Featured Video

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

31 January 2014

The Jewish origins of multiculturalism in Sweden

by Dr Kevin MacDonald. 

In The Culture of Critique and other writings I have developed the view that Jews and the organized Jewish community were a critical necessary condition for the rise of multiculturalism in the West. In Chapter 7, on Jewish involvement in shaping immigration policy, I focused mainly on the U.S., but also had brief sections on England, Canada, Australia (greatly elaborated recently in TOO by Brenton Sanderson), and France.

One question I often get is about the role of Jews in Sweden and other European countries with relatively few Jews. Now there has been a translation from Swedish of an article, “How and why Sweden became multicultural,” that summarizes academic writing on the Jewish role in making Sweden into a multicultural society. This article should be read in its entirety, but some salient points:

The ideological change started in 1964 when David Schwarz, a Polish born Jew and Holocaust survivor who immigrated to Sweden in the early 1950s, wrote the article “The Immigration problem in Sweden” in Sweden’s largest and most important morning newspaper – the Jewish-owned Dagens Nyheter (“Daily News”). It started a rancorous debate that mostly took place in Dagens Nyheter, but which subsequently continued even in other newspapers, on editorial pages and in books.

Schwarz was by far the most active opinion-former and accounted for 37 of a total of 118 contributions to the debate on the immigration issue in the years 1964-1968. Schwarz and his co-thinkers were so dominant and aggressive that debaters with an alternative view were driven on the defensive and felt their views suppressed. For example, Schwarz played the anti-Semitism card efficiently in order to discredit his opponents. …

It was the conservative Rightist Party who first embraced the idea of cultural pluralism and greatly contributed to shape the new radical direction. It is worth mentioning that the chairman of the Rightist Party 1961-1965, Gunnar Heckscher, was the party’s first leader of Jewish descent.

As in the U.S. and elsewhere, Jewish activists were aided by Jewish media ownership. Activists stressed the need to reshape immigration policy to atone for persecution of Jews—in the case of Sweden, the role of the Swedish government vis-à-vis Jews during World War II. (In the U.S., Jewish activists emphasized that the 1924 immigration law was motivated by anti-Semitism, and many activists, including academic activists like Stephen J. Gould (in his notorious The Mismeasure of Man; see here, p. 30ff, claimed that U.S. immigration restriction resulted in Jews dying in the Holocaust. Even Stephen Steinlight, who advocates restriction of Muslim immigration (and only Muslim immigration), termed the 1924 law “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,”a “monstrous policy”; see here, p. 5) 

Assimilation to Swedish culture was viewed as an unacceptable goal:

The starting point was thus a cultural pluralist perspective, which meant that immigrants with massive government intervention and financial support would be encouraged to preserve their culture (and thus send out signals to the world that Sweden is a tolerant country where everyone is welcome). The meeting between the Swedish culture and minority cultures would be enriching to the whole community and the majority population would begin to adapt to the minorities. …

It is not a coincidence that Europe’s organized Jews consistently dissociate themselves from politically organized critics of Islam, because every negative generalization towards a minority group ultimately can hit the Jews.

The article notes, and I agree, that Jews are motivated by the desire to break down ethnically and culturally homogeneous societies because of fear that such societies may turn on Jews, as occurred in Germany, 1933-1945, but also because of traditional Jewish hatred toward the Christian civilization of the West. It concludes by noting that, besides Jewish media ownership, Jewish influence was facilitated by the dominance of academic anthropology by the Boasian school — a Jewish intellectual movement — and its views on cultural relativism and denigration of Western culture.

I agree entirely that Jewish influence stems from their being an academic and media elite, as well as their ability to develop highly effective, well-funded activist organizations. Here, the role of Bruno Kaplan of the World Jewish Congress is emphasized.

This is an important contribution to the understanding of the impending death of the West. Needless to say, such an analysis does not obviate the need for an understanding of why Western cultures have been uniquely susceptible to ideologies that view the destruction of the West as a moral imperative. 


And look at Sweden now, look at America now, look at the West now. Mass non-European immigration into the West was no accident, it was not a natural phenomena as the leftist deceptively claim. It was a purposeful plan to weaken our culture, our homogeneity and our will. Ignorance of the facts will ultimately lead to a future in which conflict, totalitarianism, and suffering will become the norm, and all because people were stupid enough to fall for the joint globalist/leftist mythical utopian ideals that are nothing more than fairytales. 


26 January 2014


The astonishing success of the Twilight series of vampire novels written by Stephenie Meyer ranks second only to the Harry Potter series in publishing history, and the two films released to date also repeat this pattern. [1] Meyer’s series builds upon the foundation of older novels and cult films, themselves based on the European legends of vampires. The legends predate even these, for there is a long tradition in ancient religions of supernatural beings who are predators on humans, consuming the blood or flesh of the living, tales that can be found in Babylonian, Greek, Persian, Hindu, and Hebrew lore, as well as throughout Africa and the pre-colonial Americas.

The European legends appear to have been in wide circulation during the Middle Ages in the oral folk culture of numerous Christian peoples, sometimes in the writings of ecclesiastics (though this was rare), and began to be collected only in the 1700’s. This branch of vampire legends thrived mainly in South-eastern Europe, where the tendency to superstition was greater than in more developed urban societies, but also appeared elsewhere, for example in Russia and Germany. The verbal lore of several ethnic groups commonly depicts the vampire as an “un-dead” being possessed by an evil spirit, sometimes a suicide or a witch but often a corpse that had been bitten by a vampire. It is conjectured that the word “vampire” derives from a chain of linguistic adaptations that can be traced back through French and German (vampyre and vampir) to the Serbian vampir, Polish wapierz and numerous Slavic variants in other countries, such as upir, upyr, and upior. According to some etymological theorists the term originates in the Turkic term for “witch”—for example the Tatar ubyr.

The legend was popularized in Western literature through highly successful novels, beginning with John Polidari’s The Vampyre, published in 1819, and Bram Stoker’s Dracula, published in 1897. It was the latter that provided the basis for most subsequent vampire fiction. Other novels of varying degrees of literary merit have appeared since then, but few, if any of them, depart from the basic “type.” In addition, there are literally hundreds of films dealing with the theme. Notable among these are the 1922 German film Nosferatu, and Universal Pictures’ Dracula (1931), starring Bela Lugosi, followed by a series of eight Dracula films in the 1950’s and ‘60’s, starring Christopher Lee. Significant among later films are Francis Ford Coppola’s rendition of Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992), starring Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder, and Neil Jordan’s Interview with the Vampire (1994), based on Anne Rice’s novel of the same name, starring Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise.
There are also numerous media off-shoots such as the British television series Young Dracula, which was first aired in 2006, the American television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which aired from 1997 to 2003, and the animated Japanese series Vampire Knight, first aired in 2008, as well as other series such as Blood Ties, Moonlight, Being Human, and True Blood. In a 2009 issue of the SCP Journal, Tal Brooke reflected on the possible causes of this cultural phenomenon:

Vampires as embodied darkness, are a perfect foil for boundary pushing as we get to know and accept them. The desensitized audience are the frogs sitting in the slowly heating kettle. The envelope of moral boundaries is constantly being pushed, with hardly a pause, and that has been happening since the early days of black and white TVs with their rabbit-ear antennas. Whether we like it or not, media is a change agent, earning vast sums and influencing populations. If a twenty second advertisement can be opinion-shaping, an hour-long program more so.
It has become clear that twenty-first century producers are neither respecters of morals nor vampire lore as they change the rules to fit the times. They clone, mix and match. The crucifix is becoming inconsequential along with holy water, removing the power of Christianity from the equation [2]

The theme of vampirism seems never to grow stale. In 2009 alone, seven films have been released, including New Moon, based on the second book of the Twilight series, with the third and fourth films soon to follow.
Vampire themes also figure in landmark end-of-the-world films such as The Last Man on Earth (1964), starring Vincent Price, Omega Man (1971), starring Charlton Heston, and I Am Legend (2007), starring Will Smith. Common to these later films is the deletion of any supernatural content and attributing the evils portrayed in them to purely physical causes. The zombie-vampires in I Am Legend, for example, are humans turned into monsters due to a plague unleashed accidentally by scientists seeking a cure for cancer. The evil is entirely natural in origins. In this film, as in most other grotesque manifestations of the horror genre, the monster has superhuman strength and eerie cognitive powers, is vicious, murderous, and hideously ugly.
But the monstrous is not always portrayed as this kind of tragic aberration. With increasing frequency the monster is presented as a new and advanced breed of human who evokes our sympathy—and even our identification with him. In the most alluring manifestations, he possesses superhuman strength and intelligence, he is more moral than his predecessors, and he is physically beautiful. In the earlier stages of vampire fantasy, the reader or viewer was shaken by terror and rewarded with the thrill of escape. In the present stage, we are stimulated by a combination of fascination with the mysterious paranormal and rewarded with the thrill of sensual desire.

