case is one where they would all travel back across the Mediterranean, regardless of any eggs broken along the way. A convivial living-together is only possible when it involves populations that are biologically and culturally related. Anything else is but a sham. We do not wish to live with these people. Period.”

The next two chapters focus specifically on the Islamic nature of the mass migration into Europe, and the Islamisation process as a whole. In Faye’s view, “Islam shall act as the sole banner, the sole emblem for the rallying, mobilisation and identification of non-European populations. It shall embody what some fight for and others against, even if – and because – what lies under its din and behind its blazing shadow is a haunting biologico-racial melody”. Faye clearly despises Islam, calling it “the poorest and the most mediocre of all human religions”, and jihad little more than a “form of delinquency”. He highlights the existence of an “Islamosphere” occupied not just by the Muslims themselves but by “French people who have chosen the path of collaboration”. These are leftists who “spread the idea that Muslims embody the new image of the oppressed”, and work in concert with Muslim, Black, and Jewish lobbying groups to “intimidate French people and discourage any and all French criticism and resistance against immigration invasion and Islamisation”. Such collaborators, including the Jews Edgar Morin and Emmanuel Todd, whom Faye briefly profiles, are “driven by a fierce hatred of France, its culture, its traditions, its deep-rooted provincial population, its ethnic people and its little white folk – described as a bunch of racist hicks - and have infiltrated our associations, our national education system (a very serious development indeed) and the media”. Although many of the immigrants are anti-Jewish, presenting something of a paradox, Faye reminds us that these Jewish activists have not “joined the pro-immigrational cause from rational reflection, but due to an emotional and irrational surge of hatred for their native France”. He continues, referring also to irrational support for Islamisation from feminists and the broader Left:

What particularly fascinates these dumbstruck Islamo-leftists, these defrocked Trotskyists, these intellectuals nursed in the lap of cultural Marxism, these old communists or crypto-communists that still hold Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in high regard and venerate Mao, Pol Pot, the violence of the Reign of Terror (1792-1793), the Paris Commune of 1871 and the crimes committed by the Spanish Republicans, is something consubstantial with Islam, something that they have in common with the latter and that is the focus of their deference and adoration – the tropism of fanatical violence and totalitarianism, which remain correlated and inseparable. That is what they have been missing since the disappearance of “genuine” communism! And what Islam is now offering them is a similar dish, served bloody and on a silver platter.

In chapter 7, “As the Catholics Lose their Footing”, Faye takes aim at Pope Francis and institutional Catholicism which has acted as “the ferocious enemy of the ethnic identity of white Europe and the objective accomplice of the migrational invasion conducted under the banner of Islam”. Pope Francis is described as “both a traitor and a madman”. Particularly concerning is the existence of large numbers of otherwise right-wing and traditionalist Catholics who nevertheless waver on matters of race. For Faye, this is an unforgivable position that threatens to place such Catholics – prisoners of their own intellectualism and of an annoying sort of biological relativism – in an impossible situation in the eventual civil war. Faye explains:

It is all quite simple, actually: ask any patriotic Catholic if an African who also happens to be a patriot and has recently converted to Christianity should be sent home in the event of a mass de-migration process that would follow our side’s lightning-like assumption of power. You will see how long they hesitate before giving you an answer. There we have it! No, seriously now, hesitations of this order are no longer acceptable. We have no time to waste on such childishness. Foreigners are DIFFERENT FROM US and must return to their homeland as soon as possible.

The only dogma of concern to Faye is the simple fact that “in order to win a racial civil war, one must first be racist, regardless of whether one participate in it willingly or reluctantly. A racial AND civil war will involve violence, as well as terrible tragedy and injustice. An indigenous person must, however, choose other natives over all foreigners, rather than prefer some allogeneic “brothers in Christ”. In their desire to soften the hearts of the French people fighting them, many immigrants will attempt to play this card”.

