Dec 1, 2015

Evidence Invader's Aren't "leaving conflict behind," but Are, in Fact, Bringing it with Them

via TradYouth

Mathangi “Maya” Arulpragasam,
unfortunately, in action
Mathangi “Maya” Arulpragasam–performance name MIA–is a perfect example of how the third world migrants claiming to leave conflict and depravity behind are actually bringing it with them. Her father is a Sri Lankan politician who happens to live in England. His blood is Sri Lankan. His concerns are Sri Lankan. His wife is Sri Lankan. Both of his daughters identify with and have built their lives and careers around Sri Lankan political issues. Even the extent to which they do assimilate is toxic, as with MIA’s romantic affair and child with a half-African, half-Jewish globalist financier hip-hop DJ, Benjamin “BZB” Bronfman.

No, …that’s not a vivid racist fever dream.  A Jewish heir to the Lehman Family fortune, a grandson of the president of the World Jewish Congress, is a Black hip-hop artist and financier. Google it.

MIA just rolled out her latest video, Borders, a propaganda piece which challenges us to check our privilege, reflect on our beliefs and values, then stop having borders ‘n rules ‘n shit. Despite being especially intelligent and British-born, her rap style mimics the vocal habits of people who can’t speak English. It’s a cloying mish-mash of contrived baby talk. This typifies the social structure of the new world order, one where the cosmopolitan elites strive to identify and ally with the poorest of the world’s poor against the middle.

The people who own bidets and the people who still go in the street are teaming up against you, toilet-owning scum.

In a refreshing bit of integrity in advertising, all of the refugees in the video are fit and feral adult males. MIA’s signals are decidedly mixed like that. She can’t quite decide whether to demand that we pity or fear her and her minions. Her breakout hit, Paper Planes, contains the following chorus…
All I wanna do is [gunshots]
And [cash register ka-ching]
And take your money
Generally, these two faces of the immigration crises are worn by separate people. One side is openly aggressive while the other side pleads for us to take pity on them. MIA attempts to pull off both at once, wearing a pouty face while confirming that all she’s here for is to kill us and take our money. We’ve all dealt with a sociopath at some point in our lives, the sort of person who plays your emotions like a fiddle to achieve his or her own selfish prerogatives. The oligarchs and their media playing off like the invaders are deserving objects of unlimited charity while the invaders systematically intimidate, harass, rob, and even gang rape their benefactors.

It’s sociopathy on an unprecedented global scale, not exactly the vibe White liberals had in mind.

MIA’s your classic counterfeit refugee, the privileged daughter of a powerful Sri Lankan guerrilla leader who leveraged his global connections to hook himself and his family up with refugee tickets to London when his military schemes fell through. Think of it as Warlord Welfare, where the losers and their extended family get golden tickets to the first world instead of the brutal death that MIA’s father meted out with impunity.

She attempts, unconvincingly, to identify with us, but only long enough to ask why “we” don’t give more of “our” stuff to them. A consistent theme throughout her career has been to humanize the Third World “other,” and she’s not afraid to dehumanize the White West in the process. We’re illegitimate in her eyes in every way. We’re hypocrites. We’re lazy. We’re undeservingly rich. We’re stupid. We’re even unsexy and lacking in vibrance.

One can’t help but wonder why MIA and all her cousins the world over are so eager to be with us, given that we’re a bunch of lifeless, soulless, despicable fuckboys and slags? Oh, wait. That’s right. She explained why she’s here. She’s here to kill us and take our money.

Paris and Selective Sympathy

via Occident Invicta

By now, people of myriad ideological persuasions have weighed in on the latest tragic attack to rock France. Liberals exhort us to not give in to hatred and embrace Islamophobic rhetoric, lest we play into ISIS’s hands. Just about everyone in the alt right – as well as mainstream conservative pundits and politicians – has criticized Islam, Muslim immigration, or even multiculturalism itself. Certain individuals have been less than thoughtful, with one Israeli rabbi asserting that this tragedy was payback for European anti-Semitism. Just thought white American conservatives who slavishly worship Israel should know just whom they’re subsidizing.

I think there’s merit in both liberal and conservative responses. Longtime readers of this blog know that I don’t hold Islamophobia in high esteem and that I regard it as a distraction at best. I also have a dim view of American imperialism, and like the late and great Sam Francis, assign a large amount of blame to the West’s broken foreign policy. Such foreign policy failures are only compounded by Muslim immigration to the West. Needless to say, this whole Invade the World/Invite the World policy needs to be immediately jettisoned.

However, Western countries hardly have a monopoly on deadly terrorist attacks. Around the same time as the Paris attack, Beirut, Lebanon, was the site of deadly suicide bombings – also claimed by ISIS. Unlike the Paris tragedy, most of the world doesn’t give two shits about Lebanon; understandably, the Lebanese are rankled by this. They feel like Arab lives don’t count as much as white Western lives.

Obviously, any terrorist attack is a deplorable tragedy. Nevertheless, I can’t help but laugh whenever I hear an Arab or leftist denounce Westerners as hypocrites for not caring as much about non-Western deaths. It’s as if they’re shocked or appalled that people naturally relate more to those like themselves.

Needless to say, whites are hardly the only people who are selectively outraged or saddened by human tragedy. Take Uighurs, for instance. While most of the world could care less about China’s repression of this Turkic minority, their cousins in Turkey have expressed great anger – even going so far as to label China’s actions “genocidal.” For that matter, as much as #BLM activists are aggrieved over various trespasses – whether it’s police killings of blacks or even offensive Halloween attire – I highly doubt that the black agitators who accosted students in Dartmouth’s library lose any sleep over the suicide epidemic among middle-aged whites. And going back to our rabbi friend, many (if not most) Jews aren’t as concerned about troubles of goyim as they are about the well-being of the tribe.

For that matter, as China and India continue to rise, the people of those nations will likely care more about the lives of their fellow Han and Hindus than humanity as a whole. And frankly, I wouldn’t expect anything different.

To once again quote Dale Carnegie, a person’s “toothache means more to that person than a famine in China which kills a million people.” Applied to groups, I would say that a “microaggression” upsets a people more than the deaths of thousands of out-group members. In our Hobbesian world, individuals and groups (exceptions notwithstanding) are innately self-interested and unconcerned about the plight of people they can’t relate to.

Deal with it.

11 Angry Muds

via Compulsory Diversity News

Quoting:
A racially charged battle among Bronx jurors ended with a chaotic mistrial and the lone white panelist claiming he was threatened with bodily harm during deliberations. Some of the other jurors — the remainder were black, Latino and Asian — said Juror No. 7 was a racist who argued that the black defendant must be guilty because a black district attorney indicted him.

Keno Roberts, 36, was charged with killing his 3-year-old stepson, Jordan Rogers, on Oct. 20, 2011. After being held without bail for four years on Rikers Island, the jury acquitted him of murder earlier this month. But the jury could not reach a verdict on the remaining second-degree manslaughter charge. Juror No. 7, an older white man, was the holdout. 
Another glimpse into Amerikwa, 2040, when the Brazilization is complete. Even then, the silly White American minority will still probably think that justice must be done, when social justice is all that matters. Face it,  justice is racist, and there is no room for racism in America. Hence, social justice takes the place of justice in the US of 'Kwa.