A number of authors have pointed out in their studies of this genre that the thirst for the life-blood of others is a metaphor of lust. It is important to note in this regard that the vampire of legend only sometimes kills his victim; just as often, he infects the victim, turning him or her into a vampire. E. Michael Jones has written that at the root of the phenomenal rise of horror culture is suppressed conscience. Tracing the pattern from Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein (first published in 1818) through to Ridley Scott’s film Alien (1979) and its sequels, Jones argues that the denial of moral law produces metaphorical monsters that arise from the subconscious of creative people and spread into society through their cultural works. The monster in the Alien films, for example, is a ghastly abomination of the feminine, and salvation is possible only through expulsion of the offspring it implants and incubates in humans—a subconscious eruption of internal conflicts (and guilt) over abortion.
As Jones points out:

By following our illicit desires to their logical endpoint in death, we have created a nightmare culture, a horror-movie culture, one in which we are led back again and again to the source of our mysterious fears by forces over which we have no control. [3]

Even though modern man denies the authority of moral conscience, he cannot escape it. He is created in the image and likeness of God, and deep within the natural law of his being the truth continues to speak to him, even as he adamantly denies the existence of God (in the case of atheists) or minimizes divine authority (in the case of nominally religious people, the practical atheists). In order to live with the inner fragmentation, which is the inevitable effect of violated conscience, he is driven to relieve his pain through three diverse ways:
a) He makes open war against conscience and all its moral restraints, and pursues with radical willfulness an aggressive consumption of sensual rewards—generally a plunge into various kinds of addictions and a life of sexual promiscuity;
b) More passively, he simply ignores the inner voice of conscience and distracts himself from it by sensual and emotional rewards—generally the search for love without responsibility and a restless striving for worldly success;
c) He tries to rationalize a self-made form of conscience for himself, based in values such as “tolerance” and “non-dogmatism.” Generally this produces a new kind of perverse moralism, a self-righteousness which is, paradoxically, quite intolerant of genuine righteousness. Its anti-dogmatism is its dogma. Here there is no absolute rejection of morality, but rather a rewriting of it according to subjective feelings.
None of the foregoing coping mechanisms need be conscious. Indeed they tend to be largely subconscious processes through which a person feels that he is finding his personal identity, is living out the principle of freedom, discovering his path in life, and getting from it a portion of happiness. Though he is afflicted from time to time by a sense of the inner void, he presumes that the remedy for these dark moments will be found by increasing the dose of the very drug that is killing him.
The Twilight series, it would appear, follows the third coping mechanism mentioned above in c), the one which appeals to the broadest possible audience. The books have won numerous awards, notably the British Book Award for “Children’s Book of the Year” and the 2009 “Kids’ Choice Award for Favorite Book,” and to date have sold more than 85 million copies and been translated into 38 languages. This, despite the fact they are poorly written teen romances, pulp fiction with a twist of supernatural horror combined with racing hormones and high school boy-girl relationships. As with the Harry Potter series, blood is a crucial theme, connected with life itself and inextricably bound to the theme of immortality. But where the Potter series is only secondarily romantic, in the Twilight series romance is primary, with vampirism as the thrill that gives it spice.
In the first volume, Twilight, a young high school student named Isabella (Bella) Swan, the daughter of divorced parents, moves to the small town of Forks on the coast of Washington State in order to live with her father, the town’s police chief. [4] She has not seen him since her childhood and finds that he is a kindly but uncommunicative man—the quintessential absent father. Enrolling in the local high school, Bella is drawn to a mysterious, handsome boy in one of her classes, Edward Cullen. Burdened with a poor self-image, Bella wonders if Edward is attracted to her, or hates her, since his behavior toward her is erratic and full of confused signals. Then comes a day when he rescues her from an impending car accident, using what appears to be superhuman strength to deflect an oncoming vehicle that would have killed her. She probes for an explanation, and as their relationship develops little by little he reveals that he is “not like other people.” Gradually she realizes that he is a vampire, and Edward confirms her suspicions when he tells her:

“I’m the world’s most dangerous predator. Everything about me invites you in. My voice, my face, even my smell… I’m designed to kill… I’ve wanted to kill you. I’ve never wanted a human’s blood so much in my life… Your scent, it’s like a drug to me. You’re like my own personal brand of heroin.”

This is delivered in the low, breathless voice of an impassioned lover. This is sensual desire, this is barely restrained lust. This is definitely a new kind of vampire. There are no fangs dripping blood, no black capes, no ritual commerce with the dead, no terror of daylight, just an aversion to direct sunlight because under its rays his skin glitters like diamonds. “You’re beautiful!” exclaims Bella when Edward opens his shirt and reveals his sparkling flesh.
Bella is then introduced to the members of the Cullen family, whom we learn do not eat normal food or sleep at all. They appear to be intelligent, cultured people, sensitive and “caring.” They also have astounding physical strength, can run faster than horses and run up the trunks of trees at top speed. Most of the Cullens also have paranormal psychic gifts of various sorts. Edward can read minds, his adoptive sister Alice has the ability to see the future. We learn that the head of the family, a local physician named Dr. Carlisle Cullen, infected Edward with vampirism after the First World War, when the boy lay dying of influenza, both his parents already dead from the epidemic. In order to save his life, Dr. Cullen had taken his blood by the traditional bite on the neck, thus infecting Edward, turning him into a vampire. Now the boy is perpetually seventeen years old, and immortal. But Dr. Cullen is no Dracula. The family he has collected around him, his wife Esme and the five young people of the household, have all been “adopted” in similar fashion—for humanitarian reasons.
Edward and Bella fall in love, but soon the family encounters another coven of vampires nearby in the forest. Among them is a sadistic vampire named James who sees in Bella nothing more than food, and is excited by the prospect of a challenging hunt, because he realizes the Cullens are protecting this human prey. Edward and the other Cullens defend Bella, helping her to escape to her old hometown of Phoenix Arizona. But James tracks her down there and tortures her in preparation for killing her. She is seriously wounded, but Edward and the family arrive just in time to rescue her. They kill James (by ripping him to pieces and burning his body parts), and then they all return to Forks. The story ends at the high school prom where Edward and Bella dance together and realize they are hopelessly in love with each other. Bella whispers that she wants them always to be together, and Edward refuses to do what would make this happen. As they cling to each other with the vampire question unresolved between them, they are secretly observed by the deadly vampiress Victoria, a member of James’s coven. Victoria is now intent on revenge, setting the stage for the next book and film.
In the second novel, New Moon, Edward and the Cullen family throw a birthday party for Bella. Unwrapping a gift, she loses a drop of blood from a paper cut, and Edward’s adoptive brother, Jasper, frenzied by the scent, instinctively attacks her in order to kill her. Edwards stops him in time, but he now concludes that it is too dangerous for Bella to associate with the family. He and the Cullens leave Forks in order to protect her from themselves. Because of his absence, Bella falls into a deep depression, until she develops a strong friendship with a native-American youth named Jacob Black. Jacob is in love with Bella, and we later discover that he is a werewolf. He and the other werewolves in his tribe try to protect her from Victoria.
Through a misunderstood vision, Edward comes to believe that Bella is dead, and he travels to Italy where he decides to commit suicide from grief over losing her. But he is stopped at the last moment by the arrival of Bella, accompanied by his sister, Alice. In a meeting with the Volturi, a powerful coven of vampire “royalty,” Edward is told that according to vampire law Bella must either be killed or changed into a vampire, because she has discovered the great secret that vampires exist. The Volturi govern the world of vampires with self-protective rules, much as does the Ministry of Magic in the Potter series, and they must be obeyed. The Cullens return to Forks and vote in favor of Bella being transformed into a vampire. Edward is not happy about this, for he loves her as she is. But he offers her a choice: either she lets Carlisle transform her into a vampire after her graduation from high school, or, if Bella agrees to marry him, Edward will change her himself.
In the third novel, Eclipse, the story opens with a series of unsolved murders in Seattle, Washington. Edward suspects these are being committed by an unidentified vampire who is unable to control his thirst for human blood. As Edward and Bella apply to colleges, Bella explains to Edward her desire to see her friend Jacob Black again. Although Edward fears for her safety, Bella insists that neither Jacob nor his werewolf pack would ever harm her, and she begins visiting him occasionally. Meanwhile, Alice Cullen has a vision that Victoria has returned to Forks. A few days later, Edward proposes marriage to Bella and she accepts.
Bella and the Cullens learn that the murders in Seattle are being committed by an “army” of newborn vampires, controlled by Victoria. The Cullens join forces with the werewolf pack and prepare to combat Victoria’s forces while Edward, Bella, and Jacob camp in the mountains, in order to remain hidden during the battle. There, Jacob becomes upset when he overhears Edward and Bella discussing their engagement and he threatens to join the fight and let himself be killed. To stop him, Bella kisses Jacob and realizes that she is in love with him too. During the battle, Victoria tracks Edward’s scent to Bella’s hiding place in the woods, but Edward successfully defends her. After Victoria and her army are destroyed, Bella explains to Jacob that while she loves him, her love for Edward is greater. Receiving a wedding invitation from Edward, Jacob runs away in his wolf form, angry and heartbroken at Bella’s decision to become a vampire.
In the fourth novel, Breaking Dawn, Bella and Edward are married, but their honeymoon is disrupted when Bella discovers that she is pregnant. Her pregnancy progresses more rapidly than normal and severely weakens her. Edward, fearing that a monster is growing in her womb, wants Bella to have an abortion, but she refuses. She nearly dies giving birth and Edward injects Bella with his venom to save her life, transforming her into a vampire. The newborn baby is a daughter, half-vampire-half-human. Edward and Bella name her Renesmee. The Volturi heard about the baby, who has been reported to them as an “immortal child” (a child who has been bitten by a vampire and survived). Such children are not allowed to live because their continued existence would violate vampire law. The Volturi tribunal travels to Forks in order to decide on the case, but the Cullens gather vampire witnesses who testify that Renesmee is not an immortal child. They succeed in convincing the Volturi that Renesmee is no danger to vampires or their secret, and the family is left in peace to continue their new life together. All is well.
One might ask how such a thinly plotted bloody mess has managed to obtain such an enormous worldwide following. Part of the answer lies in the power of romantic fantasy at any stage in history. In the modern age, however, romantic fantasy in both text form and visual form is charged with powerful stimulation of the senses. In the Twilight series the main characters are highly attractive young people. For example, Bella describes Edward as “excruciatingly lovely and forever seventeen.” In the two films released to date, Edward is acted by the “narcotically beautiful” Robert Pattinson, as one feminine commentator put it. Jacob Black’s handsome face is matched by shirtless exposure of his muscled torso, as is the case with others in his werewolf pack. Bella, acted by Kristen Stewart, is very pretty (though not quite as much as her vampire friends). The Volturi look like exotic, exceedingly pale fashion models.
Physical beauty is the glue that holds the whole banal tale together. If one were to dim down the prettiness and subtract the horror from these four novels and their films, there would be little left. They would become no more than mind-numbing Harlequin Romances for very immature teenage girls. The sexual attraction and the appeal to romantic feelings, combined with the allure of mystery, all obscure the real horror of the tale, which is the degradation of the image and likeness of God in man, and the false proposal that consuming the lifeblood of another human being bestows life all around. As E. Michael Jones writes:

Both Christ and Dracula deal with blood and eternal life. Vampirism is, as Renfield makes clear, the antithesis of Christianity. Whereas Christ shed his blood so that his followers could have eternal life, Dracula shed his followers’ blood so that he could have eternal life; Dracula is a reworking of Christianity according to the canons of Social Darwinism. The monster is simply the inversion of Christianity that was taking place throughout Europe as once again the Enlightenment was implemented through one of its pseudo-scientific ideologies. … In a satanic way typical of the reversal of Christian order that the vampire creates, man achieves immortality through immorality and by infecting others—that is, through lust. Christianity exalts love; vampirism—Darwin’s survival of the fittest pushed to its extreme—exalts the hunger of desire. [5]

In the Twilight series we have a cultural work that converts a traditional archetype of evil into a morally neutral one. Vampires are no longer the “un-dead,” no longer possessed by demons. There are “good” vampires and “bad” vampires, and because the good vampire is incredibly handsome and possesses all the other qualities of an adolescent girl’s idealized dreamboat, everything is forgivable. Recall at this point that Edward has told Bella that he has killed people. Recall that he has struggled with himself not to kill her. Recall, as well, that when the “good” vampires catch a bad vampire, they rip off his head and tear his body into pieces with their hands and then burn the remains.
But this does not matter to Bella, because Edward and his family are apparently dedicated to reform—though a very selective kind of reform. They do not want to be monsters. They are what might be called vampire vegetarians—they hunt in the forest and drink only the blood of wild animals. Throughout the four novels, Edward has trained himself to resist his desire for Bella’s blood, even as she increasingly desires that he bite her and infect her. Edward, we are led to believe, is outstandingly “moral,” his self-denial resembling heroic chastity. It is all so tender and touching until one recalls that this is a story about savage killers who have infected normal humans and brought them into their “family.” But readers and film audience are conditioned to forgive this too, because they have been shown throughout the series that infecting others can be a saving act.
Referring to the vampire television series, True Blood, Tal Brooke notes that vampires are presented as a misunderstood persecuted minority who must fight for their rights against the intolerant churches.

The church service in True Blood is about as unsympathetic a portrait of Christians as any Hollywood director could hope for. It fits the carefully developed caricature of hooting ignoramuses—simple minded idiots calling out for more blood, fire and brimstone than their vampire counterparts. The public does not miss it, storing away the image.
In a double-minded gambit, the audience knows vampires are evil and yet is compelled to support vampire “rights” as the latest underclass. Killing vampires is seen as a hate crime driven by bigoted intolerance. Yet they [the audience] have seen the dark side of vampires in which mortals are despised, slaughtered and drained at whim. Like a co-dependent mother constantly making up excuses for her serial-killer son and immune to reality, the audience has been enlisted to see them in a permissive and apologetic manner—a backdoor covenant with evil and Orwell’s Double-Think in action.

Brooke states that the evils which horrified earlier generations are now embraced by “open minded” audiences as new avenues of liberation. This, he says, is part of a larger “retinal circus” in contemporary culture, one that implants images of depravity into the minds of millions through sensual lures that bypass normal human instincts of fear and disgust.

Corruption takes place when images of depravity enter the mind—the younger the mind [and] the more depraved the images, the more powerful is the impact. In the case of a young child, an innocent mind can be corrupted readily. A range of common laws are based on this truth. That’s why we have “adult” movie channels and “adult” bookstores—at least for now. …
The power of seduction takes place when an outside influence penetrates down to the inner layers of the soul and spirit to bring about corruption—for which there is already an inner component. Potential depravity becomes realized and emerges out into the open. Evil spreads and infects, causing irreversible damage. Like a cancer, it can spread through individuals into communities. At some point a culture can become corrupt. Those cultures that imploded were in the throes of moral depravity; consider ancient Rome or Sodom. Consider what was happening to bring on Noah’s flood. [6]

E. Michael Jones argues that novels about vampire infection appeared precisely at the time in history (the 1800s) when the dreaded disease syphilis was spreading in the wake of the initial post-Enlightenment stage of the sexual revolution. Now in the age of antibiotics, the most horrifying, disfiguring symptoms of the infection can be controlled, if caught early enough, thus “liberating” the promiscuous from the immediate consequences of their immoral acts. In little over a century, untrammeled serial sex has become pandemic, without the grave consequences that once would have inhibited its progress. Similarly, in little more than a century, the universal archetypes of evil have been defused. No longer considered to be demonic, they have retained only their mystique of exotically attractive danger. Corruption of the creative imagination always has its roots in the corruption of the moral order—the order within the individual and within his surrounding culture. But corruption of creative imagination can also have its origins in forces beyond the purely social. In this regard, there is a disturbing inference in Meyer’s account of the original inspiration for Twilight:

I woke up (on that June 2nd) from a very vivid dream. In my dream, two people were having an intense conversation in a meadow in the woods. One of these people was just your average girl. The other person was fantastically beautiful, sparkly, and a vampire. They were discussing the difficulties inherent in the facts that A) they were falling in love with each other while B) the vampire was particularly attracted to the scent of her blood, and was having a difficult time restraining himself from killing her immediately. … Though I had a million things to do (i.e. making breakfast for hungry children, dressing and changing the diapers of said children, finding the swimsuits that no one ever puts away in the right place, etc.), I stayed in bed, thinking about the dream. I was so intrigued by the nameless couple’s story that I hated the idea of forgetting it; it was the kind of dream that makes you want to call your friend and bore her with a detailed description. (Also, the vampire was just so darned good-looking, that I didn’t want to lose the mental image.)

Meyer goes on to describe what happened during the writing of the book:

All this time, Bella and Edward were, quite literally, voices in my head. They simply wouldn’t shut up. I’d stay up as late as I could stand trying to get all the stuff in my mind typed out, and then crawl, exhausted, into bed (my baby still wasn’t sleeping through the night, yet) only to have another conversation start in my head. I hated to lose anything by forgetting, so I’d get up and head back down to the computer. Eventually, I got a pen and notebook for beside my bed to jot notes down so I could get some freakin’ sleep. It was always an exciting challenge in the morning to try to decipher the stuff I’d scrawled across the page in the dark. [7]

Of course, one might attribute the foregoing to the inflamed imagination of a sleep-deprived mother, following up on a powerful dream that had no source other than the natural subconscious. However, Steve Wohlberg, in his 2009 article in the SCP Journal, raises another possibility, describing what later occurred in the realm of Meyer’s imagination after the publication of Twilight. He begins with a reflection on the similarities in the original inspirations of the Harry Potter series and the Twilight series:

… [The] Twilight saga received its initial spark when Stephenie Meyer had an unusual dream on June 1, 2003. Eerily, the Harry Potter phenomenon began with a similar “revelation” given to Joanne Kathleen Rowling in 1990 while she was traveling by train outside London. “The character of Harry Potter just popped into my head, fully formed,” Rowling reflected in 2001. “Looking back, it was all quite spooky!” She also stated to inquiring media that the Potter books “almost wrote themselves.” “My best ideas often come at midnight,” Rowling declared.
As with Rowling, so with Meyer. When those mesmerizing tales first burst into the brains of these two women, neither was an established writer. Both were novices. They weren’t rich either. Now they are millionaires many times over. Their experiences are similar, with common threads. Both of their novels are permeated with occultism. Based on this, it’s appropriate to wonder, is there a supernatural source behind these revelations? If so, what is it?
Stephenie Meyer herself provides an amazing clue to the answer. After her unexpected rise to stardom, she later confessed,
“I actually did have a dream after Twilight was finished of Edward coming to visit me—only I had gotten it wrong and he did drink blood like every other vampire and you couldn’t live on animals the way I’d written it. We had this conversation and he was terrifying.” [8]

