http://theoccidenta Kevin MacDonald: You really have to wonder what's going on when a bunch of White guys carrying Nazi banners decides to hold a protest on the lawn of the LA City Hall. The LA Times article mentions "a bare-chested middle-aged man with Nazi insignias tattooed on his chest and back." The counter-protesters beat the hell out of him: Surrounded, the man mockingly bobbed his head to the rhythm of demonstrators chanting "Nazi scum." About a dozen protesters suddenly began pelting the man with punches and kicks. He fell and was struck on the back with the wooden handle of a protester's sign, which snapped in two. Police eventually reached the man and pulled him from the melee, as blood poured from the back of his neck. Another man was rushed by a mob on Spring Street. He was punched in the face and kicked for about 20 seconds before police made it to the scene. After that beating was broken up, the man began running south on Spring Street, only to be chased down by a protester and slugged in the face. He collapsed and his face slammed to the curb as protesters began pummeling him again. The bloodied man was then escorted away by police. Both victims were treated and released, police said. His sign, unclear in its intended meaning, read "Christianity= The protest was carried out by the National Socialist Movement, a group that has been credibly said to be controlled by the FBI. ("Prefabricated Fascists: The FBI's Assembly-Line Provocateurs" by William Norman Grigg). As Grigg notes, "the FBI has no problem staging white supremacist rallies and protest marches that help 'local' police departments rack up overtime." If these guys are FBI agents, I assume they are getting combat pay. Actually, the NSM is "all show, no go" – it's more of a federally controlled traveling roadshow, sort of a Third Reich tribute band. Its cadres exude all of the raw menace of the hapless Illinois Nazis from The Blues Brothers, and possess all of the street-fighting chops of thebumbling Black Widow biker gang from Clinton Eastwood's Philo Beddoe films. The real point is that the anti-White left feels no compunctions about perpetrating violence against such people. (The counter-protesters, who outnumbered the NSM folks by at least 10 to 1, are described as "a wide assortment of African American, Jewish, Latino, immigrants-rights and anarchist groups.") Not only were the NSM people beaten up, "dozens of [the counter-protesters] hurled rocks and glass bottles at the neo-Nazis and their police escorts." Despite all of this very public violence directed at the NSM, the police arrested no one — further lending credibility that the whole thing was a stage show. Being anti-White means there are no consequences for your illegal actions — another example of Sam Francis's concept of anarcho-tyranny. The LAPD spokesman said ""We allowed both sides to exercise their 1st Amendment rights." Apparently violence perpetrated against racially conscious Whites is a free speech right. You can bet that violence directed against non-Whites would lead to long prison sentences. But this stage show has real world consequences. This type of demonstration is exactly the way the media wants to portray opposition to immigration. It will definitely produce big bucks in donations for the $PLC and similar organizations.LA TImes readers (who have been treated to harrowing articles and editorials on the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law every day since it passed) will be predictably outraged. And it energizes the very large anti-White community of LA in advance of the coming battle on immigration amnesty. Indeed, on May 1 the counter-protesters will have their day: A rally to promote immigration, both legal and especially illegal. You can bet there will be no violent counter-demonstrati Presumably, the NSM will take their traveling road show to other cities to inflame public opinion there as well. Kevin MacDonald: Edmund Connelly's current TOO article explores the topic of faux conservatives. Particularly interesting is Michael Savage's question "Who assaulted the White race? Who set out to destroy the White people?" This is a huge improvement on other MSM conservatives. I have never heard anything like that from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, or your average neocon. Even if his analysis of why this happened is puerile (although it does finger some prominent Jewish names in the 1960s counterculture) Certainly White listeners are going to feel threatened and under attack — quite a different message from the harmonious future envisioned by the current media and intellectual elites and on the verge of being enforced by the impending multicultural police state. It necessarily implies that White people identify as White and start looking for ways to reverse their decline — the nightmare of the current regime. And it doesn't take much imagination to plug into a really powerful analysis of what went wrong in the 1960s and how the events of that decade continue to reverberate in our culture. The other thing that struck me is the complex character of Andrew Breitbart, whose picture lounging in a bathtub graces the TOO front page. One can only imagine the mixed messages he must have had growing up as an ethnically Irish boy being raised with his Hispanic sister by a Jewish man and his formerly Protestant wife. Then he goes to Tulane for college — a bastion of White southern culture. The $64 question is, what did Breitbart mean