But think of what der fuhrer went through to be racist...
A week of deliberations on the manslaughter charge got so heated that the holdout told the court he was physically threatened, and vowed not to continue unless a judge guaranteed his safety, court sources said.

Judge Newman held a closed-door hearing Thursday to determine if the stubborn juror was biased, but decided not to boot him. Hours later, she declared a mistrial — after stating for the record that the holdout “is not a loose cannon.”
That man is David Duke incarnate.

Sure he was brought behind closed doors. but what about a closed door hearing to determine if the White juror was actually threatened and if criminal charges were warranted? No need for that ... closet racism is a much more serious threat to "justice" than threatening a juror during trial deliberation. Getting a just decision is so old fashioned. What was needed was a socially just decision, hence the media attention to call out the heretic and warn the White public that they too can be bullied by non-Whites in the courtroom if they don't tow the social justice line.

Message received.

Jews Operating White Sex Slave Rings in Israel

via The Realist Report

A Jewish-run sex slavery ring was recently uncovered and exposed in Israel, The Times of Israel reported this morning. The sex slaves were lured from Russia and Ukraine, and later smuggled into Israel to work as prostitutes for their Jewish masters.
A months-long undercover police investigation has uncovered a women-trafficking and prostitution network in Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan.
The investigation, reported Sunday by Israel Radio, was conducted under the auspices of the Tel Aviv Police and resulted in the arrest of two men suspected of running the trafficking ring.
Additional arrests are expected, the Hebrew-language Walla news site reported.
The suspected ringleader of the group, identified as Leonid Streimer, is a 35-year-old resident of the Tel Aviv suburb of Bat Yam.
The investigation reportedly turned up a complex operation in which the network would locate young Russian and Ukrainian women, some of whom had worked as models, and convince them to come to Israel on tourist visas, promising they would find work amid the difficult economic situations in their home countries.
Once they got to Israel, the women were housed in luxury condominium towers and expensive hotels, where the ring allegedly operated brothels for businessmen and wealthy individuals.
The women would charge significant fees for their sexual services, of which the network operators would get a percentage. A police source told Walla that one woman told investigators she would earn $3,000 or more per week, most of which she would send to her family in Ukraine.
The investigation began following complaints by neighbors in the luxury buildings, who suspected that brothels were being operated near their homes.
In September 2014, police arrested two suspects for running a prostitution ring that consisted of Russian and Ukrainian women brought to Israel on medical tourism visas.
According to the Task Force on Human Trafficking, an alliance of Israeli NGOs, there are 15,000 women working in the sex trade in Israel.
Had enough yet, White man?

These Jews are not only openly running your government, media, banking system, and academia for their tribe’s exclusive ethnic benefit, they are also deceiving and kidnapping your women in order to transport them to Israel to sexually service their fellow Jews.

These poor Russian and Ukrainian women, who are likely extremely beautiful and very talented, are being systematically abused and degraded by these Jewish perverts and sexual deviants. What an outrage!

It’s time to man up guys – we need to deal with the Jewish problem, sooner rather than later.

"Gods of Egypt" Director Apologizes for Casting Whites

via Transudationism

Over the last few weeks, there have been a couple reports of black actors in consideration for roles that have been traditionally cast as white. We discussed how Idris Elba was considered for James Bond, and that Jamie Foxx is in talks to play Electro in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. This opened up the usual string of comments about how "James Bond is white!" and "Why are they changing what I love?"
Alex Proyas and Lionsgate address controversy that’s flared up over film starring Gerard Butler and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as ancient Egyptian characters.
 Director Alex Proyas and Lionsgate, the studio behind “Gods of Egypt,” have come out and apologized after the film’s casting prompted online outcries.
The fantasy epic came under fire after placing white actors like Gerard Butler, Brenton Thwaites and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau in the roles of gods and mortals who set off on an adventure in ancient Egypt. 
“The process of casting a movie has many complicated variables, but it is clear that our casting choices should have been more diverse,” Proyas said in a statement obtained by TheWrap. “I sincerely apologize to those who are offended by the decisions we made.” 
The studio itself came out with even stronger words in its own apology. 
“We recognize that it is our responsibility to help ensure that casting decisions reflect the diversity and culture of the time periods portrayed. In this instance we failed to live up to our own standards of sensitivity and diversity, for which we sincerely apologize,” the company said. “Lionsgate is deeply committed to making films that reflect the diversity of our audiences. We have, can and will continue to do better.​​” 
“Gods of Egypt” is not the first film to attract criticism over casting white actors in roles that would seem to call for more diverse selections.
Also Read: 'Gods of Egypt' Trailer Sends Gerard Butler, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau to War (Video)
Ridley Scott‘s “Exodus: Gods and Kings” came under similar fire when it was released late last year, and his “The Martian” this year was also criticized for casting a white actress in the role of a character who was Korean-American in the book on which the movie is based.
Joe Wright‘s “Pan” was also criticized when he cast Rooney Mara to play the role of Tiger Lily, a Native American.
While Scott and Wright have each been made to answer for their decisions, neither had come out with a full-throated apology the way Proyas and Lionsgate has.
Forbes.com first broke the news of the studio’s apology.
“Gods of Egypt” will be released on Feb. 26, 2016.

Towards a Central European Union?

via Alternative Right

The Slavonic Epic by Alphonse Mucha
In my recent piece arguing that European ethnonationalists ought to think seriously about secession, especially in the face of Germany’s reckless immigration policy, I regret that I was not more explicit about one point: the idea of a Central European Union.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at least understands, and is willing to say so publicly, that Germany’s immigration policy is an existential threat to the European people. The governments of The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland (where the governing center-Right party was recently defeated at the polls by a more Right-wing party) seem to agree. That is a start, but words must be followed by action, and for that to happen, ethnonationalists in those countries need to force the issue.

I recommend this simple platform: Demand that their governments withdraw their nations from the Schengen agreement unless the EU agrees to a whites-only immigration policy. And given the demographic damage that has already occurred in many Western European countries, it must be made clear that even if they remain in the Schengen zone, they will not accept non-white immigrants from other Schengen states. This ultimatum will almost certainly be rejected, and in that case, they must be prepared to leave and form their own Union.

I would say that they should request that Germany be expelled from the EU, due to that country’s recent offenses against the European people—it is (just barely) possible that the austerity-plagued nations of southern Europe might join them in that stand. That might be a tad dangerous down-the-road though; the Germans tend to lash-out violently when they think their neighbors have wronged them.

The kind of nationalist sentiments that fill internet forums
in the Anglosphere, fill stadiums in Eastern Europe

I realize that these four central European nations are not major immigration destinations, but if they remain attached to the rest of the EU, a slow drip, drip of racial change is all but certain. Leaving the EU may have painful economic ramifications, but it is not as though there will be people starving in the streets. Remaining within the EU however, is a national death sentence.

And perhaps there is a fifth country that would join this Central European Union: Saxony. From Der Spiegel:
"Tatjana Festerling, a candidate representing the Pegida movement who scored almost 10 percent of the vote in Dresden mayoral elections in June (note: the city of Dresden lies within Saxony), recently claimed at a demonstration recently, 'We're already at war.' On Monday of this week, she described Merkel as the most dangerous woman in Europe and called for a 'Säxit,' Saxony's secession from Germany."
The Free State of Saxony, the region of Germany that has most fiercely opposed Mutti Merkel’s efforts to elect a new people, conveniently, shares borders with Poland and the Czech Republic. With the highest birth-rate in Germany, perhaps the Saxons will prove more willing to endure the temporary economic pain of secession for the sake of their descendants. And maybe the example of the Saxons would inspire the conservative Bavarians to make their own independence claim.