The book’s eighth chapter, “The Jews Amidst the Racial War”, is the one I am most ambivalent about, and is perhaps the weakest in an otherwise outstanding volume. To begin with, it is one of the shortest chapters, and one senses that Faye was uneasy or uncomfortable tackling the subject “head on”, rather than in the asides and minor profiles he scattered throughout the book. The basic problem, as I see it, is that while Faye was rightly scathing of those who are so anti-Jewish (in a distorted fashion) that they see Muslims as their allies (he names Alain Soral as an example), he failed to see that he had actually fallen into the mirror image of that problem, despising Muslims with such tunnel vision that he came to see, and search for, Jews as allies – despite all the evidence of Jewish collaborationist activities that he himself would amass and discuss. This isn’t to say that Faye doesn’t hit some high notes in this chapter. He remarks that “the Jewish soul finds itself continuously torn between exacerbated particularism and a universalistic sort of tendency; between its ghettoised spirit and its conquering mindset”. He rightly concludes that “this results in a number of contradictory features: their seeking of peace and security while relishing the idea of being persecuted; their aspiration to dominate and proud acknowledgement of their intrinsic superiority, alongside their embracement of the image of a small people that is perpetually under threat”. But, showing remarkable ignorance of Jewish opinion polls and voting patterns that suggest overwhelming political affinities among Jews as a whole, he believes, foolishly in my opinion, that these Jews, “Court Jews”, can be quarantined from the rest of the Jewish population who are potential allies.

As for any idea that a Jewish Question exists:

There is, however, a serious analytical mistake made by numerous anti-Semitic writers, especially Kevin B. MacDonald – that of focusing on the psychological traits of Jewish intellectual movements that are in favour of cosmopolitanism, and of confusing these traits with the behavioural and mental patterns of the Jewish ethnicity. A growing proportion of “common Jews” are now rejecting both anti-racism and cosmopolitanism, partly in response to the Muslim-Arab invasion.

But Faye’s retort to MacDonald can only be regarded as, at best, anecdotal, and is flatly contradicted by, for example, my own analysis of Jewish representation in contemporary refugee and migrant organisations. MacDonald’s theory is also not of “the psychological traits of Jewish intellectual movements” (can intellectual movements have psychological traits?) but that a group evolutionary strategy in which the behavioural and mental patterns of the Jewish ethnicity can be observed in such movements. It’s clear that Faye was confused, and I suggest that his tunnel vision on the Muslim Question was the reason why. We might further consider his comment in the appendices of the book:

Judeocentrism [belief that a Jewish Question exists] is a hollow obsession whose causes, meaning and goals cannot be clearly defined. There are some who will claim that the reason I say this lies in my fear of the Jewish lobby, but I am not afraid of anything and am going to die soon. Over the years I have come to understand that the anti-Semitic reduction of all our current problems to the Jewish question is the most striking form of contemporary conspiracy theories.

And so, rather than reduce all of our current problems to the Jewish question (when has anyone on this site neglected to refer to Muslims, Blacks, or broader social decay including the failings of our own people?), Faye decided to reduce all of our current problems to the Muslim question. I must be clear in that I firmly believe that Faye is not guilty here of subversion or fear of the Jewish lobby. If I did, I would hesitate to recommend this book. Instead I see a paralysis-like error in thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France. This error (commonplace in countries with large and growing Muslim populations) comprises a small element of this excellent book, a few pages in a text more than 200 pages in length, and is in many places in the text quite contradicted by the “Judeocentric” material Faye himself cannot help but refer to. But I would neglect my duty as a reviewer for this website if I did not make it clear that one must have the flexibility of mind to be aware of all facets of the existing problem, and to avoid Faye’s potentially dangerous habit of seeing allies where they simply do not exist.

But this is a book about racial civil war, not the Jewish Question, and in the final three chapters Faye returns to this theme with a vengeance, producing some of the best content of the volume. In “Our Law Enforcement Organisations Are at the End of Their Rope”, the author explains that French police are already at the frontline of the earliest phases of the racial civil war. He relates a number of infuriating anecdotes, including that of a police officer disciplined and demonised for shooting an African in the leg to avoid being beaten to death by a 15-strong African gang, but particularly horrifying is the brutal June 2016 murder of a police couple, slaughtered by Arabs in their own home, in front of their child. Brushed under the carpet by the media and authorities, Faye sees the incident as a “barbaric assassination” that “takes on the symbolic meaning of a declaration of war, one that is obviously both ethnic and racist in nature”. Due to the refusal of the establishment to act in a rational manner against racial criminals, French police are resigning in large numbers, with almost 3,000 quitting the police force in 2017. Faye argues they “might end up joining a potential Popular Resistance in the coming civil war against the Occupation and its collaborators”. The rest, he asserts, “will have no difficulty in choosing sides”.

Chapter ten, “Race and Racism – At the Heart of the Coming Clashes”, concerns the total destruction of White lives under multiculturalism. Faye explains:

Maliciously targeted by Le MondeLiberationMediapartTelerama, and France Culture, these “petty Whites”, i.e. our people and indigenous lower classes, have been forced to embrace ethnic coexistence, an artificial living-together that our leaders themselves do not even practice. This fool’s bargain also implies a blatant disregard for democracy at the hands of this shitty republic’s governments – a republic that has, since 1974, been resorting to decrees to impose an immigration invasion upon the French people, going against the latter’s wishes and corrupting their dreams of tranquility.