when he said, "You've gone to Hebrew school, you've gone to Auschwitz, you go, Never again, Never again. Then you go to Tulane and you go, Maybe never again"? Suggestions appreciated. Kevin MacDonald: Dual loyalty issues have once again arisen, this time in conjunction with Philip Giraldi's astonishing essay on antiwar.com. Giraldi discusses the curious career of Dr. Lani Kass — formerly a senior military officer in the Israeli Defense Force, and now the senior Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force General Norton A. Schwartz. "Kass appears to have close and continuing ties to her country of birth, frequently spicing her public statements with comments about life in Israel while parroting simplistic views of the nature of the Islamic threat that might have been scripted in Tel Aviv's Foreign Ministry." Giraldi notes that her appointment raises a host of issues, including the possibility that she is an Israeli spy and exactly how she managed to get security clearance. Given that the official policy of the Israeli government is to advocate a war with Iran, it is more than interesting that she has an important influence on US policy and that she is involved in Project CHECKMATE responsible for drawing up war plans. She is quoted as having what Giraldi characterizes as a "dismissive" comment on a possible war with Iran, and has the views on the Islamic threat usually associated with neocons. The role of Kass in the Defense Department is at least as questionable as the role of Dennis Ross in the State Department. In fact, it would seem to be an even more clear-cut case because Kass was actually born and raised in Israel and rose to the rank of major in the IDF. Although she is a naturalized US citizen, she has doubtless retained her Israeli citizenship. It would more than a bit surprising if she did not retain an allegiance to Israel. And is there any evidence at all that she has allegiance to the US? When asked about possible war with Iran, she responded, "We can defeat Iran, but are Americans willing to pay the price?" — as if she is not an American. By Stephen Walt's criteria, therefore, Kass should not have any policy-making role on any issue that relates to Israel. A more difficult case is that of her boss, Gen. Norton Schwartz. Schwartz is also Jewish, although does not have the close ties to Jewish activist organizations like Ross or the strong connections to Israel like Kass. As reported in the Forward, Schwartz's Jewish identity did not go unnoticed after his appointment, particularly given the current military tensions with Iran. Press TV, an Iranian English language media outlet, wrote an article last week, titled "U.S. Names Jewish [sic — presumably an intentionally awkward translation] as Air Force Chief." There have long been rumors that Schwartz's predecessor, Michael Moseley, was opposed to a military attack on Iran. The appointment of Schwartz has prompted speculation in the Iranian press and on some blogs that the Bush administration is yet again seriously considering the military option to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Unlike the vast majority of Americans, the Iranians assume that Schwartz's ethnic identity would make a difference, and I must agree that it should raise red flags. The vast majority of American Jews have a very strong emotional commitment to Israel that may bias their judgment even if they are not consciously aware of their biases. As I noted elsewhere, In my ideal world, Jonah Goldberg's op-eds and Paul Wolfowitz's advice to presidents and defense secretaries should be accompanied by a disclaimer: "You should be cautious in following my advice or even believing what I say about Israel. Deception and manipulation are very common tactics in ethnic conflict, so that my pose as an American patriot should be taken with a grain of salt. And even if I am entirely sincere in what I say, the fact is that I have a deep psychological and ethnic commitment to Israel and Judaism. Psychologists have shown that this sort of deep commitment is likely to bias my perceptions of any policy that could possibly affect Israel even though I am not aware of it." We would certainly like to know the details of Schwartz's ties with Jewish organizations and activist groups, as well as any ties that he has with Israel. (For example, Paul Wolfowitz has family members living in Israel.) The fact that Schwartz has hired Kass as his senior Special Assistant suggests that the taboo against discussing Jewish loyalty issues is so strong that they feel free to be entirely public about it. (There might be some sensitivity, however, since the Pentagon has removed Kass's biography from its website.) Nevertheless, a war with Iran would be very costly for the US and may well have huge long term implications for the region and the world. Surely if the government wanted to project the image that US policy was not being shaped by people with a strong personal ethnic attachment to Israel (as clearly happened in the war with Iraq), they would remove people like Ross, Kass, and Schwartz from any role in making policy. Kevin MacDonald: Stephen Walt had the audacity to suggest, given Dennis Ross's close ties to WINEP, that Ross should not have a policy-making position on Middle East issues in the Obama Administration. Neocon Robert Satloff responded with outrage, claiming that Ross has been doing nothing but promoting "U.S. interests in peace and security for the past quarter-century." And he