Protestant and Atheist/Agnostic ethnonationalists could move to Saxony, and Catholic ones could move to Bavaria; if German ethnonationalists concentrated their numbers in those states, they would probably be a majority there already.

The Blackening of Yale: School's President Sets it on the Path to Detroit

via American Renaissance

Each day brings fresh reports of race-related craziness on American college campuses but if there were a contest for the most bizarre, the prize could would go to Yale. It sets the gold standard with its presidential groveling and millions set aside to reward African-Americans for their uncivil behavior.

As Yogi Berra said, it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future, but having witnessed similar madness first hand for many decades, let me offer my clairvoyance. This experiment will go though three stages: optimism, disappointment, and then–something currently unspeakable–part of Yale will come to resemble Detroit. If this seems harsh, recall the transformation of countless American cities beginning in the mid-1960s.

Stage I: Optimism

The noble experiment was officially begun by the President Peter Salovey announcing (“Toward A Better Yale”) “that it is clear that we need to make significant changes so that all members of our community truly feel welcome . . . and to reaffirm and reinforce our commitment to a campus where hatred and discrimination are never tolerated.” He then followed with the usual boilerplate about Yale’s commitment to full freedom of expression, but “when universities and communities around the country are coming together to address longstanding inequalities, I believe that Yale can and should lead the way.”

Then comes the staggering list of goodies that will make Yale the inclusive City on a Hill. The cornucopia begins with four new faculty positions to develop a “transformative, multidisciplinary center.” This to-be-created center will naturally have ample staff and resources. It would be illegal to have racial quotas for filling these “transformative” positions, but “Yale already has outstanding faculty members who are doing cutting-edge scholarship on the histories, lives, and cultures of unrepresented and under-represented communities” who will supervise the hiring. In short, it will be a racial payoff.

In the meantime, Yale will immediately add additional staff and undergraduate courses to address the concerns of the unrepresented and under-represented community and, for the next five years, will sponsor conferences on race, gender, inequality and inclusion.

Provost Ben Polak will oversee a $50 million university-wide program to enhance faculty diversity. To guarantee results, a senior faculty member with the title of deputy dean for diversity will guide the initiative, and coordinate support and mentoring for untenured faculty.

The budgets for Yale’s four cultural centers (black, Indian, Hispanic, Asian) will double and the centers will get “faculty upgrades.” If yet more money is needed, it will be forthcoming.

Af
Afro-American Cultural Center at Yale

President Salovey further promises extra help for low-income students, and the offices that dole out money for financial emergencies will be expanded. Meanwhile, the staff of Yale’s Department of Mental Health and Counseling will receive multicultural training, and a renewed effort will be made to diversify its staff.

President Salovey himself, along with vice-presidents, deans, provosts and other members of the administration will be trained to recognize and combat racism and other forms of discrimination. Department chairs, directors of graduate and undergraduate programs, and similar functionaries will get the same treatment. There will be a greater commitment to spreading the word to undergraduates via Yale’s orientation program, its speaker series, and other ongoing programs. A committee of students, faculty, and staff will “work together better to create an inclusive community, a community in which they all belong.”

Yale will also create a “robust and clear” mechanism for reporting, tracking, and stopping actions that violate the University’s nondiscrimination policies. Students will be taught the pathways for reporting discrimination, and mechanisms will be created to stamp it out.

To promote a more fair representation of the Yale community, the Committee on Public Art will ask for input on how diversity (also known as “vibrancy”) can be better celebrated on campus. President Salovey offers as an example of this the “Women’s Table” that has been set up in front of the Sterling Memorial Library. So we can expect more portraits of blacks, Latino/as and members of the LGBT community.

"Women's Table" at Yale
“Women’s Table” at Yale

Finally, Yale will take suggestions on names for two new residential colleges (dormitories) while Calhoun College–named after John C. Calhoun, a champion of the antebellum South and slave-owner–will have its name reviewed by the Yale Corporation.

The costs of this inclusionary project are enormous and I doubt if anybody has calculated the price of this tax on whites. But less obvious will be the opportunity costs–the yet more thousands of hours that will now be allocated to alleviating the psychic distress of a handful of black undergraduates. White (and Asian) job applications will be put on hold as Yale rushes to find qualified blacks, but the show must go on.

Stage II: Reality Returns

The euphoria inspired by President Salovey’s total surrender will be brief. Self-esteem, self-congratulations from speaking truth to power will evaporate in a few months. Baloney about transformation will not bring academic improvement. Renaming a building does not boost the intelligence of its residents. Youngsters who struggled with organic chemistry before the Great Upheaval will still struggle, though, to be sure, the newly terrified chemistry professor will not dare flunk them. It may now be even more difficult for blacks to master hard subjects after the thrill of school-as-radical-theater is gone. They may get gift “Bs” in organic chemistry just for showing up, but the day of reckoning will come when they fail the MCAT and can’t get into medical school.

SJW skills cannot be transferred to academic accomplishment; the very opposite is true. Whoever heard of a demonstration scheduled to begin at 8:00 a.m. where participants had to answer tough questions and offer documentation? No protestor is ever asked to explain why black professors are better able to teach black students. To compound these bad habits, instructors will be afraid to turn down frivolous requests from black students to extend the deadline on a paper, reschedule an exam, or rewrite a terrible paper. Professors will also be terrified of accusing students of cheating. Waging a show-up-and-whine war to extract benefits breeds habits of sloth.

Nor will the perceived discriminations vanish. After all, it was hyper-sensitivity that cowed Yale functionaries–a lesson not easily un-learned. Endless talk of race will only provide more opportunities for microaggression. The dictionary of racial code words will expand to six hefty volumes. Thin skin will grow even thinner while the definition of “hate” becomes yet more elastic. Black students will be outraged when the dean of inclusion, diversity, and outreach lets it slip out that recruiting qualified blacks isn’t easy. “Are you suggesting that there’s a shortage of smart blacks? Off with his head!” If today’s blacks want a campus 100 percent free of racial animosity, build a time machine and travel back to the 1950s when–as I well recall–nothing on those campuses that admitted blacks made them uncomfortable and they were happy to be there.

President Salovey’s effort to cleanse the campus of hate and racism will energize blacks to invent new forms of oppression. Creative agitators will discover that the lecture format is racist because it “privileges” a (white) instructor while forcing all students to sit still, not gossip on cell phones, and otherwise “act white.” Similarly, requiring research papers to be written in Standard English disadvantages those whose parents lacked the resources to impart elitist standards. Tomorrow’s demand will be that Yale hire black “professor aids” who will read the papers written by people of color and even write culturally sensitive exams, particularly in the hard sciences where blacks perform poorly due to cultural bias. There will be demands for race-normed grades.

And with millions of dollars in play, there will be squabbles. Black women will denounce black men for hogging leadership positions and otherwise behaving badly. What about sharing the loot with other groups such as the LGBT contingent, Hispanics, the disabled, and everybody else who can make a claim to victimhood? Only so many cultural centers can be established, and only so many portraits can be hung. Academic work will now give way to fighting over the greatly expanded diversity pie.