Who was this “Edward”? Was it the author’s subconscious telling her that she was attempting to tame what cannot be tamed? Or was it an evil spirit manifesting through the image, urging her to give her readers less moralism and more blood? However one interprets it, the question remains: Why did she not realize that the second dream was warning her about something? In her interviews she merely reported it without offering an assessment of what it might mean, then continued to write more of the same. Why did she respond to the first dream and not to the second? Was it because the first was extremely pleasurable and the second disturbing to the point of terror? Was it because pleasure had become her good and unhappy feelings a thing to be dismissed as bad? Conscience cannot be entirely eradicated in human nature, and when it raises its painful, unwelcome truths, the individual (or the culture in which he lives) must either pay attention to it or counteract it with a strategy of denial. Attention is redirected away from the truth about his condition, focusing on overcoming symptoms and ignoring the root cause of the symptoms.
In the Twilight series, vampirism  is not identified as the root cause of all the carnage; instead the evil is attributed to the way a person lives out his vampirism. Though Bella is at first shocked by the truth about the family’s old ways (murder, dismemberment, sucking the blood from victims), she is nevertheless overwhelmed by her “feelings” for Edward, and her yearning to believe that he is truly capable of noble self-sacrifice. So much so that her natural feminine instinct for submission to the masculine suitor increases to the degree that she desires to offer her life to her conqueror. She trusts that he will not kill her; she wants him to drink her essence and infect her. This will give her a magnificent unending romance and an historical role in creating with her lover a new kind of human being. They will have superhuman powers. They will be moral vampires—and they will be immortal.
Here, then, is the embedded spiritual narrative (probably invisible to the author and her audience alike): You shall be as gods. You will overcome death on your own terms. You will be master over death. Good and evil are not necessarily what Western civilization has, until now, called good and evil. You will define the meaning of symbols and morals and human identity. And all of this is subsumed in the ultimate message: The image and likeness of God in you can be the image and likeness of a god whose characteristics are satanic, as long as you are a “basically good person.”
In this way, coasting on a tsunami of intoxicating visuals and emotions, the image of supernatural evil is transformed into an image of supernatural good.
+  +  +

[1] Stephenie Meyer, Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn, Little, Brown and Co, New York, Boston, 2005-2008.
[2] Tal Brooke, “Vampires Rising,” SCP Journal, Volume 33:2—33-3, 2009, published by the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Berkeley, CA. Web address: http://www.scp-inc.org
[3] E. Michael Jones, Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Film and Fiction, Spence Publishing, Dallas, Texas, 2000.
[4] For the sake of brevity in this overview, I have combined the original story with details that were adaptations in the film version, but nothing that alters the plot or characters.
[5] E. Michael Jones, Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Film and Fiction, Spence Publishing, Dallas, Texas, 2000. Renfield is a fictional character in Stoker’s Dracula, under the control of the Count but burdened with a conscience. Dracula offers him an unending supply of food, if Renfield will worship him. Renfield refuses and is killed by Dracula.
[6] Tal Brook, “Vampires Rising,” SCP Journal, Volume 33:2-33:3.
[7] Stephenie Meyer, “The Story Behind Twilight.”
[8] Steve Wohlberg, “The Menace Behind Twilight,” SCP Journal, Volume 33:2—33-3, 2009, published by the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, Berkeley, CA. Web address: www.scp-inc.org. The quote from Meyer about this second dream is from EW.com (Entertainment Weekly).

25 January 2014

Stalin's Jews

We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish - Sever Plocker

Here's a particularly forlorn historical date: Almost 90 years ago, between the 19th and 20th of December 1917, in the midst of the Bolshevik revolution and civil war, Lenin signed a decree calling for the establishment of The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, also known as Cheka.

Within a short period of time, Cheka became the largest and cruelest state security organization. Its organizational structure was changed every few years, as were its names: From Cheka to GPU, later to NKVD, and later to KGB.

We cannot know with certainty the number of deaths Cheka was responsible for in its various manifestations, but the number is surely at least 20 million, including victims of the forced collectivization, the hunger, large purges, expulsions, banishments, executions, and mass death at Gulags.

Whole population strata were eliminated: Independent farmers, ethnic minorities, members of the bourgeoisie, senior officers, intellectuals, artists, labor movement activists, "opposition members" who were defined completely randomly, and countless members of the Communist party itself.

In his new, highly praised book "The War of the World, "Historian Niall Ferguson writes that no revolution in the history of mankind devoured its children with the same unrestrained appetite as did the Soviet revolution. In his book on the Stalinist purges, Tel Aviv University's Dr. Igal Halfin writes that Stalinist violence was unique in that it was directed internally.

Lenin, Stalin, and their successors could not have carried out their deeds without wide-scale cooperation of disciplined "terror officials," cruel interrogators, snitches, executioners, guards, judges, perverts, and many bleeding hearts who were members of the progressive Western Left and were deceived by the Soviet regime of horror and even provided it with a kosher certificate.

All these things are well-known to some extent or another, even though the former Soviet Union's archives have not yet been fully opened to the public. But who knows about this? Within Russia itself, very few people have been brought to justice for their crimes in the NKVD's and KGB's service. The Russian public discourse today completely ignores the question of "How could it have happened to us?" As opposed to Eastern European nations, the Russians did not settle the score with their Stalinist past.

And us, the Jews? An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name "Genrikh Yagoda," the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system. After Stalin no longer viewed him favorably, Yagoda was demoted and executed, and was replaced as chief hangman in 1936 by Yezhov, the "bloodthirsty dwarf."

Yezhov was not Jewish but was blessed with an active Jewish wife. In his Book "Stalin: Court of the Red Star", Jewish historian Sebag Montefiore writes that during the darkest period of terror, when the Communist killing machine worked in full force, Stalin was surrounded by beautiful, young Jewish women.

Stalin's close associates and loyalists included member of the Central Committee and Politburo Lazar Kaganovich. Montefiore characterizes him as the "first Stalinist" and adds that those starving to death in Ukraine, an unparalleled tragedy in the history of human kind aside from the Nazi horrors and Mao's terror in China, did not move Kaganovich.

Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a "carnival of mass murder," "fantasy of purges", and "essianism of evil." Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

The Jews active in official communist terror apparatuses (In the Soviet Union and abroad) and who at times led them, did not do this, obviously, as Jews, but rather, as Stalinists, communists, and "Soviet people." Therefore, we find it easy to ignore their origin and "play dumb": What do we have to do with them? But let's not forget them. My own view is different. I find it unacceptable that a person will be considered a member of the Jewish people when he does great things, but not considered part of our people when he does amazingly despicable things.

Even if we deny it, we cannot escape the Jewishness of "our hangmen," who served the Red Terror with loyalty and dedication from its establishment. After all, others will always remind us of their origin.

24 January 2014

Bolshevism and the Jews

The unprecedented catastrophe of the Russian revolution required an explanation… For very many this lay in the coming to power of the Jews, and their hatred for the Russian people. For after the revolution of February, 1917 the Jews acquired full rights with the rest of the population, and the (already very porous) barriers set up by the Pale of Settlement were destroyed. Jews poured from the western regions into the major cities of European Russia and soon acquired prominent executive positions in all major sectors of government and the economy
As Alexander Solzhenitsyn has written, February brought only harm and destruction to the Russian population. However, “Jewish society in Russia received in full from the February revolution everything that it had fought for, and the October coup was really not needed by it, except by that cutthroat part of the Jewish secular youth that with its Russian brother-internationalists had stacked up a charge of hatred for the Russian state structure and was straining to ‘deepen’ the revolution.” It was they who through their control of the Executive Committee of the Soviet – over half of its members were Jewish socialists – assumed the real power after February, and propelled it on – contrary to the interests, not only of the Russian, but also of the majority of the Jewish population, - to the October revolution

Nevertheless, at the time of the October revolution only a minority of the Bolsheviks were Jews (in the early 1900s they constituted 19% of the party). “At the elections to the Constituent Assembly ‘more than 80% of the Jewish population of Russia voted’ for Zionist parties. Lenin wrote that 550,000 were for Jewish nationalists. ‘The majority of the Jewish parties formed a single national list, in accordance with which seven deputies were elected – six Zionists’ and Gruzenberg. ‘The success of the Zionists’ was also aided by the Declaration of the English Foreign Minister Balfour [on the creation of a ‘national centre’ of the Jews in Palestine], ‘which was met by the majority of the Russian Jewish population with enthusiasm [in Moscow, Petrograd, Odessa, Kiev and many other cities there were festive manifestations, meetings and religious services]’.”

The simultaneous triumph of the Jews in Russia and Palestine was indeed an extraordinary “coincidence”: Divine Providence drew the attention of all those with eyes to see this sign of the times when, in one column of newsprint in the London Times for November 9, 1917, there appeared two articles, the one announcing the outbreak of revolution in Petrograd, and the other – the promise of a homeland for the Jews in Palestine (the Balfour declaration). 

This coincidence was reinforced by the fact that the theist Jews who triumphed in Israel in 1917, and especially in 1948 after the foundation of the State of Israel, came from the same region and social background – the Pale of Settlement in Western Russia – as the atheist Jews who triumphed in Moscow in 1917. Sometimes they even came from the same families. Thus Chaim Weitzmann, the first president of Israel, points out in his Autobiography that his brothers and sisters were all either Zionists or Bolsheviks. M. Heifetz also points to the coincidence in time between the October revolution and the Balfour declaration. “A part of the Jewish generation goes along the path of Herzl and Zhabotinsky. The other part, unable to withstand the temptation, fills up the band of Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin.” “The path of Herzl and Bagritsky allowed the Jews to stand tall and immediately become not simply an equal nation with Russia, but a privileged one.”

Indeed, the Russian revolution may be regarded as one branch of that general triumph of Jewish power which we observe in the twentieth century in both East and West, in both Russia and America and Israel. The mainly Jewish nature of the Bolshevik leadership – and of the world revolution in general – cannot be doubted. Such a view was not confined to “anti-Semites”. 

Thus Winston Churchill wrote: “It would almost seem as if the Gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the Divine and the diabolical… From the days of ‘Spartacus’ Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.”