disingenuously asks, "To which country do we allegedly have a 'strong attachment'? Our foreign-born scholars hail from virtually every country in the Middle East — Turkey, Iran, Israel, and at least a dozen different Arab countries." The best response is by M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, an organization that advocates a two-state solution to the conflict: Steve Rosen [who was acquited on charges of spying for Israel in 2009] … cleverly came up with the idea for an AIPAC controlled think-tank that would put forth the AIPAC line but in a way that would disguise its connections. There was no question that WINEP was to be AIPAC's cutout. It was funded by AIPAC donors, staffed by AIPAC employees, and located one door away, down the hall, from AIPAC Headquarters (no more. It has its own digs). It would also hire all kinds of people not identified with Israel as a cover and would encourage them to write whatever they liked on matters not related to Israel. "Say what you want on Morocco, kid." But on Israel, never deviate more than a degree or two. In other words, Satloff's claims that WINEP is not tied to any particular lobby or country are part of an ongoing subterfuge that fools no one except the mainstream media: "It matters because the media has totally fallen for this sleight of hand and WINEP spokespersons appear (especially on PBS) as if WINEP was not part of the Israel lobby. Some truth-in-labeling is warranted." This sort of subterfuge is central to Jewish efforts at influencing policy in a wide range of areas. Because they are a small minority in the US and other Western societies, Jews must recruit support from the wider community. Their positions cannot be phrased as benefiting Jews, but as benefiting the interests of the society as a whole. As a result, these movements cannot tell their name. A great example is the $PLC, an organization that we now know is funded by Jews and, apart from the sociopathic Morris Dees, is also largely staffed by Jews. Yet whenever there is a story about "immigrant rights" or angry White people, the SPLC is called on by the mainstream media as a "respected civil rights organization" rather than for what it is: A Jewish activist organization actively attempting to further the ethnic interests of Jews, typically at the expense of White Americans. This sort of subterfuge was true of all the Jewish intellectual and political movements discussed in The Culture of Critique. As I noted in Ch. 6: It is thus not surprising that although these theories were directed at achieving specific Jewish interests in the manipulation of culture, they "could not tell their name"; that is, they were forced to minimize any overt indication that Jewish group identity or that Jewish group interests were involved …. Because of the need for invisibility, the theories and movements discussed here were forced to deemphasize Judaism as a social category—a form of crypsis discussed extensively in SAID (Ch. 6) as a common Jewish technique in combating anti-Semitism. In the case of the Frankfurt School, "What strikes the current observer is the intensity with which many of the Institute's members denied, and in some cases still deny, any meaning at all to their Jewish identities" (Jay 1973, 32). The originators and practitioners of these theories attempted to conceal their Jewish identities, as in the case of Freud, and to engage in massive self-deception, as appears to have been common among many Jewish political radicals. Recall the Jewish radicals who believed in their own invisibility as Jews while nevertheless appearing as the quintessential ethnics to outside observers and at the same time taking steps to ensure that [non-Jews] would have highly visible positions in the movement (pp. 91–93). The technique of having non-Jews] as highly visible exemplars of Jewish-dominated movements has been commonly used by Jewish groups attempting to appeal to gentiles on a wide range of Jewish issues (SAID, Ch. 6) and is apparent in the discussion of Jewish involvement in influencing immigration policy. … [Chap. 7]: Beginning in the late nineteenth century, anti-restrictionist arguments [on immigration] developed by Jews were typically couched in terms of universalist humanitarian ideals; as part of this universalizing effort, [non- It's an old technique, arguably present (see also here) from the origins of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. The sad thing is that people who should know better continue to be deceived. Kevin MacDonald: The last time we went through the Supreme Court nomination process, there was a veritable groundswell of hyperbole for Elena Kagan — so much so that I couldn't resist writing about it here. The theme is ethnic networking. How else explain the fact that someone with a completely undistinguished scholarly record not only got tenure at the University of Chicago but was appointed dean of Harvard Law School? She had exactly two publications in law review journals when she got tenure and has done very little since. A record like that would be a tough sell for tenure even in the nether regions of academia, never mind the most elite schools in the land. But now her lack of publications is seen by her supporters as an asset: She has no embarrassing paper trail on controversial issues. Once again, the same people are hyping Kagan as absolutely brilliant. In a recent Huffington Post article ("Elena Kagan Emerging As Supreme Court Front-Runner"), Charles Fried