Stage III: Utopia Turns into Detroit

The life of the mind, at least in humanities and social sciences, will become a nightmare. A once lively campus will, at least in some fields, become an intellectual desert. Professors, especially those lacking tenure, will cleanse their lectures and reading assignments of anything that might upset blacks. Thanks to Yale’s commitment to helping students snitch on professors who violate the school’s commitment to diversity, inclusion, and non-discrimination, the campus will resemble the network of informers in East Germany–a Stasi of color. Better not say “slave;” the correct term is “enslaved person.” This inquisition rests entirely on perceptions and feelings; it is irrelevant if the offense is factually correct or expressed to stimulate discussion. There can be no defense against the crime of having given offense.

Intellectual and social life will grow increasingly segregated–a Darwinian speciation. Professors will shun black students, given that any interaction with them is walking on eggshells. Not even private e-mail or Facebook postings will be safe.

The Yale campus will then experience its own version of white flight along with the corresponding changes that this exodus created in cities.

Thanks to President Salovey’s New World Order, faculty who can flee Yale–those approaching retirement, academic stars always in demand at other schools, those enjoying options in industry or government–will jump ship. Meanwhile, top white students will enroll elsewhere. Among those who attend Yale, youngsters enjoying rough and tumble discussions will move off campus and form clubs with cryptic names that disguise the sin of exclusion. Undergraduate literature lovers who disdain third-rate female black authors will set up a dinner and drinking club at a suburban motel and invite professors to safe houses whose location will be changed each week. Soviet-style repression invites Soviet-style resistance.

White flight will be reflected in empty seats in countless classes. Few whites will enroll in courses taught by black ideologues. Students must, of course, take some classes but why bother showing up to hear anxious instructors rehash material from a textbook with the PC imprimatur. White (and Asian) Yalies will avoid on-campus socializing lest they risk being overhead laughing inappropriately. At Halloween parties at secret locations students will dress up as the Dean of Diversity to terrify professors. As in the old Soviet Empire, rituals will develop to test whether friends are trustworthy.

But the biggest shift toward a Detroit-like atmosphere will come from the combination of recruiting marginal black students and implementing the “safe spaces” policy. Increasing black enrollment means signing up even more doubtful candidates. They will need endless tutoring but, on the plus side, they are “authentic” by the standard of contemporary blackness. Many could be members of a new affirmative-action category: children of incarcerated parents.

And what will happen when this contingent reaches critical mass and realizes that thanks to the doctrine of “safe space” they enjoy legal extraterritoriality? They will no longer be stopped by the now culturally competent police for loitering, dealing drugs, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, or shoplifting. What is worse, non-Yale blacks will discover that the black-themed cultural centers and residential houses are de facto black sanctuaries. Why hang out in dreary New Haven housing projects when you can “attend” Yale and enjoy free Ivy League amenities without being bothered by racist police or having to attend class?

These outsiders could become part of the black on-campus community. An Ivy League campus with thousands of rich, naïve youngsters and shops catering to this clientele is a target rich environment: so many drunken frat boys, so many gullible white coeds and so many luxury stores. Campus security will be virtually powerless to stop prowlers since this would be the unforgivable sin of racial profiling and even stereotyping. An officer who questioned “suspicious” blacks at 3:00 a.m. a few feet from a residence hall full of white coeds would be immediately shipped out for enhanced sensitivity training.

This scenario is hardly hypothetical. During the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, many universities in places such as New York City were hit by crime waves and struggled financially when families were reluctant to send their children to live among muggers and drug dealers. Yale is Yale, but in the long run no school can survive if students are routinely victimized. Parents who pay upward of $60,000 a year in tuition and fees are not easily convinced that crime is a small price to be paid for diversity and inclusion.

Since the spineless administrators dare not eliminate the crime-infested “safe spaces,” they will spend yet more money insulating students. More police will be hired, not to arrest thieves and rapists, but to provide escorts to Yalies. There will be security cameras and police call boxes everywhere. Free, Yale-supplied transportation will carry students the three or four blocks to class. Orientation will include lectures on personal safety and what to do when asked for your wallet, though, of course, students will be warned about “stereotypes.” Self-defense classes will become popular even as the university does its best to push black-on-white crime out of the newspapers. A few students may even start shooting clubs.

The
The look to come on College Street?

The campus and its surroundings will resemble a commuter school where students drive in, attend class, and then leave. Old-timers returning for reunions will be advised to be on the lookout for some ill-defined “trouble.” Bars and restaurants will suffer since few Yalies will risk walking home intoxicated. Many businesses will fold and “for rent” signs will be pop up. Wig shops, Seven-Elevens selling lottery tickets, pay-day loan sharks, and check-cashing stores will replace the older WASPY haunts.

But this will be an environment in which black students can truly feel at home.

Merkelzilla Attacks

via Western Spring

Angela is asleep in bed having a terrible nightmare, the same one that has visited her repeatedly ever since she was a small girl. Gas chambers, death ovens, Jewish soap, lampshades made of skin, human experimentation, unprecedented evil on earth committed in the name of her country and people by her country and people.

She will always remember that day in school, scalded into her consciousness as permanently as any physical burn could ever be. The stories told by her teacher and the movies she was shown would haunt her forever, but more, they would come to define her life.

Ever since that day Angela Merkel, the present German Chancellor and most powerful person in Europe has known exactly how to determine right from wrong.

Past generations of Germans knew the Christian version of good and evil. God and Jesus, were the ultimate good and the deeds of Jesus’ life were their definitions of virtuous living – charity, mercy, neighbourly love, chastity, restraint, hard work etc. The devil and his demons were the ultimate evil – corrupters, tricksters, sexual deviants, sloths and murderers.

These definitions have been challenged since the enlightenment and especially so by 20th Century science and atheism. What was left was a vacuum in which there was no concrete definition of good or evil – ‘it’s all relative’ … ‘kinda just your opinion, man’.

But vacuums tend to be filled and what filled this vacuum was a new narrative of good and evil, one based on the cataclysmic events of WWII. The devil and his demons were re-imagined as Hitler and his SS – their deeds were the definitions of new evil.

In the second half of the 20th Century, Hollywood has brought these ideas alive in countless movies where Nazi prison camps are portrayed as more ghastly than the descriptions given of hell by even the fieriest, most ‘fire and brimstone’ of Presbyterian ministers, and the men of the SS as more inhuman, lustful and savage than the demons of a Hieronymus Bosch painting.


As one of a great many people emotionally overwhelmed with such powerful propaganda, Angela Merkel has set out, with an angelic zeal, to be a good person and to do good in the world. There is however one slight problem, Angela’s conditioned perceptions of good and evil are a travesty of the truth and her responses Pavlovian in nature.

So what is Angela’s new good?

To Angela, the Nazis were the epitome of evil, and their total opposite therefore, must be the epitome of good. Thus, she has defined the new good, in which virtue is to be found in the opposite of all things Nazi:
    • Where Hitler once praised the German people and gloried in them, Angel Merkel now berates them and accuses them of evil
    • Where Hitler once sought to put his own people first, Angela now puts them last
    • Where Hitler once wanted a more German world, Angela now wants a world in which Germany does not exist at all
    • Where Hitler once pledged to regain the lands lost to his people in World War One, Angela now invites the entire third world to occupy German soil
    • Where Nazis saw themselves as a master race of superior mortals, Angela sees the German people as servants who must cow-tow to the foreigner; to coddle and pet them like bunnies
Godzilla

Godzilla was a monster conjured in the minds of the Japanese, to represent the nuclear bombs that ripped two of their great cities apart in 1945, but now we Europeans must wrestle with a new monster: Merkelzilla, a manifestation of pathologically insane ‘liberalism’ which is ripping our cities apart.