Douglas Reed writes: “The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprised 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919 were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly ‘Socialist’ or other non-Communist parties… were 55 Jews and 6 others.

Richard Pipes admits: “Jews undeniably played in the Bolshevik Party and the early Soviet apparatus a role disproportionate to their share of the population. The number of Jews active in Communism in Russia and abroad was striking: in Hungary, for example, they furnished 95 percent of the leading figures in Bela Kun’s dictatorship. They also were disproportionately represented among Communists in Germany and Austria during the revolutionary upheavals there in 1918-23, and in the apparatus of the Communist International.”

According to Donald Rayfield, in 1922, the Jews “reached their maximum representation in the party (not that they formed a coherent group) when, at 15 per cent, they were second only to ethnic Russians with 65 per cent.”

The London Times correspondent in Russia, Robert Wilton, reported: ”Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevik Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.”

On June 9, 1919 Captain Montgomery Shuyler of the American Expeditionary Forces telegrammed from Vladivostok on the makeup of the presiding Soviet government: “… (T)here were 384 ‘commissars’ including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians, and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial Government.”

The Jews were especially dominant in the most feared and blood-thirsty part of the Bolshevik State apparatus, the Cheka, which, writes Brendon, “consisted of 250,000 officers (including 100,000 border guards), a remarkable adjunct to a State which was supposed to be withering away. In the first 6 years of Bolshevik rule it had executed at least 200,000. Moreover, the Cheka was empowered to act as ‘policeman, gaoler, investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner’. It also employed barbaric forms of torture.”

So complete was the Jewish domination of Russia as a result of the revolution that it is a misnomer to speak about the “Russian” revolution; it should more accurately be called the Russian-Jewish revolution. 

That the Russian revolution was actually a Jewish revolution, but at the same time part of an international revolution of Jewry against the Christian and Muslim worlds, is indicated by an article by Jacob de Haas entitled “The Jewish Revolution” and published in the London Zionist journal Maccabee in November, 1905: “The Revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution, for it is a turning point in Jewish history. This situation flows from the fact that Russia is the fatherland of approximately half of the general number of Jews inhabiting the world… The overthrow of the despotic government must exert a huge influence on the destinies of millions of Jews (both in Russia and abroad). Besides, the revolution in Russia is a Jewish revolution also because the Jews are the most active revolutionaries in the tsarist Empire.”

But why were the Jews the most active revolutionaries? What was it in their upbringing and history that led them to adopt the atheist revolutionary teachings and actions of Russia’s “superfluous young men” more ardently than the Russians themselves? Hatred of Christ and the Christians was, of course, deeply imbedded in the Talmud and Jewish ritual – but the angry young men that began killing thousands of the Tsar’s servants even before the revolution of 1905 had rejected the Talmud as well as the Gospel, and even all religion in general. 

Donald Rayfield writes: “The motivation of those Jews who worked for the Cheka was not Zionist or ethnic. The war between the Cheka and the Russian bourgeoisie was not even purely a war of classes or political factions. It can be seen as being between Jewish internationalism and the remnants of a Russian national culture…

“…What was Jewish except lineage about Bolsheviks like Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev or Sverdlov? Some were second- or even third-generation renegades; few even spoke Yiddish, let alone knew Hebrew. They were by upbringing Russians accustomed to a European way of life and values, Jewish only in the superficial sense that, say, Karl Marx was. Jews in anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia had few ways out of the ghetto except emigration, education or revolution, and the latter two courses meant denying their Judaism by joining often anti-Jewish institutions and groups.”

This can be illustrated from the deathbed confession of Yurovsky, the murderer of the Tsar: “Our family suffered less from the constant hunger than from my father’s religious fanaticism… On holidays and regular days the children were forced to pray, and it is not surprising that my first active protest was against religious and nationalistic traditions. I came to hate God and prayer as I hated poverty and the bosses.”

At the same time, the Bolshevik Jews did appear to sympathize with Talmudism more than with any other religion. Thus in 1905 the Jewish revolutionaries in Kiev boasted that they would turn St. Sophia cathedral into a synagogue. Again, in 1918 they erected a monument to Judas Iscariot in Sviazhsk, and in 1919 - in Tambov! Perhaps the strongest evidence of the continued religiosity of the Bolshevik Jews was the fact that when the Whites re-conquered Perm in 1918 they found many Jewish religious inscriptions in the former Bolshevik headquarters – as well as on the walls of the basement of the Ipatiev House in Yekaterinburg where the Tsar and his family were shot. 

While officially rejecting the Talmud and all religion in general, the revolutionaries did not reject the unconscious emotional energy of Talmudic Judaism. This energy was concentrated in a fiercely proud nationalism, a nationalism older and more passionately felt by virtue of the fact that the Jews had once truly been the chosen people of God. Having fallen away from that chosen status, and been scattered all over the world by the wrath of God, they resented their replacement by the Christian peoples with an especially intense resentment. Roma delenda est – Christian Rome had to be destroyed, and Russia as “The Third Rome”, the Rome that now reigned, had to be destroyed first of all. The atheist revolutionaries of the younger generation took over this resentment and hatred even while rejecting its religious-nationalist-historical basis.

L.A. Tikhomirov wrote: “It is now already for nineteen centuries that we have been hearing from Jewish thinkers that the religious essence of Israel consists not in a concept about God, but in the fulfilment of the Law. Above were cited such witnesses from Judas Galevy. The very authoritative Ilya del Medigo (15th century) in his notable Test of Faith says that ‘Judaism is founded not on religious dogma, but on religious acts’.

“But religious acts are, in essence, those that are prescribed by the Law. That means: if you want to be moral, carry out the Law. M. Mendelsohn formulates the idea of Jewry in the same way: ‘Judaism is not a revealed religion, but a revealed Law. It does not say ‘you must believe’, but ‘you must act’. In this constitution given by God the State and religion are one. 

The relationships of man to God and society are merged. It is not lack of faith or heresy that attracts punishment, but the violation of the civil order. Judaism gives no obligatory dogmas and recognizes the freedom of inner conviction.’

“Christianity says: you must believe in such-and-such a truth and on the basis of that you must do such-and-such. New Judaism says: you can believe as you like, but you have to do such-and-such. But this is a point of view that annihilates man as a moral personality…”

Thus Talmudism creates a personality that subjects faith and truth to the imperative of action. That is, it is the action that is first proclaimed as necessary – the reasons for doing it can be thought up later. And this corresponds exactly both to the philosophy of Marx, for whom “the truth, i.e. the reality and power, of thought must be demonstrated in action”, and to the psychological type of the Marxist revolutionary, who first proclaims that Rome (i.e. Russia) must be destroyed, and then looks for an ideology that will justify destruction. Talmudic Law is useful, indeed necessary, not because it proclaims God’s truth, but in order to secure the solidarity of the Jewish people and their subjection to their rabbinic leaders. In the same way, Marxist theory is necessary in order to unite adherents, expel dissidents and in general justify the violent overthrow of the old system.

So the Russian revolution was Jewish not so much because of the ethnic composition of its leaders as because the Satanic hatred of God, Christ and all Christians that is characteristic of the Talmudic religion throughout its history was transferred – by spiritual rather than genetic heredity – from the nationalist Talmudic fathers to their internationalist atheist sons.

Source: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/371/bolshevism-jews/

UK leaders sound alarm over persecution of Christians in the Middle East

The 2013 Christmas season brought with it the clarion call sounded by the Prince of Wales and a series of UK leaders over the dwindling population of Christians in the Middle East, where “Christianity was, literally, born.” Speaking at Clarence House in London, Prince Charles addressed religious leaders, following visits to both the Coptic Orthodox and the Syrian Orthodox Churches.

“I have for some time now been deeply troubled by the growing difficulties faced by Christian communities in various parts of the Middle East. It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that they are, increasingly, being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants,” Prince Charles stated clearly, while taking the lead in defense of Christianity by recognizing the grave situation Christians are facing and encouraging the world to stand against these atrocities. 

“We all lose something immensely and irreplaceably precious when such a rich tradition – dating back 2,000 years – begins to disappear,” he went on to say, in heartfelt remarks.

The problems facing Christians in the Middle East should not be taken as lightly as they seem to have been so far by world leaders. The former archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, in his Christmas message published in The Sunday Telegraph writes about this saying, “I imagine that in the West our politicians think that because churches have until recently been in extraordinarily powerful opinion-forming positions, they cannot possibly be pictured as a persecuted minority. 

Yet far from being important and influential, in many parts of the world Christianity is weak and despised, and Christians are attacked and killed. In Nigeria, churches are firebombed; in Pakistan, churchgoers are prosecuted under draconian blasphemy laws, while in Egypt, they are either marginalized or assaulted.” Turning his attention to the problems Christians are also facing in the West, he then observes, “Closer to home, I admit I am worried about the future of faith in the West. Many Christians I meet say there is a pressure on them to be silent about their faith.”

As the situation for Christians in the Middle East seems to be worsening, embracing the word “persecution” when describing the ongoing atrocities in the region is apparently not something that the general public is willing to do. The majority opinion is still one which allows for so many media outlets to ignore the true scale and origin of the matter.

The deliberate targeting by “fundamentalist Islamist militants” that Prince Charles spoke of is graphically and statistically supported by Open Doors’ recently released 2014 World Watch List reporting on the 50 worst nations persecuting Christians around the world. CBN News contributor Raymond Ibrahim writes that “those persecuting Christians in 41 of 50 nations are Muslims.” 