Whites are saturated with the ideology of anti-racism which “is completely contradictory as a result of its bias and tendency to overvalue ‘coloured people’ to the detriment of Whites”, thereby contributing to “the profound racialisation of our society” and proving an “aggravating factor in an ethnic civil war characterised by its racial and racist dimensions”.  The increasing obviousness of racial antagonism in our societies is masked only via the efforts of Marxists in academia, government, and media who produce a steady stream of propaganda

for the sole purpose of intellectualising, blurring and thus rendering unsolvable the daily problems experienced by our French natives, who are forced to live among non-Whites. Our rulers impose immigration upon each and every one of us, as sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and other accomplices are seen on television in their fancy clothes and lovely little brown-nose glasses, telling us that it is all actually a blessing. The process of ethnic replacement is underway, but all is well, no problemo.

In the eleventh and final chapter, “How the War Shall Unfold – Possibilities and Predictions”, Faye uses the material discussed thus far to build a model of how a racial civil war will begin and proceed in France, and other nations in Europe. This is a thought-provoking and sobering piece of work. A brief summary here would inevitably do an injustice to Faye’s well-developed sequence of thought, but Faye certainly sees the origin of a future conflict in police confrontations, either involving Muslims claiming police brutality in response to their heightened delinquency or “following the death of some Black African scum”. Rioting is viewed by Faye as having every potential to bleed into sustained guerrilla warfare and, if it were to be prolonged long enough, Faye sees the potential for Antifa (leftist-anarchist troublemaker groups) to join forces against the police. The alliance will be short-lived since collaborators in the race war, even if the ethnic faction wins, will “not be given the position they hope for in this future society. Instead, what awaits them is death, humiliation, beatings and a state of modern slavery”.

Faced with an escalation of violence, including massive Islamic terrorist attacks funded and supported by Muslim countries, the only hope for Europe is that such events cause a shock “strong and traumatic enough to reverse mentalities”. In fact, Faye argues that this is the primary condition for possible victory, without which we are fated to slow replacement and ultimate defeat. He stresses the same precondition for the United States, which he warns will endure “severe turmoil, perhaps even partitions, in the course of the next century”.

Faye reflects for some time on the possibility that we would suffer defeat, and ponders what would become of the European peoples in the eventuality. I don’t want to linger on that here, though I encourage all those reading this review to read the book and let this particular section urge them on to renewed efforts for our cause. Instead, here, I want to focus on his more optimistic conclusion, “The De-Migration of the Afterwar”. Here the author offers a vision of White victory. He posits that the racial civil war would “through its unique violence, turn into an unprecedented collective trauma whose memory will echo across the centuries”. In other words, multiculturalism would never again be repeated by our descendants. There would be a “massive repatriation of African and oriental populations to their countries of origin”. It must be made possible, and must take place and commence very soon, because it is both necessary and vital. Let me state things clearly: whether willingly or by force, they shall indeed leave. This is not only my promise, but also my prognosis.

Despite his error on the Jewish Question earlier in the book, I leave the last words of this review to Guillaume Faye, who returns to the theme, despite himself and with wisdom, to close his magnificent book – a book I recommend to all readers of this site, and to whoever may encounter this review elsewhere:

These anti-racist and anti-White leftist Jews will have to watch their backs when the wind turns! They will have to consider the option of returning to the land of their ancestors once the just anger of European identitarians allows the latter to cleanse not only France, but also every other part of the West. This is not a threat, but a piece of advice.

The African Population Bomb

This post was first published in July 2019.

This post follows up from an earlier post at http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-worlds-most-important-graph/ on the “world’s most important graph”. This topic, suppressed by the mainstream media, should be top of the discussion list at every school, college and university in every White country.
In 1995 the population of Africa overtook that of Europe. There are comparatively few Whites in Africa. There are millions of Africans and other non-whites in Europe. The graph predicts that the population of Africa will top 4 billion before the end of this century, whereas Europe’s population will remain steady at around half a billion (presumably including the increasing numbers of non-whites and mulattoes living there).
Of course it won’t really be like that. Around half of all Africans intend to travel to Europe to live in one of our Welfare States where they don’t have to work and the (White man’s) state will look after them. Unless we stop them…

The following post was written by Gregory Hood, of American Renaissance, and published on June 27th 2019. The URL of the original article is given at the foot of the page.