Angela Merkel is perhaps the most extreme such manifestation, but similar monstrosities already abound, spreading their destruction in every town and city of every European country.

Surely the name Angela Merkel will be remembered down aeons of history as one of the greatest traitors of all time. Like the corrupt Ephialtes who led the Persian army through a secret back door into Greece thereby betraying their Spartan compatriots.

The good news is that we Europeans have a tradition of slaying monsters and is seems like the German people are preparing themselves for battle.

The Long Troll

via Radix

"The Narrative" is weaker than you think. And its digital-linguistic hegemony can be manipulated and reforged for our purposes. The current spectacle of the “White Student Union” movement in America is illuminating. Here’s how we made our memes real.

The prevailing hypocrisy that permits non-Whites and sexual outsiders of all flavors to organize subsidized and authorized campus grievance groups, while denying the same to White or male students, is blatant and fragile. Arguments for a “White Student Union” to balance this system clearly hold the moral high ground through the logic of liberalism. Indeed, many mainstream conservatives and even liberals feel comfortable criticizing this obvious double standard—at least, in theory.

Yet in practice, these groups have not really existed, so this tension has remained dormant and unexploited. The anti-White Left implicitly understands the fragility of their narrative frame. They have spent decades priming college students to reflexively attack any spring of European identity that still manages to bubble up within their minds or among their classmates. And it works really well, even as Whites constitute dwindling proportions on campuses and endure increasing anti-White harassment from out-of-control minority antagonists.

Woe to the brave, naïve co-ed who dares to register a White identity group with the petty commissars of their student-affairs committees! No matter how inclusive, respectful, and reasonable his petition to his peers, this student will be doomed for life. He will be a pariah on campus and his career will be ruined before it starts. And all because he wanted to enjoy a little cultural identity and hope for the future with his friends!

No wonder smart White kids don’t touch this stuff. Then there’s the unfortunate selection effect: Because this pursuit has been debased, mostly the debased dare to pursue it. The psychosocial status incentives here are powerful and, until now, self-enforcing.

Someone needed to hack the system. If there is no identity to attack, the normal prohibitory methods break down. In today’s immersive virtual environments of negotiable identities, and algorithmic meme transmission, this fluidity can be used to our advantage.

What was needed was a believable and upright “everystudent” that earnestly believed that openly White associations should be allowed to exist on campus (and in general). They needed to be an amicable and principled mirror image of the minority student groups on campus. Their messaging game needed to be on point and have a loud megaphone. And they needed to have backup—social proof to show the many bewildered White students drinking in the toxic brew of the enraged comment sections that they were not the only ones feeling queasy. The synthetic spectacle then imparts a real impression on observers, some of whom move to join or create real organizations in protest. This is how you meme something into existence.

First, there was Illinois. A Facebook page called the “Illini White Student Union” appeared on November 18th to fight back against what the page called the “black terrorism” of the increasingly-bold #BlackLivesMatter movement, which had blessed the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus with a protest earlier that day.

The media reaction was immediate and shrill. SJWs quickly informed a student reporter, who dutifully clutched her pearls and clucked at the administration to tear down this page at once. Campus spokeswoman Robin Kaler wasted no time in contacting Facebook to have the page removed through whatever quirk of intellectual property would get the job done.

“Disturbing and cowardly,” she called it. It upset Interim Chancellor Barbara Wilson as well, who was moved to email the entire campus to explain that, while the administration supports the right to free speech, they wouldn’t particularly like to see this exact expression. In other words, they Streisanded the whole thing. A silly Facebook page that took all of 10 minutes to create was morning news at the Washington Post by Friday. Clearly, this meme had wings.

The next wave of pages built on the concept’s natural intrigue by using words and numbers to their advantage. There were around 40 or so in all, allowing for some churn in the ban-recreation ratio, in schools spanning the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. and were created some time after November 20th.

They culture-jammed SJW-speak using Apollonian sensibilities. They spoke of “unapologetically providing a safe space for students of European descent to air their true feelings about the future of our nation,” invoked statistics about the dwindling ethnic composition of Whites on their campus and in their country, and asked their allies of color not to invalidate their historical experience. They invited followers to share their favorite Kraftwerk tracks and adorned their backgrounds with collegiate J.C. Leyendecker prints. You can love all of humanity while looking to “restore the pioneering will and greatness of our unique and virtuous people,” they said. Shouldn’t we be allowed to exist, they asked?

The key was to present the mission as a harmless lamb—one that their hysterical aggressors couldn’t wait to slaughter. Over and over, the pages responded to baseless attacks and outright threats, strongly condemning hatred, discrimination, and violence of all kinds and calling for their attackers to join them to #EndRacism. By integrating the untouchables into the sphere of victimization, these pages disarmed the SJW zombie troops’ first linguistic line of defense.

This evoked many long tirades from commenters about the long history of abuses by European peoples against everyone else (“So you think students of European descent should not be proud of their heritage?”), confused yet emphatic screeds about the reality of White privilege (“So you don’t think White students deserve to feel safe on campus?”), and all-out celebrations of Whites’ imminent demographic decline (“How small of a minority must Whites be before they can organize for their interests?”). But mostly it launched a shit show, as angry POCs and righteous self-hating Whites swarmed the comments with their far too vicious bile. Which left all of the formerly unawakened White students observing these events to wonder: Just what exactly is so controversial about my interests, anyway?

The media was played like a fiddle to broadcast the intended messages. The operators who spoke to journalists spoke carefully, emphasizing the constant death threats they were receiving and their commitment to anti-racism. The same Illini cycle played out, with student papers notifying administrators, who would make some statement denouncing White interests—“The celebration of Whiteness as a race has a particular history of racial violence, and exclusion,” informs María Josefina Saldaña-Portillo of the NYU School of Social and Cultural Analysis—which might generate more coverage in the local news, or in the case of the apparently-well-connected NYU community, all of the major elite gossip rags. (The Gawker piece is a master troll—read it in full.) Clueless reporters often reproduced the entire boilerplate WSU mission statement, but almost all of them couldn’t resist sharing some of the juiciest bits. It was chaos, Leyendecker prints and calls to awaken the European spirit were everywhere, and that’s just how we wanted it.

The savvier media flacks eventually coalesced around the narrative that these were an elaborate troll started by neo-Nazis. Oh yeah? Well the good folks at Breitbart just happened to find some “allies of color” that are involved with the WSUs at UC Santa Cruz, UC Santa Barbara, and the University of British Colombia. There are men at Harvard, too. They’ve all got proof. More will come forward as the brouhaha continues—last weeks’s very fair New York Times story will make sure of that. The establishment will soon need to deal with these ideas on their merits, and I, for one, can’t wait to see how they’re going to swing it.

It’s remarkable that this kind of ridiculous, postmodern lulz hunt is what finally moved the Overton Window towards a breeding ground for White resistance on college campuses, but then again we live in absurd times. Might as well adapt.