Douglas Alexander, British labor party politician and shadow foreign secretary places today’s dire matters in perspective when he points out that “Across the Middle East, Christians have lived for almost two millennia in the place their faith was born…Indeed, the Ottoman Empire, which spanned much of today’s modern Middle East, was a multicultural state, with Christians cohabiting alsongside Shia, Sunni, Jews, Alawites and Druze.”

The interventions of the former archbishop of Canterbury and Prince Charles, particularly at Christmas, may have helped in showing how serious the matter truly is and how one should not presuppose it to be a fleeting incident. Even so, one can only wonder how much longer Christians are to be subjected to such suffering before their brutal treatment is recognized for the outrageous and futile tragedy it really is?

One of the biggest problems that Western society faces when it comes to unveiling the truth seems to be that of political correctness. Douglas Alexander talks about the threat such overzealous pseudo attempts at protecting certain freedoms can represent. “In the UK today, perhaps through a misplaced sense of political correctness, or some sense of embarrassment at ‘doing God’ in an age when secularism is more common, too many politicians seem to fear discussing any matters related to faith,” he states in the The Sunday Telegraph, making reference to Alastair Campbell’s memorable interruption of one of Tony Blair’s interviews by adding “we don’t do God” in order to prevent the then prime minister from talking about his faith.

Douglas Alexander also adds that “just like anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, anti-Christian persecution must be named for the evil that it is, and challenged systematically by people of faith and of no faith.” This seems to be the issue which has become a leitmotiv when it comes to defending a Christian’s right to worship. 

Defending religious freedom appears to be the socially excepted norm; however, this doesn’t always seem to be the case when Christianity is involved. Even though such a defense would only mean that all religions would be treated equally, or as Douglas Alexander observed, it would mean “not to support one faith over another – it is to say that persecution and oppression of our fellow human beings in the name of any god or ideology is never acceptable and is morally repugnant.”

The conservative Telegraph reports that Prime Minister David Cameron attempts to join the conversation praising Christian volunteerism or what he refers to nebulously as “Big Society.”
“Syria, Iraq, Egypt and other areas of the Holy Land sometimes overflow with tears. We won’t resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians who for two thousand years confess the name of Jesus, as full citizens in social, cultural, and religious life of the nations to which they belong,” Pope Francis declared recently in meetings with several Eastern rite leaders, including Coptic Pope Tawadros II of Egypt.

But is the West turning the proverbial blind eye to all of these events? Is Christianity being deliberately targeted for destruction not only through persecution in places like the Middle East but also through the “keep silent about your faith so you don’t offend anyone” policy that the West has been taking part in for some time?

London’s Sunday Telegraph editorialized on the eve of Christmas that “Christian freedoms are worth fighting for.” Where are the New York Times and the Washington Post on this vital issue of our day? So, we must be grateful for those courageous media, religious, political and royal leaders in the UK for speaking up on behalf of Christianity during the Christmas season; and, yes, thank you Prince Charles for taking the lead.

On the one hand, the persecution Christians are faced with in the Middle East is rapidly deplenishing the region of this religion by killing or driving away believers. On the other hand, political correctness is slowly but surely seeping into the very fabric of Western Civilization and making this part of the world more and more immune to the suffering of people and the significance of the atrocities that are taking place. 

The way in which Christians are looked upon in the Middle East today by “fundamentalist Islamist militants” is no different than any other past example of inhumanity which plagued the world with its horrors, not so long ago. One can only hope that the term Christian will not become readily accepted by the West, the way it seems to have been in other regions, as another historical equivalent of the Holocaust’s “Untermensch” or of Rwanda’s “cockroach.” Indeed, where are the governments representing these 41 of 50 Muslim nations specified on the Open Doors’ 2014 World Watch List, and why are they silent?

Some Christians in the Middle East may have lived through another Christmas, yet, despite this, sad, somber questions lurk in the dark corner of a future that is almost upon them and, ultimately, through the burden of brotherly love and responsibility, upon us all: “Will the birthplace of Christianity still be a home for Christians in the future? What will the world lose if Christian tradition is lost in the region? Should we even dare to contemplate such a future?”

Georgiana Constantin is a law school graduate who has studied European, International and Romanian law. Her thesis on the UN and global governance was completed at the Romanian-American University in Bucharest. She is currently a Masters candidate for International and European Law at the Nicolae Titulescu University in Bucharest. Ms. Constantin, who is based in Romania, is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.

23 January 2014

The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous

The dirty little secret about gay marriage: Most gay couples are not monogamous. We have come to accept lately, partly thanks to Liza Mundy’s excellent recent cover story in the Atlantic and partly because we desperately need something to make the drooping institution of heterosexual marriage seem vibrant again, that gay marriage has something to teach us, that gay couples provide a model for marriages that are more egalitarian and less burdened by the old gender roles that are weighing marriage down these days. 

But the thorny part of the gay marriage experiment is sex, and more precisely, monogamous sex. Mundy writes about an old study from the '80s that found that gay couples were extremely likely to have had sex outside their relationship—82 percent did. That was before AIDS and the great matrimony craze in the gay community. She also tells the story of Dan Savage, who started out wanting to be monogamous until he and his partner had kids, and then they loosened up on that in order to make their union last. “Monogamish” is what he calls his new model. But as Mundy asks, can anyone out there imagine a husband proposing that same deal to his pregnant wife?

A long Gawker story last week explored this problem in greater detail. In the fight for marriage equality, the gay rights movement has put forth couples that look like straight ones, together forever, loyal, sharing assets. But what no one wants to talk about is that they don’t necessarily represent the norm:
The Gay Couples Study out of San Francisco State University—which, in following over 500 gay couples over many years is the largest on-going study of its kind—has found that about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing.
In writing about the subject, gay people emphasize the aspects of their relationships that sound most wholesome and straight-like, Steven Thrasher writes. They neglect to mention that, say, in Thrasher’s case, he met his partner for sex only once, and they ended up falling in love. The larger point being that gay couples are very different when it comes to sex, even if this is not the convenient moment to discuss that. And in legalizing gay marriage, we are accepting a form of sanctioned marriage that is not by habit monogamous and that is inventing all kinds of new models of how to accommodate lust and desire in long-term relationships.

In his interviews with married gay couples, Thrasher gets them to open up about the arrangements they invent. Most are some version of Dan Savage's “monogamish.” They are monogamous when they are in the same city, they can have sex with other people but not fall in love, or they can have sex with other people for some period of time. In some far-off, ideal world, this kind of openness may infect the straight world, and heterosexual couples may actually start to tackle the age-old problem of boring monogamous sex. But do any of us really believe that?

* * * * * *
So, if they don't want to stay faithful to one single person for the resto of their earthly existence, why do they want to "marry"?

Answer: They don't. Most homosexuals frown at the ideia of monogamy (sex with only one person for life) and marriage is *all* about monogamy.

Gay "marriage" is about redefining marriage and not about helping gays. Like I said before, if you resist gay "marriage", you will have some gays helping you out because they - like you - know that marriage is an heterosexual institution.

21 January 2014

Traditional families hit by declining morals, say mothers

The traditional family unit is in meltdown due to plunging moral values and the rise of single parents, according to a survey of mothers.
Most blame the Government for fuelling the breakup, with almost two thirds claiming that Labour “doesn’t like traditional family set-ups and seems to favour single parents and working mums”.
It’s a bit typically women-firster to just interview mothers for this survey, but nonetheless it is revealing that so many see through the government’s spin and see that they’re not pro-family, but pro-single parent.
And while single mothers enjoy tax breaks, more than half of two-parent families are struggling to make ends meet and a third are in debt, according to the 21st Century Family Life Survey.
I’ve seen other statistics showing that a couple who work full-time and have two children are, on average, only £1 a week better off than an unemployed single-mother with two children.

House prices in the UK are outrageous; I’m on an average wage but I’m trying to figure out if I can afford to get a mortgage on even a simple one-bedroom flat. Yet at work a 19-year-old girl got pregnant (to a married guy) with the sole intention of getting a house on welfare and, within a month, was moving in to a two-bedroomed house, all rent paid by the taxpayer. House prices rise because they are priced for dual-incomes since women entered the workforce, plus the subsisided government housing that used to help low-income couples get a step on the property ladder is now pretty much solely for single-mothers.

Many mothers apparantly would like to cut their working hours; sadly, not possible. As I mentioned, women’s full-scale entry into the workplace in the last four-decades has diluted wages and the economy has adapted so that houses and many other necessary products require dual-incomes. I don’t have sympathy for these older women who don’t like working because usually they’re the ones who spent their younger years triumphantly storming in to the workplace and barging men out of the way, in doing so creating the exact conditions that prevent them from leaving the workplace in later years.

Most importantly, this survey shows how politicians, feminists and the feminine media are living in a fantasy world when they portray single-mothers as either wonderful strong and independent or pure innocent likkle victims. They hope – and probably believe – everyone else conforms to this politically correct view. In reality, most people know single mothers are, generally speaking, obnoxious selfish parasites and their children often delinquents and a drain on society.

For example, a woman at work was saying the other day that her brother, who is one of the few male primary school teachers left in the UK, was delighted after he had managed to get a transfer to a small rural school. Previously he had been at a school in the inner city, near an estate full of council houses and flats that are clearly populated almost entirely by single mothers. The woman explained that “my brother hated it there, the kids were horrible. 

The kids were grubby and rude, often out of control. He once caught two girls of ten smoking and they swore at him when he demanded they put the cigs out! They were all kids raised by single-mothers, I don’t think any had a dad.” She explained how, according to her brother, the new school he was at was in a village where “all the kids come from proper [i.e. two-parent] families” and they were all nice and well-behaved.