says, "She is a supremely intelligent person, really one of the most intelligent people I have encountered, and I have met a lot of them, as one does in this business. She is very adroit politically. … She has quite a strong personality and a winning personality. I think she's an effective, powerful person and a very, very intelligent person, and a very hardworking and serious person." Presumably she can also walk on water. Fried also praised Kagan effusively in the earlier round, along with Laurence Tribe, another Jewish Harvard Law professor. As I noted, "Kagan was appointed Dean of Harvard Law by Lawrence Summers — also Jewish and with a strong Jewish identity. Summers and Kagan covered for Laurence Tribe when he lifted a passage from another scholar's book without attribution. Ethnic networking is nothing if not reciprocal. The religion/ethnicity issue rears its head only slightly: "There has been some superficial concern over Kagan's religion — not because she's Jewish but because without Stevens there will be no Protestants on the court." And Kagan would be the first open homosexual on the court. (Actually, it's surprising we aren't hearing more about this, given how controversial No White Protestants on the Supreme Court in a country that in living memory thought of itself as WASP at its very core. But, with Kagan, there would be three Jews and no White Protestants. Who exactly are these "strategists" and what is the goal of their strategizing? The really amazing thing is that Kagan is being framed as a conservative. But on the issues that really count — issues related to multiculturalism, executive power, and free speech, there is every reason to suppose that Kagan is on the left: Her record strongly suggests that Kagan would be quite willing to fashion her legal arguments to attain her liberal/left policy goals, and that is exactly what her other writings show. Her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," (60 University of Chicago Law Review 873; available on Lexis/Nexis) indicates someone who is entirely on board with seeking ways to circumscribe free speech in the interests of multicultural virtue: "I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation." She acknowledges that the Supreme Court is unlikely to alter its stance that speech based on viewpoint is protected by the First Amendment, but she sees that as subject to change with a different majority: The Supreme Court "will not in the foreseeable future" adopt the view that "all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution." But in her view there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that "all government efforts to regulate such speech" would be constitutional. All government efforts. It's noteworthy that the organized Jewish community has a long record of opposing free speech related to multicultural issues not only in the US, but in a wide range of other countries. Kagan's views fit well with the views of the organized Jewish community: Every effort should be made to restrict "hate speech" within the current legal context, but to do whatever possible to change the context so that such speech is outlawed. Further, as the HuffPo article notes, "the praise from conservatives may sound damning to those who worry that the court is … too willing to accommodate the radical expansion of executive power. Kagan has been criticized by civil libertarians for her expansive stance on detainee policy." The promotion of a strong executive branch and lack of concern for civil liberties is exactly the problem: The worst excesses of government power in the last century have come from the left. Knowing that Kagan advocates a powerful central government is hardly reassuring. The picture that emerges is that of someone who would have no hesitation to expand the power of the federal government to end First Amendment freedoms and squelch any hope that a White racialist movement could achieve real power. Those ideas are entirely within the Jewish mainstream. In summary, Kagan "sees her job as a legal scholar to find a way to ensure that these goals are achieved while paying lip service to the legal tradition of the First Amendment." And in the long run, she would just love it if the First Amendment would be jettisoned entirely. So the hype for Kagan is dishonest on two counts: First, there is no evidence whatever that she is brilliant; all the evidence is that she has achieved far more in the academic world and in government than she deserves based on her actual performance. Second, she is inaccurately presented as a conservative. Her meager paper trail of academic writing clearly indicates that she would be a staunch warrior on the side of the multicultural left on critical issues like free speech. And despite all the hyperbole from "conservatives" like Charles Fried, I suspect the people who are promoting her are well aware of that fact. Kevin MacDonald: The Violent Anti-White Left Puts On a Show
Sunday, April 18th, 2010
Kevin MacDonald: Edmund Connelly on Faux Conservatives
Sunday, April 18th, 2010 Kevin MacDonald: More on Dual Loyalty — Dr. Lani Kass and Gen. Norton Schwartz
Friday, April 16th, 2010
Kevin MacDonald: Robert Satloff and the Jewish Culture of Deceit
Tuesday, April 13th, 2010
Kevin MacDonald: Hype for Elena Kagan—Round Two
Sunday, April 11th, 2010
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@
http://www.Debating
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton
No comments:
Post a Comment