It doesn’t matter who started them or why, whether it was “real” or a satire, spontaneous or coordinated: A few dozen Facebook pages made the concept of White Student Unions real through manipulated tension and predictable media amplification. Worst-case scenario, this particular incident fizzles out and we learn a few new tricks. If we’re sensitive to opportunities and smart about it, it can be done again. It won’t be as simple as repeating this exact formula for a different issue, although many of the strategies learned here can be modified for other purposes. Be entrepreneurial, be bold, and troll smart. Let’s have some fun with this. Our future is now!

Paris: Over the Line of Tolerance

via Counter-Currents

The dust has settled on the most horrific terror attack continental Europe has faced in recent history, and Europeans are having to confront what they have been lulled into denial about. The nightmare prospect of social collapse and block-by-block ethnic conflict, in the capital and heartland of France, has long been forewarned by the European New Right and now is almost inevitable unless France becomes the first to succumb to Sharia.

The rationalizations peddled by the controlled media for the reckless acceptance of ever-increasing numbers of unscreened migrants not only sound hollow, but have been vaporized along with the Jihadi Bride who detonated in Saint-Denis. There can no longer be any doubt that the Muslim population in Europe is by its nature aggressive, dangerous, and an existential threat to the French and German people. News emerged November 18th that a bomb plot targeting a soccer stadium in Hanover was foiled with minutes to spare, as police were tipped off to the existence of an ambulance packed with explosives.

The mainstream press even now refuse to acknowledge that civil war is a real and immediate possibility. The idea that our glorious multicultural, multiracial, multi-factional society could disintegrate has never been acknowledged by the press in any significant way. Instead, the political class, barring “far Right” parties, insists that liberal democratic society has the capacity to take unlimited immigration by random, hostile foreigners. Praise and encouragement of Europeans is only allowed when they are sacrificing their children’s future on the altar of diversity.

Germany is reaching the boiling point as small towns of native Germans are being swamped overnight by the addition of tent slums. In Saxony a mob shouted Merkel down as a “traitor to the people” and a “whore.” About three weeks later, Breitbart London reported that in Lower Saxony, a village of less than a hundred was being forced to accept over a thousand migrants. The scale of state-supported displacement has reached unimaginable levels as Biblical-style exodus treks occur by the numberless third world from Greece up to Northern Europe.

But this push to trample Europeans into the mud of their own lands is the culmination of increasing state-mandated laxity on border controls in all the extreme liberal democratic countries — France, Germany, and Britain being the most ethno-suicidal. France has huge numbers of North Africans, many of whom are first, second, and third generation migrant colonists that have never assimilated and remain violent outsiders to French society, festering in the concrete suburbs around Paris Central.

There is increasing but uneasy acceptance that “Islam” is a problem for Europe, rather than simply “foreigners.” Sadly, from a nationalist point of view, decades of thought control and agitprop about the wickedness of “discrimination” and “racism” cannot be undone overnight, no matter how many dead Parisians.

The establishment is attempting to frame the conflict as a “Clash of Civilizations” between the costumed Caliphate of Islamic State, and the righteous, “brave” West, that adheres to its negative principles of self-denial, self-loathing, and passivity on the home front, even as it exploits the atrocities wrought upon it to justify airstrikes in Syria. The danger of framing the problem as “Islam vs. the West” as opposed to “Europeans vs. non-European invaders,” regardless of religion, is that it can be channeled into invading Israel’s neighbors (and stirring up more refugees), rather than removing invaders from our homelands.

The Clash of Civilizations propaganda model demands that Jihadi “John” — a name given to him, no doubt, to Anglicize him and portray him as just another British “bloke” even as he beheads journalists in the desert — be the face of “Radical Islam,” that “Radical” Islam poses a grave and existential threat to “liberty,” as if any liberty persists still in the West. It demands that “refugees”  be welcomed into Germany, France, Britain, Spain, Italy and Greece in order to foment ethnic conflict and ingrain Europeans with a bitter resentment and hatred of “Radical Islam,” as they are terrorized through pathological violence of Muslim foot soldiers and bomb-makers.

Europeans are asked on behalf of NATO, America, and Israeli military interests to happily allow their taxes to fund bullets used to massacre children in Syria in the name of supporting “moderates,” and then to look the other way when those same bullets perforate Paris tourists at a music concert. Europeans are told they are “racist” to notice a recurring Arab-Muslim tendency to rape white women and children — and then asked to support warfare in order to support “human rights” for Arab Muslims, and accept indefinite amounts of Arab Muslims in tent cities on their doorstep.

The “Invade the World, Invite the World” paradox of the latest American military adventures insist that Europeans treat Muslims as a collective abroad — a demonic evil that conveniently persists and is never entirely erased, posing in black ninja outfits as with AK’s after a hard day chainsaw-beheading — an evil that justifies continual aggressive military buildup in areas where a strong, Russia-allied regime is located.

But the moment these selfsame Jihadi LARPers cross the borders into Europe, they must be judged only as individuals. To judge them as collectively guilty within Europe would mean that some groups have to be discriminated against because of their collective propensity for violent acts, which would open a whole Syrian barrel bomb of worms. The very right of any Muslim to live in the West would be questioned, and unthinkably, possibly even the right of any other non-white to live in the West could come under scrutiny; but the real point of all this “tolerance” for rape and terrorism is to prevent people from asking if Jews belong in Europe.

This is the paradox of Democratic Liberal Imperialism. It needs Muslims to act according to their group interests in the West in order to justify NATO expansion and occupation, but also justifies their presence in the West by denying those group interests exist. The tolerance that has been extended to these “refugees” has now been well and truly abused, and the French now have to face an ugly reality of Islamic aggression cannot be rationalized away as “blowback” from the Iraq war or French microaggressions.

The Paris massacre crossed the line of what can be written off as just the cost of living under a liberal regime. It was too explicit. It was too merciless. It has shown Europeans that Muslims will either be at their feet or at their throat. Liberté, égalité? Idiocy!

Douglas Murray’s Warning to the Jewish Community

via The Occidental Observer

Douglas Murray has written a very nice column on the Paris attacks: “Paris attacks: Leaders in two minds while Europe burns.” He points to the “multiculturalism has failed” statements of Angela Merkel and David Cameron—and that, despite no progress on integrating Muslims, Europe is now doubling down on a failed experiment. He points out that even though terrorism is confined to only very few Muslims, it has substantial support in the British Muslim community—at least 27% in a BBC poll, “with another 10 per cent saying they didn’t know whether they were sympathetic to the attackers or refusing to answer the question.” He is very clear that this is a top-down revolution with ever decreasing popular support.
But, then, almost nothing about the grand schemes of Europe’s political elites has made sense for some time. All are good at talking about how they will tackle problems “over there”. Few if any have any idea what to do about our problems “over here”.
He predicts that
the European public will migrate further and further to the political Right. And in reaction to this the European political class will migrate further and further to the Left. You can already see it. In ­Sweden one liberal newspaper editor responded to the latest polling triumphs by the until-recently ­pariah Sweden Democrats party by saying that he would be happy to flood Sweden with Islamic State fighters to punish the Swedish electorate for voting for the Sweden Democrats. That isn’t such an unusual instinct.
Assuming that this editor is an ethnic Swede (although most media in Sweden in Jewish-owned), this proposal is the most extreme version of altruistic punishment against one’s own people that I have ever contemplated. (Altruistic punishment is punishment of violators of a moral norm at cost to oneself; proneness to altruistic punishment to uphold moral norms is a key aspect of Western egalitarian individualism, typified, e.g., by the Puritan moral fervor against slavery that advocated punishing White Southerners on behalf of the freedom of Africans; see here, p. 101ff).
It is the same instinct that made one female refugee aid worker and her colleagues hush up her recent rape at the hands of some recent arrivals. They feared that mentioning the rape might exacerbate anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe. This instinct fears that Europeans are far-right extremists just waiting to break out, and the sad irony that only by treating them in such a way for such a long time could anyone ever make them so.
This of course is the same sentiment that prevented authorities from reporting or prosecuting the industrial-scale rape of girls in Rotherham and elsewhere in the UK.