Interesting how she automatically saw the correlation between single-mother households and rude, ill-disciplined delinquent children. Most of society does, but no-one can dare say anything in public for fear of being shouted down and, if they are politicians, their resignation demanded. A judge last year publicly stated that, in his experience, most young criminals he saw in court were raised by single-mothers. That’s all he said, just an observation made through years of experience as a judge, yet he had to withdraw his comments and apologise after some female MPs and some charity for single-mothers rose up in fury at this “disgusting attack on single mums.”

This highlights another major warping of reality in the minds of feminists and politicians; they seem to believe poor single mums are constantly vilified and attacked, but in fact they’re the most protected demographic, beyond public criticism, even more so than women in general! And that’s saying something.

13 January 2014

Why Jewish Guilt in Communism Matters


You see as normal a world in which Europeans are continually insulted by Jews for being “Nazis”, even the Europeans whose ancestors fought against the Nazis. You see as normal a world in which every manifestation of European nationalism is stigmatised as Nazism and greeted with special repressive measures.

In this world, flayed by guilt, which they passively and meekly accept and internalise, Europeans have no chance of defending their countries against islamisation. Seen as tainted by some kind of “Nazi” original sin, the only way Europeans can redeem themselves is to mutely hand their countries over to the aliens and hope for the best.

You see this world as normal because that’s the world we live in.

But I don’t see this world as normal. It is built on a falsified narrative of 20th century history, one which stresses the evils of nationalism, racism and right-wing politics. An authentic history, however, would acknowledge that anti-nationalism, political prejudice and left-wing politics had consequences that were as destructive, if not more destructive, than nationalism, and that the excesses of nationalism were among those consequences. In other words, extreme nationalism was a reaction to artificially-imposed extreme anti-nationalism. 

Those anti-nationalist ideas have been expressed in ideologies like Communism and multiculturalism. Each of these movements, if they even deserve to be considered separate movements, has exhibited the vastly disproportionate involvement of diaspora Jews in the fermentation of their ideas, their promotion through intellectual discourse and their implementation at the policy level. Anti-nationalism is, literally, the worst idea in history. 

If you could quantify the misery and death the violation of the nationalist principle – the idea that a people should live in a homogeneous ethnic group in its own territory under its own government – has provoked, it would be staggering to contemplate. History is largely the chronicle of the unpleasantness that arises when this principle is violated.

The islamisation of Europe is the consequence of the elevation of anti-nationalism to be the dominant moral ideal of our age. Immigration is the most obvious consequence of the elite’s embrace of this destructive ideal. And islamisation is the consequence of immigration.

When people are infected by HIV, they don’t die of HIV. HIV is just a state of weakness. It is when they catch a secondary infection in this vulnerable state that fatality results. That’s how it is with modern Europe. Islam is not the problem. Islam is what will kill us. But it’s the secondary infection, not the underlying malady. The underlying malady is anti-nationalism.

To some Europeans, it will no doubt sound banal to say that islamisation is the consequence of immigration because, for many of them, the two are inseparable. But this is much less obvious to Americans, since America has been a country of immigration since its inception. Because the American influence is dominant within the Counterjihad movement, and because much of the Counterjihad movement wishes to make itself as inoffensive as possible to elite opinion, in a pitiful attempt to win mainstream acceptance, this fairly obvious truth goes generally unacknowledged. Many Counterjihad activists will abstain from saying anything about immigration for fear of being accused of racism.

A more rounded history of the 20th century would be the clearest possible refutation of the ideal of multiculturalism. It would show that the fact of having different peoples living in the same territory inevitably produces unpleasant results. Even after centuries, separate peoples retain their own sense of ethnic distinctness because the urge to empathise with your own ancestral kin group is an ineradicable part of human nature. Cherishing their own separateness, these distinct ethnic groups inevitably generate conflicts of interests and end up plotting against one another. 

The Jews plotted against the Europeans in whose countries they were living and the Europeans plotted back, or vice versa. It doesn’t matter. The point is that the best way to have a harmonious world is to have separate peoples living in their own territories. That is the policy conclusion that an authentic 20th century history would tend to lead to.

The warped narrative we have all been treated to hitherto, however, suggests exactly the opposite conclusion, namely that nationalism, ethnic identification, and the quest for territorial homogeneity is a terrible scourge which we must all be on constant guard against; that having different peoples living in the same territory is a great and enriching thing; and that all we need is a state willing to victimise the majority population, criminalise its free expression and use its power to crush any incipient manifestation of pride or self-assertion among its people.

The recent persecution of Golden Dawn is a good example of where the dominant narrative takes us. Now, Golden Dawn are very far from being my political ideal. Whatever their imperfections, however, they were one of the best hopes for stopping the islamisation of Greece and Europe in the only way that actually matters: achieving governmental power and using it to stop Muslim immigration and facilitate or enforce Muslim ex-migration. 

That hope may now have been extinguished, partly through direct and indirect pressure from Jewish organisations; and partly through the mythologised narrative of 20th century history that assigns some demonic significance to nationalism, racism and right-wing politics more generally. The EDL likewise have been wounded by the same bizarre European guilt obsessions arising from this distorted account of history.

Jews generally have no difficulty with the concept of ulterior, even subconscious, motivation. Freud, after all, who pioneered the concept of the subconscious, was a Jew. It is common to hear, for example, European governments accused of disguised or subconscious antisemitism for their policies towards Israel or the Palestinians. Why, then, do you have such difficulty with the idea that the Jews active in Communist movements could have had ulterior or even subconscious motivations related to their Jewishness? 

Are we really expected to believe it was pure coincidence that a group of excluded outsiders embraced and implemented an ideology that denigrated almost every aspect of mainstream European society, that sanctioned its deconstruction, the erasure of all its traditions, the wiping out of Christianity, the suppression of European patriot movements and the criminalisation of antisemitism?

I don’t take accusations of antisemitism any more seriously than I take accusations of islamophobia or racism. These are terms designed to shut down rational discussion by imputing impure motivations to opponents and elevating subjective considerations such as emotion and motivation above the core criterion of objective truth. In the world of serious discourse, however, a person’s motivations don’t matter. Facts matter. It is examination of the facts that has led me to take a critical view of the influence Jews have had on European history through their promotion of anti-nationalist ideas. Not that it matters, but I was emotionally well-disposed towards Jews prior to becoming aware of these facts. If any of the facts I have cited are inaccurate, I would welcome their correction. 

But that would be to engage in rational discourse. And we have seen no sign of a willingness to do that. Even you, in your comment, make no attempt to cite any factual inaccuracy. The post you are responding to consists almost entirely of quotes from a Jewish historian who acknowledges the Jewish role in the Communist dictatorships and balances this presentation of facts, overly so I would say, by offering a sympathetic appreciation of the context in which the Jews made the choices that they did.

Instead of rational engagement, we see exactly what I expected when I decided to broach this issue: the de rigueur insults of antisemitism, much like the de rigueur insults of islamophobia, and the silent withdrawal of support from websites that claim to be part of a Counterjihad movement. It is clear that these websites are primarily engaged, not in resisting Islamic Jihad, but in promoting the (perceived) interests of Jewry. 

They are interested in resisting Islam only insofar as the Islamic agenda conflicts with the interests of Jewry, which it clearly does to a significant degree. But that far and no further. When the two agendas come into conflict, the anti-jihad agenda falls by the wayside. Even the Counterjihad sites run by gentiles fear the disapproval of Jews, either because they are economically reliant on them in some way or because they have internalised the codes of conduct created to delegitimise criticism of Jews.

As I said, this response was anticipated when I first started talking about this issue. Nonetheless, it is dismaying to see the lack of moral and intellectual integrity in people you once respected. These are people who spend much of their lives presenting tangible evidence to a hostile mainstream audience unwilling to set aside its preconceptions in favour of the facts. At every turn, they are accused of having impure motivations, of being animated by hatred. 

You would hope, then, that these same people, having faced down the intimidating accusation of wickedness themselves, having bravely brandished factual truth in the face of the hostile arbiters of acceptable opinion, would themselves, when they found their own preconceptions challenged, be better than their own adversaries had been. But, tragically, they’re not. When presented with facts that challenge their preconceptions about Jews, they react in exactly the same way that their mainstream interlocutors do when presented with facts that jar with their preconceptions about Muslims.

The notion that a people – any people – could provoke a mindless, irrational hatred in almost everyone it comes into contact with is a very strange one, much like the idea that a religion could provoke irrational hatred and fear in anyone who comes into contact with its practitioners. 

Yet these very strange ideas are accepted without challenge in the mainstream discourse of our times. If I claimed, for example, that I knew of a dog that was persecuted everywhere it went: other dogs barked at it and attacked it; no one would give it food; children would throw stones at it for no reason; drivers would swerve to try and run it over, etc. the story would provoke extreme scepticism.

It would sound so utterly fantastical, so at variance with our normal understanding of the world, as to hint almost at something supernatural. Individuals who claimed to be persecuted in this way would be classed as paranoid schizophrenic. Rather than indulge these fantasies, the best way to help someone suffering from this affliction would be to explain to them that other people’s responses to them would be governed by their own behaviour, just like every other person in the world, and that the idea of being singled out for persecution in some fateful way was absurd. The fact that so many seemingly rational Jews can take seriously the idea that they have some mystical identity which causes them to be persecuted for no reason is deeply disturbing. 