Thomas Jefferson called Missouri’s petition for statehood a “fire bell in the night” portending war. For me, the fire bell is the first large all-African group of immigrants caught crossing the southern border. They knew the legal tricks to pull to be released into the country. This portends doom.

My foreboding comes from what Steve Sailer calls “the world’s most important graph“.

If current projections hold, the population of sub-Saharan Africa will increase during this century to more than 4 billion people. This would be an 18-fold increase in 150 years.

A 2017 Pew Research poll asked Africans if they wanted to emigrate. Three-quarters of people in Ghana, almost as many in Nigeria, and more than half in South Africa, black Africa’s most developed economy, said yes.

Since 2010, sub-Saharan African countries have accounted for eight of the 10 fastest growing migrant populations. About 25 million black migrants lived outside their own countries in 2017. Blacks will swallow up Europe and North America if we do not keep them out.

Bill Gates is aware of this population trend. “By the end of the century, almost half the young people in the world will be in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said in a recent video. The Gates Foundation already spends half its money on Africa, splashing out for medicine, education, and economic development.

What does Mr. Gates expect in return?

These young people can be a huge asset if they’re healthy and educated. They drive economic growth, they drive innovation. So it’s a challenge to the world to take advantage of investing in youth. Improving their health and education really pays off.

How can Mr. Gates believe this? He is not completely immune to the facts. “To put it bluntly, decades of progress in the fight against poverty and disease may be on the verge of stalling,” Mr. Gates noted in 2018. “Africa must almost quadruple its agricultural productivity to feed itself,” he said in another interview. “That’s very daunting.”

Mr. Gates has repeatedly called for more birth control in Africa but also funds programs that increase population and decrease mortality. His efforts create an eternally increasing African population that needs ever-more Western aid and technology to stay alive. This burgeoning population also floods into the West, where Africans become domestic dependents. This reduces the West’s capacity to nursemaid the Dark Continent.

Mr. Gates seems to sense all this, but is paralyzed by political correctness. Why call desperately for birth control if African youngsters are going to bring economic growth?

Perhaps it’s because Mr. Gates has heard something about IQ. “The average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is about 82,” he said in 2013. However, he declared that it has “nothing to do with genetics or race or anything like that – that’s disease and that’s what disease does to you . . . ”

Mr. Gates prizes intelligence. According to a conversation recounted by Rich Karlgaard, Mr. Gates said of success in business: “It’s all about IQ. You win with IQ.” Microsoft was famous for creating tests to try to measure the intelligence of job applicants.

But the Gates Foundation can’t raise test scores in America, let alone Africa. It recently admitted its $575 million initiative to transform teacher evaluation, compensation, and employment practices, especially in low-income minority schools, was a complete failure. It may have even made things worse. How does Bill Gates expect to transform sub-Saharan Africans?

Recently, Mr. Gates said that “intelligence takes many different reforms”and is “not as important as I used to think”. Perhaps he’s trying to avoid the political landmines in wait for anyone who talks about intelligence.

Bill Gates is not alone among billionaires who amassed fortunes through ambition and intelligence but now seem determined to squander money in the name of egalitarianism. Mark Zuckerberg wasted $100 million dollars trying to improve the public schools of Newark, New Jersey. Mayor Ras Baraka, son of the anti-white and anti-Semitic poet Amiri Baraka, then accused philanthropists of “parachuting” into the city and not working with the locals. Mark Zuckerberg didn’t even get credit for his virtue signaling.

Michael Bloomberg made his fortune by selling a specialized information service for securities traders. It was for high-IQ people who can’t make excuses for failure. Yet Mr. Bloomberg recently donated $1.8 billion to his alma mater Johns Hopkins University to foster a more “socioeconomically diverse student body”. No one criticized Mr. Bloomberg for wasting money on “diversity” rather than funding science or health research. He took heat because he didn’t give the $1.8 billion to local community colleges.

The Western elite are not fools. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg are very intelligent and don’t believe in “equality” when it comes to recruiting employees. Yet in philanthropy, they have forfeited their judgment to race-baiters and egalitarian propogandists. At best, they are wasting their money. More realistically, they are making the world worse.

In the face of a soaring African population, only clear thinking about race can forestall disaster. Sentimentality about the supposed potential of an African planet is dangerous foolishness. The West needs an elite that puts its resources behind excellence, rather than equality. Such an elite requires men not just with intellect, but courage. Are there such men? The future of our civilization – and the world – depends on the answer.

Mr. Hood is a staff writer for American Renaissance. He has been active in conservative groups in the US. The original article can be read at https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/06/the-african-population-bomb/

RSS
Follow by Email