After pointing out that the reaction of elites to popular discontent is to advocate more repression and controls on freedom of speech, he notes that

The only good news is this suicidal part of our European mind, which has been the dominant part for several decades, is beginning to lose ground to the part of the brain that still has some ­survival instinct. Perhaps it will succeed in wrestling back our collective mind. Perhaps it will be too late.

But the line I want to draw attention to is this:
Already the European public is beginning to ask, “Who made our societies into this fire?” There will be many physical casualties to come. But the next political ­casualties should be the political class who fed us lies for years because they would not face up to some un­deniably bitter truths.
And there is a hint earlier in the article about who Murray thinks is a very important force in promoting mass immigration and multiculturalism:
In Malmo, ­Sweden — which once had a thriving Jewish community — just under 1000 Jews remain. Today, every day, about 1000 Muslim refugees arrive in Malmo. So every single day’s immigration of new immigrants dwarfs the remnants of a long-established community.
Rather than focus on the real victims — native Europeans, Murray attempts to get sympathy for his perspective by noting that Jews are victims, hoping perhaps to get the powerful Jewish community on the side of ending the invasion. This rather gratuitous sop to Jewish sensibilities seems out of place — Murray’s hostility to the invasion seems genuine, articulate, and motivated by his concern for the future of Europe, not the fate of European Jews.

But Murray wrote another article that makes it very clear that he thinks the Jewish community has had a very critically important role in the impending demise of Europe. Murray’s “The real refugee problem? Bigotry” appears in The Jewish Chronicle — the most important Jewish publication in the UK, and with a title like that one might supposes that it would be yet another moralistic piece censuring anyone who dares criticize flooding Europe with as many Middle Easterners and Africans as want to move there. But, despite the misnomer, it is a rather unique piece—nothing less than a warning from a self-described neoconservative, gay philo-Semite who is “enough of a friend and developed enough of an understanding of the Jewish community in this country to be allowed to issue a warning of sorts.”
The problem with the migration crisis is that the politicians are trying to follow public opinion, but the public do not know what we want. Do we want to be unprecedentedly generous or unprecedentedly fearful? Are the incomers like 1930s German Jews or are they just 21st-century economic migrants? Most of us think they are a bit of both and so our thoughts fluctuate. This makes the debate not only fractious but prone to dangerous swings.
In the summer, when the tragic photo came out of a young Syrian boy washed up on the shores of Turkey, some vocal Europeans had a spasm of ”let them in.” Others said, ”be careful”. But the heart overruled the head. And can do again. The next turn of the wheel was always going to be when the migrants were associated not with humanitarian warmth but terrorist atrocities. Now they are.
How, then, could a migration of millions of Muslim men (in the main) from not only the Middle East but sub-Saharan Africa, have any negative effect on Jews? The first aspect is obvious: among those populations there will be many who bring the hatreds and suspicions of Jews that are inculcated in their homelands and faith. In time, this will lead to more attacks like that on the Jewish school in Toulouse (2012), the Jewish Museum in Brussels (2014) or the Jewish food-market in Paris (2015). But here, wider public sympathy will go to the victims of these attacks rather than their perpetrators.
Yet another theme has bubbled up which it genuinely shocks me to discover. For many Jewish groups and Jewish leaders have been taking a conspicuous lead in welcoming refugees.
It’s no secret that we at TOO have also noticed this rather unsurprising trend (see here, here, and here) (as well as the  central Jewish role in promoting non-White immigration throughout the West [US, Australia, UK, Sweden]). Murray’s link is to an article in The Jewish Chronicle by Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis (also singled out by Tobias Langdon on TOO) that contains the usual high-flown moralistic prose that is so typical of Jewish activists in the diaspora in the West and absolutely missing in any discussion of Israel’s responsibility for taking in refugees and migrants. For example:
Right now, tens of thousands of people are knocking on Europe’s door. It is a clarion call, and one that requires an unquestioningly compassionate response. We need to recognise that the vulnerable men, women and children whose lives have been devastated by war and persecution are not mere statistics in a news report — they are real people. This is the paradigm shift in mindset that I have called for in the media, and I welcome our government’s recognition of the moral imperative to act.
Since Mirvis is the Chief Rabbi of Britain, his words are something of an official pronouncement of the organized Jewish community. Murray continues:
Some initiatives – such as that to save Christian children in the Middle East who are being ”cleansed” from the region – are hugely admirable and widely appreciated. But it is specific and needed. Other initiatives and statements from Jewish leaders and groups appear to be welcoming any and all refugees and equating the plight of 1930s Jews with all 21st-century migrants. This is not just a misreading of history but an incorrect application of history. It also sets up a dangerous linkage between Jews who are already in Europe and an increasingly unpopular, current European migration policy.
There have indeed been a deluge of articles comparing the current situation to Jewish refugees in the 1930s (itself an indication of Jewish power in the media). I discussed the topic recently, the bottom line being that
once again, the experience of Jews prior to and during World War II is being used as a touchstone for how Europeans should act now. The actions of Europeans should be motivated by guilt over what happened ~80 years ago, and that guilt should trump any concern with the effects of immigration on social cohesion, unemployment, crime, and welfare costs — not to mention the ethnic genetic interests of Europeans.
Murray provides several egregious examples of Jewish special pleading on immigration, including Simon Schama who was brilliantly skewered recently by TOO‘s Andrew Joyce. Obviously, Schama’s very overt Jewish pleading has struck a chord. Murray notes
During an episode of Question Time last month, the historian Simon Schama made a somewhat haughty and personal attack on my Spectator colleague Rod Liddle. [I have to point out a typo here; Murray obviously forgot to include quotes around ‘historian’; see Andrew Joyce’s recent article on Schama] Specifically, he chided Rod (who was urging wariness of letting into the country anybody who wants to come here) for allegedly turning his ”suburban face” away from the troubles of the world. This was a little rich, and I said in print that it is all very well for Professor Schama to swan into Britain and tell us to take millions of migrants because he can always head back to his well-off (and distinctly white) neighbourhood in the US.
According to Wikipedia, Schama lives in Briarcliff Manor, NY, an affluent suburb of New York City that seems in no danger of importing Syrian migrants or any other poor people of color — but of course, Schama thinks it’s evil for Rod Liddle to want to live in a White suburb in the UK. And of course, if POC are ever imported into Briarcliff Manor, Schama would be welcome to join his co-ethnics in the Jewish state, but Liddle would not. Murray is surprisingly frank in discussing the reactions to his piece on Schama:
When the piece went viral, the replies included an element that was new and seized on an aspect of Schama that never occurred to me. ”One law for the Jews, another for the rest of us” was the nub of it. Well, Schama is a distinguished public figure and can say and think what he likes. Nobody else needs to feel responsible for him.
In other words, in the newspaper comments sections, people are noticing that prominent Jews (and the organized Jewish community) are endorsing policies that they would have no intention of applying to Israel. The moralizing admonitions and the deep empathy that Schama was feigning in the Question Time program (see Andrew Joyce’s article) are intended for the consumption of the goyim and certainly do not reflect any real sense of moral principle.
A couple of weeks later, the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, got into a row with his country’s most successful son. At a time when Orban was under huge pressure from his electorate not to let thousands of migrants into the country, he upbraided George Soros for being behind the many ”open borders” NGOs which were putting pressure on Hungary. In reply, Soros confirmed that, yes, whereas Orban thought migrants the problem and borders the solution, Soros did indeed think borders the problem and migrants the solution.
Great to call attention to Soros being Jewish — and entirely in sync with the organized Jewish community on immigration and refugee policy. Again, commenters focused on the double standard whereby Jews advocate multiculturalism and immigration for Europe, but have Israel as an avowedly Jewish state to fall back on:
In reporting this exchange, the same theme emerged. ”It’s all very well for the Jews. They have Israel where only Jews can go and all the time they’re destroying our own religious and racial identity in Europe.”
But the most amazing inclusion was Murray’s comment on the notorious video by Barbara Lerner-Spectre:

And another theme started to come up which I never thought I’d hear in my lifetime: ”Ah – the rootless, cosmopolitan Jew.” Searching online I find that this is indeed becoming a theme. A video watched hundreds of thousands of times on YouTube excerpts an interview with a Jewish academic in Sweden who explains that Europe ”has not yet learned how to be multicultural.”

She goes on: ”Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role.”


Amazingly, Spectre goes on to state that “But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.” Spectre’s comment is an example of the  age-old Jewish self-concept of a “Light Unto the Nations”: Jews saving Europe by leading it to multiculturalism. One wonders why she thinks Europe could not survive as a set of monocultural societies like it always has. Israel and many other societies function quite well with a recognized dominant culture and people, and, as repeatedly emphasized here, multicultural societies have a host of costs and no visible benefits. The better question, of course,  is whether Europe can survive multiculturalism. By definition, it can’t. One has the feeling that Murray feels the same.

Spectre’s video and  the clip of Spectre in the viral video”With Open Gates: The Forced Collective Suicide of European Nations” are getting quite a bit of attention these days. and not only from Murray. The ADL also notes that Spectre appeared in “With Open Gates” (formerly featured at TOO and available in our video archive). The ADL notes that
the video ends with a clip of the founder of a Jew­ish cul­tural insti­tute in Swe­den, who claims that Jews sup­port efforts to pro­mote mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism in Europe. This seg­ment of the video gives fuel to anti-Semites who blame Jews for non-white immi­gra­tion to Europe. The state­ment that accom­pa­nied the post­ing of the video on YouTube blames “Zion­ist inter­est” for destroy­ing Europe “from the inside.”
As usual, the ADL does not bother to refute the charge that Jews are blameworthy on this issue. Far easier (and still quite effective) to call people who believe such things “anti-Semites.”

Murray continues, noting that awareness of the role of Jews in promoting immigration and multiculturalism “remains a minority opinion for now.” But he is hinting that it could become a majority opinion quite easily, which I believe it could with effective media such as the “With Open Gates” video. The problem, as usual, is the very tight controls on the above ground media, which continues to promote multiculturalism and avoid discussions of Jewish influence — not to mention the legal and social penalties for expressing dissent from the prevailing zeitgeist. Nevertheless, as the comments referred to by Murray attest, the word is getting out. And that would be bad for the Jews:
But here comes the bigger problem. Only seven per cent of Britons surveyed in a recent poll said they wanted immigration into Britain to increase. It is impossible to say what direction Europe is going to go in the near future, and we are all going to have to be on our guard and spend time countering bigotries and hatreds that could spill out in any direction. But the open-heartedness of so many Jews must also be countered by more vocal and visible even-headedness. In particular, this constitutes a careful warning that it could yet be a problem for European Jews if their leaders and visible figures get ahead of (and are seen to be the progenitors of) a mass movement of peoples that looks likely in the near future to go unimaginably sour, thus bearing out my pessimistic Jewish friend’s worst fears.
“Unimaginably sour.” There is indeed a disaster looming, a disaster that is being welcomed and promoted by prominent Jews, by Jews influential in the media, and by the organized Jewish community — with no countervailing voices of any stature[1] — despite its lack of popularity with most Europeans. By definition, elites have power, but they also bear responsibility when things go unimaginably sour. It is only fair and just that Jews, as a prominent component of elites throughout the West, be called to account for their share of responsibility.

Two final points: Those wishing to deny an analogy between the current situation and the 1930s point out that refugee Jews did not commit acts of terror. Nevertheless, the emigre Jews of the 1930s had a very large influence on British culture. Despite having no feelings for or ties to traditional British culture, they supplanted “a culture with significant popular support in favor of an international culture with no concept of beauty.” One can make a similar point about Jewish immigration to the West since the late nineteenth century — that in general Jews have been the backbone of the left which has had transformative effects on the cultures of the West in the direction of anti-nationalism, the displacing of White elites, pro-immigration, and pro-multiculturalism. Indeed, the effects of Jewish immigration have been far more devastating to the traditional cultures of the West than the hordes of Asians and Africans now entering Europe because, in the end, these latter would never have occurred without the encouragement of our new elites, among whom Jews hold a very prominent place.

Finally, I recall reading that during the 1930s prominent Americans warned Jews about the consequences of making alliances with Black Americans because of the potential fallout among Whites. There was no change in policy, and during the 1950s and 1960s it is commonly agreed that Jewish organizations played an indispensable role in the Civil Rights movement. This is yet another illustration of Jewish aggressiveness. Transforming the ethnic balance and displacing currently dominant populations are incredibly aggressive policies that obviously compromise the legitimate interests of traditional White majorities. Murray is quite right that Jews may be held to account for its, but I rather doubt that his warning will be heeded. And one can be sure, that if it happens, Jewish self-conceptions will focus on Jewish powerlessness, on irrational goyim, and on morally superior Jews.

Notes:
[1] Josef Schuster, head of the Central Council of German Jews, seems to have changed his mind after initially stating that Germany could not refuse any refugees because of its National Socialist past. The Jerusalem Post reports that Schuster now says that there should be a quota on refugees. His concerns seem to be mainly about the safety of Jews.
“Many refugees are fleeing the terror of the Islamic State and want to live in peace and freedom, but at the same time they come from cultures in which hate towards Jews and intolerance are fixed components,” he said. “Don’t only think about the Jews, think about equal rights for women and the treatment of homosexuals.”
Given that the risks to the Jewish community and the illiberal values of the invaders were well known at the time Schuster made his original statement, it is quite possible that, as Douglas Murray warns, Schuster is afraid that continued Jewish endorsement of an unlimited number of refugees could come back to haunt them when the political winds change, as they inevitably will. The Jerusalem Post article goes on to describe discontent within Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party.