This bespeaks an Oriental, non-European mindset in which things happen because of supernatural agency. The European mind, by contrast, seeks rational explanations for the way the world works.
When one people attempts to live as a discrete minority in the homeland of another, setting itself apart, adopting an us-and-them mentality, favouring its own in-group in every interaction, it is going to end badly, sooner or later. This is simply human nature in operation. It is not the result of some mystical evil called antisemitism.

The lesson to be drawn from the tragic experience of the Jews throughout history is that anti-nationalism – in other words having different peoples living in the same territory – is a bad idea. Yet most Jews, at least diaspora Jews, have drawn exactly the opposite conclusion. No people can be secure without a homeland of its own. yet the effect of the anti-nationalist ideas advocated by so many Jews is that the peoples of Europe will lose control of their homelands.

I have to say I am repulsed, but not surprised, by the inability of Jews to acknowledge fault. It is the perfect analogue of the Muslim inability to acknowledge fault because it conflicts with their Koran-mandated self-image as the “perfect nation”. How is it antisemitic to simply take note of the fact that anti-nationalist ideas have had destructive effects on the world and that Jews have been disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and implementing them? If I take note of the fact that Socialistic ideas have had destructive effects on the world and that Scots have been disproportionately involved in generating them, advocating them and implementing them, does that make me antiscotistic or Scotophobic?

Why can you Jews not make such a simple acknowledgement yourself? Are you so steeped in a lachrymose narrative of victimhood in which innocent Jews suffer continuously at the hands of evil goy that you cannot admit that Jews, like every other people on earth, have, at times, had conflicts of interest with other peoples and, at times, have committed grievous wrongs against those other peoples? No European people that I am know of claims to have innocently glided through history without ever having had a conflict of interest with other peoples, without ever having engaged in contention with other peoples and, at times, having wronged those other peoples. 

To my knowledge, Muslims are the only other people who make this claim. The Koran tells Muslims they are the “Perfect Nation”. Jews believe they are the Chosen People. Although rarely voiced publicly these days, it is clear that this idea still influences the outlook of many Jews. Nothing else can account for such a reluctance to acknowledge fault or the strength of the curious conviction that a people is destined to be the constant target of persecution and that this persecution will be completely unrelated to its own actions.

You say you have no difficulty blaming Jews when appropriate and then cite an example in which you blame Jews for not resisting Nazism more forcefully. But this was mere passivity on the part of the Jews, not actual wrong-doing against another people. Can you give me any example from history in which Jews engaged in wrong-doing against another people?

I have to say that the unwillingness of Jews to acknowledge responsibility for their historical actions takes me much closer to a feeling of general antisemitism than my awareness of the Jewish role in Communism does. The Jewish role in Communism is a detail of history from a time in which there were many mitigating circumstances to explain the choices Jews made. The Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge responsibility is not a historical curio, however. It is right here among us in the present day and it comes from Jews who live in completely secure circumstances and who otherwise sound like reasonable people. 

We could compare the Jewish role in the atrocities of Communism to the Turkish Genocide of the Armenians in the WW1 era. As various diplomats have pointed out when attempting to persuade the Turkish government to be rational on this issue, this doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with modern Turkey. If Turkey acknowledged that the genocide had occurred, admitted wrong-doing by a previous generation of Turks and expressed its regrets, the issue would be closed and we could move on. 

The fact that modern Turkey is unwilling to do this, however, hints that something sinister and ugly is going on. It suggests that whatever attitudes lay behind the Armenian Genocide still exist. And Jewish unwillingness to acknowledge their culpability in relation to the atrocities of Communism evokes the same possibility.

Discussion and exploration of Jewish guilt in Communism is important for the following reasons:
  • 1) It would establish that anti-nationalism had consequences that were as destructive, or more so, than nationalism. 
This is critical. The dominant political narrative portrays Nazism and, by extension, right-wing politics generally as being uniquely sinister and associated with violence and mass murder. Factual analysis doesn’t support that claim, however. 

The mass exterminations resulting from the political prejudice of Communism were greater in scope than the Nazi extermination based on racial prejudice. Throughout the post-WW2 era, right-wing terrorism has been almost unknown in Europe, while left-wing terrorism has been a chronic problem. In the present day, Europol issues annual reports cataloguing terrorist incidents in Europe. From these reports it is clear that right-wing terrorist incidents are rare to non-existent, while dozens of left-wing terrorist incidents occur every year. Highlighting the atrocities of Communism is one way of restoring balance to public perception.
  • 2) It would make it clear that when individuals who self-identify as belonging to different peoples live in the same territory, they will, ultimately, perceive themselves as being threatened by the interests and actions of the other group and will try to ward off the perceived threat from the other group. 
This will cause unpleasantness to at least one of the ethnic factions and very often both. And this is true regardless of how highly qualified or economically successful the groups are, refuting the core contention of the immigration apologists that immigration should be assessed solely in terms of the obvious indicators of economic success.
  • 3) It would establish that Europeans can be victims as well as perpetrators. Unlike anti-semitism, which is a marginal phenomenon, anti-Europeanism is the dominant ideology of the world. It is so overwhelmingly dominant that it is not even regarded as a distinct ideology. It is simply regarded as “the norm”. 
The emotional grip of this ideology rests on tales of Europeans doing bad things to non-Europeans in instances such as the Holocaust, the transatlantic slave trade, imperialism, etc. These accounts are, to say the least, unbalanced. 

They leave out key facts such as that all societies we know of practised slavery since the dawn of recorded time and that Europeans, after indulging in the practice for a few hundreds years, were the ones who stamped it out; that imperialism often brought betterment to the countries that experienced it in ways that can be measured through metrics such as life expectancy, population size, etc. 

Standard accounts of the Holocaust are also fundamentally unbalanced in that they neglect to mention the key fact that Nazism was a reaction to Bolshevism, that Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, and that millions of Europeans, and almost every constituent element of European society, were liquidated under Bolshevist rule. This was ethnic war wearing a mask of morality.
  • 4) It would destroy the destroy the harmful myth of the innocence of Jews. The dominant narrative of the 20th century assigns Jews the role of passive, innocent victims to a mindless, irrational evil. 
This gives them a special moral authority, which they have not hesitated to invoke at every opportunity to push for open-borders immigration, diversity and the de-Europeanisation of European societies more generally. 

This may not be as apparent in America. But in Europe, any attempt to limit immigration, to discuss its harmful effects or to distinguish between various streams of immigrants results in the Nazi card being played almost instantly. Once the truth that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism, and Bolshevism was an overwhelmingly Jewish phenomenon, is established in the public mind, that special moral authority disappears for good. 

The standard mythology is an extraordinarily powerful tool that Jews can use to advance their own purposes. It is understandable that any people would be reluctant to give up such an all-conquering trump card. Nonetheless, truth demands that they do so.
  • 5) It is simply a moral imperative that atrocities of this magnitude be acknowledged and their perpetrators held to account.
Everything that is true of the Holocaust – the memorials, the commemorative ceremonies, the presence in textbooks and the popular imagination, the mantra of “We must never forget” – is equally true of the atrocities of the Bolshevist regimes, which were greater in scope than the Holocaust. It is an abomination that these truths are not more generally known. Imagine that we lived in a world where the Holocaust had been obscured from history. 

People were generally aware that there had been a war, that bad things had happened and that a lot of people had been killed, but nothing about a deliberate program to exterminate the Jews was known to the ordinary person. Only a few people reading esoteric books would occasionally stumble on this truth. 

Whenever they tried to raise it for public discussion, they would be immediately accused of paranoid anti-Germanism, anti-Europeanism or anti-Christianism and silenced. That’s the world we live in. In reverse. Anyone who denies Jewish guilt in the atrocities of Communism after the facts have been presented to them is the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier.
  • 6) There is, it seems to me, inherent value in establishing the point that the world is explicable, that there are reasons why things happen. If we are to improve the world, we must first understand it. 
A narrative that postulates the existence of a mindless, irrational evil that mysteriously blinks into existence from time to time is childlike, primitive, absurd and un-European. 

This is how Orientals see the world, in the simplistic chiaroscuro of good vs. evil. A mature understanding of the world can accommodate nuance and assign more morally complex roles to history’s actors than the cartoon characterisation of goodies vs. baddies. 

The truth about the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th century Europe is that Jews and Europeans mutually victimised one another for reasons that were partially understandable, even if the atrocious form their vengeance took is ultimately unpardonable. If we wish to avert the possibility that such things could happen again, we must understand why they happened the first time. 

And the standard narrative – that the Nazis came to power through a combination of economic crisis and the spellbinding rhetoric of an evil demagogue – is simply false. Such an account deprives Nazi atrocities of their meaning. 

The Jews who died at Hitler’s hands are not honoured or ennobled by false accounts of what led up to their murder. The opposite is true. The truth is that at the heart of the clashing totalitarianisms of 20th century Europe was ethnic conflict. 

And this ethnic conflict only came about because the principle of nationalism – different peoples living as homogeneous groups in their own homelands under their own governmental authority – had been violated. Jews were living outside of their ancestral homeland ruled by non-Jews. Germans were living outside of Germany ruled by non-Germans. The twin facts set off emotional chain reactions culminating in tragedy.

Once I see general acknowledgement by Jews of their moral culpability in this; once I see them express repentance and engage in the critical and public moral self-examination that Europeans have engaged in with regard to nationalism; once I see Jewish guilt in Communism become a matter of public knowledge and parallels drawn with the modern Jewish embrace of multiculturalism, 

I will be happy to let this issue drop. Until then, I will continue to talk about it. If that makes people unhappy or uncomfortable, then they had best go elsewhere.


Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More